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 .
Authorization for Internet Communication
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication. Doing so would permit the USPTO to communicate using Internet e-mail to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet e-mail correspondence. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03. Authorizations in an Internet e-mail do not have the same effect as filing the form in the record.
Information Disclosure Statement
Based on a filed IDS, Applicant has access to documents filed in PCT and Japanese applications. Applicant is asked to please keep the examiner informed of any Office action(s) or claim amendments subsequently issued in the aforementioned.
Election/Restrictions
The election of claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 20 in the reply is acknowledged. Because the applicant(s) did not distinctly and specifically point out any supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)).
Claims 3 and 7-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The requirement is still deemed proper and is, therefore, made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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.
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, 2, 4-6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, (pre-AIA ) as failing to contain a written description of the invention in clear, concise, and exact terms and/or under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 second paragraph, (pre-AIA ), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA , the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
The “information acquisition module” and “information output section” language invokes 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. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are indefinite.
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 limitations are interpreted to read on the prior art as explained infra.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2010074602 (Soji) in view of EP-2675144 (Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Soji teaches or suggests a system comprising: a first terminal device; a second terminal device; and a third terminal device (fig. 1);
wherein each of the first terminal device, the second terminal device, and the third terminal device comprises: an information acquisition module that acquires information issued by a user; a communication interface that exchanges own-device acquisition data, which is data representing information acquired by the information acquisition module, to a terminal device of a communication partner of the user, and receives other-device acquisition data, which is data representing information issued by the communication partner and acquired by the terminal device of the communication partner, from the terminal device of the communication partner; and an information output section that outputs, in a form perceivable by the user, information represented by the other-device acquisition data received by the communication interface (fig. 2);
wherein, after the first terminal device and the second terminal device have started data communication, the system outputs communication initiation information, which is information for initiating data communication between the first terminal device and the third terminal device (step 101), and
at least one of the first terminal device and the third terminal device uses the communication initiation information to initiate data communication between the first terminal device and the third terminal device (step 106).
Soji does not expressly disclose but Lee teaches or suggests the exchanges of data comprise transmits and receives thereof (¶ 32). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Soji’s system and Lee’s duplex communications in order to allow data to be exchanged in both directions.
Regarding claim 2, Soji teaches or suggests the second terminal device outputs the communication initiation information including terminal identification information for identifying the first terminal device, the third terminal device acquires the communication initiation information, and the third terminal device uses the communication initiation information to initiate data communication with the first terminal device (¶¶ 32-34).
Regarding claim 20, Soji teaches or suggests the system outputs the communication initiation information as encoded communication initiation information that can be decoded by a terminal device that acquires the communication initiation information (fig. 4).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2010074602 (Soji) in view of EP-2675144 (Lee) further in view of JP-2009141590 (Takashi)
Soji teaches or suggests the first terminal device acquires the communication initiation information via the second terminal device, and the first terminal device uses the communication initiation information to initiate data communication with the third terminal device (¶ 32).
Soji does not expressly disclose but Takashi teaches or suggests a medium different from the third terminal device that holds or stores the communication initiation information including terminal identification information for identifying the third terminal device, wherein the medium outputs the communication initiation information, the first terminal device acquires the communication initiation information via the second terminal device (¶ 10). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Soji’s system, Lee’s duplex communications, and Takashi’s medium in order to operate without a display.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2010074602 (Soji) in view of EP-2675144 (Lee) further in view of US 20190037175 (Vitale).
Regarding claim 5, Soji teaches or suggests the second terminal device outputs the communication initiation information, the third terminal device acquires the communication initiation information, and the third terminal device uses the communication initiation information to initiate data communication with the first terminal device (¶¶ 32-34).
Soji does not expressly disclose but Vitale teaches or suggests the communication initiation information including meeting room identification information for identifying a virtual meeting room in which the first terminal device and the second terminal device are engaged in data communication (abs.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Soji’s system, Lee’s duplex communications, and Vitale’s identification information in order to collaborate without geographical limits.
Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests the third terminal device outputs the communication initiation information including terminal identification information for identifying the third terminal device (Soji steps S104-S105), and the system further comprises: a server device that receives, from the second terminal device, the communication initiation information including terminal identification information for identifying the third terminal device (Soji steps S105-S106), and the meeting room identification information (Vitale, abs.), and transmits a room entry request for the virtual meeting room to the third terminal device using the communication initiation information (Vitale, abs.).
Other Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, US-20130242038 discloses that a secure teleconference with a patient treatment room may be initiated by receiving, at a central facility, a request for a conference from a clinician application, and then identifying a virtual meeting room and sending an identifier for a conference to the treatment room.
Conclusion
Any response to this Office action containing amended or newly presented claims should specifically point out support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 700-430 ET 730-1630.
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 email the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
/LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights