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 action is responsive to application filed July 2, 2024.
This application is a Continuation of PCT filed on 6/16/2023, and claims foreign priority to Chinese application filed on 7/18/22.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 were presented, and are pending examination.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 7/2/24 are acceptable.
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 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 1, recites a "system". It appears that the scope of the limitation “system” encompasses software-only embodiments since the claims fail to mention any hardware or physical computer components. Software is not statutory because it is simply abstract ideas, could be a program per se, and is not directed to actual physical devices. For a claim like this to be statutory, it is required to be tied to physical/hardware components. These claims do meet this criterion and are therefore deemed non-statutory. [See MPEP Chapter 2106.01 Section I]
Dependent claims 2-8 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are thus rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention does not fall within a statutory category. The claim recites “computer readable storage medium …”. It is unclear from the specification what the scope of the term “computer readable storage medium” encompasses, as the specification leaves it open-ended and fails to define its parameters. It is entirely possible that the claim may encompass non-statutory subject matter such as, among others, transitory media types like signals and RF/carrier waves etc, which do not fall within any of the statutory categories and is therefore held as non-patentable subject matter. See MPEP Chapter 2106 Section IV.B.¶4 and Chapter 2106.01. Applicant is requested to change “machine readable storage medium” limitation to recite “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”.
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 1-10 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.
In claim 1, the claim is partially presented in narrative format and is indefinite, as it fails to conform with current U.S. practice. The limitations appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors, thus requiring clarification. For example:
It is unclear how the state-displaying blocks of lines 4-15, and which are presented as mere display elements, can perform any sort of calculation as recited in lines 16-25. The “calculating” of lines 16-25 are seen to overlap in scope with the “displaying” limitations of lines 4-15. Therefore the limitations of lines 16-25 appear to be redundant with lines 4-15 despite the slightly different wording;
The following limitations lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim thus rendering the claim indefinite:
“the map”, line 30;
“the monitoring point distribution profile”, line 34;
“its relative distance”, line 35;
“the termite monitoring software platform”, lines 37-38;
“the initial position”, line 53;
“the change”, line 54;
Narrative type language renders the claim indefinite such as the limitations: “users can intuitively know…” in line 41; and “the users know specific information of the …” in line 42; and “the users clearly know…” line 50; and “that is” in line 56; and “to solve problems found in practical applications…” in line 60;
The term “relative” in line 35 and “clearly” in line 50, are undefined and relative terms that are not defined by the claim, that the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention;
The term “etc.” in line 40 is indefinite because: Firstly, it contains a period which is improper to be located in the middle of a claim, and Secondly “etc” is an undefined and relative term that is not defined by the claim, that the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-10 either depend on claim 1 thus inheriting the deficiencies of claim 1, or are slight variations of claim 1 thus suffering the same deficiencies as claim 1. Therefore claims 2-10 are rejected based upon the same rationale given above.
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 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid et al (US Publication 20180299842) in view of Triventi et al (US Publication 20200349828) in view of Johnson et al (US Publication 20210020039) in view of Becker (US Publication 20170281822).
In reference to claim 1, Reid teaches a system for displaying a monitoring-point state, comprising:
a display configured for displaying a plurality of state-displaying blocks, wherein the plurality of state-displaying blocks, (see at least ¶s 23,24,29 & Figs 3,4, which teach a display for displaying state-displaying blocks and information) comprises:
an initial state block configured for displaying a number of monitoring points in an initial state; (see at least ¶ 28 & Fig 4, which teaches displaying sensors/monitoring points that are in an initial state)
a termite-existing state block configured for displaying a number of monitoring points in an termite-existing state; (see at least ¶ 29, which teaches displaying a number of sensor points which have detected a pest)
an in-killing state block configured for displaying a number of monitoring points in an in-killing state; (see at least ¶ 30, which teaches displaying a number of sensors utilizing a chemical agent for killing pests)
a killing-complete state block configured for displaying a number of monitoring points in a killing-complete state; (see at least claim 3 lines 17-22, which teaches displaying information about a number of sensors which have completed a spraying process to kill pests)
wherein the initial state block is further configured for calculating and recording the number of monitoring points in the initial state, the termite-existing state block is further configured for calculating and recording the number of monitoring points in the termite-existing state, and the in-killing state block is further configured for calculating and recording the number of monitoring points in the in-killing state; the killed state block is further configured for calculating and recording the number of monitoring points in the killing-complete state; (see at least ¶s 28-30 & claim 3, which teaches the display is further configured to record/display the initial state, pests detected, chemical agents for killing pests, and completed spray processes)
the plurality of state-displaying blocks further comprises a monitoring point distribution profile block for displaying distribution positions of monitoring points on the map, wherein the monitoring point distribution profile block is associated with the initial state block, the termite-existing state block, the in- killing state block, the killing-complete state block; (see at least ¶s 9,15 & Fig 4, which teaches displaying sensor positions on a map, and the positions are each associated with displaying status information for the sensor)
the monitoring point distribution profile is displayed on the display, and a position of a respective monitoring point and its relative distance from an adjacent building or green space is clearly seen on the monitoring point distribution profile; the monitoring point distribution profile block serves to receive information of the termite monitoring software platform for updating in real time; the monitoring points marked on a monitoring point list page or electronic map in different states are distinguished by means of texts, colors, graphics, sounds, etc., so that users can intuitively know state changes of monitoring points; and when a monitoring point on the electronic map is selected, the users know specific information of the monitoring point, including a number of the monitoring point, a name of a state of the monitoring point, a position of the monitoring point and time of a latest state update, and specific information of these monitoring points are all associated with the initial state block, the termite-existing state block, the in-killing state block, the killing-complete state block, the off-line state block,; with aid of display of the monitoring point distribution profile controlled by the monitoring point distribution profile block on the display, the users clearly know current states and handling of respective monitoring points, and determine areas that need focus and prevention and control measures according to locations of the monitoring points at the same time. (see at least Abstract, ¶s 15,21-24 & 27-31 & Figs 3,4, which teach displaying positions of respective sensors, displaying their relative distance from other buildings and structures, and updating the sensor status information in real time. The sensors are marked on a map with different states of the sensor distinguished with text that show the different state changes of the sensor status. Users can select a sensor for further information which includes position information, time of the update, and detailed information about pest detection status, thus enabling users to clearly know areas that need focus and attention to control and prevent pest infestation)
Although Reid teaches pest control of pests such as cockroaches and mice (see Reid, at least ¶s 30,33), Reid fails to explicitly teach termites. However, Triventi teaches pest control for controlling termites, among other pests (see Triventi, at least Abstract & ¶ 2-4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Reid based on the teachings of Triventi for the purpose of controlling different kinds of pests which can cause problems for people.
Although Reid teaches displaying sensor states and sensor positions (see Reid, at least ¶s 27-29), Reid fails to explicitly teach a lost state block configured for displaying a number of monitoring points in a lost state; and the lost state block is further configured for calculating and recording the number of monitoring points in the lost state; the plurality of state-displaying blocks further comprises a displaced state block for displaying a number of monitoring points in a displaced state; and when the monitoring point device is placed back to the initial position, it is confirmed that the change in position has been eliminated or less than the threshold according to a signal sent by the monitoring point device again, and then the monitoring point device is automatically restored to an original state, that is, a state before the monitoring point device becomes the displaced state; and this change is recorded by a corresponding state block, and a number of monitoring points calculated by the block is also updated; and the displaced state block functions to solve problems found in practical applications of the termite detection software platform, and continuously focuses on change in position of respective monitoring points, and reports the displaced state to the users; and the initial state, the termite-existing state, the in-killing state and the killing-complete state are all updated to the displaced state due to change in position.
However, Johnson teaches tracking articles that are in specific zones and detecting if the articles are lost or displaced from those zones. The articles are mapped on a display map, and alert outputs are generated for articles that have a non-compliant change in their position to where the article is now outside the initial zone, and thus deemed lost/displaced. When the article is placed back inside the initial zone, then a determination is made to confirm that the non-compliant change in position has been eliminated, and the article is restored to a compliant position that is within the zone. The articles are continuously monitored, and the map displaying the articles is continuously updated to reflect any change in position (see Johnson, at least Abstract & ¶s 52,53,74 & Figs 6-8). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Reid based on the teachings of Johnson for the purpose of tracking assets that are required to remain in a specific location and apprising a user if that asset moves out of the specific location.
Reid fails to explicitly teach an off-line state block configured for displaying a number of monitoring points in an off-line state; and the off-line state block further configured for calculating and recording the number of monitoring points in the off-line state. However, Becker teaches a pest control system that monitors and manages pest sensor and diffusion devices. The pest control system displays the health of the devices including machine down/off-line status alerts (see Becker, at least Abstract & ¶s 176,180). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Reid based on the teachings of Becker for the purpose of expanding the various status alerts that a user can monitor for pest control devices.
In reference to claim 2, Becker teaches a login screen for accessing the dashboard which is for displaying status blocks for the sensor devices, see Becker at least ¶ 180. It would have been obvious for one been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Reid based on the teachings of Becker for the purpose as given in claim 1 above.
Claims 3-10 are slight variations of the rejected claims above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
April 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights