DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 5 are amended and claims 2-4 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 5-10 filed December 30, 2024 are pending and are hereby examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
5. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 1 and 5-10 are directed to a method, all of which are statutory. Claims 1 and 5-10 are statutory classes of invention.
6. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea of monitoring devices.
The independent claim 1 recites the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
obtaining a coordinate information and an additional information of each…;
generating a display position table by… according to the coordinate information and the additional information of each… ;
generating a barcode pattern, indicating… and a plurality of display parameters, by the… according to the display position table in real time;
reading the barcode pattern by… associated with a monitoring website address; and
displaying a device pattern corresponding to each… according to a plurality of display parameters;
wherein the barcode pattern indicates the monitoring website address and the plurality of display parameters,
wherein the coordinate information of each… records either a physical position order of each… in the cabinet or a wiring order of each… in the cabinet;
wherein the additional information of each… records a network address of each…;
wherein… based on the network address of each… to obtain a plurality of device patterns corresponding to…
7. According to the MPEP, "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Clearly, monitoring devices falls under sales activities, therefore commercial or legal interactions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
8. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely recites monitoring devices with generally recited computer elements such as a master electronic device, electronic device, monitoring website, mobile device, and browsing interface, which in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for monitoring devices. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
9. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a master electronic device, electronic device, monitoring website, mobile device, and browsing interface to perform these steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
10. Regarding dependent claim 5, although this claim recites a generally recited electronic device and browsing interface, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of monitoring devices, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
11. Regarding dependent claim 6, although this claim recites a generally recited electronic device, slave electronic device, and master electronic device, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of monitoring devices, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
12. Regarding dependent claims 7-10, although these claims recite a generally recited electronic device and browsing interface, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of monitoring devices, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
13. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
15. 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.
16. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
17. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
18. Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2016/0188509) in view of Choi et al (US 2015/0256402).
19. Re Claim 1: Lin discloses comprising:
obtaining a coordinate information and an additional information of each electronic device by the master electronic device (see [0034] address codes of matched slave electronic devices);
generating a display position table by the master electronic device according to the coordinate information and the additional information of each electronic device (see Fig. 17 group of address codes generated);
displaying a device pattern corresponding to each electronic device by the browsing interface according to a plurality of display parameters (see [0035] display control interface of each matched slave electronic device);
wherein the coordinate information of each electronic device records either a physical position order of each electronic device in the cabinet or a wiring order of each electronic device in the cabinet (see [0034] address code);
wherein the additional information of each electronic device records a network address of each electronic device (see [0070] MAC address);
wherein the browsing interface connects to each electronic device based on the network address of each electronic device to obtain a plurality of device patterns corresponding to the electronic devices (see [0070] based on MAC address).
However, Lin fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Choi teaches:
generating a barcode pattern, indicating a monitoring website and a plurality of display parameters, by the master electronic device according to the display position table in real time (see [0029] information pattern code);
reading the barcode pattern by a mobile device to connect to a browsing interface related to the monitoring website associated with a monitoring website address (see [0030] obtain information from information pattern code to perform registration procedure); and
wherein the barcode pattern indicates the monitoring website address and the plurality of display parameters (see [0095] can be a bar code and includes information on main electronic device and sub electronic devices).
From the teaching of Choi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lin’s automatically matching electronic devices Choi’s teaching of barcode patterns in order “… for grouping a plurality of personal electronic devices into one group and managing the plurality of personal electronic devices (see Choi [0002]).”
20. Re Claim 5: Lin discloses wherein the device pattern of each electronic device is displayed in the browsing interface in an arrangement order corresponding to the physical position order or the wiring order (see [0035] display control interface of each matched slave electronic device).
21. Re Claim 6: Lin discloses wherein in the step of obtaining the coordinate information and the additional information of each electronic device by the master electronic device, comprising:
broadcasting a positioning request by the master electronic device; and
feedbacking, by each slave electronic device, the coordinate information and the additional information to the master electronic device based on the positioning request (see [0034] address codes of matched slave electronic devices).
22. Re Claim 7: Lin discloses wherein each device pattern displayed in the browsing interface is linked to a network address corresponding to the electronic device associated with the device pattern (see [0035] display control interface of each matched slave electronic device).
23. Re Claim 8: Lin discloses further comprising:
when selecting one of the device patterns in the browsing interface, remotely connecting to the electronic device corresponding to the device pattern (see [0073] slave electronic device connection interface screen).
24. Re Claim 9: Lin discloses wherein in the step of remotely connecting to the electronic device corresponding to the device pattern, comprising:
obtaining a status information of the electronic device corresponding to the device pattern; and displaying the status information in the browsing interface (see [0088] status).
25. Re Claim 10: Lin discloses wherein the browsing interface further receives an operation command to control the electronic device corresponding to the selected device pattern (see [0035] function control software of different slave devices).
Examiner Notes
26. The Examiner suggests maybe including the preamble into the body of the claim. The Examiner suggests incorporating dependent claims 5, 6, and 8 (dependent on 7) together into the independent claim.
27. Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, is suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
Response to Arguments
28. Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered and are not found to be convincing, therefore the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection are hereby maintained.
a) Argument #1: “generating a barcode pattern, indicating a monitoring website and a plurality of display parameters, by the master electronic device according to the display position table in real time” is not disclosed in Lin or Choi.
29. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In [0033], Lin discloses an interface matching code of each matched slave electronic devices. In [0034], Lin states storing group address codes for each of the matched slave electronic devices. Then in [0036], Lin discloses an automatic map code. Choi also discloses an information pattern code, which can be a QR code, as taught in [0029].
b) Argument #2: “wherein the coordinate information of each electronic device records either a physical position order of each electronic device in the cabinet or a wiring order of each electronic device in the cabinet” is not disclosed in Lin or Choi.
30. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Lin, [0062] discloses an actual position of the slave electronic device.
c) Argument #3: Claims do not recite a judicial exception because it is not directed to “certain methods of organizing human activity” and therefore not an abstract idea
31. With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims are related to monitoring devices, which would fall under certain methods of organizing human activity of commercial or legal interactions. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Monitoring devices is a form of marketing or sales activity or behavior, and is therefore an abstract idea.
d) Argument #4: Applicant argues that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 (improvement in technology)
32. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to improving the functioning of the computer/technology/technical field, the claims recite a master electronic device, electronic device, monitoring website, mobile device, and browsing interface, and they are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore are merely using computer processing components for monitoring devices. After further review of the Specification, there is no disclosure of technical enhancements to any of the computing components, as in multiple instances of the Specification it discloses generally recited elements. Interpreting the claims in view of the Specification, the claims recite the judicial exception are mere instructions to apply the exception of monitoring devices (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The elements recited above do not recite and are not directed to any elements or functions that improve underlying technology.
33. According to MPEP 2106.05(a), it states: “It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer).”
34. Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, a master electronic device, electronic device, monitoring website, mobile device, and browsing interface, i.e., that are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to solving the problem of monitoring devices. The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., monitoring devices, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field. Therefore, the claims do not integrate into a practical application either by improvement to a computer/technology/technical field.
35. The claims are not directed to any improvement in computer technology. The claims are directed to an abstract idea of monitoring devices. The applicant must take into consideration that in order to view the claims as supplying an inventive concept the technological improvement must be present within the claims themselves (Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, inc., 108 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), (Synopsys, inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp... 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, the Specification does not provide any evidence that how the claims provide an improvement to functioning of computing systems or technology. The applicant failed to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology.
e) Argument #5: Applicant argues that the claim elements are significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B
36. Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
37. Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
38. Here the only additional elements recited in claim 1 beyond the abstract idea are: a master electronic device, electronic device, monitoring website, mobile device, and browsing interface, i.e., generic computer components. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
39. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of the independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
40. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Khan et al (Mobile Phone Sensing Systems: A Survey, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
41. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
42. A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
43. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
44. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
45. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
46. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627