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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 9, it states “a collection frequency for the data”. It is not clear which collection frequency for data is referring to because in line 6, it already stated “a collection frequency for the data”. Examiner recommends defining “a collection frequency for the data” in the acquiring step which is in line 5, and then referring the term as “the collection frequency for the data”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation-35 USC § 112(f)
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: “acquisition unit”, “storage unit”, “determination unit”, and “setting unit” in claims 1-14.
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 intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-15 are 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.
Claim 15, line 3, recites the limitation “the data that is necessary”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim.
Claims 1-14 recite limitations that include “acquisition unit”, “storage unit”, “determination unit”, and “setting unit” invoke 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 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC § 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
therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1, at step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (device).
At step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to numerous mental processes. The claim language has been reproduced below:
A data collection frequency determination device configured to determine a frequency of collecting data from a facility device in which tag information for identification is assigned for each item of the data that is necessary, the data collection frequency determination device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire the tag information from the facility device;
a storage unit that stores the tag information and first information including a collection frequency for the data, the collection frequency for the data being associated with the tag information; and
a determination unit configured to determine a collection frequency for the data based on the tag information acquired by the acquisition unit and the first information.
That is, a user/operator could merely be recording and collecting data (tag information, first information, collection frequency) with the assistance of pen and paper and monitoring the data collection. An acquisition unit configured to acquire tag information, a storage unit to store tag information and first information, a determination unit to determine the collection of frequency (mental process) could all be considered abstract ideas. These results could be compared to expected or previous results and the operator can instruct changes to be made at specific points in the process. The user could determine compliance and inform other users (or themselves learn) that changes need to be made or that everything appears to be in working order.
At Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements have been bolded above. These additional elements are merely general components recited at a high level of generality without any specific functionality that would integrate the claims into a practical application. This is merely adding the words “apply it” for storing the tag information and the first information including the collection frequency for the data. All the steps are collecting data with no other practical process or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, this is a general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). There is no explicit control being recited that could arguably be in response to any of the data collection process, and “unit” and the “facility device,” as currently claimed, is recited at a high level of generality and does not explicitly control the air volume collection process but merely collecting data.
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exceptions.
As per claim 2, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to the data collection information associated with the collection frequency and the tag information. (mental process). At Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the claims into a practical application. This is mere data collection. At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s).”
As per claim 3, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to information of the data collation including the plurality of pieces of the first information associated with the tag information. This is simply directing to mere data collection. At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the identified exception(s) into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (s). Courts have found the general receiving or transmitting of data over a network to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See Id. at 2106.05(d)(II.) (i.).
As per claim 4, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to determining a candidate of the first information. (mental process-evaluation). At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 5, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to configuring a collection frequency of the data based on the tag information. This could be determining or calculating (mental process or mathematical concept). At Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements that integrate the identified exception(s) into a practical application At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 6, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to comparing the collection frequency of the data based on a standard value interval (mental process). At Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim is directed to merely evaluating based collected data (mental process) At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 7, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to determining the collection frequency based on a predetermined condition (mental process). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and
Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the identified exception(s) into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 8, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to determining the configuration for determined candidates for the first information (mental process). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the identified exception(s) into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 9, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to determining the configuration for updating the first information by setting the collection frequency (mental process). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the identified exception(s) into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 10, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to determining the configuration for outputting the determined candidate for the first information (mental process). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the identified exception(s) into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 11, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to determining the configuration for setting the collection frequency for the data and also updating the first information associated with the tag information. This is merely collecting data and determining the collection frequency (mental process). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the identified exception(s) into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 12, at step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (device).
At step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to numerous mental processes. The claim language has been reproduced below:
A data collection frequency determination device configured to determine a frequency of collecting data from a facility device in which tag information for identification is assigned for each item of the data that is necessary, the data collection frequency determination device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire the tag information from the facility device;
a storage unit that stores the tag information and second information in which a collection frequency for the data is determined in advance for each piece of the tag information; and a
determination unit configured to determine a collection frequency for the data based on the tag information acquired by the acquisition unit and the second information.
That is, a user/operator could merely be recording and collecting data (tag information, first information, collection frequency) with the assistance of pen and paper and monitoring the data collection. An acquisition unit configured to acquire tag information, a storage unit to store tag information and first information, a determination unit to determine the collection of frequency (mental process) could all be considered abstract ideas. These results could be compared to expected or previous results and the operator can instruct changes to be made at specific points in the process. The user could determine compliance and inform other users (or themselves learn) that changes need to be made or that everything appears to be in working order.
At Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements have been bolded above. These additional elements are merely general components recited at a high level of generality without any specific functionality that would integrate the claims into a practical application. This is merely adding the words “apply it” for storing the tag information and the first information including the collection frequency for the data. All the steps are collecting data with no other practical process or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, this is a general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). There is no explicit control being recited that could arguably be in response to any of the data collection process, and the “unit” and the “facility device,” as currently claimed, is recited at a high level of generality and does not explicitly control the air volume collection process but merely collecting data.
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exceptions.
As per claim 13, at step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (device).
At step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to numerous mental processes. The claim language has been reproduced below:
A data collection frequency determination device configured to determine a frequency of collecting data from a facility device in which tag information for identification is assigned for each item of the data that is necessary, the data collection frequency determination device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire the tag information from the facility device;
a storage unit that stores the tag information and third information in which a degree of priority for a collection frequency for the data is determined in advance for each piece of the tag information;
and
a determination unit configured to determine a collection frequency for the data based on the tag information acquired by the acquisition unit and the third information.
That is, a user/operator could merely be recording and collecting data (tag information, first information, collection frequency) with the assistance of pen and paper and monitoring the data collection. An acquisition unit configured to acquire tag information, a storage unit to store tag information and first information, a determination unit to determine the collection of frequency (mental process) could all be considered abstract ideas. These results could be compared to expected or previous results and the operator can instruct changes to be made at specific points in the process. The user could determine compliance and inform other users (or themselves learn) that changes need to be made or that everything appears to be in working order.
At Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements have been bolded above. These additional elements are merely general components recited at a high level of generality without any specific functionality that would integrate the claims into a practical application. This is merely adding the words “apply it” for storing the tag information and the third information including the collection frequency for the data. All the steps are collecting data with no other practical process or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, this is a general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). There is no explicit control being recited that could arguably be in response to any of the data collection process, and the “unit” and “facility device,” as currently claimed, is recited at a high level of generality and does not explicitly control the air volume collection process but merely collecting data.
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exceptions.
As per claim 14, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to configuration for setting the collection frequency for the data and also updating the first information associated with the tag information. This is merely collecting data and determining the collection frequency (mental process). At Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements that integrate the identified exception(s) into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 15, at step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to numerous mental processes. The claim language has been reproduced below
A data collection frequency determination method to determine a frequency of collecting data from a facility device in which tag information for identification is assigned for each item of the data that is necessary, the data collection frequency determination method including:
acquiring the tag information from the facility device;
storing the tag information and first information including a collection frequency for the data, the collection frequency for the data being associated with the tag information; and
determining a collection frequency for the data based on the tag information acquired in the first step and the first information.
That is, a user/operator could merely be recording and collecting data (tag information, first information, collection frequency) with the assistance of pen and paper and monitoring the data collection. A determination unit to determine the collection of frequency (mental process) could all be considered abstract ideas. These results could be compared to expected or previous results and the operator can instruct changes to be made at specific points in the process. The user could determine compliance and inform other users (or themselves learn) that changes need to be made or that everything appears to be in working order.
At Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements outside of the mental process described above that describe a practical application. All the steps are collecting data with no other practical process or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, this is a general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). There is no explicit control being recited that could arguably be in response to any of the data collection process, and the “facility device,” as currently claimed, is recited at a high level of generality and does not explicitly control the air volume collection process but merely collecting data.
