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 . Claims 1-8 are presented for examination.
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 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.
Regarding Claim 4, it recites a means for allowing remote control of the device through communication from the network and will be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) since it (i) uses the means for claim structure; (ii) is modified by functional language; and (iii) fails to recite sufficient structure for performing the claimed acts referred to in the functional language.
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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim limitation “the processing and communication unit comprises a user interface such as screen, keyboard, voice recognition or touchpad” makes claim 2 indefinite. The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 4, the claim limitation “means for allowing remote control of the device through communication from the network” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as described above. 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. In particular, [0024] is the only mention of remote control of a device and comes close to being the same as claim 4, simply describing the processing and communication unit as being configured to allow for remote control of the device through communication from said network. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to describe the claimed means.
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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim 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 4, there is no structure disclosed in the specification that could be linked to the means for limitation. For example, an exemplary communication unit is described but there are no structural details given in the specification and the communication unit itself is already recited in claim 4. One way to overcome the 112 rejections of claim 4 would be to amend claim 4 as shown in the claim markup below.
The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the processing and communication unit is configured to allow for remote control of the device through communication from the network.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG PUB 20220413620 (hereinafter Sachidanandam).
Regarding Claim 1, Sachidanandam discloses an electronic device (User Equipment 102, FIG. 1) for detecting and monitoring user presence in the vicinity of the device, the electronic device comprising
a processor (608) configured to, based on received sensor inputs,
to monitor the device vicinity in order to detect a user presence ([0083] describes using radar system 104 to monitor for user presence), providing an indication signal to a processing and communication unit indicating whether or not the user is present ([0072] describes how radar manager identifies the presence and intent of the user to interact with the device based on radar data from radar system 104), the processing and communication unit being configured to communicate the indication signal to at least one other device in a communication network ([0155] describes how presence related data can be shared with another device).
Regarding Claim 2, Sachidanandam discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the processing and communication unit comprises a user interface such as screen, keyboard, voice recognition or touchpad (display 116, [0047] describes display 116 having a touch-screen input), for requesting permission from the user to allow the presence indication to be communicated to a remote unit in the network, and for storing the permission in a data storage ([0155] describes how a user is given control over whether any sensor data or information generated from the data is shared and describes a control situation in which the user establishes program access permissions, which would be stored on local or cloud data storage for further use. A specific example of sharing the data with a remote computing system is located at the end of the paragraph.).
Regarding Claim 3, Sachidanandam discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the processing and communication unit is configured to communicate with other devices in the network for requesting or allowing communication of the presence indications in the network ([0155] describes how the user permissions allow the user to instruct the device regarding whether presence information can be used by other processes or devices).
Regarding Claim 4, Sachidanandam discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the processing and communication unit comprises means for allowing remote control of the device through communication from the network ([0069] describes UE 102 as being depicted as a smartphone. Page 2 of the Yang NPL from reference line U from the notice of references describes how Android phones can be remotely controlled using the AirDroid app. This shows that UE 102 would have means for allowing remote control of through a network at least as early as 2019).
Regarding Claim 6, Sachidanandam discloses a system comprising at least two devices according to claim 1 and allowing communication between the devices processing and communication units ([0155] of Sachidanandam describes communication between two devices), comprising the user presence indication, allowing at least one other computer in the network to receive the information ([0155] does not limit transmission of presence related data between two particular devices and so the system would allow another computer to receive information in the event that a user of the system authorizes transfer / sharing of the information).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachidanandam in view of US20210004747 (hereinafter Takahashi).
Regarding Claim 5, Sachidanandam teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the other device in the network is a centralized server or server network comprising a computer storage ([0155] describes a configuration in which presence related data is transferred to a server but does not specifically say whether it is the server or UE 102 that is responsible for managing access to the presence related data).
However, Takahashi teaches a centralized server or server network comprising a computer storage for controlling the access and information related to the users and devices (FIG. 1 of Takahashi shows a number of devices (10 & 30) in contact with a server device 20 and is configured to retrieve data from multiple devices for coordinating family / group activities and store received data at action database 202, see [0053]).
Sachidanandam and Takahashi both teach performing presence detection. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Sachidanandam to incorporate the action database server configuration of Takahashi so that permissions set by the user with regard to the privacy of their data could be propagated to other devices in the network after being sent to the server, allowing each device in the network not being stuck acting as the single source for the data in the network.
Regarding Claim 7, Sachidanandam teaches the system according to claim 6, wherein the system comprises a distributed or centralized computer entity ([0155] of Sachidanandam teaches transference of presence related data from UE 102 to a server but fails to speak specifically to how or whether the server would act as a centralized computer entity for managing multiple users).
However, Takahashi teaches a distributed or centralized computer entity configured to maintain and control the status all the users controlled or known in a selected group (FIG. 1 of Takahashi shows a number of devices (10 & 30) in contact with a server device 20 and is configured to retrieve data from multiple devices for coordinating family / group activities and store received data at action database 202, see [0053])
Sachidanandam and Takahashi both teach performing presence detection. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Sachidanandam to incorporate the action database server configuration of Takahashi so that permissions set by the user with regard to the privacy of their data could be propagated to other devices in the network after being sent to the server. This would beneficially allow each device in the network not being stuck acting as the single source for the data in the network and leaving it to the server to maintain and control the presence information in accordance with permissions granted by the users.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Sachidanandam and Takahashi teaches the system according to claim 7, wherein the entity comprises a user database maintaining information about the user privacy settings and administration levels or rights in the system (FIG. 1 of Takahashi shows server 20 including action database 202).
As described above Sachidanandam as modified by Takahashi results in the privacy rules set by the user of each device (10 & 30 in the context of FIG. 1 of Takahashi) being saved in server 20 in action database 202. Implementing the combination in this way as described above, allows the server to administer the rules in a more efficient way than would be done by the individual devices in accordance with the rules defined by the users for sharing content.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571)270-5227. 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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights