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
Claim 13 is new claim
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11 and 12 are amended
Claims 1 – 13 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 with respect to claims 1 – 13
have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The indicated objection of dependent claim 7 in the last Office Action as having allowable subject matter is withdrawn in view of its amendment and the newly discovered reference(s) to WO-2020250928-A1 (hereinafter Yamamoto). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto US Patent Application Publication No. US-20190394278-A1 (hereinafter Fujimoto) in view of Nagahiro Patent Application Publication No. JP-2019133259-A (hereinafter Nagahiro) and further in view of Ushiyama Patent Application Publication No. JP-2017163759-A (hereinafter Ushiyama).
Regarding claim 1, Fujimoto discloses an information processing method in an information processing device that supports installation of an apparatus in a facility, the information processing method comprising (Fujimoto in [0035] discloses, “Installation support using an equipment installation support system 1 that supports installation of such an air conditioner will be described, taking, as an example, support of installation of a plurality of pieces of equipment, namely, the plurality of indoor units 20 b, Wi-Fi access points 70 A and 70 B, and Wi-Fi units 80 A and 80 B illustrated in FIG. 12”): by a processor of the information processing device, acquiring identification information of the apparatus (Fujimoto in [0046] discloses, “The device ID is second identification information identifying a specific piece of equipment from the other pieces of equipment”); generating installation information including an installation screen on which the installation location is indicated on the acquired structural diagram, and the acquired installation procedure; outputting the installation information (Fujimoto in [0077] discloses, “When the installation worker inputs a device ID to the tablet terminal 90 by using the input device 97 while viewing the device ID ... numbers, the CPU 91 displays the setting position of the indoor unit 20 b on the display screen 95 by using the first installation information corresponding to the device ID. For example, the first installation information includes CAD information of the n-th floor in which the indoor unit 20 b is to be installed. The tablet terminal 90 displays on the display screen 95 a sketch of the n-th floor on which the indoor unit 20 b is marked using the CAD information”); and when detecting that an installation work of the apparatus has ended up to a first procedure, outputting connection confirmation information for performing a connection confirmation work for a wire connection of the apparatus (Fujimoto in [0077] discloses, “equipment installation support system 1 may further be configured such that the server 30 has an image recognition function and the tablet terminal 90 has a GPS function, such that an image captured by the camera 98 and the position of capturing the image are transmitted from the tablet terminal 90 to the server 30 to allow the server 30 to examine whether the indoor unit 20 b has been installed at the correct position by using the device information and the first installation information”), the connection confirmation information to be output when the apparatus is a wireless apparatus includes (Fujimoto in [0077] discloses, “When the installation worker inputs a device ID to the tablet terminal 90 by using the input device 97 while viewing the device ID ... numbers, the CPU 91 displays the setting position of the indoor unit 20 b on the display screen 95 by using the first installation information corresponding to the device ID”, wherein tablet is the wireless apparatus).
Fujimoto doesn’t disclose about the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
Nagahiro discloses acquiring association information associated with the acquired identification information from a memory, the association information including a structural diagram showing a structure of the facility (Nagahiro in [0022] discloses, ““The floor plan storage unit 21 stores a floor plan of the building”), an installation location of the apparatus in the facility, and an installation procedure of the apparatus (Fujimoto in [0023] discloses, “In the equipment table, the equipment information generated by associating the name indicating the installation location of each equipment in the building, the type of the equipment (hereinafter referred to as “equipment type”) and the identification number of the equipment is set”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Nagahiro into the system of Fujimoto because it will allow the user to have a clear visual for the installer to exactly where the apparatus need to be placed in the facility preventing misplacement error.
Fujimoto and Nagahiro in the combination doesn’t disclose about the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
Ushiyama discloses about information indicating that the connection confirmation work is unnecessary (Ushiyama in [Page – 10, Paragraph – 5] discloses, “the connection determination unit 101 determines that “connection is not required (with the field network 30). Is not required). As described above, the signal generation unit 104 does not generate a safety command because “the output permission signal has not been received and the connection determination unit 101 has determined that the connection is unnecessary”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Ushiyama into the system of Fujimoto in view of Nagahiro because it will reduce time and labor when installing an apparatus by skipping unnecessary confirmation steps.
Summary of Citations (Ushiyama)
[Page – 10, Paragraph – 5]; “the connection determination unit 101 determines that “connection is not required (with the field network 30). Is not required). As described above, the signal generation unit 104 does not generate a safety command because “the output permission signal has not been received and the connection determination unit 101 has determined that the connection is unnecessary”.
Summary of Citations (Fujimoto)
Paragraph [0035]; “Installation support using an equipment installation support system 1 that supports installation of such an air conditioner will be described, taking, as an example, support of installation of a plurality of pieces of equipment, namely, the plurality of indoor units 20 b, Wi-Fi access points 70 A and 70 B, and Wi-Fi units 80 A and 80 B illustrated in FIG. 12”.
Paragraph [0046]; “The device ID is second identification information identifying a specific piece of equipment from the other pieces of equipment”.
Paragraph [0077]; “When the installation worker inputs a device ID to the tablet terminal 90 by using the input device 97 while viewing the device ID ... numbers, the CPU 91 displays the setting position of the indoor unit 20 b on the display screen 95 by using the first installation information corresponding to the device ID. For example, the first installation information includes CAD information of the n-th floor in which the indoor unit 20 b is to be installed. The tablet terminal 90 displays on the display screen 95 a sketch of the n-th floor on which the indoor unit 20 b is marked using the CAD information ... equipment installation support system 1 may further be configured such that the server 30 has an image recognition function and the tablet terminal 90 has a GPS function, such that an image captured by the camera 98 and the position of capturing the image are transmitted from the tablet terminal 90 to the server 30 to allow the server 30 to examine whether the indoor unit 20 b has been installed at the correct position by using the device information and the first installation information”.
Summary of Citations (Nagahiro)
Paragraph [0022]; “The floor plan storage unit 21 stores a floor plan of the building”.
Paragraph [0023]; “In the equipment table, the equipment information generated by associating the name indicating the installation location of each equipment in the building, the type of the equipment (hereinafter referred to as “equipment type”) and the identification number of the equipment is set”.
Regarding claims 2 and 8 – 10, the grounds of rejection from the last Office Action
with respect to Fujimoto in view of Nagahiro further in view Ushiyama of apply here.
Regarding claim 11, is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim
corresponds to method claim 1. Therefore, the rejection analysis of claim 1 is applied in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, apparatus claim 12 corresponds to method claim 1. Therefore, the rejection analysis and motivation to combine of claim 1 is applicable to claim 12.
Claims 3 – 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto in view of Nagahiro and Ushiyama and further in view of Yamamoto Patent Application Publication No. WO-2020250928-A1 (hereinafter Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 3, Fujimoto in the combination discloses the information processing method according to claim 1.
Fujimoto, Nagahiro and Ushiyama in the combination doesn’t disclose about the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
Yamamoto discloses the connection confirmation work, when the apparatus is a wired apparatus, includes an imaging work of capturing an image of a wire connection of the apparatus with an imaging device (Yamamoto in [Page – 7, Last Paragraph] discloses, “After actually connecting the cable, the image pickup unit 101 of the terminal device 100 is used to capture an image of the tip of the cable and the port of the device after the connection work”), and the method further comprises acquiring a wire connection image captured in the imaging work (Yamamoto in [Page – 7, Last Paragraph] discloses, “The device identification unit 202 identifies the device (host name) from the image acquired via the network. On the other hand, the tip identification unit 203 identifies the tip of the cable from the image acquired via the network. Then, as shown in FIG. 21, the operator confirms that the cable is correctly connected according to the support information displayed on the instruction display unit 102”).
It would have been obvious to one with one having an ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Yamamoto into the system of Fujimoto in view of Nagahiro and Ushiyama because it would allow the system to use image to efficiently detect incorrect connection.
Summary of Citations (Yamamoto)
[Page – 7, Last Paragraph]; “After actually connecting the cable, the image pickup unit 101 of the terminal device 100 is used to capture an image of the tip of the cable and the port of the device after the connection work ... The device identification unit 202 identifies the device (host name) from the image acquired via the network. On the other hand, the tip identification unit 203 identifies the tip of the cable from the image acquired via the network. Then, as shown in FIG. 21, the operator confirms that the cable is correctly connected according to the support information displayed on the instruction display unit 102 ”.
Regarding claims 4 – 6, the grounds of rejection from the last Office Action
with respect to Fujimoto in view of Nagahiro further in view Ushiyama of apply here.
Regarding claim 7, Fujimoto in the combination discloses the information processing method according to claim 1.
Fujimoto, Nagahiro and Ushiyama in the combination doesn’t disclose about the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
Yamamoto discloses the memory stores in advance connection type information indicating whether the apparatus is a wired apparatus to be connected by a cable or the wireless apparatus not to be connected by the cable, the method further comprises determining whether the apparatus is the wired apparatus or the wireless apparatus based on the connection type information (Yamamoto in [Page – 5, Paragraph – 9] discloses, “The data storage unit 201 in the management server 200 stores the cable connection design information (cable accommodation list) L including the information in which the surface patterns on both ends of the cable are paired and the information in which the ports of the devices performing the connection work are paired”. The system disclosed in Yamamoto stores port connection information which implies to wired apparatus information and wireless apparatus would have no port connection or information about ports), and the connection confirmation information to be output when the apparatus is the wired apparatus includes information urging the connection confirmation work (Yamamoto in [Page – 7, Last Paragraph] discloses, “The device identification unit 202 identifies the device (host name) from the image acquired via the network. On the other hand, the tip identification unit 203 identifies the tip of the cable from the image acquired via the network. Then, as shown in FIG. 21, the operator confirms that the cable is correctly connected according to the support information displayed on the instruction display unit 102”).
Summary of Citations (Yamamoto)
[Page – 5, Paragraph – 9]; “The data storage unit 201 in the management server 200 stores the cable connection design information (cable accommodation list) L including the information in which the surface patterns on both ends of the cable are paired and the information in which the ports of the devices performing the connection work are paired”.
[Page – 7, Last Paragraph]; “After actually connecting the cable, the image pickup unit 101 of the terminal device 100 is used to capture an image of the tip of the cable and the port of the device after the connection work ... The device identification unit 202 identifies the device (host name) from the image acquired via the network. On the other hand, the tip identification unit 203 identifies the tip of the cable from the image acquired via the network. Then, as shown in FIG. 21, the operator confirms that the cable is correctly connected according to the support information displayed on the instruction display unit 102 ”.
Regarding claim 13, Fujimoto in the combination discloses about information processing device according to claim 12, wherein a processor of the information processing device performs the features of the acquisition unit, the generation unit, the first output unit, (Fujimoto in [0047] discloses, “The CPU 31 activates an installation database creation program 32 d stored in the memory 32 to construct the installation database 36 by using a building ID, a device ID, and installation information (step ST 8 )”.
Fujimoto, Nagahiro and Ushiyama in the combination doesn’t disclose about the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
Yamamoto discloses the second output (Yamamoto in [Page – 5, Paragraph – 3] discloses, “The CPU 210 executes a cable connection work support program executed by the management server 200”. Additionally, Yamamoto in [Page – 6, Paragraph – 4] discloses about connection confirmation, “The inspection unit 205 confirms the validity of the connection between the cable and the port from the image of the tip of the cable and the port of the device after the connection work”).
Summary of Citations (Yamamoto)
[Page – 5, Paragraph – 3]; “The CPU 210 executes a cable connection work support program executed by the management server 200”.
[Page – 6, Paragraph – 4]; “The inspection unit 205 confirms the validity of the connection between the cable and the port from the image of the tip of the cable and the port of the device after the connection work”.
Summary of Citations (Fujimoto)
Paragraph [0047]; “The CPU 31 activates an installation database creation program 32 d stored in the memory 32 to construct the installation database 36 by using a building ID, a device ID, and installation information (step ST 8 )”.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAID MUHAMMAD SALEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Vu Le can be reached on (571)272-7332. 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.
/ZAID MUHAMMAD SALEH/
Examiner, Art Unit 2668
01/23/2025
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668