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 1-2 and 4-12 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 1-9 are elected without traverse.
Claims 10-12 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected.
Claim 3 is canceled
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment on 04/01/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The formal drawings received on 08/15/2023 have been entered.
Independent Claim(s):
Step 1: Statutory Category. Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-12 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: Prong One. Judicial Exception. Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-12 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 acquiring identification information regarding a device that is a request source of an inquiry and transmission destination information associated with the 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: at least one processor; and a memory storing instruction that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations, the operations comprising: acquiring identification information regarding a device that is a request source of an inquiry and transmission destination information associated with the identification information, the identification information and the transmission destination information being transmitted from an information management apparatus; receiving the 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. These steps describe the concept of acquiring identification information regarding a device that is a request source of an inquiry and transmission destination information associated with the 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 acquiring identification information regarding a device that is a request source of an inquiry and transmission destination information associated with the 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 acquiring identification information regarding a device that is a request source of an inquiry and transmission destination information associated with the 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 at least one “processor;” and a “memory” storing instruction that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations, the operations comprising: acquiring identification information regarding a device that is a request source of an inquiry and transmission destination information associated with the identification information, the identification information and the transmission destination information being transmitted from an information management apparatus; receiving the 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 “processor” and “memory” 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, “acquiring identification information regarding a device that is a request source of an inquiry and transmission destination information associated with the 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 acquiring identification information regarding a device that is a request source of an inquiry and transmission destination information associated with the identification information through the use of some unspecified generic computers and interface. The use of generic computer components for acquiring identification information regarding a device that is a request source of an inquiry and transmission destination information associated with the 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) [the identification information and the transmission destination information being transmitted from an information management apparatus; receiving the 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] 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 and 4-12 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 and 4-12 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 acquiring identification information regarding a device that is a request source of an inquiry and transmission destination information associated with the 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 operation comprise receiving an inquiry about the transmission destination information from the device in which a power is turned on and first activation is performed, and notifying the device at a time of first activation, of the transmission destination information. 4. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operations comprise inquiring of an information management apparatus and acquiring 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 operations comprise receiving the inquiry from the device in which an apparatus 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 1, wherein the operations comprise determining 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 notifying the device of the transmission destination information if the identification information is registered, and outputting, 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 at least one processor; 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 at least one processor. 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 acquiring identification information regarding a device that is a request source of an inquiry and transmission destination information associated with the 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 acquiring identification information regarding a device that is a request source of an inquiry and transmission destination information associated with the 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 operation comprise receiving an inquiry about the transmission destination information from the device in which a power is turned on and first activation is performed, and notifying the device at a time of first activation, of the transmission destination information. 4. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operations comprise inquiring of an information management apparatus and acquiring 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 operations comprise receiving the inquiry from the device in which an apparatus 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 1, wherein the operations comprise determining 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 notifying the device of the transmission destination information if the identification information is registered, and outputting, 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 at least one processor; 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 at least one processor. 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 “processor” and “memory” 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, “acquiring identification information regarding a device that is a request source of an inquiry and transmission destination information associated with the 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 acquiring identification information regarding a device that is a request source of an inquiry and transmission destination information associated with the identification information, without any significant extrasolution activities through the use of some unspecified generic computers and interface. The use of generic computer components for acquiring identification information regarding a device that is a request source of an inquiry and transmission destination information associated with the 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 “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, 4-6, 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 [0048]-[0060], [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).)
at least one processor; and – in paragraphs [0048]-[0060], [0201] (The computer may comprise one or more processors (e.g., central processing unit (CPU), micro processing unit (MPU)) and may include a network of separate computers or separate processors to read out and execute the computer executable instructions.)
a memory storing instruction that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations, the operations comprising: – in paragraphs [0048]-[0060], [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). The computer may comprise one or more processors (e.g., central processing unit (CPU), micro processing unit (MPU)) and may include a network of separate computers or separate processors to read out and execute the computer executable instructions. The storage medium may include, for example, one or more of a hard disk, a random-access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), a storage of distributed computing systems, an optical disk (such as a compact disc (CD), digital versatile disc (DVD), or Blu-ray Disc (BD)™), a flash memory device, a memory card, and the like.)
acquiring identification information regarding a device that is a request source of an inquiry and transmission destination information associated with the identification information, – in paragraphs [0028]-[0102] (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.)
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. – in paragraphs [0068]-[0102] (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:
the identification information and the transmission destination information being transmitted from an information management apparatus; receiving the inquiry about the transmission destination information from the device.
However, Yasaki teaches:
the identification information and the transmission destination information being transmitted from an information management apparatus; – in paragraphs [0037]-[0056] (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.)
receiving the inquiry about the transmission destination information from the device; and – in paragraphs [0037]-[0056] (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 the identification information and the transmission destination information being transmitted from an information management apparatus; receiving the 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.
4. The information providing apparatus according to claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Suzuki teaches:
wherein the operations comprise inquiring of an information management apparatus and acquiring 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 operations comprise receiving the inquiry from the device in which an apparatus 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 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Suzuki teaches:
wherein the operations comprise determining 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:
notifying 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.)
outputting, 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 operation comprise receiving an inquiry about the transmission destination information from the device in which a power is turned on and first activation is performed, and notifying the device at a time of first activation, of the transmission destination information.
However, Sakane teaches:
wherein the operation comprise receiving 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.)
notifying 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 operation comprise receiving an inquiry about the transmission destination information from the device in which a power is turned on and first activation is performed, and notifying 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 at least one processor; 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 at least one processor.
However, Huang teaches:
further including: a storage unit configured to store the identification information acquired by the at least one processor; 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 at least one processor. – 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 at least one processor; 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 at least one processor, 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
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).
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.
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
Prosecution Insights