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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on September 27, 2023 is accepted by the Examiner. Claims 1-11 are pending in the application.
IDS
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 27, 2023 is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawing
The drawing filed on September 27, 2023 is accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
In the instant specification, see page 4, third paragraph, it states “Another one of those preferred further developments of the disclosed method comprise that a terminal portable cover is applied to the mobile device that protects it from outside influences. As lots of instruments are used in a delicate environment, like laboratories, a protection outer influences of the mobile device [are] required. A terminal portable cover does not only provide protection but can also convert the mobile device into a scanner by connecting to the devices camera and display which enhances the usability of the mobile device and enables the user to easier scan the electronic instrument.” This part of the specification is not clear for two reasons. The fist portion of the description gives an impression that the protective device could be a cover or shield of some kind, and then the second portion talks about this protective cover would “convert the mobile device into a scanner…” saying that the portion serves as application specific circuit or add on device. Therefore, it is not clear how the specification defines this protective device for such application.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §112
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite:
In reference to claim 1: the instant claim recites the limitation “the mobile device", “the user”, “the correct graphical user interface” and “the paired instrument” in page 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Further, the format and the description used in the respective claims fail to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For instance, the respective steps in claim 1 either should be labeled with consecutive numbers or letters or they should just be indented.
In claims 1 and 3-11, the numerical reference corresponding to the unit(s) which are noted in figure 1 of the instant application should be removed because any amendment or change to the labeling of these units directly affects the respective claims. With regard to claim 2, the acronym LDAP should be defined before its use.
Further, the steps in claim 1 of the instant application should be revised for better clarity and format. For example, the steps in claim 1 better read: “logging and authenticating of a user…”, “pairing of an electronic instrument to the mobile computer device”, “performing [a] security check …” , “[wherein] if pairing is successful between the electronic instrument and the mobile device via a data connection, then loading a correct compatible graphical user interface of paired instrument and displaying on a screen of the mobile computer device”; and remotely controlling the electronic instrument by using the graphic user interface displayed on the mobile device” or similar amendment.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. §102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention..
Claims 1, 2 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ahmed et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,848,075, hereon Ahmed).
In reference to claim 1: Ahmed discloses a method to remote control (wireless control) different electronic components (see Ahmed, column 1, line 36-44) breath analysis system) by using a mobile computer device (mobile device) with a software (mobile application) including a compatible graphical user interface (see Ahmed, Fig. 7, listing available breath analysis devices). The method comprises:
Logging and authenticating of a user at the mobile computer device (see Ahmed, column 8, line 52 to column 9, line 11);
Pairing of an electronic instrument (such as the breath analyzer) to the mobile computer device (see Ahmed, column 7, column 7, lines 20-24);
Performing a security check (authentication) by the mobile computer device (see Ahmed, column 1, lines 54-60) with instrument (such as the portable breath analyzer) through a data connection (the pairing is a form of data connection, wireless, often Bluetooth, column 2, lines 11-14); loading of the correct compatible graphical user interface of paired instrument (one of the breath analyzer, Note, the right analyzer would be paired because it requires unique identifier that guarantees the correct compatible graphical user interface, (see Ahmed, Figure 5A through 5E, user interface depicting the assigning of a breath analysis device serial number to a user account), and displaying at the screen of the mobile computer device (see Ahmed, column 23, lines 20-25); and controlling remotely the electronic instrument (the breath analyzer) by using the graphic interface of the mobile computer device (see Ahmed, column 23, lines 12-19, and Figs. 5A through 5E).
With regard to claim 2: Ahmed further discloses that the login step is performed by using a double authentication process (see Ahmed, column 1, lines 50-65).
With regard to claim 7: Ahmed further discloses that when the mobile computer device is not paired to a single instrument, it automatically activates a Fleet Management Mode (status of all the other breath analyzers) and shows all available instruments (color coded) in its fleet which can be remote controlled by the mobile device (see Ahmed, column 2, lines 28 to column 3, line 67).
With regard to claim 8: Ahmed further discloses that for the pairing and remote control of the instrument a wired or wireless data connection is established between the mobile computer device and the instrument using a specific data protocol (Bluetooth) to exchange necessary control data and commands entered by the user between the graphical user interface of the mobile device and the instrument (see Ahmed, column 6, 9-19).
With regard to claim 9: Ahmed further discloses that the mobile computer device is integrated into the instrument to provide the instruments direct input terminal and display screen (see Ahmed, column 6, lines 20-28).
With regard to claim 10: Ahmed further discloses that Chemical Laboratory Instruments, Quality Controls Labs instruments or Production Lines instruments are used as remote-controlled instrument (see Ahmed, Fig. 6B, assign breath analysis device)
With regard to claim 11: Ahmed further discloses that System configured to remote control different electronic instruments by performing the method steps of claim 1. (see Ahmed, Figs. 6B and 7, and the explanation noted in reference to claim 1 above).
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed in view of Neeley et al. (U.S PAP 2014/0266765, hereon Neeley).
With regard to claims 4, 5 and 6: Ahmed discloses a mobile device, such as a digital camera for the purposes of controlling the remote device, such as the breathing analyzer through a paired protocol like Bluetooth, Wi-Fi (see Ahmed, column 6, lines 9-19); however, Ahmed is silent about reading one dimensional bar code or QR-code.
Neeley discloses using a mobile device to scan QR code, barcode and scan RFID tag having a unique ID attach to an instrument including detecting a tag attached to the instrument (see Neeley, paragraph [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the identification method to remote control an electronics instrument using a mobile device as taught by Ahmed and incorporate equipment identification method by utilizing the camera features of the mobile device and using pictograms or tags affixed on the electronic device as disclosed by Neeley for the purposes of tacking monitored electronics devices because these identification methods would provide an automated method to store the metadata of the measurement data that would be automatically being associated in a particular data group for better information management and control variables.
With regard to claim 3: as noted in the objection of the specification above, it is not clear what form of cover is applied to the mobile device, often mobile devices include some form of cover or shield to protect a mobile device protecting it from outside influence, such as interference and cross talk during signal transmission between the mobile device and monitored devices. Therefore, given the BRI, those features would have been incorporated in the design features of the mobile device for the purposes of noise separation and data integrity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Klein et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,813,759) discloses a method for remotely controlling set-top boxes (STBs) over Internet protocol networks using an applet running on smart phone or a communication device. Authentication from within a multimedia content distribution network is achieved by verifying that a network identifier associated with the communication device is associated with an account that has granted access to the smart phone and that is associated with the controlled STB. A viewing pane on the communication device permits a user to remotely view content received on or available to the controlled STB.
Economy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,544,977) discloses a load control device is able to receive radio-frequency (RF) signals from a Wi-Fi-enabled device, such as a smart phone, via a wireless local area network. The load control device comprises a controllably conductive device adapted to be coupled in series between an AC power source and an electrical load, a controller for rendering the controllably conductive device conductive and non-conductive, and a Wi-Fi module operable to receive the RF signals from the wireless network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857