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 .
This office action is in response to amendments filed February 5, 2026.
Claims 2, 13, 16, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “protocol include communication information specific to one or more communicating networks used by the actuator”; however, protocol including communication information specific to a communicating networks used by an actuator is not supported by the instant specification. Instead, paragraph [0037] supports a protocol including information specific to communication protocols and/or electrical connector interfaces used by an actuator “the protocol information 225 includes information related to various communication protocols and/or electrical connector interfaces that are known to be utilized by manufacturers of controllers 160 and actuators 140 a, 140 b”. As such, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claims 17-20, the claims depend upon parent claim 16 and do not address the written description requirement. As such, the claims are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
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 16-20 are 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 16, the claim recites “protocol include communication information specific to one or more communicating networks used by the actuator”; however, as noted above the limitation is not supported by the instant specification. It is unclear if the limitation should be interpreted as written or as supported. As such, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. For the purposes of examination the limitation is interpreted as “protocol include information specific to communication protocols and/or electrical connector interfaces used by the actuator”.
Regarding claims 17-20, the claims depend upon parent claim 16 and do not address the indefiniteness issue. As such, the claims are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fogarty et al. (US Publication 20200146440A1) in further view of Kostadinov (US Publication 20030056043A1) and Shimada (US Patent 6259706B1).
Regarding claim 1, Fogarty teaches a user interface for a height adjustable table, the user interface comprising:
a memory configured to store … an electronic processor configured to … generate a first instruction for a controller of the height adjustable table based on a first communication protocol … (workstation controller 140 includes a processor 148, memory 152 ... Workstation controller 140 may generate signals for output by drive control module 184, which emulate the original output protocol ... to OEM drive controller 116. This allows drive control module 184 to generate and send signal commands compatible with OEM drive controller 116)([0053] and [0062]).
Fogarty differs from the claim in that Fogarty fails to teach the memory stores protocol information for a plurality of communication protocols. However, storing a plurality of communication protocols in device memory for retrieval is taught by Kostadinov (After determining which communications protocol is being used, the processor 210 may select the communications protocol (e.g., from a number of communications protocols stored in the device's memory) to encode signals)([0051]). The examiner notes Fogarty and Kostadinov teach communicating and controlling between apparatuses. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user interface of Fogarty to include the storing of Kostadinov such that a plurality of communication protocols are stored in device memory. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of facilitating connection to devices ([0005]; Kostadinov).
The combination of Fogarty-Kostadinov differs from the claim in that Fogarty-Kostadinov fails to teach monitoring for a response to an instruction based on a communication protocol, determining whether the response is an expected response, generating a successive instruction using successive communication protocol when the response is not an expected response, monitoring for a successive response to the successive instruction, determining whether the successive response is an expected response, and continuously issuing subsequent instructions when the successive response is not an expected response.
However, monitoring for a response to an instruction based on a communication protocol, determining whether the response is an expected response, generating a successive instruction using successive communication protocol when the response is not an expected response, monitoring for a successive response to the successive instruction, determining whether the successive response is an expected response, and continuously issuing subsequent instructions when the successive response is not an expected response is taught by Shimada (FIG. 4 shows a flowchart representing operations carried out by the communication protocol identifying module 54 ... the flowchart begins with a step S2, at which a communication protocol identifying signal ... is transmitted ... The flow of the program 54 then goes on to a step S4 to form a judgment as to whether an ACK or NAK response is received ... At the step S6, the communication protocol identifying signal is retransmitted ... in accordance with another communication protocol. The flow of the program 54 then continues to a step S8 to form a judgment as to whether an ACK or NAK response is received ... If an ACK response is received ... the flow of the program 54 proceeds to the step S9 ... on the other hand, the flow of the program 54 returns to the step S6)(column 13 lines 66-67 and column 14 lines 2-47; Figure 4 – continually generating, monitoring, and determining communication protocol until an expected response is received is shown). The examiner notes Fogarty, Kostadinov, and Shimada teach communicating and controlling between apparatuses. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user interface of Fogarty-Kostadinov to include the generating, the monitoring, the determining, and the issuing of Shimada such that a response to a communication protocol is monitored, the response is determined if it’s an expected response, a successive instruction using successive communication protocol is generated when the response is not an expected response, a successive response to the successive instruction is monitored, the successive response is determined if it’s an expected response, and subsequent instructions are continuously issued when the successive response is not an expected response. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of simplifying a communication network (column 1 lines 60-65; Shimada).
Regarding claim 2, Fogarty-Kostadinov-Shimada teach the user interface of claim 1, wherein the electronic processor is further configured to control a motor to vary a height of the height adjustable table in response to receiving an expected response (Shimada - At the step S9, the communication protocol used for transmitting the communication protocol identifying signal, for which an ACK response was received)(column 14 lines 47-49; upon identification of a communication protocol an external apparatus (e.g., desk) is controlled).
Regarding claim 3, Fogarty-Kostadinov-Shimada teach the user interface of claim 1, wherein the expected response includes at least one of a group consisting of a predefined voltage value, a predefined current value, and an acknowledgment message (Shimada - the external monitoring apparatus 32 transmits an acknowledge response (ACK) to the external interface processing unit 30)(column 11 lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 4, Fogarty-Kostadinov-Shimada teach the user interface of claim 1, wherein the first instruction is an instruction associated with a Local Interconnect Network (LIN) protocol (Fogarty does not disclose expressly that the protocol is a Local Interconnect Network (LIN) protocol. Instead Fogarty indicates various types of protocols maybe used including SPI (communication may conform to one or more standard protocols (e.g. SPI, I2C, Bluetooth™, or IEEE™ 802.11))([0037]). At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a LIN protocol because the applicant has not discloses that utilizing a LIN protocol provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected Fogarty controlling, and applicant's invention, to perform equally well with either the protocols taught by Fogarty or the claimed LIN protocol because all protocols would perform the same function of controlling devices equally well considering a device is controlled based on user instructions and not protocols. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Fogarty to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Fogarty).
Regarding claim 5, Fogarty-Kostadinov-Shimada teach the user interface of claim 1, wherein the generated instructions are associated with an electrical connector coupling the user interface to the controller (Fogarty – drive control module 184 may include one or more data cable connectors (e.g. RJ45 ports 224 8 and 224 9 in FIG. 7) for making a wired connection between drive control module 184 and OEM drive controller(s))([0062]; a RJ45 port is a type of electrical connection).
Regarding claim 6, Fogarty-Kostadinov-Shimada teach the user interface of claim 5, wherein the electrical connector is one of a DIN connector, an RJ-45 connector, and a four-pin square connector (Fogarty – drive control module 184 may include one or more data cable connectors (e.g. RJ45 ports 224 8 and 224 9 in FIG. 7) for making a wired connection between drive control module 184 and OEM drive controller(s))([0062]).
Regarding claim 7, Fogarty-Kostadinov-Shimada teach the user interface of claim 6, wherein the user interface is coupled to the controller via a universal connector (Fogarty – drive control module 184 may include one or more data cable connectors (e.g. RJ45 ports 224 8 and 224 9 in FIG. 7) for making a wired connection between drive control module 184 and OEM drive controller(s))([0062]; a RJ45 port is a type of universal connector).
Regarding claim 8, Fogarty teaches a method for controlling a height adjustable workstation, comprising:
receiving, at an electronic processor … generating a first instruction for a controller of the height adjustable workstation based on a first communication protocol … controlling a motor of the height adjustable workstation … (workstation controller 140 includes a processor 148, memory 152 ... Workstation controller 140 may generate signals for output by drive control module 184, which emulate the original output protocol ... to OEM drive controller 116. This allows drive control module 184 to generate and send signal commands compatible with OEM drive controller 116)([0053] and [0062]).
Fogarty differs from the claim in that Fogarty fails to teach the memory stores protocol information for a plurality of communication protocols. However, storing a plurality of communication protocols in device memory for retrieval is taught by Kostadinov (After determining which communications protocol is being used, the processor 210 may select the communications protocol (e.g., from a number of communications protocols stored in the device's memory) to encode signals)([0051]). The examiner notes Fogarty and Kostadinov teach communicating and controlling between apparatuses. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fogarty to include the storing of Kostadinov such that a plurality of communication protocols are stored in device memory. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of facilitating connection to devices ([0005]; Kostadinov).
The combination of Fogarty-Kostadinov differs from the claim in that Fogarty-Kostadinov fails to teach monitoring for a response to an instruction based on a communication protocol and determining whether the response is an expected response. However, monitoring for a response to an instruction based on a communication protocol and determining whether the response is an expected response is taught by Shimada (FIG. 4 shows a flowchart representing operations carried out by the communication protocol identifying module 54 ... the flowchart begins with a step S2, at which a communication protocol identifying signal ... is transmitted ... The flow of the program 54 then goes on to a step S4 to form a judgment as to whether an ACK or NAK response is received ... At the step S6, the communication protocol identifying signal is retransmitted ... in accordance with another communication protocol. The flow of the program 54 then continues to a step S8 to form a judgment as to whether an ACK or NAK response is received ... If an ACK response is received ... the flow of the program 54 proceeds to the step S9 ... on the other hand, the flow of the program 54 returns to the step S6)(column 13 lines 66-67 and column 14 lines 2-47; Figure 4 - monitoring and determining communication protocol for an expected response is shown). The examiner notes Fogarty, Kostadinov, and Shimada teach communicating and controlling between apparatuses. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fogarty-Kostadinov to include the monitoring and the determining of Shimada such that a response to a communication protocol is monitored and the response is determined if it’s an expected response. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of simplifying a communication network (column 1 lines 60-65; Shimada).
Regarding claim 9, Fogarty-Kostadinov-Shimada teach the method of claim 8, further comprising:
generating, at the electronic processor, a second instruction for the controller based on a second communication protocol of the plurality of communication protocols stored in the protocol information in response to the first response being determined to not be the expected response; monitoring, at the electronic processor, for a second response from the controller; determining, by the electronic processor, whether the second response is the expected response based on the second instruction (Shimada - FIG. 4 shows a flowchart representing operations carried out by the communication protocol identifying module 54 ... the flowchart begins with a step S2, at which a communication protocol identifying signal ... is transmitted ... The flow of the program 54 then goes on to a step S4 to form a judgment as to whether an ACK or NAK response is received ... At the step S6, the communication protocol identifying signal is retransmitted ... in accordance with another communication protocol. The flow of the program 54 then continues to a step S8 to form a judgment as to whether an ACK or NAK response is received ... If an ACK response is received ... the flow of the program 54 proceeds to the step S9 ... on the other hand, the flow of the program 54 returns to the step S6)(column 13 lines 66-67 and column 14 lines 2-47; Figure 4 – generating, monitoring, and determining a successive response using a successive communication protocol is shown); and
controlling, via the electronic processor, the motor of the height adjustable workstation based on the second response being determined to be the expected response (Shimada - At the step S9, the communication protocol used for transmitting the communication protocol identifying signal, for which an ACK response was received)(column 14 lines 47-49; upon identification of a communication protocol an external apparatus (e.g., desk) is controlled).
Regarding claim 10, Fogarty-Kostadinov-Shimada teach the method of claim 9, further comprising issuing, by the electronic processor, subsequent instructions in response to the second response being determined to not be an expected response until an expected response is received (Shimada - If an ACK response is received ... the flow of the program 54 proceeds to the step S9 ... on the other hand, the flow of the program 54 returns to the step S6)(column 14 lines 42-47; Figure 4 – continually generating, monitoring, and determining communication protocol until an expected response is received is shown).
Regarding claim 11, Fogarty-Kostadinov-Shimada teach the method of claim 8, wherein the expected response includes at least one of a group consisting of a predefined voltage value, a predefined current value, and an acknowledgment message (Shimada - the external monitoring apparatus 32 transmits an acknowledge response (ACK) to the external interface processing unit 30)(column 11 lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 12, Fogarty-Kostadinov-Shimada teach the method of claim 8, wherein the first instruction is a Local Interconnect Network (LIN) based instruction (Fogarty does not disclose expressly that the protocol is a Local Interconnect Network (LIN) protocol. Instead Fogarty indicates various types of protocols maybe used including SPI (communication may conform to one or more standard protocols (e.g. SPI, I2C, Bluetooth™, or IEEE™ 802.11))([0037]). At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a LIN protocol because the applicant has not discloses that utilizing a LIN protocol provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected Fogarty controlling, and applicant's invention, to perform equally well with either the protocols taught by Fogarty or the claimed LIN protocol because all protocols would perform the same function of controlling devices equally well considering a device is controlled based on user instructions and not protocols. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Fogarty to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Fogarty).
Regarding claim 13, Fogarty-Kostadinov-Shimada teach the method of claim 8, wherein the generated instructions are associated with an electrical connector coupling the user interface to the controller (Fogarty – drive control module 184 may include one or more data cable connectors (e.g. RJ45 ports 224 8 and 224 9 in FIG. 7) for making a wired connection between drive control module 184 and OEM drive controller(s))([0062]; a RJ45 port is a type of electrical connection).
Regarding claim 14, Fogarty-Kostadinov-Shimada teach the method of claim 13, wherein the electrical connector is one of a DIN connector, an RJ-45 connector, and a four-pin square connector (Fogarty – drive control module 184 may include one or more data cable connectors (e.g. RJ45 ports 224 8 and 224 9 in FIG. 7) for making a wired connection between drive control module 184 and OEM drive controller(s))([0062]).
Regarding claim 15, Fogarty-Kostadinov-Shimada teach the method of claim 14, wherein the user interface is coupled to the controller via a universal connector (Fogarty – drive control module 184 may include one or more data cable connectors (e.g. RJ45 ports 224 8 and 224 9 in FIG. 7) for making a wired connection between drive control module 184 and OEM drive controller(s))([0062]; a RJ45 port is a type of universal connector).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of applicant's remarks, filed February 5, 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections of claims 2, 13-15, and 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11 of applicant's remarks, filed February 5, 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 16-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 16-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-10, filed February 5, 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, applicant argues the combination of Fogarty, Kostadinov, and Shimada is improper; the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that Shimada is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this case, Fogarty is in the field of communication and control between apparatuses. Specifically, Fogarty discloses communication and control between a workstation and drives “FIG. 4 is a schematic illustration of a workstation controller communicatively coupled to drive controllers and drive actuators” ([0009]).
Kostadinov similarly is in the field of communication and control between apparatuses. Specifically, Kostadinov disclose communication and control between a master unit and devices “The system bus is a two-way, digital communications medium that connects the devices to a master unit. The master unit may supervise or control the devices connected to the system bus … The master unit may include a communication interface that operates according to a specific communications protocol” ([0003] and [0004]).
Shimada similarly is in the field of communication and control between apparatuses. Specifically, Shimada discloses communication and control between a first and a second apparatus “a communication controlling apparatus 6 is provided between a first apparatus 2 on a transmitting side ... to a second apparatus 4 on a receiving side” (column 3 lines 61-65).
Because Fogarty, Kostadinov, and Shimada are all within the same field of the inventor’s endeavor (i.e., communication and control between apparatuses), Shimada is analogous art.
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Fogarty, Kostadinov, and Shimada teach communicating and controlling between apparatuses. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fogarty-Kostadinov to include the monitoring and the determining of Shimada such that a response to a communication protocol is monitored and the response is determined if it’s an expected response. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of simplifying a communication network (column 1 lines 60-65; Shimada).
The examiner notes MPEP 2145 states teaching away requires “rendering the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purposed or change the principle of operation of a reference”. Although Fogarty discloses a workstation controller replacing OEM controls and interfacing directly with drives even if components are changed (i.e., plug and play) “workstation controller 140 may provide a replacement for OEM user operable controls 120, and that may interface with the OEM drive controller(s) 116 to augment workstation 100 with enhanced or additional functionality ... workstation controller 140 is provided as an upgrade for pre-existing workstations, and a compatible drive controller is included with workstation controller 140 (i.e. to replace the OEM drive controller of the workstation” ([0050] and [0101]), Fogarty does not disclose discovering an appropriate communication protocol.
Shimada improves on Fogarty by discovering an appropriate communication protocol. Specifically, Shimada monitors for a response to an instruction based on a communication protocol and determines whether the response is an expected response “FIG. 4 shows a flowchart representing operations carried out by the communication protocol identifying module 54 ... the flowchart begins with a step S2, at which a communication protocol identifying signal ... is transmitted ... The flow of the program 54 then goes on to a step S4 to form a judgment as to whether an ACK or NAK response is received ... At the step S6, the communication protocol identifying signal is retransmitted ... in accordance with another communication protocol. The flow of the program 54 then continues to a step S8 to form a judgment as to whether an ACK or NAK response is received ... If an ACK response is received ... the flow of the program 54 proceeds to the step S9 ... on the other hand, the flow of the program 54 returns to the step S6” (column 13 lines 66-67 and column 14 lines 2-47).
Shimada does not teach away, as it does not render Fogarty unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or change its principle of operation.
Regarding claim 8, applicant argues the combination of Fogarty, Kostadinov, and Shimada fails to teach “controlling a motor of the height adjustable workstation based on the first response being determined to be the expected response”; the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Fogarty discloses controlling a motor of a height adjustable workstation “workstation controller 140 includes a processor 148, memory 152 ... Workstation controller 140 may generate signals for output by drive control module 184, which emulate the original output protocol ... to OEM drive controller 116. This allows drive control module 184 to generate and send signal commands compatible with OEM drive controller 116 … Processor 148 may determine the targeted actuator movements (e.g. to raise or lower tabletop 104 (FIG. 1) by a certain distance or to a certain height” ([0053], [0062], and [0063]).
Shimada discloses monitoring for a response to an instruction based on a communication protocol and determining whether the response is an expected response “FIG. 4 shows a flowchart representing operations carried out by the communication protocol identifying module 54 ... the flowchart begins with a step S2, at which a communication protocol identifying signal ... is transmitted ... The flow of the program 54 then goes on to a step S4 to form a judgment as to whether an ACK or NAK response is received ... At the step S6, the communication protocol identifying signal is retransmitted ... in accordance with another communication protocol. The flow of the program 54 then continues to a step S8 to form a judgment as to whether an ACK or NAK response is received ... If an ACK response is received ... the flow of the program 54 proceeds to the step S9 ... on the other hand, the flow of the program 54 returns to the step S6” (column 13 lines 66-67 and column 14 lines 2-47). In particular, Shimada uses the monitoring and the determining to control a device (i.e., once an appropriate protocol is identified a device is controlled) “the external interface processing unit 30 receives a control command from the external monitoring apparatus 32 and, if necessary, converts the control command into a command conforming to the communication protocol adopted by the communication apparatus 20 before passing on the command to the control processing unit 28” (column 9 lines 11-16).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Fogarty, Kostadinov, and Shimada teach communicating and controlling between apparatuses. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fogarty-Kostadinov to include the monitoring and the determining of Shimada such that a response to a communication protocol is monitored and the response is determined if it’s an expected response. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of simplifying a communication network (column 1 lines 60-65; Shimada).
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 Yongjia Pan whose telephone number is (571)270-1177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/YONGJIA PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights