DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is responsive to the RCE filed on 04/15/2026. The claims 1 & 4- 13 are pending, of which the claim(s) 1 is/are in independent form.
The claims 2- 3 are currently cancelled by applicants.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 1third arguments, see Remarks, last paragraph of page 7, filed 04/15/2026 with respect to the amended limitations of the claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the outstanding 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of discovery of new prior art and its combination with prior cited art as set forth below.
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 & 4- 13 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim in last limitation recites “in a case where the execution status information indicates that the operation instructed by the operation instruction information has not been performed by the instruction target, the additional operation instruction issuer causes the operation instruction creator to create the
operation instruction information including the additional operation instruction information which instructs the operation instructed by the operation instruction information and has not been performed by the instruction target”. The scope of the bold portion of the limitation is unclear since it is missing a verb or a noun before “has not been” thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
For the examination purpose, the bold portion of the limitation is interpreted as retransmitting of the operation instruction information that has not been performed by the instruction target in the similar manner described by applicant’s remarks, page 8, 2nd paragraph.
Regarding claims 4- 13, they are also rejected because of their dependency with claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claims 1- 13: See figs. 7/13, Spec, page 10, paras. 2056-057, 3059-065, 096. The structure of these elements is interpreted as “a CPU reading and executing a program stored in the auxiliary storage device”.
“a facility condition collector”, see, para. 061
“an operation instruction creator”
“an operation instruction transmitter”
“an operation information receiver”
“a management state information creator”
“an additional operation instruction issuer”
In claim 5:
“an operation instruction rule editor”
In claims 13: See para.4058
“a third operation instruction receiver”
“a program changing changer”
“a second operation information recorder”
“a third operation information transmitter”
In claim 12: 5See para. 058
“a second operation instruction receiver”
“an operation executor”
“a first operation information recorder”
“a second operation information transmitter”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4- 5, & 7- 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al., (US 20210158146 A1, reference of record) in view of Korechika (JP 6358029 B2).
Note: The cited page numbers of the Korechika are from machine translation of the JP 6358029 B2 document attached in this action.
Regarding claim 1, Singh teaches a management apparatus [computing device(s) (e.g., Fig. 2, “dynamic sequencing platform 24 may include a server device or a group of server devices”) used by the “A contact center (e.g., a call center and/or the like)”, e.g., “a dynamic sequencing platform, a network storage device”] that manages a production facility [consumers’ facility that send inquires to the contact center] for producing a product, the management apparatus comprising: ([007, 011, 041]);
a facility condition collector that collects facility condition information [“dynamic sequencing platform may receive historical data and real-time data associated with the troubleshooting service”, “service agent to receive real-time data relating to the issue experienced by the consumer”, “real-time data may include information relating to an issue type, a product type, a service type”] regarding conditions of the production facility from the production facility ([011-012, 016]);
an operation instruction creator that creates operation instruction information [“the suggested actions” or “network command”] indicating an instruction to perform an operation relating to the production facility based on the facility condition information ([012, 031-033, 062]);
an operation instruction transmitter that transmits [transmitting of the actions to resolve the issues/diagnostic actions] the operation instruction information to an instruction target [e.g., “a product (e.g., a network device connected to the dynamic sequencing platform)”, “for another product and/or service”] ([012, 015, 062]);
an operation information receiver that receives from the instruction target operation information [“a resolution of the issue (e.g., whether the issue was resolved by performing the suggested actions”, “real-time data may include information relating to… identify a resolution to the unresolved issue”, “monitor a response to the optimal action provided by the network device.”] regarding status of response to the operation instruction information, the operation information including execution status information indicating whether or not the operation instructed by the operation instruction information has been performed ([012, 016, 031-032]);
a management state information creator that creates management state information [the stored record, wherein the “record may be stored in the network storage device and may include information identifying the consumer, the issue and/or a symptom experienced by the consumer, a product and/or a service associated with the issue, actions performed by the service agent, and a resolution of the issue (e.g., whether the issue was resolved by performing the suggested actions, sending a replacement device, dispatching an on-site technician, and/or the like)”, “record may be stored in the network storage device and include information identifying the consumer, the issue and/or the symptom experienced by the consumer, a product and/or a service associated with the issue, actions performed by the consumer, and a resolution of the issue.”] including the operation instruction information [“the suggested actions”], the operation information indicating in real time the execution status [“a resolution of the issue (e.g., whether the issue was resolved by performing the suggested actions”] information and the facility condition information [“the issue and/or a symptom experienced by the consumer”] ([012-013]); and
an additional operation instruction issuer that receives additional operation instruction information [“the machine learning model may identify the optimal resolution based on the historical resolution most frequently used” or “If the real-time data indicates an unanticipated response…identify the next optimal action to be performed” or “if the unresolved issue persists, process 400 may return one of preceding blocks (e.g., block 420) to identify an updated optimal resolution,”] indicating an instruction to perform an additional operation to the operation instructed by the operation instruction information based on the management state information, and causes the operation instruction creator to create the operation instruction information including the additional operation instruction information ([017, 033, 063]);
wherein in a case where the execution status information indicates that the operation instructed by the operation instruction information has not been performed [“identify the optimal resolution based on the unresolved issue identified by the real-time data”] by the instruction target the additional operation instruction issuer causes the operation instruction creator to create the operation instruction information ([017]).
Singh teaches a management apparatus (“dynamic sequencing platform” of fig. 1A) to generate additional operation instruction information (“identify a next optimal action” or “updated resolutions”) indicating an instruction to perform an additional operations based on the management state information (“record may be stored in the network”) that includes information that the operation instruction information has not been performed by the instruction target ([011, 016, 063]).
While Singh teaches that the management apparatus to “obtain the acknowledgement from the consumer”([031]), it is silent about retransmitting of the operation instruction information that has not been performed by the instruction target. Thus, Singh may not teach “the additional operation instruction issuer causes the operation instruction creator to create the operation instruction information including the additional operation instruction information which instructs the operation instructed by the operation instruction information and has not been performed by the instruction target” but cured by Korechika.
Korechika teaches a management apparatus [“computer that controls a remote control device” like “remote control apparatus 10” including “the control unit 11” shown in details in fig. 2] that manages a production facility including an instruction target [“target device 20 basically includes a communication unit 21 and a function unit 22”] (Fig. 1-2 & 6, Page 2, Page 7). Specifically, Korechika teaches wherein the management apparatus comprising: an operation instruction transmitter [Fig. 1, “a communication unit 15”] that transmits the operation instruction information [“the control unit 11 wirelessly sends a command related to the operation of the target device 20”] to an instruction target [“target device 20”]; an operation information receiver [“the control unit 11 receives a response for each transmitted command from the target device 20”] that receives from the instruction target operation information regarding status [“target device 20 receives the command via the wireless network system 30, the target device 20 sends a response to the received command (S3)”] of response to the operation instruction information, the operation information including execution status information indicating whether or not the operation instructed by the operation instruction information has been performed and a management state information creator that creates management state information [“the command transmission history in association with information indicating whether a response has been received from the target device 20”. Hence, the command and the response are paired] including the operation instruction information, the operation information indicating in real time the execution status information (Fig. 6 & associated texts, Page 3, page 7).
More specifically, Korechika teaches the management apparatus comprising: an additional operation instruction issuer [“retransmission processing unit 36 performs processing for retransmitting,”], wherein in a case where the execution status information indicates that the operation instructed by the operation instruction information has not been performed by the instruction target, the additional operation instruction issuer causes the operation instruction creator to create the
operation instruction information including the additional operation instruction information [“When the user issues a retransmission instruction from among the commands included in the retransmission candidate list, the control unit 11 retransmits the command for which the retransmission instruction has been issued. The operation of the control unit 11 will be described in detail later”] which instructs the operation instructed by the operation instruction information and has not been performed by the instruction target (6Page 3, Page 7, Page 9).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Korechika and Singh because they both related to a management apparatus transmitting operational instruction to an instruction target and processing the responses to the transmitted operation instruction and (2) modify the an additional operation instruction issuer of the management apparatus of Singh to include missing limitations (i.e., in a case where the execution status information indicates that the operation instructed by the operation instruction information has not been performed by the instruction target, the additional operation instruction issuer causes the operation instruction creator to create the operation instruction information including the additional operation instruction information which instructs the operation instructed by the operation instruction information and has not been performed by the instruction target) as suggested in Korechika.
Doing so would allow only the operation instruction information (“network command”) that are confirmed as not being performed by the instruction target (“network device”) of the consumer can be retransmitted as part of the additional operation thereby lowering unnecessarily retransmission and ensuring performing of the operation instruction accordance with the user's intention (Korechika 7Page 2, 8Page 5 & Singh [031]). Furthermore, Korechika teaches missing details for Singh about how to (retransmit the commands) handle scenarios at the management apparatus (“dynamic sequencing platform”) when the received feedback or acknowledgement indicates the transmitted instruction has not been performed by the instruction target of the production facility. Accordingly, the combination of Singh and Korechika teaches each elements of the claim and renders invention of this claim obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 4, Singh in view of Korechika teaches the management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the additional operation instructed with the additional operation instruction information is different from the operation instructed with the operation instruction information in a case where the execution status information indicates that the operation instructed by the operation instruction information has been performed by the instruction target (Singh, figs. 1A- 1D, optimum and subsequent optimal actions are different).
Regarding claim 5, Singh in view of Korechika teaches the management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operation instruction creator creates the operation instruction information based on the facility condition information and an operation instruction rule [“domain-based heuristic rule and/or the like”] in which the facility condition information is associated with the operation instruction information, and the management apparatus further includes an operation instruction rule editor that accepts editing of the operation instruction rule based on the management state information (Singh, [019]).
Regarding claim 7, Singh in view of Korechika teaches the management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operation instruction information indicates an instruction for an operator [“generate a recommendation and/or an instruction to perform …the consumer via the client device”] to perform the operation on the production facility (Singh [030]).
Regarding claim 8, Singh in view of Korechika teaches the management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operation instruction information indicates an instruction for an apparatus included in the production facility to perform the operation (Singh Fig. 4, [062]).
Regarding claim 9, Singh in view of Korechika teaches the management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operation instruction information indicates an instruction to perform the operation relating to a program executed in any apparatus included in the production facility (Singh Fig. 4, [062]).
Regarding claim 10, Singh in view of Korechika teaches/suggests the management system comprising: the management apparatus according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1);and
a first terminal [one of server device not shown in figs out of “a group of server devices”. The servers of the clouds are well-known to include display unit, input unit and transmitting unit so that another user can review and provide inputs to these data using a another server device. In the cloud environment, the servers can exchange data] configured to communicate with the management apparatus, wherein the first terminal includes: a management state information display unit that displays the management state information created by the management apparatus; an additional operation instruction inputter that accepts input of the additional operation instruction information; and an additional operation instruction transmitter that transmits the input additional operation instruction information to the management apparatus (Singh Fig. 2, [041, 044] & Korechika Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, Singh in view of Korechika teaches the management system according to claim 10, further comprising a second terminal [one network device 220 “Network storage device 220 includes one or more devices” that exchange data with the cloud from “Client device 210 includes one or more devices”] configured to communicate with the management apparatus, wherein the second terminal includes: a first operation instruction receiver that receives the operation instruction information transmitted from the management apparatus and including an instruction for an operator to perform the operation on the production facility; an operation instruction display that displays the operation instruction information; an operation information inputter that accepts input of the operation information corresponding to the operation instruction information; and a first operation information transmitter that transmits the accepted operation information to the management apparatus (Singh Fig. 2 [038] & Korechika Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, Singh in view of Korechika teaches the management system further comprising a third apparatus [“Client device 210 includes one or more devices”] constituting the production facility and configured to communicate with the management apparatus, wherein the third apparatus includes: a second operation instruction receiver that receives the operation instruction information transmitted from the management apparatus; an operation executor that executes the operation instructed with the operation instruction information; a first operation information recorder that records the operation information regarding execution status of the operation; and a second operation information transmitter that transmits the recorded operation information to the management apparatus (Singh Fig. 2 [036-037] & Korechika Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, Singh in view of Korechika teaches the management system according to claim 10 further comprising a program management apparatus configured to communicate with the management apparatus and manage a program executed in any apparatus included in the production facility, wherein the program management apparatus includes: a third operation instruction receiver that receives the operation instruction information transmitted from the management apparatus; a program changer that changes the program by performing the operation instructed with the operation instruction information; a second operation information recorder that records the operation information regarding a state of change in the program; and a third operation information transmitter that transmits the recorded operation information to the management apparatus (Singh Fig. 2 & Korechika Fig. 1-2).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Korechika as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saneyoshi et al. (US 20200058081 A1). Saneyoshi is reference of the record.
