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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. The amended claim language overcomes the previously pending rejections made under 35 USC 103. However, the amendments also introduce issues regarding claim scope and clarity, necessitating rejections under 35 USC 112. Further analysis is provided in the analysis presented below.
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 1 – 7 and 9 – 11 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 1, lines 1 – 3 on page 1 has been amended to recite:
“an information processing apparatus capable of being connected to a monitoring apparatus via a first network serving as a LAN (Local Area Network), configured for the purpose of transmitting. . . ” (emphasis added).Claim 1 thus recites a processing apparatus, a monitoring apparatus, and a LAN before noting the “configured for the purpose of transmitting” language. It is unclear which of these three items the “configured for the purpose of transmitting” is intended to modify; i.e., is the processing apparatus “configured for the purpose of transmitting”, the monitoring apparatus, or the LAN? Or are all three? The lack of a clear association between the “configured for” language and the three preceding recitations (the two apparatus and the LAN) renders the scope unclear and indefinite.
Claim 1 continues to recite on lines 3 – 5: “transmitting operation information to a management server via the first network and a second network that is different from and the first network in accordance with monitoring by the monitoring apparatus”.It is unclear what of the preceding language the “in accordance with monitoring” is intended to modify. For example, are the first and second networks different “in accordance with monitoring”? Is the transmitting step made via the first and second networks performed “in accordance with monitoring”? Or is the “operation information” itself “in accordance with monitoring” (i.e., created, or otherwise based on the monitoring)? The ambiguous nature of this language renders it unclear and indefinite. Further regarding claim 1, line 8 on page 1 has been amended to recite the language “receive collectively . . . identification information . . ., a registration code . . ., and environment type information”. The common English-language meaning of “receive collectively” implies reception of an item or items by a group rather than, e.g., by an induvial. However, claim 1 is recited to a singular “information processing apparatus”, and thus there is no “collective” that could correspond to the receiver required by the recitation in line 8. One possible interpretation of line 8 could be that the “identification information, registration code, and environment type information” are received as a together in a singular transmission. While this “receiving three items together” interpretation appears more logical than the singular “information processing apparatus” receiving something where the singular apparatus acts as a “collective”, this “three items together” interpretation conflicts with the standard grammatical practices in English. The lack of a clear and logical interpretation that is consistent with the rest of claim 1 raises questions regarding the intended scope of the recitation in line 8, and renders the claim as a whole unclear and indefinite. Additionally regarding claim 1, said claim recites on page 2 the newly added language: “wherein the identification information, the registration code, and the environment type information, based on detection performed by the monitoring apparatus in response to commencement of registration processing of the information processing apparatus for the management server, is collectively notified by the monitoring apparatus to the information processing apparatus after detection” (emphasis added).
The “is collectively notified” implies that each of the three above information/items (identification information, registration code, environment type information) as a whole are notified. This language is ungrammatical, unclear, and indefinite. These three information/data items are not recited in such a way that their either each individually or as a collective whole may act as the recipient of a notification, as they are effectively three labeled data items which appear incapable of being “notified” in the manner claimed. Claim 1 continues on page 2 to recite “is collectively notified by the monitoring apparatus to the information processing apparatus” (emphasis added). This language is also ungrammatical, unclear and indefinite. “Notified . . . to the information processing apparatus” is non-standard English and prevents formation of a clear and logical interpretation required to provide an understanding of the intended scope of this clause, and thus its impact on the scope of the claim as a whole. Further regarding claim 1, said claim recites on page 2 “based on detection performed by the monitoring apparatus”. This language effectively claims an action performed “based on” a detection step; however, there is no antecedent basis for the claimed “detection”. Acting “based on” an unclaimed, unspecified step absent any context regarding when, where, how, regarding what, etc., said step is performed is unclear and indefinite. The lack of any clear relationship or any context regarding the implied by unspecified “detection performed” step results in an unclear and indefinite recitation and claim. Claim 1 additional recites, continuing on page 2, that the above “detection” is “in response to commencement of registration processing”. Acting in response to an action (in this case, registration processing) requires a clear and definitive specification of the claimed action. In other words, a claim cannot clearly specify responding to an action without clearly defining said action. “Commencement of registration processing” lacks antecedent basis in the claim, and thus there is no mechanism to which an action performed in response to said processing can be clearly and definitively interpreted. This recitation itself is thus unclear and indefinite. Regarding claims 2 – 7 and 9, each of said claims depends on claim 1 and fails to clarify the issues noted above. Claims 2 – 7 and 9 thus inherit the deficiencies of their parent claim. Regarding claims 10 and 11, said claims each recite language analogous to the language addressed above (appearing in claim 1) and thus suffer for issues corresponding to those addressed above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M MACILWINEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at (571) 272 - 3949. 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.
/JOHN M MACILWINEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights