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 1-12 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 1-9 are elected without traverse.
Claims 10-12 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-9 are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-9, directed to acquiring identification information of a device associated with transmission destination information indicating a location of a destination to which data is transmitted from the device, H04L67/52.
II. Claims 10-12, directed to an equipment registration system comprising an information management apparatus configured to execute designated processing on data received from a device, H04L41/12.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)).
The combination in claims 1-9 has utility such as in network applications in which the position of the user, either geographical position, or topological position in the network, is used as a parameter to activate a set of value added functions that generate position dependent information.
In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed in claims 10-12 because an equipment registration system comprising an information management apparatus configured to execute designated processing on data received from a device in the claimed subcombination are not required by the claimed combination. The subcombination in claims 10-12 has separate utility such as in discovery or management of network topologies.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries);
the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 09/12/2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The formal drawings received on 08/15/2023 have been entered.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 9 recites a “computer-readable recording medium” stored therein an information providing program, wherein the “computer-readable recording medium” is a signal. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) is/are not directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Independent Claim(s):
Step 1: Statutory Category. Claim(s) 1-8 is/are directed to statutory category of subject matter. The claim(s) does/do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) is/are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim(s) 9 is/are not directed to statutory category of subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) is/are not directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A: Prong One. Judicial Exception. Claim(s) 1-9 is/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. The claim(s) are directed to abstract idea of provisioning a transmission destination information to a device associated with an identification information, as explained in detail below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claim(s) recites, in part, an information providing apparatus comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire identification information of a device associated with transmission destination information indicating a location of a destination to which data is transmitted from the device; a reception unit configured to receive an inquiry about the transmission destination information from the device; and a notification unit configured to notify the device, which is a request source of the inquiry, of the transmission destination information associated with the identification information of the device, which is the request source of the inquiry. These steps describe the concept of provisioning a transmission destination information to a device associated with an identification information, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group; West View; SAP America). All of these concepts relate to “An Idea ‘Of Itself’” in which “An idea standing alone such as an uninstantiated concept, plan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” The concept described in the claim(s) is/are not meaningfully different than those “An Idea ‘Of Itself’” found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in the claim(s) of provisioning a transmission destination information to a device associated with an identification information is an abstract idea. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he first step in the Alice inquiry in this case asks whether the focus of the claims [was] on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities … or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.”) No such evidence exists on this record. Unlike Enfish, where the claims were focused on a specific improvement in how the computer functioned, the claim here merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract concepts, and the claims are not rooted in technology and simply employs conventional techniques used by humans for provisioning a transmission destination information to a device associated with an identification information. The claim here is not similar to claimed patent’s innovative logical model for a computer database (p. 2-3), nor does the claim here have similar specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (p. 7) as in the Enfish patent. Rather here, the claim is directed to automating the human behavior or task. (See Enfish Memo and Enfish v. Microsoft, May 2016). In addition, simply limiting the invention to a technological environment does “not make an abstract concept any less abstract under step one.” Intellectual Ventures I, 850 F.3d at 1340. Therefore, based on the similarity of the concept described in this claim to abstract ideas identified by the courts in the claim is directed to an abstract idea. For these reasons, afford are ineligible.
Step 2A: Prong Two. Practical Application. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Additional Elements Significantly More Then the Judicial Exception. The independent claim(s) do/does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional limitations of a computer-readable recording medium having stored therein an information providing program causing a computer to execute a process, the process comprising: acquiring identification information of a device associated with transmission destination information indicating a location of a destination to which data is transmitted from the device; receiving an inquiry about the transmission destination information from the device; and notifying the device, which is a request source of the inquiry, of the transmission destination information associated with the identification information of the device, which is the request source of the inquiry. The “computer-readable recording medium,” “information providing program,” and “computer” are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Next, “provisioning a transmission destination information to a device associated with an identification information” is stated at a high level of generality without tying it to an algorithm that would improve the functionality of the technology and its broadest reasonable interpretation comprises only provisioning a transmission destination information to a device associated with an identification information through the use of some unspecified generic computers and interface. The use of generic computer components for provisioning a transmission destination information to a device associated with an identification information through an unspecified interface does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. These independent claims include insignificant pre-solution limitation(s) and post-solution limitation(s) [an acquisition unit configured to acquire identification information of a device associated with transmission destination information indicating a location of a destination to which data is transmitted from the device; a reception unit configured to receive an inquiry about the transmission destination information from the device; and a notification unit configured to notify the device, which is a request source of the inquiry, of the transmission destination information associated with the identification information of the device, which is the request source of the inquiry] that do not transform the patent-ineligible concept of an abstract idea to a patent-eligible concept even if they are performed using general purpose computer, as these pre-solution limitation(s) and post-solution limitation(s) add insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Additionally, adding the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception (i.e., applying the judicial exception to the equipment registration system), or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., the equipment registration system) is also found to not be enough to qualify as significantly more.
Dependent Claim(s):
Step 1: Statutory Category. Claim(s) 2-8 is/are directed to statutory category of subject matter. The claim(s) does/do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) is/are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A: Judicial Exception. Claim(s) 2-8 is/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. The claim(s) are directed to abstract idea of provisioning a transmission destination information to a device associated with an identification information, as explained in detail below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) recites, in part, 2. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the reception unit receives an inquiry about the transmission destination information from the device in which a power is turned on and first activation is performed, and the notification unit notifies the device at a time of first activation, of the transmission destination information. 3. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition unit acquires the identification information regarding a device that is a request source of the inquiry and the transmission destination information associated with the identification information, the identification information and the transmission destination information being transmitted from an information management apparatus. 4. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition unit inquires of an information management apparatus and acquires the identification information regarding a device that is a request source of the inquiry and the transmission destination information associated with the identification information. 5. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the reception unit receives the inquiry from the device in which an apparatus in which the reception unit is included is set as a request destination of the inquiry at a shipment stage of the device which is a request source of the inquiry. 6. The information providing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the notification unit determines whether or not identification information of the device that is a request source of the inquiry is registered in the identification information acquired from the information management apparatus, and the notification unit notifies the device of the transmission destination information if the identification information is registered, and outputs, to the device, information indicating that the identification information is not registered yet if the identification information is not registered. 7. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, further including: a storage unit configured to store the identification information acquired by the acquisition unit; and a deletion unit configured to delete, from among the identification information stored in the storage unit, the identification information of the device for which the transmission destination information has been notified or the identification information for which a predetermined time has elapsed since the acquisition by the acquisition unit. 8. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the device is plant equipment that transmits plant information acquired from a plant to a destination indicated by the notified transmission destination information. These steps describe the concept of provisioning a transmission destination information to a device associated with an identification information, without any significant extrasolution activities, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as such as Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group; West View; SAP America). All of these concepts relate to “An Idea ‘Of Itself’” in which “An idea standing alone such as an uninstantiated concept, plan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” The concept described in the claim(s) is/are not meaningfully different than those “An Idea ‘Of Itself’” found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in the claim(s) of provisioning a transmission destination information to a device associated with an identification information, without any significant extrasolution activities is an abstract idea. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he first step in the Alice inquiry in this case asks whether the focus of the claims [was] on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities … or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.”) No such evidence exists on this record. Unlike Enfish, where the claims were focused on a specific improvement in how the computer functioned, the claim here merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract concepts, and the claims are not rooted in technology and simply employs conventional techniques used by humans for provisioning a transmission destination information to a device associated with an identification information, without any significant extrasolution activities. The claim here is not similar to claimed patent’s innovative logical model for a computer database (p. 2-3), nor does the claim here have similar specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (p. 7) as in the Enfish patent. Rather here, the claim is directed to automating the human behavior or task. (See Enfish Memo and Enfish v. Microsoft, May 2016). In addition, simply limiting the invention to a technological environment does “not make an abstract concept any less abstract under step one.” Intellectual Ventures I, 850 F.3d at 1340. Therefore, based on the similarity of the concept described in this claim to abstract ideas identified by the courts in the claim is directed to an abstract idea. For these reasons, afford are ineligible.
Step 2B: Additional Elements Significantly More Then the Judicial Exception. The dependent claim(s) do/does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional limitations of a 2. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the reception unit receives an inquiry about the transmission destination information from the device in which a power is turned on and first activation is performed, and the notification unit notifies the device at a time of first activation, of the transmission destination information. 3. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition unit acquires the identification information regarding a device that is a request source of the inquiry and the transmission destination information associated with the identification information, the identification information and the transmission destination information being transmitted from an information management apparatus. 4. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition unit inquires of an information management apparatus and acquires the identification information regarding a device that is a request source of the inquiry and the transmission destination information associated with the identification information. 5. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the reception unit receives the inquiry from the device in which an apparatus in which the reception unit is included is set as a request destination of the inquiry at a shipment stage of the device which is a request source of the inquiry. 6. The information providing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the notification unit determines whether or not identification information of the device that is a request source of the inquiry is registered in the identification information acquired from the information management apparatus, and the notification unit notifies the device of the transmission destination information if the identification information is registered, and outputs, to the device, information indicating that the identification information is not registered yet if the identification information is not registered. 7. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, further including: a storage unit configured to store the identification information acquired by the acquisition unit; and a deletion unit configured to delete, from among the identification information stored in the storage unit, the identification information of the device for which the transmission destination information has been notified or the identification information for which a predetermined time has elapsed since the acquisition by the acquisition unit. 8. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the device is plant equipment that transmits plant information acquired from a plant to a destination indicated by the notified transmission destination information. The “computer-readable recording medium,” “information providing program,” and “computer” are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Next, “provisioning a transmission destination information to a device associated with an identification information, without any significant extrasolution activities” is stated at a high level of generality without tying it to an algorithm that would improve the functionality of the technology and its broadest reasonable interpretation comprises only provisioning a transmission destination information to a device associated with an identification information, without any significant extrasolution activities through the use of some unspecified generic computers and interface. The use of generic computer components for provisioning a transmission destination information to a device associated with an identification information, without any significant extrasolution activities through an unspecified interface does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. These dependent claims include insignificant pre-solution limitation(s) and post-solution limitation(s) that do not transform the patent-ineligible concept of an abstract idea to a patent-eligible concept even if they are performed using general purpose computer, as these pre-solution limitation(s) and post-solution limitation(s) add insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Additionally, adding the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception (i.e., applying the judicial exception to the equipment registration system), or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., the equipment registration system) is also found to not be enough to qualify as significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-8 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.
Claim limitation “1. … an acquisition unit configured to acquire identification information of a device …; a reception unit configured to receive an inquiry about the transmission destination information from the device; and a notification unit configured to notify the device …. 2. … wherein the reception unit receives an inquiry about the transmission destination information from the device in which a power is turned on and first activation is performed, and the notification unit notifies the device at a time of first activation, of the transmission destination information. 3. … wherein the acquisition unit acquires the identification information regarding a device that is a request source of the inquiry and the transmission destination information associated with the identification information …. 4. … wherein the acquisition unit inquires of an information management apparatus and acquires the identification information regarding a device that is a request source of the inquiry and the transmission destination information associated with the identification information. 5. … wherein the reception unit receives the inquiry from the device …. 6. … wherein the notification unit determines whether or not identification information of the device that is a request source of the inquiry is registered in the identification information acquired from the information management apparatus, and the notification unit notifies the device of the transmission destination information if the identification information is registered, and outputs, to the device, information indicating that the identification information is not registered yet if the identification information is not registered. 7. … a storage unit configured to store the identification information acquired by the acquisition unit; and a deletion unit configured to delete, from among the identification information stored in the storage unit, the identification information of the device for which the transmission destination information has been notified or the identification information for which a predetermined time has elapsed since the acquisition by the acquisition unit. 8. … wherein the device is plant equipment that transmits plant information acquired from a plant to a destination indicated by the notified transmission destination information.” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, and/or acts for performing the entire claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20170178225) in view of Yasaki (US 20210194867).
1, 9. Suzuki teaches:
An information providing apparatus comprising: – in paragraphs [0028]-[0201] (A computer of a system or apparatus that reads out and executes computer executable instructions (e.g., one or more programs) recorded on a storage medium (which may also be referred to more fully as a ‘non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’) to perform the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s).)
an acquisition unit configured to acquire identification information of a device associated with transmission destination information indicating a location of a destination to which data is transmitted from the device; – in paragraphs [0028]-[0201] (The image forming apparatus 30 sends, to the EC server 10, a registration request containing its own identification information (e.g., a serial number issued by a manufacturing vendor). The provision destination information indicates provision destinations to which the status information of the devices and the like are provided; herein, the provision destination information indicates service IDs of various servers. The send destination information indicates destination information, that is to say, provision destinations to which various types of information of the devices are provided; examples of the send destination information include Uniform Resource Locators (URL) and IP addresses.)
a notification unit configured to notify the device, which is a request source of the inquiry, of the transmission destination information associated with the identification information of the device, which is the request source of the inquiry. – in paragraphs [0028]-[0201] (In step S517, the EC server 10 notifies the image forming apparatus 30 of a result of device registration. At this time, the EC server 10 also notifies the image forming apparatus 30 of identification information indicating the EC service provider 1 to which the EC server 10 belongs (e.g., a service ID issued by the management server 20) and the device ID indicating the image forming apparatus, which was issued in step S509. The provision destination information indicates provision destinations to which the status information of the devices and the like are provided; herein, the provision destination information indicates service IDs of various servers. The send destination information indicates destination information, that is to say, provision destinations to which various types of information of the devices are provided; examples of the send destination information include Uniform Resource Locators (URL) and IP addresses.)
Suzuki does not explicitly teach:
a reception unit configured to receive an inquiry about the transmission destination information from the device.
However, Yasaki teaches:
a reception unit configured to receive an inquiry about the transmission destination information from the device; and – in paragraphs [0003]-[0249] (When the terminal apparatus 3 accesses the communication destination server 2, the terminal apparatus 3 inquires the IP address of the communication destination server 2 from the DNS server 5.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Suzuki with Yasaki to include a reception unit configured to receive an inquiry about the transmission destination information from the device, as taught by Yasaki, in paragraphs [0002]-[0039], to ensure the security of communication by avoiding obtaining an IP address that is not a desired IP address.
3. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Suzuki teaches:
wherein the acquisition unit acquires the identification information regarding a device that is a request source of the inquiry and the transmission destination information associated with the identification information, – in paragraphs [0028]-[0201] (The image forming apparatus 30 sends, to the EC server 10, a registration request containing its own identification information (e.g., a serial number issued by a manufacturing vendor). The provision destination information indicates provision destinations to which the status information of the devices and the like are provided; herein, the provision destination information indicates service IDs of various servers. The send destination information indicates destination information, that is to say, provision destinations to which various types of information of the devices are provided; examples of the send destination information include Uniform Resource Locators (URL) and IP addresses.)
Yasaki teaches:
the identification information and the transmission destination information being transmitted from an information management apparatus. – in paragraphs [0003]-[0249] (When the terminal apparatus 3 accesses the communication destination server 2, the terminal apparatus 3 inquires the IP address of the communication destination server 2 from the DNS server 5.)
4. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Suzuki teaches:
wherein the acquisition unit inquires of an information management apparatus and acquires the identification information regarding a device that is a request source of the inquiry and the transmission destination information associated with the identification information. – in paragraphs [0028]-[0201] (The image forming apparatus 30 sends, to the EC server 10, a registration request containing its own identification information (e.g., a serial number issued by a manufacturing vendor). The provision destination information indicates provision destinations to which the status information of the devices and the like are provided; herein, the provision destination information indicates service IDs of various servers. The send destination information indicates destination information, that is to say, provision destinations to which various types of information of the devices are provided; examples of the send destination information include Uniform Resource Locators (URL) and IP addresses.)
5. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Suzuki teaches:
wherein the reception unit receives the inquiry from the device in which an apparatus in which the reception unit is included is set as a request destination of the inquiry at a shipment stage of the device which is a request source of the inquiry. – in paragraphs [0028]-[0201] (The serial numbers are assigned to the devices by a manufacturer of the devices. The status information is set based on information obtained from the management server 20, and stores information indicating, for example, the activation statuses of the image forming apparatuses and the degrees of consumption of consumables.)
6. The information providing apparatus according to claim 3, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Suzuki teaches:
wherein the notification unit determines whether or not identification information of the device that is a request source of the inquiry is registered in the identification information acquired from the information management apparatus, and – in paragraphs [0028]-[0201] (The image forming apparatus 30 sends, to the EC server 10, a registration request containing its own identification information (e.g., a serial number issued by a manufacturing vendor). The provision destination information indicates provision destinations to which the status information of the devices and the like are provided; herein, the provision destination information indicates service IDs of various servers. The send destination information indicates destination information, that is to say, provision destinations to which various types of information of the devices are provided; examples of the send destination information include Uniform Resource Locators (URL) and IP addresses.)