Regarding claim 6, Singh in view of Korechika teaches the management apparatus according to claim 1 as set forth above.
However, Singh in view of Korechika may not teach wherein the production facility is a surface mount production line for printed circuit boards, and a target of the operation instructed with the operation instruction information is at least any of a solder printing apparatus, a mounter, and a reflow furnace.
Saneyoshi teaches a management apparatus [“production management apparatus 100”] that manages a production facility for producing a product the management apparatus comprising: a facility condition collecting unit that collects facility condition information regarding conditions of the production facility from the production facility ([052, 066], fig. 1);
wherein the production facility is a surface mount production line for printed circuit boards, and a target of the operation instructed with the operation instruction information is at least any of a solder printing apparatus, a mounter, and a reflow furnace ([095-096]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Saneyoshi and Singh in view of Korechika because they both related to a management apparatus to manage a production facility and (2) modify the system of Singh in view of Korechika to include missing limitations (e.g., have the management apparatus to manage a surface mount production line) as in Saneyoshi. Doing so would allow to expand the usability of the management apparatus of the Singh in view of Korechika. Furthermore, Saneyoshi’s SMT can be understood as an additional exemplary facility that can be managed by the management apparatus of Singh in view of Korechika.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Geeraerts ( US 20120185064 A1) teaches remote control apparatus (105) repeats the transmission of a command to a device (150) in case of not receiving an acknowledgement message from the device (150) (Abstract, fig. 1).
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 pm).
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 “Third, in the Office Action, the output of the machine learning model which identifies and causes to be performed the next optimal action based on the optimal path and a prior action as discussed in Singh is compared to the function of the additional operation issuer as recited by Claim 1 of the present application. Applicants, however, respectfully submit that this comparison is improper as the
machine learning model of Singh merely sequentially presents the next step (e.g., another action) of predetermined troubleshooting, and does not correspond to managing the process of the production facility such that the additional operation instruction issuer issues the additional operation instruction information which instructs the operation which is instructed by the operation instruction information and has not been performed by the instruction target as recited by Claim 1 of the present application.”
2 “Functions of the management apparatus 100, which will be described later, are realized as a result of the CPU reading and executing a program stored in the auxiliary storage device…some of the functions of the management apparatus 100 may be realized by a server (for example, a cloud server) on the network”
3 “includes functional units for realizing functions that enable the manager of a production facility to
efficiently perform maintenance of the facility and quality control.”
4 “the program management server 40 corresponds to a program management apparatus in the present invention.
5 the production apparatuses X1 to X3 and the inspection apparatuses Y1 to Y4 correspond to third apparatuses in 15 the present invention
6 “In the examples so far, the remote control apparatus 10 presents the command sequence included in the retransmission candidate list to the user in any case, but the present embodiment is not limited to this. When a predetermined condition is satisfied, the command sequence included in the retransmission candidate list is sent to the target device 20 without any manual operation”
7 The present invention has been made in view of the above circumstances, and provides a remote control device, a remote control system, and a program that can retransmit a command that could not be transmitted in accordance with the user's intention. One of its purposes
8 In some cases, each operation may be repeated unnecessarily because it does not follow. If the retransmission process is simply performed when communication is possible again, the command that does not reflect the intended operation is retransmitted, which is different from the user's intention.
Prosecution Insights