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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-2, 5-11, 15-17 and 19-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 5-6 each depend on cancelled claim 4, respectively. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norris et al. (‘Norris’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20200110974) in view of Hill et al. (‘Hill’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20220151361) and further in view of Jennings et al. (‘Jennings’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20130312115) and further in view of Nair et al. (‘Nair’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20110302630).
As per claim 1, Norris teaches
A device comprising at least a memory, a processor, and an
wherein the processor is configured and set up to read out service information from the memory, generate a machine-readable code based on the service information, and transmit the machine-readable code to the patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to retrieve any type of information because such data does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. See MPEP 2111.05)
Norris does not explicitly indicate “e-ink”, “wherein the e-ink display is configured to display the machine-readable code when the device is switched off”.
However, Hill discloses “e-ink”, “wherein the e-ink display is configured to display the machine-readable code when the device is switched off” (e-ink display does not need power to maintain an image and retains the displayed content after power to the device is turned off, paragraph [0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Norris and Hill because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing quick and easy access to pertinent information without having to cycle power on. This gives the user the advantage of efficient access to information.
Neither Norris nor Hill explicitly indicate “and wherein the processor is further configured to display the machine-readable code in a time-limited manner via the e-ink display to provide time-limited access to the service information, ensuring that only authorized users gain access to the service information within a certain period of time to increase data security”.
However, Jennings discloses “and wherein the processor is further configured to display the machine-readable code in a time-limited manner via the e-ink display to provide time-limited access to the service information, ensuring that only authorized users gain access to the service information within a certain period of time to increase data security” (Trust Assertion user-interface where policies provide access to some data such as trusting an individual by providing time limited authorization and enforcing authorization controls to users with a specific credential, paragraphs [0063]-[0067]; note that Hill discloses an e-ink display as shown previously and it would be obvious that the user-interface could be displayed on various devices including via an e-ink display as claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Norris, Hill and Jennings because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a new type of trustworthy credential that allows for dynamic information sharing capabilities and relationships by leveraging the capabilities of known authentication/authorization infrastructures for accessing important information (see Jennings, paragraphs [0025]-[0027]). This gives the user the advantage of having a higher standard of information assurance, authentication/authorization and information control.
Neither Norris, Hill nor Jennings explicitly indicate “and wherein the device further comprises a digital communication unit, wherein the machine-readable code, when read using the terminal, further causes the terminal to establish a bidirectional connection with the communication unit through which software and/or a configuration present on the device can be copied from the memory of the device to the terminal and through which the service information on the device can be updated and stored in the memory of the device”.
However, Nair discloses “and wherein the device further comprises a digital communication unit, wherein the machine-readable code, when read using the terminal, further causes the terminal to establish a bidirectional connection with the communication unit through which software and/or a configuration present on the device can be copied from the memory of the device to the terminal and through which the service information on the device can be updated and stored in the memory of the device” (backup and restoring data and software operating on a handheld device by accessing or retrieving from a shared resource, paragraph [0031], where backup and update indicates a bidirectional connection to copy software present on the device, and restoring indicates subsequent update).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Norris, Hill, Jennings and Nair because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to more quickly and easily restore a device to its original state. This gives the user the advantage of minimize downtime when resolving issues related to a failed device.
As per claim 2, Norris teaches
the service information comprises data about a software version and/or about a configuration and/or about a fault that has occurred on the device and/or about an operating time and/or a manufacturing date of the device. (fault code information displayed and can include information related to fault, paragraphs [0025]-[0026]; in addition and/or in the alternative, the claimed “service information” is nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The steps would have been performed the same regardless of the data. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to retrieve any type of information because such data does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. See MPEP 2111.05)
As per claim 5, Norris teaches
the communication unit is configured and set up to maintain the connection for a limited time. (retrieving information for display based on network connectivity, paragraph [0018], where one of skill in the art would know that not being able to obtain information would mean the connection is only maintained for a limited-time).
As per claim 7, Norris teaches
output at least part of the service information in a human-readable manner via the
Norris does not explicitly indicate “e-ink”.
However, Hill discloses “e-ink” (e-ink display, paragraph [0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Norris and Hill because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing quick and easy access to pertinent information without having to cycle power on. This gives the user the advantage of efficient access to information.
As per claim 8, Norris teaches
output a software version and/or a configuration and/or a port label and/or operating time information, in a human-readable manner via the same regardless of the data. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to retrieve any type of information because such data does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. See MPEP 2111.05).
Norris does not explicitly indicate “e-ink”.