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exceptions.
As per claim 16, at step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to numerous mental processes. The claim language has been reproduced below:
A data collection frequency determination method to determine a frequency of collecting data from a facility device in which tag information for identification is assigned for each item of the data that is necessary, the data collection frequency determination method including:
acquiring the tag information from the facility device;
storing the tag information and second information in which a collection frequency for the data is determined in advance for each piece of the tag information; and
determining a collection frequency for the data based on the tag information acquired in the first step and the second information.
That is, a user/operator could merely be recording and collecting data (tag information, second information, collection frequency) with the assistance of pen and paper and monitoring the data collection. A determination unit to determine the collection of frequency (mental process) could all be considered abstract ideas. These results could be compared to expected or previous results and the operator can instruct changes to be made at specific points in the process. The user could determine compliance and inform other users (or themselves learn) that changes need to be made or that everything appears to be in working order.
At Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements outside of the mental process described above that describe a practical application. All the steps are collecting data with no other practical process or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, this is a general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). There is no explicit control being recited that could arguably be in response to any of the data collection process, and the “facility device,” as currently claimed, is recited at a high level of generality and does not explicitly control the air volume collection process but merely collecting data.
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exceptions.
As per claim 17, at step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (method).
At step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to numerous mental processes. The claim language has been reproduced below:
A data collection frequency determination method to determine a frequency of collecting data from a facility device in which tag information for identification is assigned for each item of the data that is necessary, the data collection frequency determination method including:
acquiring the tag information from the facility device;
storing the tag information and third information in which a degree of priority for a collection frequency for the data is determined in advance for each piece of the tag information; and
determining a collection frequency for the data based on the tag information acquired in the first step and the third information.
That is, a user/operator could merely be recording and collecting data (tag information, third information, collection frequency) with the assistance of pen and paper and monitoring the data collection. A determination unit to determine the collection of frequency (mental process) could all be considered abstract ideas. These results could be compared to expected or previous results and the operator can instruct changes to be made at specific points in the process. The user could determine compliance and inform other users (or themselves learn) that changes need to be made or that everything appears to be in working order.
At Step 2A, Prong 2, there are no additional elements outside of the mental process described above that describe a practical application. All the steps are collecting data with no other practical process or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, this is a general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). There is no explicit control being recited that could arguably be in response to any of the data collection process, and the “facility device,” as currently claimed, is recited at a high level of generality and does not explicitly control the air volume collection process but merely collecting data.
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exceptions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1- 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitamura (WO 2020166447 A1.). (US 20220121231 A1.) is an equivalent English document of Kitamura. This is used as the English translation of Kitamura and cited in the rejection.
As per claim 1, Kitamura teaches
A data collection frequency determination device configured to determine a frequency of collecting data from a facility device in which tag information for identification is assigned for each item of the data that is necessary, the data collection frequency determination device comprising (Fig. 4, para 43-44, the content of the operation information teaches the necessary information. The first operation information/first state information D1, the second operation information/second state information D2, and the third operation information/third state information D3 teach the identification tag information. Fig. 3, para 36, a control terminal 20 teaches a data collection device. The control terminal 20 is controlling the air conditioner 10. The air conditioner 10 teaches the facility device.):
an acquisition unit configured to acquire the tag information from the facility device (Fig. 6, para 49, the acquisition processing unit 231 collects information from the air conditioner 10);
a storage unit that stores the tag information and first information including a collection frequency for the data, the collection frequency for the data being associated with the tag information (para 37, terminal storage unit 21 stores operation information and acquisition condition A1 etc. The “acquisition condition” teaches the claimed first information. Para 43 & Fig. 4, the acquisition condition A1 defines the operation information and the timing to acquire the operation information.); and
a determination unit configured to determine a collection frequency for the data based on the tag information acquired by the acquisition unit and the first information (para 44, collection timing/frequency varies based on acquisition conditions, degree of importance. Paras 48-49, the processing unit decides acquisition frequency based on acquisition condition. Para 15, “the management apparatus includes a changing unit that changes the first condition. Accordingly, the management apparatus is capable of flexibly determining, in accordance with a situation, the manner of collecting operation information in the device information transmitting apparatus.”; Also see FIg.4 for various acquisition conditions (A1) and various state information (D1) frequency is determined).
As per claim 2, Kitamura teaches
The data collection frequency determination device according to claim 1, wherein the first information includes the tag information assigned to each item of the data relating to each of a plurality of the facility devices and a collection frequency for the data, the collection frequency for the data being associated with the tag information (para 37, terminal storage unit 21 stores operation information and acquisition condition A1 etc. The “acquisition condition” teaches the claimed first information. Para 43 & Fig. 4, the acquisition condition A1 defines the operation information and the timing to acquire the operation information, also the first information defines as D1 as the tag information associated with the corresponding air conditioner 10, also see para 27, plurality of air conditioner 10 are managed).
As per claim 3, Kitamura teaches
The data collection frequency determination device according to claim 1, wherein, when a plurality of pieces of the first information are associated with the tag information, the determination unit is configured to determine a collection frequency for the data based on a predetermined condition (para 37, terminal storage unit 21 stores plurality of operation information and acquisition condition A1 etc. The “acquisition condition” teaches the claimed first information. Para 43 & Fig. 4, the acquisition condition A1 defines the operation information and the timing to acquire the operation information, the operation information D1 refers to tag information. Also see para 49, “a predetermined timing via the connection unit 24 under an acquisition condition” meaning it is determined in advanced).
As per claim 4, Kitamura teaches
The data collection frequency determination device according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit is configured to output determined candidates for the first information (para 43, the first acquisition condition A1 is determined by acquiring the first operation information D1, D2, D3 that incudes operation state and the collection frequency. This information are the candidate for the first information).
As per claim 5, Kitamura teaches
The data collection frequency determination device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a setting unit configured to set the collection frequency for the data, the setting unit being configured to update the first information by setting the collection frequency for the data, the collection frequency for the data being determined, to be associated with the tag information assigned to the item of the data (para 44, collection timing/frequency varies based on acquisition conditions, degree of importance. Paras 48-49, the processing unit decides acquisition frequency based on acquisition condition. para 15 “the management apparatus includes a changing unit that changes the first condition. Accordingly, the management apparatus is capable of flexibly determining, in accordance with a situation, the manner of collecting operation information in the device information transmitting apparatus.”; Also see FIg.4 for various acquisition conditions (A1) and various state information (D1) frequency is determined).
As per claim 6, Kitamura teaches
The data collection frequency determination device according to claim 5, wherein, when a standard value for communication exists for the collection frequency for the data and a set value for the collection frequency exceeds the standard value, or when there is a predetermined deviation between the set value and an actual value of the collection frequency, the determination unit is configured to exclude the set value (para 68, anomaly detection based on the first operation information D1 and the collection frequency, to determine the degree of repair. “For example, the opening degree of the expansion valve, the number of rotations of each fan”. para 65, anomaly detection of the air condition 10. For example, an “anomaly” is a state in which a suction temperature or suction pressure of refrigerant discharged from the compressor is lower than or higher than a value that is normally assumed in the relationship with another parameter.).
As per claim 7, Kitamura teaches
The data collection frequency determination device according to claim 2, wherein, when a plurality of pieces of the first information are associated with the tag information, the determination unit is configured to determine a collection frequency for the data based on a predetermined condition ( para 43, the acquisition condition of the first air condition 10 defines as first acquisition condition A1 that includes the first operation information D1 as the Tag information which includes multiple information such as , the operation state , the anomaly state, also defines the times to acquire the content of the information. For example, the D1 was acquired in once per 10 minutes. Also see para 49-50, “The acquisition processing unit 231 (“first information collecting unit”) collects operation information from the corresponding air conditioner 10 at a predetermined timing.”).
As per claim 8, Kitamura teaches
The data collection frequency determination device according to claim 2, wherein the determination unit is configured to output determined candidates for the first information (para 43, the first acquisition condition A1 is determined by acquiring the first operation information D1, D2, D3 that incudes operation state and the collection frequency. This information are the candidate for the first information).
As per claim 9, Kitamura teaches
The data collection frequency determination device according to claim 2, further comprising: a setting unit configured to set the collection frequency for the data, the setting unit being configured to update the first information by setting the collection frequency for the data, the collection frequency for the data being determined, to be associated with the tag information assigned to the item of the data (para 44, collection timing/frequency varies based on acquisition conditions, degree of importance. Paras 48-49, the processing unit decides acquisition frequency based on acquisition condition. para 15 “the management apparatus includes a changing unit that changes the first condition. Accordingly, the management apparatus is capable of flexibly determining, in accordance with a situation, the manner of collecting operation information in the device information transmitting apparatus.”; Also see FIg.4 for various acquisition conditions (A1) and various state information (D1) frequency is determined. Also see para 61, para 82, a setting unit can control information).
As per claim 10, Kitamura teaches
The data collection frequency determination device according to claim 3, wherein the determination unit is configured to output determined candidates for the first information (para 43, the first acquisition condition A1 is determined by acquiring the first operation information D1, D2, D3 that incudes operation state and the collection frequency. This information are the candidate for the first information).
As per claim 11, Kitamura teaches
The data collection frequency determination device according to claim 3, further comprising:
a setting unit configured to set the collection frequency for the data, the setting unit being configured to update the first information by setting the collection frequency for the data, the collection frequency for the data being determined, to be associated with the tag information assigned to the item of the data (para 37, terminal storage unit 21 stores operation information and acquisition condition A1 etc. The “acquisition condition” teaches the claimed first information. Para 43 & Fig. 4, the acquisition condition A1 defines the operation information and the timing to acquire the operation information. Therefore, it determines the collection frequency. Also see, Fig. 4, para 43-44, the content of the operation information teaches the necessary information. The first operation information/first state information D1, here D1 is referring as the tag information. Also see, para 15 “the management apparatus includes a changing unit that changes the first condition. Accordingly, the management apparatus is capable of flexibly determining, in accordance with a situation, the manner of collecting operation information in the device information transmitting apparatus. Therefore, it is updating the first information).
As per claim 12, Kitamura teaches
A data collection frequency determination device configured to determine a frequency of collecting data from a facility device in which tag information for identification is assigned for each item of the data that is necessary, the data collection frequency determination
device comprising (please refer to the analysis of claim 1):
an acquisition unit configured to acquire the tag information from the facility device (please refer to the analysis of claim 1);
a storage unit that stores the tag information and second information in which a collection frequency for the data is determined in advance for each piece of the tag information (para 44, collection timing/frequency varies based on acquisition conditions, degree of importance. Paras 48-49, the processing unit decides acquisition frequency based on acquisition condition. para 15, “the management apparatus includes a changing unit that changes the first condition. Accordingly, the management apparatus is capable of flexibly determining, in accordance with a situation, the manner of collecting operation information in the device information transmitting apparatus.”; Also see FIg.4 for various acquisition conditions (A1) and various state information (D1) frequency is determined. To (A2) and (D2). Also see para 49, “a predetermined timing via the connection unit 24 under an acquisition condition” meaning it is determined in advanced); and
a determination unit configured to determine a collection frequency for the data based on the tag information acquired by the acquisition unit and the second information (para 43, second acquisition condition A2 is determining the collection frequency based on the collection time of the operation information D1, D2 and D3.).
As per claim 13, Kitamura teaches
A data collection frequency determination device configured to determine a frequency of collecting data from a facility device in which tag information for identification is assigned for each item of the data that is necessary, the data collection frequency determination device comprising (Please refer to the analysis of claim 1):
an acquisition unit configured to acquire the tag information from the facility device (Please refer to the analysis of claim 1);
a storage unit that stores the tag information and third information in which a degree of priority for a collection frequency for the data is determined in advance for each piece of the tag information (para 37, terminal storage unit 21 stores operation information and acquisition condition A1 etc. The “acquisition condition” teaches the claimed third information. Para 43 & Fig. 4, the acquisition condition A1 defines the operation information and the timing to acquire the operation information. Acquisition condition is based on degree of importance {para 44}; para 49 “a predetermined timing via the connection unit 24 under an acquisition condition” meaning it is determined in advanced); and
a determination unit configured to determine a collection frequency for the data based on the tag information acquired by the acquisition unit and the third information (para 43, Para 68).
As per claim 14, Kitamura teaches
The data collection frequency determination device according to claim 13, further comprising:
a setting unit configured to set a collection frequency for the data, when a desired collection frequency for the data has been set, the setting unit being configured to update the third information by setting the collection frequency for the data, the collection frequency for the data being set, to be associated with the tag information assigned to the data (para 44, collection timing/frequency varies based on acquisition conditions, degree of importance. Paras 48-49, the processing unit decides acquisition frequency based on acquisition condition. para 15 “the management apparatus includes a changing unit that changes the first condition. Accordingly, the management apparatus is capable of flexibly determining, in accordance with a situation, the manner of collecting operation information in the device information transmitting apparatus.”; Also see FIg.4 for various acquisition conditions (A1) and various state information (D1) frequency is determined).
As per claim 15, Kitamura teaches
A data collection frequency determination method to determine a frequency of collecting data from a facility device in which tag information for identification is assigned for each item of the data that is necessary, the data collection frequency determination method including (para 36, a processing unit 23):
acquiring the tag information from the facility device (Please refer to the analysis of claim 1);
storing the tag information and first information including a collection frequency for the data, the collection frequency for the data being associated with the tag information (Please refer to the analysis of claim 1); and
determining a collection frequency for the data based on the tag information acquired in the first step and the first information (Please refer to the analysis of claim 1).
As per claim 16, Kitamura teaches
A data collection frequency determination method to determine a frequency of collecting data from a facility device in which tag information for identification is assigned for each item of the data that is necessary, the data collection frequency determination method including (para 36, a processing unit 23):
acquiring the tag information from the facility device (Please refer to the analysis of claim 1):
storing the tag information and second information in which a collection frequency for the data is determined in advance for each piece of the tag information (Please refer to the analysis of claim 1); and
determining a collection frequency for the data based on the tag information acquired in the first step and the second information (para 44, collection timing/frequency varies based on acquisition conditions, degree of importance. Paras 48-49, the processing unit decides acquisition frequency based on acquisition condition. para 15 “the management apparatus includes a changing unit that changes the first condition. Accordingly, the management apparatus is capable of flexibly determining, in accordance with a situation, the manner of collecting operation information in the device information transmitting apparatus.”; Also see FIg.4 for various acquisition conditions (A1) and various state information (D1) frequency is determined).
As per claim 17, Kitamura teaches
A data collection frequency determination method to determine a frequency of collecting data from a facility device in which tag information for identification is assigned for each item of the data that is necessary, the data collection frequency determination method including:
acquiring the tag information from the facility device (please refer to the analysis of claim 1);
storing the tag information and third information in which a degree of priority for a collection frequency for the data is determined in advance for each piece of the tag information (please refer to the analysis of claim 13 for storing information); and
determining a collection frequency for the data based on the tag information acquired in the first step and the third information (para 68, para 117).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rokeya Alam whose telephone number is (571)270-0083. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am - 4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Scott Baderman can be reached at telephone number (571-272-3644). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ROKEYA SHAWALI ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
.
Prosecution Insights