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 .
Priority
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in the prior Application No. PCT/JP2022/006080, filed February 16, 2022, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application constitutes a continuation. The benefit of the filing date of the prior application is acknowledged, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 2, 2024 was filed before the mailing of a first Office Action on the merits. Since the submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification contains misspellings that must be corrected. The term “master station” has been misspelled as “mater station” in paragraphs [0008] and [0044].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are recited with multiple limitations incorporated together into what appears to be a single limitation, thus making it difficult for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to understand the invention. It appears that many of the claims were directly taken from paragraphs of the specification (compare paragraph [0008] to Claim 1) and recited in a non-standard manner. Patent Rule 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i) requires as follows:
Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation.
The limitations must also be end with a semicolon. Most of the claims appear to violate this rule, and each will be discussed specifically. Some of the comments by Examiner constitute suggestions for improving the clarity of the claims.
Claim 1, which is a device claim, begins with a lengthy preamble containing multiple attributes that are all included together. Examiner suggests that the elements be individually recited and that the preamble be concluded with the phrase “wherein the address assignment device comprises processing circuitry configured to:” with each of the limitations that follow the preamble beginning with the actual action verb, rather than the word “to.”
Claim 1 as currently recited includes three large limitations recited as paragraphs with multiple actions. However, each of the three large limitations contain more than one actual limitation, each beginning with the word “to” and ending with a semicolon. Each embedded limitation must begin on a separate line with proper indention. For example, the first limitation should be divided and recited as follows:
wherein the address assignment device comprises processing circuitry configured to:
acquire a provisional address of each slave station of the plurality of slave stations;
acquire a distance measurement result obtained by measuring a distance between the master station and each slave station;
register the provisional address of each slave station and the distance measurement result of the master station and each slave station, with a provisional address table;
In addition, the last limitation of Claim 1 has a misspelling: “mater station.”
Claim 2 includes a “wherein” clause with two separate limitations: “transmits” and “receives.” Each limitation must begin on a separate indented line. Examiner also wonders why the term “processing circuitry” is recited again, since the “address assignment device” has already been defined as comprising “processing circuitry,” which is actually part of every device that performs actions in a network. The term “processing circuitry” may be redundant and unnecessary.
Claim 3 also includes a “wherein” clause with multiple limitations recited in a confusing manner. It may be beneficial to simplify the limitations, for example, as follows:
upon detecting that a provisional address is not assigned to each slave station of the plurality of slave stations:
transmit a provisional address generation request for generation of a provisional address, to each slave station of the plurality of slave stations;
receive a provisional address of each slave station of the plurality of slave stations as a response to the provisional address generation request;
confirm registration status for each slave station;
upon confirming that the received provisional address is not registered with the provisional address table:
register the received provisional address with the provisional address table; and
transmit a use permission of the received provisional address to a transmission-source slave station.
Note that the confirmation step underlined above is important to add to the claim recitation, since the following step relies on the confirmation already having been performed.
Claim 4 is recited in the form of a paragraph, without each step being recited as a separate limitation. This claim must be rewritten to be consistent with 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i).
Claim 5 begins with three “wherein” clauses. The first two contain explanatory information about the physical switches incorporated into each slave station. However, the last “wherein” clause recites two actions to be taken that are not recited as separate limitations.
Claims 8-9 are both recited in the same run-on fashion as Claim 1, and must be rewritten to be consistent with 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 is 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,
The claim begins by reciting “An address assignment device provided to a master station involved in a communication network in which the master station and a plurality of slave stations are connected via a communication line” It is not clear what is meant by the device being “provided to” a master station, and what is meant to be “involved” in a network. A POSITA might wonder, for example, whether the “address assignment device” is incorporated into the master station or is simply attached via the same network to communicate with the master station. If the latter situation is the case, a POSITA might wonder how are the communications initiated. More clarity is needed regarding the relationships of the devices on the network.
Regarding Claim 3,
The claim recites “upon confirming that the received provisional address is not registered with the provisional address table. However, this limitation relies on a confirmation having been performed, but there is previous step that recites the performance of a confirming step.
Regarding Claim 5,
The last limitation of the claims is improperly recited and the last limitation recites as follows: “assigns the slave station address for the provisional address of the slave station identified from the acquired assignment information and the acquired connecting configuration.” The term “the acquired connecting configuration” has not been previously recited and is not fully disclosed in the specification. Therefore the term is indefinite. In addition, it is unclear whether the recited “acquired assignment information” is the same as the previously recited “preset value of the physical switch.”
Regarding Claim 6,
The claim recites “wherein the processing circuitry acquires the address information from an outside by a management station connected via the communication line.” It is unclear what is meant by “from an outside” and what specific “address information” is being referenced. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding Claim 7,
The claim recites “The address assignment device according claim 1, which, when a new slave station is connected to the communication network, starts an address assignment process for the plurality of slave stations.” The recitation of “which, when” is awkward and should be changed. In addition, it is not clear what “address assignment process” is being claimed, since no details are provided defining what process is being claimed. A POSITA would likely wonder how the “address assignment process” relates to the lengthy process recited in Claim 1. More specificity is required.
Regarding Claims 2-7,
Because the claims depend from rejected base Claim 1, they are also rejected.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
No prior art was found with which to reject Claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, the claims cannot be allowed until the numerous objections based on violations under 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i), and rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been resolved. It is important that Applicant follow USPTO standards for describing the invention to enable a POSITA to be able to make and use the invention, as is required under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional prior art references listed on Form PTO-892 and not used in the prior art rejections are also relevant to this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHYLLIS A BOOK whose telephone number is (571)272-0698. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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 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.
/PHYLLIS A BOOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454