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
This communication is a non-final action in response to application filed on 06/28/2024. Claims 1-9 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 06/28/2024 and 10/29/2025 are considered.
Claim Objection
Claims 1-9 are objected because it appears “by a notification device” of the first obtainer is a typographical error. Please see Fig. 1 where first obtainer (item 11) is outside of notification device (item 2). Examiner will interpret the limitation as “to a notification device”.
Please note, in view of claim 5, examiner recommends (but not required) at least rewriting “a notification device” of claim 1 into “at least one notification device” or “one or more notification devices” to improve clarity. Similarly, in view of claim 6, “event”, “trigger” can be rewritten in a similar fashion.
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: obtainers and/or outputter in claims 1-7
Examiner notes while at first glance, “processing unit” may invoke 112(f) as well, one ordinary skilled in the art would understand “processing unit” as used in the art are meant to be computer hardware structure that’s capable of performing the entire function. Therefore, processing unit does NOT invoke 112(f).
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.
Examiner notes that adding processor and memory in a way that the added processor and memory are used to perform each and every functions of obtainers and processing unit would very likely provide sufficient structure that 112(f) would not be invoked anymore.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A prong 1
As per claim 1, with the exception of physical devices and hardware, all the steps performed recites an abstract idea. Specifically, these steps recites mental process where a person can mentally decide notification information being generated. Examiner notes the obtainer and conditions as claimed, is broad enough to encompass rules stored in table form such as those shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 4, which only require simple binary judgement (e.g., is TV on? is water level low?, etc.). As of notification, claim is broad enough to encompass merely displaying information. Displaying information is a mental process as being similar to Electric Power Group’s displaying the result. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2
The additional elements are the physical devices and hardware, which are merely used to perform the abstract idea (e.g., have information transmitted/send or being used to perform abstract idea). All the devices are also merely generic computer components discussed in high generality. Therefore, these additional elements are nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea onto a generic computer, as well as being generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Even viewed as an ordered combination, the additional elements are still merely generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Such additional element would not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As noted above in step 2A prong 2, of which the analysis is still applicable in step 2B, the additional elements are nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea onto a generic computer and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination. They would not provide significantly more either. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Claims 2-7 merely further limit the abstract idea with additional rules that can still be manually performed in human mind and using additional elements that can still be similarly analyzed as those of claim 1. They would therefore be analyzed similarly and arrive at the same conclusion.
Claims 8-9 contain limitations substantially similar to claim 1 and would therefore they would not be eligible over similar rationale set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cary (US 20150350129)
As per claim 1, Cary discloses a notification system comprising:
a first obtainer that obtains event information about an event that has occurred, from an information source device or an information source service that is a source of information to be notified by a notification device (0070, cocordination device determine whether to forward message to mobile device. See Fig. 2A for the relationship among coordinating device 215a, server 205, and mobile device 220a);
a second obtainer that obtains a trigger indicating that the notification device has been activated (0074, condition used to determine which devices are to surpress alert. Condition can be whether connection can be established); and
a processing unit that suspends output of notification information indicating content of the event from the notification device until the trigger is obtained, and causes the notification device to output the notification information when the trigger is obtained (0074-0075, presenting message when satisfied or surpressed based on condition. See Fig. 2A, where devices 220a and 220b may or may not output alert based on conditions).
As per claim 2, Cary further discloses the notification system according to claim 1, wherein
the trigger is one of (i) switching of a power of the notification device from an off-state to an on-state or (ii) returning of the notification device from a standby state to the on-state (see 0230 determination based on whether device is in a do-not-disturb mode. See 0223 that 0230 can be performed in coordination device).
As per claim 3, Cary further discloses the notification system according to claim 1, wherein
the trigger is direct operation of the notification device by a user (0303, user action changes mode).
As per claim 4, Cary further discloses the notification system according to claim 1, wherein
when a plurality of notification devices each being the notification device are present in a same space, the second obtainer obtains the trigger based on an operation log of each of the plurality of notification devices (0261, devices paired are identified (operation log) as well as whether device is proximate is assessed. See 0256 that the process is performed in coordinating device).
As per claim 5, Cary discloses the notification system according to claim 1, comprising:
a plurality of notification devices each being the notification device (see Fig. 2A, mobile devices 220a and 220b), wherein
when the processing unit estimates an area in which a user is present based on an operation of an external device different from the plurality of notification devices, the processing unit causes a notification device in the area among the plurality of notification devices to output the notification information (0070-0072, coordination device forward message to other device for display. See Fig. 2A where coordination device 215 is separate from mobile device 220a or 220b).
As per claim 6, Cary further discloses the notification system according to claim 1, wherein
when a plurality of items of event information each corresponding to one of a plurality of events and the trigger are obtained, the processing unit causes the notification device to output summary information indicating a summary of content of the plurality of events, the plurality of items of event information each being the event information, the plurality of events each being the event (0100, notification can be stacked).
As per claim 7, Cary further discloses t notification device comprising:
an instruction obtainer that obtains an instruction to output the notification information from the notification system according to claim 1 (Fig. 2A); and
an outputter that outputs the notification information when the instruction obtainer obtains the instruction (Fig. 2A).
Claims 8-9 contains limitations substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM Eastern.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights