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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment, filed on May 4, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the respective claims has been withdrawn in view of the amendment and argument presented by the Applicant(s). However, the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ahmed et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,848,075, hereon Ahmed); and the rejection of claims 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed in view of Neeley et al. (U.S PAP 2014/0266765, hereon Neeley) are maintained for the reasons noted below. The Examiner acknowledges the addition of 12-15 by the amendment. Claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
Explanation of Rejection
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.
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:
authenticating a user at the mobile computer device (see Ahmed, column 8, line 52 to column 9, line 11);
Pairing an electronic instrument (such as the breath analyzer) to the mobile computer device (see Ahmed, 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 a correct compatible graphical user interface of the electronic 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 the correct compatible graphic user interface at a screen of the mobile computer device (see Ahmed, column 23, lines 20-25); and controlling the electronic instrument (the breath analyzer) remotely by using the correct compatible 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 authenticating 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 an instrument, the mobile device automatically activates a Fleet Management Mode (status of all the other breath analyzers) and shows all available electronic 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 method comprising establishing the data connection between the mobile computer device and the electronic instrument using a specific data protocol (Bluetooth) to exchange necessary control data and commands 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 electronic 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 the different electronic instruments (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 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed in view of 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.
With regard to claim 12: Ahmed in view of Neeley further discloses that the product code is a one-dimensional barcode or a two-dimensional Datamatrix-Code (see Neeley, paragraph [0057]).
With regard to claim 13: Ahmed in view of Neeley further discloses that the product code is a datamatrix or a quick response (QR) code (see Neeley, paragraph [0057]).
With regard to claim 14: Ahmed in view of Neeley further discloses that the mobile device includes a ruggedized terminal portable reader (see Ahmed, column 2, lines 3-14, mobile device(s) often use ruggedized terminal for better handling of harsh conditioned such as temperature, shock and moisture).
With regard to claim 15: Ahmed in view of Neeley further discloses that the terminal portable cover converts the mobile phone into a portable reader by connecting to a camera or portable reader of the mobile device (see Neeley, paragraph [0056]).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment, filed on May 4, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the respective claims has been withdrawn in view of the amendment and argument presented by the Applicant(s). However, the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ahmed; and the rejection of claims 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed in view of Neeley are maintained for the reasons noted above and further explained below.
Applicant(s) argued that “Ahmed fails to disclose or suggest loading a correct compatible graphical user interface of the identified electronic instrument and displaying the correct compatible graphical user interface at a screen of the mobile device. This feature of claim 1 allows for different instruments to be used that all have their own proprietary user interface often including its own user account with all different requirements. Thus, a compatible user interface that allows the user to remote control the electronic instrument has to be loaded after the electronic instrument has been identified and the user successfully authenticated.” (see Applicant(s) argument, page 8, third paragraph).
Further, Applicant(s) argued “Ahmed fails to disclose or suggest these features of claim 1. In Ahmed, no compatible user interface has to be loaded because the multiple devices that can connect to the device are always of the same kind, or a breath analysis device...” (see Applicant(s) argument, page 8, fourth paragraph).
The Examiner respectfully disagree for the following reason, first the fact that, even in a situation where the multiple devices that always connect are the same kind, the interface would always be correct because the instant application only calls for “displaying the correct compatible graphical user interface at the screen of the mobile device”, in other words, among in Ahmed, Neeley or the instant application, there wouldn’t be a situation where the wrong interface would be established to let the process be carried out in the system. In the instant case, there is no condition established how that correct or wrong graphical user interface at the screen of the mobile device is established. In fact, in all cases, whether there is one or more application interfaces are run on the paired device(s), only the correct application interface would allow the system to carry or implement, the intended function.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights