Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to Claim 2, the limitation “in response to determining that the control right is granted to a second operation terminal among the plurality of operation terminals when the request is received from the first operation terminal, transmitting, by the controller via the communication interface, information inquiring whether to release the control right to the second operation terminal” is indefinite as it is unclear why a consideration whether to release of a control right to the second terminal is claimed (“whether to release the control right”)/occur after/when the second terminal already have such control right (“in response to determining that the control right is granted to a second operation terminal”).
For the purpose of a compact prosecution, the above consideration (“whether to release …”) was not given any patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“An information processing method by a controller of an information processing apparatus, comprising:
receiving, by the controller via a communication interface, screen information regarding measurement information on a physical quantity from one or more waveform analyzers that acquire the measurement information;
transmitting, by the controller via the communication interface, the acquired screen information to a plurality of operation terminals;
receiving, from a first operation terminal of the plurality of operation terminals, a request for operation on the one or more waveform analyzers through the screen information;
determining, by the controller, whether a control right to operate the one or more waveform analyzers is granted to any operation terminal of the plurality of operation terminals except the first operation terminal; and
granting, by the controller, the control right to the first operation terminal in response to determining that the control right is not granted to any operation terminal of the plurality of operation terminals except the first operation terminal.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
These mental steps represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. For example, “determining … whether a control right to operate the one or more waveform analyzers is granted to any operation terminal of the plurality of operation terminals except the first operation terminal; and granting … the control right to the first operation terminal in response to determining that the control right is not granted”, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually making an opinion/judgement whether to grant a control right (to operate analyzers) based on an information of operation (observation/evaluation).
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 9 and 10.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: “An information processing method by a controller of an information processing apparatus, comprising:
receiving, by the controller via a communication interface, screen information regarding measurement information on a physical quantity from one or more waveform analyzers that acquire the measurement information;
transmitting, by the controller via the communication interface, the acquired screen information to a plurality of operation terminals;
receiving, from a first operation terminal of the plurality of operation terminals, a request for operation on the one or more waveform analyzers through the screen information;;
In Claim 9: similar additional elements as in Claim 1;
In Claim 10: similar additional elements as in Claim 1.
The additional elements in the preamble are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as a controller, communication interface, and waveform analyzers are examples of generic computer/electrical equipment (components) that are generally recited and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines. The limitations that generically recite receiving and transmitting steps from/to operation terminals represent insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-8 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising mental process steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORI JUNJI et al. (JP 2021103447), hereinafter ‘Mori’ in view of Mandyam Krishnakumar et al. (US 20200363471), hereinafter ‘Mandyam’.
With regards to Claim 1, Mori discloses
An information processing method by a controller of an information processing apparatus (monitoring controller, Abstract), comprising:
receiving, by the controller via a communication interface, screen information regarding measurement information on a physical quantity from one or more measuring instruments that acquire the measurement information (The one or more monitoring controllers are configured to generate, based on the measured value received from the controller, a screen browsed by a plurality of terminals connected to a network and receive operation information for one controller from one of the plurality of terminals, Abstract; The measuring instrument measures the pressure of the installed equipment, physical quantities such as temperature, position, and vibration, and the amount of electricity such as voltage, current, and frequency. Each measuring instrument outputs the measured value, which is the result of the measurement, to the monitoring control system 100, p.2; The monitoring and control device 120 is arranged, for example, in the switchboard room of a hydroelectric power plant. The monitoring control device 120 includes, for example, a screen generation unit 130 and a control switching unit 140, p.3; The wireless router device 123 * 1 converts information and data transmitted by wire into wireless signals and sends them out. The wireless signal transmitted by the wireless router device 123 * 1 is a narrow-range wireless communication signal capable of communicating in a hydroelectric power plant * 1, such as Wi-Fi. As a result, the wireless router device 123 * 1 and, for example, the tablet terminal device 210 * 1 are connected to each other by narrow-range wireless communication in the hydroelectric power plant * 1, p.7; portable terminal device using narrow-range wireless communication, p.16);
transmitting, by the controller via the communication interface, the acquired screen information to a plurality of operation terminals (The monitoring control device 120 * 1 transmits the screen information of the generated monitoring screen to the monitoring control terminal device 200 # 1, p.6);
receiving, from a first operation terminal of the plurality of operation terminals, a request for operation on the one or more measuring instruments through the screen information (Each application requests the monitoring control system 100 (monitoring control device 120) to transmit screen information when the display of the monitoring screen or control screen is requested by the operation of the security guard, and the monitoring control device 120 requests the transmission of screen information. The screen information transmitted after the request is approved may be received to display the monitoring screen or the control screen. p.5);
determining, by the controller, whether a control right to operate the one or more measuring instruments is granted to any operation terminal of the plurality of operation terminals except the first operation terminal (The monitoring control device 120 performs exclusive processing so that the control right is given only to any monitoring control terminal device 200 connected via the network NW, p.3; The control switching unit 140 provides control right information indicating which device (monitoring control device 120 or any monitoring control terminal device 200) is given control right to the switchboard control device 110 via the network NW, p.4; a security guard of a hydroelectric power plant can determine whether or not the control right is given to himself / herself by checking the notification of the control right … the monitoring screen does not determine whether or not the control right is given to oneself, p.9).; and
granting, by the controller, the control right to the first operation terminal in response to determining that the control right is not granted to any operation terminal of the plurality of operation terminals except the first operation terminal (when it is confirmed in step S201 that the control of the equipment is not being executed, the monitoring control device 120 * 1 switches to give the control right to the switchboard control device 110 to the monitoring control terminal device 200 # 1 (step S203), p.11; The control right information is information indicating which device is given the control right capable of issuing a control instruction to the switchboard control device 110 … the screen generation unit 130 presents (displays) control right information in the generated monitoring screen or control screen, so that the control right is given to the monitoring control device 120, p.4; Control rights to the equipment are given to one monitoring and control terminal device, p.14).
However, Mori is silent with regards to obtaining screen information regarding measurement information on a physical quantity from one or more waveform analyzers.
Mandyam discloses obtaining measurement information on a physical quantity from one or more waveform analyzers (the waveform generated by the oscilloscope [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mori in view of Mandyam to acquire measurement information on a physical quantity from one or more waveform analyzers if/when the measurement instrument of interest is a waveform analyzer and/or a physical quantity of interest is represented by a waveform to provide corresponding control access/right of control to/of such measurement instrument (FIG. 7 is a block diagram illustrating an example asset management and control architecture 700 in a test and measurement system for parallel waveform analysis, Mandyam [0051]) and also as a matter of an inventor’s preference, since the applicant has not disclosed that using a waveform analyzer measuring waveform information solves any stated/particular problem or is for any particular purposes, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with just another type of measuring instrument measuring another/different physical quantity.
With regards to Claim 2, Mori in view of Mandyam discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1.
However, Mori does not specifically disclose that in response to determining that the control right is granted to a second operation terminal among the plurality of operation terminals when the request is received from the first operation terminal, transmitting, by the controller via the communication interface, information inquiring whether to release the control right to the second operation terminal; and upon receiving, from the second operation terminal, information indicating to release the control right, depriving, by the controller, the second operation terminal of the control right, and granting, by the controller, the control right to the first operation terminal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mori in view of Mandyam that in response to determining that the control right is granted to a second operation terminal and upon receiving, from the second operation terminal, information indicating to release the control right, depriving, by the controller, the second operation terminal of the control right, and granting, by the controller, the control right to the first operation terminal upon receiving a corresponding request and after releasing control right from another (second) operation terminal because only one operation terminal may be granted control rights at any point in time as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
With regards to Claim 3, Mori in view of Mandyam discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 2.
However, Mori does not specifically disclose that upon receiving, from the second operation terminal, information indicating not to release the control right, refusing, by the controller, the request from the first operation terminal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mori in view of Mandyam upon receiving, from the second operation terminal, information indicating not to release the control right, refusing, by the controller, the request from the first operation terminal because only one operation terminal may be granted control rights at any point in time as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
With regards to Claim 4, Mori in view of Mandyam discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1.
Mori also discloses upon receiving, by the controller via the communication interface, information on operation on the one or more waveform analyzers from one of the plurality of operation terminals, determining, by the controller, whether the control right is granted to the one of the plurality of operation terminals as discussed in Claim 1.
Mori also discloses generating, by the controller, operation information that the one or more waveform analyzers analyze based on the information on operation; in response to determining that the control right is granted to the one of the plurality of operation terminals, generating, by the controller, operation information that the one or more waveform analyzers analyze based on the information on operation; and transmit, by the controller via the communication interface, the operation information to the one or more waveform analyzers (The operation (process) for monitoring the operating state of the hydroelectric power plant shown in FIG. 3 can be similarly performed in, for example, the monitoring control terminal device 200 # n arranged at the control station # n. Moreover, the operation (processing) of monitoring the operating state of the hydroelectric power plant can be simultaneously performed by a plurality of monitoring control terminal devices 200, p.9; The monitoring control device 120 * 1 receives the measured value transmitted by the switchboard control device 110 * 1 and generates (updates) a monitoring screen based on the received measured value (stepS213). The monitoring control device 120 * 1 transmits the screen information of the generated monitoring screen to the monitoring control terminal device 200 # 1 that has transmitted the remote control instruction via the network NW (step S214), p.12).
With regards to Claims 9 and 10, Mori in view of Mandyam discloses the claimed limitations as discussed in Claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Mandyam, in further view of Qinliang Zhang (US 20140020118), hereinafter ‘Zhang’.
With regards to Claim 5, Mori in view of Mandyam discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 4.
Mori also discloses refusing, by the controller, operation by the one of the plurality of operation terminals (When the monitoring control device 120 * 1 receives the control request signal from the monitoring control terminal device 200 # 1, it confirms whether or not the control of the equipment is being executed at the present time (step S201). When it is confirmed that the control of the equipment is being executed, the monitoring control device 120 * 1 denies the control of the equipment by the monitoring control terminal device 200 # 1 (step S202), p. 11).
However, Mori does not specifically disclose refusing, by the controller, operation by the one of the plurality of operation terminals in response to determining that the control right is not granted to the one of the plurality of operation terminals.
Zhang discloses determining that the control right is not granted to the one of the plurality of operation terminals (when a control point controls a UPnP device, the control point may be rejected because the control point has no access right [0006])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mori in view of Mandyam, and Zhang to refuse (control) operation when the control right is not granted as known in the art (In the prior art, when a control point controls a UPnP device, the control point may be rejected because the control point has no access right; however, in the prior art, when a control point having no access right needs to manage a UPnP device, the control point cannot proactively apply for an access right, Zhang [0006]).
Claim 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Mandyam, in further view of Endo Masaaki (JP 2008-311946), hereinafter ‘Masaaki’.
With regards to Claim 6, Mori in view of Mandyam discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1.
Mori discloses receiving, by the controller via the communication interface, (first and second) screen information from (first and second) measurement instruments as discussed in Claim 1.
However, Mori does not specifically disclose upon receiving, from one of the plurality of operation terminals, information identifying the first waveform analyzer, transmitting the first screen information to the plurality of operation terminals at a higher bit rate than the second screen information.
Masaaki discloses transmitting the first screen information to the plurality of operation terminals at different (higher) bit rate than the second screen information (there are the occurrences of switching between high resolution and low resolution in a plurality of image transmitters at the same time when a monitoring device side switches screen configurations, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mori in view of Mandyam, and Masaaki to transmit the first screen information to the plurality of operation terminals at a higher bit rate than the second screen information upon receiving screen information because of higher resolution advantages (In the present invention, when the screen configuration is switched on the monitoring device side, even if switching between high resolution and low resolution occurs simultaneously in a plurality of image transmission devices, an I frame or an extra header is not inserted. Multi-point images can be monitored while suppressing peak loads, Masaaki, p.4).
With regards to Claim 7, Mori in view of Mandyam, and Masaaki discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 6.
Mori discloses that when the control right is given, the device is capable to operate (The control right information is information indicating which device is given the control right capable of issuing a control instruction to the switchboard control device 110, p.4).
However, Mori does not specifically disclose when the first waveform analyzer is operated by the one of the plurality of operation terminals to which the control right is granted, receiving information on operation on the first waveform analyzer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mori in view of Mandyam, and Masaaki to receive information on operation on the first waveform analyzer when this analyzer is granted control rights and can operate on the received information capable of issuing a control instruction.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Mandyam, in further view of Bruce A. Philips et al. (US 20050052578), hereinafter ‘Philips’.
With regards to Claim 8, Mori in view of Mandyam, and Masaaki discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 6.
However, Mori does not specifically disclose upon receiving the information identifying the first waveform analyzer from any operation terminal of the plurality of operation terminals, transmitting, to the plurality of operation terminals, the first screen information with making one or more of an update rate and a resolution of the first screen information greater than the second screen information.
Masaaki discloses updating resolution of the first screen information greater than the second screen information as discussed in Claim 6.
Philips discloses updating rate (different compression algorithms and/or bit rates can be used [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mori in view of Mandyam, Masaaki, and Philips to upon receiving the information identifying the first waveform analyzer from any operation terminal of the plurality of operation terminals, transmitting, to the plurality of operation terminals, the first screen information with making one or more of an update rate and a resolution of the first screen information greater than the second screen information to improve screen resolution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863