Yasaki teaches:
the notification unit notifies the device of the transmission destination information if the identification information is registered, and – in paragraphs [0003]-[0249] (When the terminal apparatus 3 accesses the communication destination server 2, the terminal apparatus 3 inquires the IP address of the communication destination server 2 from the DNS server 5.)
outputs, to the device, information indicating that the identification information is not registered yet if the identification information is not registered. – in paragraphs [0003]-[0249] (When the terminal apparatus 3 accesses the communication destination server 2, the terminal apparatus 3 inquires the IP address of the communication destination server 2 from the DNS server 5.)
8. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
However, Sakane teaches:
wherein the device is plant equipment that transmits plant information acquired from a plant to a destination indicated by the notified transmission destination information. – in paragraphs [0055]-[0199] (The network system of the present embodiment includes, for example, a large number of field devices 11 provided in control equipment such as a plant.)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20170178225) in view of Yasaki (US 20210194867), and further in view of Sakane (US 20090292915).
2. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Combination of Suzuki and Yasaki does not explicitly teach:
wherein the reception unit receives an inquiry about the transmission destination information from the device in which a power is turned on and first activation is performed, and the notification unit notifies the device at a time of first activation, of the transmission destination information.
However, Sakane teaches:
wherein the reception unit receives an inquiry about the transmission destination information from the device in which a power is turned on and first activation is performed, and – in paragraphs [0055]-[0199] (In the network system of the present embodiment, for example, when an operator provides the field device 11 at a predetermined position of the plant facility, connects the field device 11 to the network and turns the power on, the processing operation of A to I shown in FIG. 2 is performed and the setting processing of the field device 11 is performed automatically. As for B, when the above described connection request is received, or by a periodical operation, the access point 12 sends out initial network connection information (for example broadcast) to the unspecified large number of devices on the network to establish the communication link with the newly connected field device 11 by the operation of the automatic link module.)
the notification unit notifies the device at a time of first activation, of the transmission destination information. – in paragraphs [0055]-[0199] (The provisioning data includes, for example, initial device ID showing a transfer destination, device ID to be identification information in participation of the network, and other parameters such as operation parameters of the application, network parameter necessary for network connection, and the like.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Suzuki and Yasaki with Sakane to include wherein the reception unit receives an inquiry about the transmission destination information from the device in which a power is turned on and first activation is performed, and the notification unit notifies the device at a time of first activation, of the transmission destination information, as taught by Sakane, in paragraphs [0002]-[0034], to provide a network system which can perform parameter setting on a plurality of devices composing a network system by setting processing through a network without placing an excessive burden on the network path or the server, where the processing is performed with high reliability and without the necessity of troublesome operation.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20170178225) in view of Yasaki (US 20210194867), and further in view of Huang (US 20180227214).
7. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Combination of Suzuki and Yasaki does not explicitly teach:
further including: a storage unit configured to store the identification information acquired by the acquisition unit; and a deletion unit configured to delete, from among the identification information stored in the storage unit, the identification information of the device for which the transmission destination information has been notified or the identification information for which a predetermined time has elapsed since the acquisition by the acquisition unit.
However, Huang teaches:
further including: a storage unit configured to store the identification information acquired by the acquisition unit; and – in paragraphs [0007]-[0177] (Referring to Table 1, for example, there is a list of device information stored in the master device.)
a deletion unit configured to delete, from among the identification information stored in the storage unit, the identification information of the device for which the transmission destination information has been notified or the identification information for which a predetermined time has elapsed since the acquisition by the acquisition unit. – in paragraphs [0007]-[0177] (If the slave device 3 is powered off and goes offline, then the master device will not receive any response message of the slave device 3 in the fixed periodicity, and then determine that the slave device 3 has been powered off or gone offline, release a device identifier resource corresponding to the slave device 3, and delete entries corresponding to the slave device 3 from a list of device information.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Suzuki and Yasaki with Huang to include further including: a storage unit configured to store the identification information acquired by the acquisition unit; and a deletion unit configured to delete, from among the identification information stored in the storage unit, the identification information of the device for which the transmission destination information has been notified or the identification information for which a predetermined time has elapsed since the acquisition by the acquisition unit, as taught by Huang, in paragraphs [0002]-[0059], to enable the communication connection to be established automatically between the industry field devices and the industry server.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-7734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M..
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571)272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/MUHAMMAD RAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449