However, Hill discloses “e-ink” (e-ink display, paragraph [0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Norris and Hill because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing quick and easy access to pertinent information without having to cycle power on. This gives the user the advantage of efficient access to information.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norris et al. (‘Norris’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20200110974) in view of Hill et al. (‘Hill’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20220151361) and further in view of Jennings et al. (‘Jennings’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20130312115) and further in view of Nair et al. (‘Nair’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20110302630) and further in view of Donachy et al. (‘Donachy’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20230026830).
As per claim 6,
Neither Norris, Hill, Jennings nor Nair explicitly indicate “the communication unit is a near field communication unit, wherein the machine-readable code, when read using the terminal, further causes the terminal to transmit service information and/or a software and/or a configuration by means of the near field communication unit from the memory to the terminal and/or from the terminal to the memory”.
However, Donachy discloses “the communication unit is a near field communication unit, wherein the machine-readable code, when read using the terminal, further causes the terminal to transmit service information and/or a software and/or a configuration by means of the near field communication unit from the memory to the terminal and/or from the terminal to the memory” (paragraph [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Norris, Hill, Jennings, Nair and Donachy because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing displays which can help users diagnose issues which are accessible via the front end of a server (see Donachy, paragraph [0020]). This gives the user the advantage of fast access to vital information for maintaining systems.
Claims 9-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norris et al. (‘Norris’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20200110974) in view of Hill et al. (‘Hill’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20220151361) and further in view of Nair et al. (‘Nair’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20110302630) and further in view of Etchegoyen (Publication Number 20140310404).
As per claim 9, Norris teaches
A method of operating a device comprising at least a memory, a processor and an
- reading out service information from the memory using the processor, - generating a machine-readable code by means of the processor based on the service information, - transmitting the machine-readable code to the In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to retrieve any type of information because such data does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. See MPEP 2111.05),
Norris does not explicitly indicate “e-ink”, “reading the machine-readable code in a situation in which the device is switched off”.
However, Hill discloses “e-ink”, “reading the machine-readable code in a situation in which the device is switched off” (e-ink display does not need power to maintain an image and retains the displayed content after power to the device is turned off, paragraph [0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Norris and Hill because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing quick and easy access to pertinent information without having to cycle power on. This gives the user the advantage of efficient access to information.
Neither Norris nor Hill explicitly indicate “wherein the machine-readable code, when read using the terminal, further causes the terminal to establish a connection with the device and to copy software and/or a configuration present on the device from the memory of the device via the connection to the terminal and subsequently from the terminal to a replacement device,
However, Nair discloses “wherein the machine-readable code, when read using the terminal, further causes the terminal to establish a connection with the device and to copy software and/or a configuration present on the device from the memory of the device via the connection to the terminal and subsequently from the terminal to a replacement device, Etchegoyen, below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Norris, Hill and Nair because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to more quickly and easily restore a device to its original state. This gives the user the advantage of minimize downtime when resolving issues related to a failed device.
Neither Norris, Hill nor Nair explicitly indicates “
However, Etchegoyen discloses “
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Norris, Hill, Nair and Etchegoyen because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing for continuity of a user’s experience when a device failure occurs (see Etchegoyen, paragraph [0007]). This gives the user the advantage of being assured important work can continue when catastrophic failure happens.
As per claim 10, Norris teaches
output the retrieved service information. (paragraphs [0018]-[0019]).
As per claim 11, Norris teaches
display the machine readable code on a screen. (paragraphs [0018]-[0019]).
As per claim 19,
Neither Norris nor Hill explicitly indicate “replacing the device by the replacement device”.
However, Etchegoyen discloses “replacing the device by the replacement device” (device replaced with new device where entire state of device including all software installation and software settings replicated to new device, paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Norris, Hill and Etchegoyen because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing for continuity of a user’s experience when a device failure occurs (see Etchegoyen, paragraph [0007]). This gives the user the advantage of being assured important work can continue when catastrophic failure happens.
As per claim 20,
Neither Norris nor Hill explicitly indicate “reading the machine-readable code causes the terminal to establish a bidirectional connection with the device”.
However, Etchegoyen discloses “reading the machine-readable code causes the terminal to establish a bidirectional connection with the device” (paragraphs [0033]-[0037] & figures 1&2, where arrows in figures indicate a bidirectional connection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Norris, Hill and Etchegoyen because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing for continuity of a user’s experience when a device failure occurs (see Etchegoyen, paragraph [0007]). This gives the user the advantage of being assured important work can continue when catastrophic failure happens.
Claims 15-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norris et al. (‘Norris’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20200110974) in view of Hill et al. (‘Hill’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20220151361) and further in view of Nair et al. (‘Nair’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20110302630) and further in view of Etchegoyen (Publication Number 20140310404) and further in view of Kjallstrom et al. (‘Kjallstrom’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20200160607).
As per claim 15,
Neither Norris, Hill, Nair nor Etchegoyen explicitly indicate “retrieve and/or display a digital twin of the device”.
However, Kjallstro discloses “retrieve and/or display a digital twin of the device” (retrieve digital twin, column 22, lines 16-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Norris, Hill, Nair, Etchegoyen and Kjallstrom because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by having an off-site twin to ensure protection from a catastrophic event. This gives the user the advantage of survivability of critical information and/or infrastructure.
As per claim 16,
Neither Norris, Hill, Nair nor Etchegoyen explicitly indicate “the digital twin of the device is retrieved from an external server structure.”
However, Kjallstro discloses “the digital twin of the device is retrieved from an external server structure” (digital twin may be stored and retrieved either with a memory module on the device, or via communication to a data server or remote cloud storage, paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Norris, Hill, Nair, Etchegoyen and Kjallstrom because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by having an off-site twin to ensure protection from a catastrophic event. This gives the user the advantage of survivability of critical information and/or infrastructure.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norris et al. (‘Norris’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20200110974) in view of Hill et al. (‘Hill’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20220151361) and further in view of Rahilly et al. (‘Rahilly’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20200410801) and further in view of Gatson et al. (‘Gatson’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20160370843) and further in view of Sanaboyina et al. (‘Sanaboyina’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20160275480).
As per claim 17,
A device comprising at least a memory, a processor, and an e-ink display, wherein the processor is configured and set up to (paragraph [0007])
read out service information from the memory, generate a machine-readable code based on the service information, and transmit the machine-readable code to the In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to retrieve any type of information because such data does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. See MPEP 2111.05),
Norris does not explicitly indicate “e-ink”, “wherein the e-ink display is capable of showing the information even when no electrical power is available”.
However, Hill discloses “e-ink”, “wherein the e-ink display is capable of showing the information even when no electrical power is available” (e-ink display does not need power to maintain an image and retains the displayed content after power to the device is turned off, paragraph [0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Norris and Hill because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing quick and easy access to pertinent information without having to cycle power on. This gives the user the advantage of efficient access to information.
Neither Norris nor Hill explicitly indicate “and wherein the machine-readable code is encrypted such that only authorized users having appropriate decryption technology can retrieve the service information”.
However, Rahilly discloses “and wherein the machine-readable code is encrypted such that only authorized users having appropriate decryption technology can retrieve the service information” (user to submit credentials encrypted by a respective private key for decrypting by secure crypto-processor to expose data, paragraph [0117], where the claimed “service information” is nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The steps would have been performed the same regardless of the data. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to retrieve any type of information because such data does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. See MPEP 2111.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Norris, Hill and Rahilly because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being assured that important information is sufficiently secure by providing appropriate encryption of said information. This gives the user the advantage of preventing cybercrimes.
Neither Norris, Hill nor Rahilly explicitly indicates “and wherein the device is configured to store error information in the event of a shutdown due to an error”.
However, Gatson discloses “and wherein the device is configured to store error information in the event of a shutdown due to an error and to output the error information via the e-ink display by means of the machine-readable code” (logs event for shutdown, low battery, forced shutdowns, table 1, page 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Norris, Hill, Rahilly and Gatson because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to use logged power utilization information and other physical state data at an intelligent energy management system to determine component utilization and help to optimize resource usage (see Gatson, paragraph [0055]). This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources.
Neither Norris, Hill, Rahilly nor Gatson explicitly indicate “and to output the error information via the e-ink display by means of the machine-readable code”.
However Sanaboyina discloses “and to output the error information via the e-ink display by means of the machine-readable code” (e-ink display maintains image without a power source when power supply is unable to power the device, for example, when a battery has mostly and/or completely discharged, paragraph [0051], where one of skill in the art would know that Sanaboyina’s image displayed when power supply is unable to power the device, and the battery is discharged, reads on output error information via e-ink display; note that Gatson also teaches events such as low battery and forced shutdowns that could be considered error information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Norris, Hill, Rahilly, Gatson and Sanaboyina because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allows for providing status information of an electronic device even when lacking a power source (see Sanaboyina, background). This gives the user the advantage of being made aware of the need to charge a device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 5-11, 15-17 and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. It is noted the new added references, in combination with previously cited references, teach the amended claims as shown in the rejections above.
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 JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Jay A Morrison/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151