DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed October 6, 2023 via preliminary amendment. Claims 1-10 are currently pending, of which claims 1-5 are currently amended. Claims 6-10 are newly presented. Specification 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. Examiner encourages capturing the cursor movements/positioning or other language of that purported inventive nature. Drawings The drawings are objected to because Fig. 5 is blurry and difficult to understand. The content of the images is illegible and it is unclear if these are screenshots or photographs. 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. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “acquisition unit”, “processing unit”, “storage unit”, “sequence processing unit”, “key signal generation unit”, “pointer signal generation unit”, and “control sequence update unit” in claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-10 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. C laim 2 recites “a minute amount of movement”, and the term “minute” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ minute ” 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. Claim 3 recites “repeating a minute amount of movement”, and, as discussed above, the term “minute” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ minute ” 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. Moreover, there are antecedent issues with “a minute amount” because the claim depends from claim 2 which also introduces “a minute amount”. Therefore, it is unclear if this is meant to be the same amount or a different amount as introduced in claim 2. Claim 4 recites “an external sensor in the vicinity of the main body” and the term “vicinity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “vicinity” 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. The level of proximity to the main body is never discussed or disclosed. This goes beyond a mere broad interpretation. Claims 6 and 7 recite similar language and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Claim limitation s “sequence processing unit”, “key signal generation unit”, “pointer signal generation unit”, and “control sequence update unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Each of these “units” are broadly part of an automatic control unit 201 (See Specification Fig. 3). However, it is unclear what the structure of these units actually is/are. It is unclear if this these units are hardware, software, or a combination of both. Applicant appears to be claiming anything and everything. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claims 5, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected based on their dependency from an above-rejected claim. Examiner’s Note The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(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) 1, 4, 5, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0344937) . As per claim 1 , Hu teaches a control device connected to a control unit of a computer as an external device in order to automate at least a part of a task in the computer mounted in a device, in which the device includes a main body and the computer, and the computer includes key input and a user interface (UI), the control device comprising : an acquisition unit that acquires a signal of the UI transmitted from the computer (See Hu paras. [0022] and [0048-49]: recorder that can obtain screenshots that are rendered on client device); a processing unit that processes the signal of the UI acquired by the acquisition unit (See Hu paras. [0047-49]: client device can include a remote access agent, where the building management system (BMS) can be interacted with to control a parameter or operation. This includes the data captured by the recorder and can utilize a processor when generating a script to respond to events ); a storage unit that stores a control sequence defining a sequence for controlling the main body of the device (See Hu paras. [0052] and [0103]: data repository to store the scripts and data associated therewith, where a sequence(s) of commands is/are defined by the script and can be adjusted by parameters); a sequence processing unit that generates a control signal from the signal of the UI processed by the processing unit and the control sequence stored in the storage unit (See Hu paras. [0076]: script library can include GUI interactions and locations for inputs); and a key signal generation unit that transmits the control signal generated by the sequence processing unit as a key signal (See Hu para. [0077-79]: script generator can execute sequence of interactions within the BMS interface), wherein processing the signal of the UI includes identifying a keyword in the UI, and generation of the control signal includes generation of the key signal for controlling the main body of the device based on the keyword identified as the control sequence (See Hu paras. [0071-72] and [0076-78]: “ instructions can include invoking a terminal on the client device 130 and inputting a path and filename for the BMS interface 138, triggering a shortcut or command to launch the BMS interface 138, or selecting an icon for the BMS located on the desktop or in a menu or toolbar. The script can use an image pattern of the icon to determine the location of the icon. Upon launching or otherwise invoking the BMS interface 138, the script can execute the sequence of interactions with the BMS interface 138 ” ; para. [0105]: optical character recognition can be used to parse the information on the screen via the remote interface , which would be used to identify the path/filename/desktop icons captured above ). As per claim 4 , Hu further teaches the control device according to claim 1, further comprising a control sequence update unit that changes the control sequence stored in the storage unit based on data of an external factor monitored by an external sensor in the vicinity of the main body of the device (See Hu paras. [0004] and [0060-63]: sensors externally from the devices, including “ occupancy sensor, temperature sensor, humidity sensor, actuator sensor, or fan speed sensor. ”; Fig. 6 and paras. [0029], [0071], and [0142-146] script can be selected responsive to a particular event trigger as well as configured in response to the events determined by the sensors) . As per claim 5 , Hu further teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to be controlled from an external terminal via a network (See Hu Fig. 1 and paras. [0022] and [0029-31]: remote access over network to control on-site client device) . As per claim 10 , Hu further teaches the control device according to claim 4, wherein the control device is configured to be controlled from an external terminal via a network (See Hu Fig. 1 and paras. [0022] and [0029-31]: remote access over network to control on-site client device) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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. Claim(s) 2, 3, and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu as applied above, and further in view of Ramamurthy et al. (U.S. 2019 / 0324781 ; hereinafter “Ramamurthy”). As per claim 2 , Hu further teaches t he control device according to claim 1, wherein the computer further includes pointer input , the UI includes a graphical user interface (GUI), acquisition of the signals of the UI includes acquiring image signals of the GUI, and processing of the signals of the UI includes processing the image signals of the GUI (See Hu paras. [0027] and [0075-78]: capturing user interface elements using image capturing, like screenshots ) , the control device further includes a pointer signal generation unit that transmits the control signal generated by the sequence processing unit as a pointer signal, the processing of the image signal further includes identifying a position of a mouse pointer in the GUI, generation of the control signal further includes generating the pointer signal for controlling the main body of the device based on a position of the mouse pointer identified as the control sequence (See Hu paras. [0075-76] and [0148]: “s cript can be configured to determine the location by comparing a current screenshot of the BMS interface 138 or current state of the foreground applications presented on the client device 130, and comparing that current state with a predetermined state based on recorded screenshots .” This includes being used to control mouse cursor to identify a location to enter the appropriate input). However, while Hu teaches comparing interface screenshots (See Hu para. [0076]), Hu does not explicitly teach repeated minute cursor movements. Ramamurthy teaches identification of the position of the mouse pointer includes calculating a difference image from images before and after a minute amount of movement of the mouse pointer in the GUI (See Ramamurthy Fig. 9A and paras. [0054-55]: “ captures screenshots of application interface every 0.5 seconds (configurable interval), (ii) Comparing the currently captured image with the image that was captured during the previous timer interval, (iii) Finding the differences between the two images ” ) . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the mouse inputs and screenshots of Hu with the cursor movements of Ramamurthy . One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose capturing mouse movements and Ramamurthy enhances the movements of Hu by further saving a human operator time, ensuring repetitive steps are handled efficiently with less errors, while also ensuring the variations are accurately represented and addressed (See Ramamurthy paras. [000 2] and [0 0 22 ]) . As per claim 3 , Hu further teaches t he control device according to claim 2, wherein the key signal and the pointer signal are generated when a position of the identified mouse pointer is at a desired position (See H u paras. [0075-76] and [0148]: “s cript can be configured to determine the location by comparing a current screenshot of the BMS interface 138 or current state of the foreground applications presented on the client device 130, and comparing that current state with a predetermined state based on recorded screenshots .” This includes being used to control mouse cursor to identify a location to enter the appropriate input). However, while Hu teaches current screenshots comparisons, Hu does not repeatedly calculate pointer differences. Ramamurthy further teaches that the position of Hu generates the key signal by repeating a minute amount of movement of the mouse pointer and calculation of the difference image ( See Ramamurthy Fig. 9A and paras. [0054-55]: “ captures screenshots of application interface every 0.5 seconds (configurable interval), (ii) Comparing the currently captured image with the image that was captured during the previous timer interval, (iii) Finding the differences between the two images ” ) . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Hu with the teachings of Ramamurthy for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 2 . As per claim 6 , Hu/ Ramamurthy further teaches The control device according to claim 2, further comprising a control sequence update unit that changes the control sequence stored in the storage unit based on data of an external factor monitored by an external sensor in the vicinity of the main body of the device (See Hu paras. [0004] and [0060-63]: sensors externally from the devices, including “ occupancy sensor, temperature sensor, humidity sensor, actuator sensor, or fan speed sensor. ”; Fig. 6 and paras. [0029], [0071], and [0142-146] script can be selected responsive to a particular event trigger as well as configured in response to the events determined by the sensors) . As per claim 7 , Hu/ Ramamurthy further teaches t he control device according to claim 3, further comprising a control sequence update unit that changes the control sequence stored in the storage unit based on data of an external factor monitored by an external sensor in the vicinity of the main body of the device (See Hu paras. [0004] and [0060-63]: sensors externally from the devices, including “ occupancy sensor, temperature sensor, humidity sensor, actuator sensor, or fan speed sensor. ”; Fig. 6 and paras. [0029], [0071], and [0142-146] script can be selected responsive to a particular event trigger as well as configured in response to the events determined by the sensors) . As per claim 8 , Hu/ Ramamurthy further teaches t he control device according to claim 2, wherein the control device is configured to be controlled from an external terminal via a network (See Hu Fig. 1 and paras. [0022] and [0029-31]: remote access over network to control on-site client device) . As per claim 9 , Hu/ Ramamurthy further teaches t he control device according to claim 3, wherein the control device is configured to be controlled from an external terminal via a network (See Hu Fig. 1 and paras. [0022] and [0029-31]: remote access over network to control on-site client device) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cheng (U.S. 2017/0322637) discloses capturing screenshots of application interfaces and comparing the differences to acquire cursor position changes, as well as repeatedly performing capture and replay verification of the cursor movements (See Cheng claim 2 and paras. [0039-42] and [0057] ); and Bataller et al. (U.S. 2017/0001308) discloses obtaining images from a display to identify activities associated with a particular process. This would then generate a process definition for use in a robot to automatically perform the process (See Bataller Fig. 3 and paras. [0054-59]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5889 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Scott Baderman can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /NICHOLAS KLICOS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118