DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 1-4 boxes must be grammarly described, not just numerically, for better understanding of the invention. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of implied phrases. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The use of the terms BLUETOOTH and WIBREE, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the “or” language, the condition would also not occur and the step or function claimed would never be realized, hence the claim does not require to perform the step or function. See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, at 4-5 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2011, 2011 WL 1211248 at 2 (BPAI Mar. 25, 2011); see also In re Johnston, 435 f.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006)("optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted”). “Or” conditions are not limitations against which prior art must be found. Under the broadest scenario, the steps or functions dependent on the “or” condition would not be invoked, and such, the Examiner is not required to find these limitations in the prior art in order to render the claim anticipated. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 f.3d 1359, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim. Generally, the preamble does not limit the claims. The preamble is ordinarily seen as an introductory phrase to set the stage, but not actually spelling out or defining any of the actual elements of the invention. The transition phrase – most commonly “comprising” — signals that the body is coming next. Finally, the body itself is the heart of a patent claim because it spells out the scope of the invention – its metes and bounds. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 (CCPA 1976).
It has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use or not the use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeiffer, 1962 C.D. 408 (1961).
In the context of patent claims, "at least one of A and B" generally means "at least one of A and at least one of B," requiring the presence of at least one of each element, not just one or the other. Ex parte Jung, 2016-008290 PTAB Mar. 22, 2017 and SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
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 22-39 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.
The terms “high a level” and “as possible” in the independent claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “high a level” and “as possible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Also, the "such that" clause is indefinite since it relies on subjective or relative terms without providing clear guidance on how to measure them.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 22-24, 27, 30, 31, 32, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental process and a abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) define a set of devices for a device management action, store a location of each one of the devices, each location being defined in terms of network hierarchy, each location comprising a network identifier of the device in at least three levels of the network hierarchy, and perform the device management action on each device in the set in an order selected based on the location such that consecutive ones of the devices in the order are separated at as high a level of the network hierarchy as possible. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these functions can be done by a human with just a pencil and paper. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitation of such generic component (processing core, at least one memory including computer program code) is insufficient to transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. These are mental process steps which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, or general purpose computer and the recitation of performing by execution of a computer program does not transform the recited abstract idea into a patentable invention. See Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd.v. CLS Bank lnt 'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014), Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371-1372(Fed. Cir. 2011), Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1304 (2012), Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1347 (2015), As the Court stated in Alice, "if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to 'implemen[t]' an abstract idea 'on a computer,' that addition cannot impart patent eligibility." 134 S. Ct. 2358. Also in Vehicle Intelligence v. Mercedes-Benz (Fed. Cir. 2015), the court also notes that being “tied to particular machines” is not “sufficient to confer eligibility.” Claims 23, 24, 27, 31, 32, 35 is nothing more than description of data and/or generic components.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 37 as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0226732 (Kim, et al).
The claims are confusing, perplexing and poorly written. The Examiner will try to apply art to these baffling claims.
Kim, et al discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processing core, at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processing core (¶85-87), cause the apparatus at least to define a set of devices for a device management action (¶85-88). Store a location of each one of the devices, each location being defined in terms of network hierarchy, each location comprising a network identifier of the device in at least three levels of the network hierarchy (figures 1, 13, #102, 104, 1304 ¶264-266, 724-726) and perform the device management action on each device in the set in an order selected based on the location such that consecutive ones of the devices in the order are separated at as high a level of the network hierarchy as possible (figure 62, #6206, 6208, ¶732-735).
Regarding claims 23 and 31. note figures 1, 22, #110, 112, 2216, Abstract, ¶111-113, 296-298.
Regarding claim 26 and claim 34, note ¶4, 7-10, 27-30.
Regarding claims 28 and 36, note figures 4 and 12, ¶110,139,212, etc.
Regarding claim 29 and 37, note ¶216, 237, 300, etc.
Regarding claim 30, Kim, et al teaches a method comprising defining a set of devices for a device management action (¶85-88). Storing a location of each one of the devices, each location being defined in terms of network hierarchy, each location comprising a network identifier of the device in at least three levels of the network hierarchy (figures 1, 13, #102, 104, 1304 ¶264-266, 724-726) and performing the device management action on each device in the set in an order selected based on the location such that consecutive ones of the devices in the order are separated at as high a level of the network hierarchy as possible (figure 62, #6206, 6208, ¶732-735).
Regarding claim 38, Kim, et al discloses a system comprising an apparatus and an internet of things, IoT, device, wherein the IoT device is configured to transmit to the apparatus a request concerning whether the apparatus has a device management action pending for the IoT device, and responsive to the request the apparatus is configured to inform the IoT device concerning a device management action to be triggered for the IoT device (Abstract, figure 1, ¶88, 92, 97, etc.). The apparatus comprising at least one processing core, at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the apparatus (¶85-87), cause the apparatus at least to define a set of devices for a device management action (¶85-88). Store a location of each one of the devices, each location being defined in terms of network hierarchy, each location comprising a network identifier of the device in at least three levels of the network hierarchy (figures 1, 13, #102, 104, 1304 ¶264-266, 724-726) and perform the device management action on each device in the set in an order selected based on the location such that consecutive ones of the devices in the order are separated at as high a level of the network hierarchy as possible (figure 62, #6206, 6208, ¶732-735).
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 24, 27, 32, 35, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0226732 (Kim, et al) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0107226 (Raleigh, et al).
Kim, et al discloses all subject matter, note the above paragraphs, except for the location comprises a sector identifier as a fifth-highest level of network hierarchy. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. In this case, the arranging a hierarchy of group or sorting information, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The basic technique of putting indicia on data to enable standard sorting, searching, and reporting yielded no more than the predictable outcome which one of ordinary skill would have expected to achieve with this common tool of the trade and was therefore an obvious expedient. The Court held that “[t]he gap between the prior art and respondent’s system is simply not so great as to render the system nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art.” Id. Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976). Also, Raligh, et al teaches the use of location comprises a sector identifier as a level of network hierarchy for the purpose of deeply manage the level of services delivered to networked devices to provide cost-effective services that match growing digital networking usage patterns, note figure 2, #200, ¶371-373, 380-382. Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use of location comprises a sector identifier as a level of network hierarchy for the purpose of deeply manage the level of services delivered to networked devices to provide cost-effective services that match growing digital networking usage patterns, as taught by Raligh, et al, in the apparatus and method of Kim, et al in order to customize service offerings for new applications that requires more efficient methods for defining, testing and launching new services with more refined control of service functions and service costs.
Regarding claims 27 and 35, note figures 10, 12, ¶65, 69, 144-145, etc in Raligh, et al. Also note paragraph 11 above.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claim(s) 25 and 33, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0226732 (Kim, et al) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0383127 (Zhu, et al).
Kim, et al discloses all subject matter, note the above paragraphs, except for obtaining the locations of the devices in the set from a network exposure function, NEF, or a service capability exposure function, SCEF. Zhu, et al teaches the use of obtaining the locations of the devices in the set from a network exposure function, NEF, or a service capability exposure function, SCEF for the purpose of adjusting, a traffic pattern associated with application traffic to be transmitted to the UE, note paragraphs 53-62. Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use of obtaining the locations of the devices in the set from a network exposure function, NEF, or a service capability exposure function, SCEF for the purpose of adjusting, a traffic pattern associated with application traffic to be transmitted to the apparatus of Kim, et al in order to have synchronization signals can be generated with location encoding to convey additional information.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Conclusion
If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant's representative.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm.
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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
WILLIAM D. CUMMING
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2645
/WILLIAM D CUMMING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights