DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to Application 18/659861 filed on 1/14/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) complies with 37 CFR 1.97 provisions. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS.
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 limitations are:
Claim 1 limitation “construction portion” because the limitation uses the generic place holder “portion,” where the “portion” is modified by functional language “that constructs,” where the “portion” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Note that “construction” does not connote sufficient structure to perform the function. The specification provides support, at least, in Figs. 54-56 and ¶0201, ¶0206 & ¶0232.
Claim 1 limitation “first measurement portion” because the limitation uses the generic place holder “portion,” where the “portion” is modified by functional language “that measures,” where the “portion” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Note that “first measurement” does not connote sufficient structure to perform the function. The specification provides support, at least, in ¶0441 & ¶0455.
Claim 1 limitation “collection portion” because the limitation uses the generic place holder “portion,” where the “portion” is modified by functional language “that …collects,” where the “portion” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Note that “collection” does not connote sufficient structure to perform the function. The specification provides support, at least, in Fig. 59 & ¶0383-¶0388.
Claim 4 limitation “analyzer portion” because the limitation uses the generic place holder “portion,” where the “analyzer” is modified by functional language “that collects,” where the “analyzer” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim 4 limitation “creation portion” because the limitation uses the generic place holder “portion,” where the “portion” is modified by functional language “that creates,” where the “portion” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Note that “creation” does not connote sufficient structure to perform the function. Claim 15 has similar limitation, thus, the same rationale applies. The specification provides support, at least, in ¶0422, ¶0445 & ¶0456.
Claim 15 limitation “acquisition portion” because the limitation uses the generic place holder “portion,” where the “portion” is modified by functional language “that acquires,” where the “portion” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Note that “acquisition” does not connote sufficient structure to perform the function.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same analysis/rationale applies.
Because these claim limitations 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
For example, in claim 1, language like “…that is…” in claim 1, lines 1 and 3 and language like “…that…” in lines 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14 p2 and p. 3, line 1 and 4 of makes claim 1 narrative and indefinite. Claims 4, 14 and 15 also include “…that…” language, and claim 15 additionally includes “…that is…” language. Moreover, claim 2 includes “…which is…” language. Thus, claims 1, 2, 4 and 14-15 are indefinite.
Claims 4 & 15: claim limitations “analyzer portion” of claim 4 and “acquisition portion” of claim 15 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. See analysis 112 (f) interpretation above. Therefore, the claim is 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.
19. Claims 3 and 5-13 are also rejected from depending on a rejected base claim.
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 4 and 15 are 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.
Claims 4 and 15 include the limitations “analyzer portion” of claim 4 and “acquisition portion” of claim 15. The limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The limitation requires disclosure of structure and algorithm to perform the functions. 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. See analysis 112 (f) interpretation above.
Claims NOT Rejected Over the Prior Art
23. Prior art rejections have not been provided for claims 1-15 as the independent claims 1 and 14 include a combination of subject matter not disclosed by the prior art of record. However, these claims stand rejected at least over 35 U.S.C. 112, see above, which must be overcome before the claims can be designated as allowable.
The prior art of record includes a number of references disclosing related subject matter:
OMI US 2021/0336852 A1 discloses generating information indicating a connection relation between a plurality of networks of a system. See Fig. 3 and related paragraphs;
Fujimura US 2021/0103265 A1 discloses PLC for creating a control data and a dashboard for displaying the control data.
However, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach each limitation, in combination, of independent claim 1. For example, the prior art of record fails to disclose “…mediates data communication between the second industrial device that sends the data and the first industrial device that collects the data… repeatedly collects the state information generated by the first measurement portion and state information indicating a state related to wireless communication of the peripheral wireless node measured by a second measurement portion provided in the peripheral wireless node, and stores the state information in a memory accessible from the first industrial device … with the peripheral wireless node via the wireless network constructed by the construction portion and receives data of the peripheral wireless node…and transmits the state information stored in the memory to the first industrial device” of claims 1. Claim 14 is substantially similar, thus the same rationale applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-5PM.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
MAHRAN ABU ROUMI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2455
/MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455