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 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, it appears “the device” should be “a device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, it appears “the device” should be “a device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, it appears “the user” should be “the user attribute information”. 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 9-10 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 9 recites the limitation "the device" in the 2nd to last line of the claim. It is not clear which device (i.e. the device that is recommended or the device other than the specific device).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the user attribute" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because regarding claim 17, all the units could be interpreted as software which is non-statutory subject matter. Regarding claim 18, a computer program, which is software, is non-statutory subject matter. The Examiner recommends stating “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11, 15, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Myamoto et al. U.S. PGPub 2014/0042811 (hereinafter “Myamoto”).
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 18, Myamoto discloses an information provision method for providing information on usage of devices in a facility during a power outage (e.g. ¶12 and 18-20), the method comprising, upon receiving power outage information indicating that a power outage (e.g. power outage/independent operation) has occurred in the facility (e.g. ¶41-43 and 47-51), acquiring remaining power information of a backup power supply (e.g. power supply status of storage battery) installed in the facility, and device information on at least one device (e.g. load) that is operable with the backup power supply, acquiring user information of the device (e.g. ¶18-20 and 102-114), determining a usage plan for the device operable with the backup power supply, based on the remaining power information of the backup power supply and the user information (e.g. ¶18-20 and 102-114), and outputting the usage plan (e.g. ¶18-20 and 102-114).
Regarding claim 2, Myamoto discloses the information provision method according to claim 1 further comprising: further acquiring usage history information of the device (e.g. ¶68-70 and 95); and determining the usage plan (i.e. changed operation schedule), based on the usage history information, the remaining power information, and the user information (e.g. ¶18-20 and 102-114).
Regarding claim 11, Myamoto discloses the information provision method according to claim 2, wherein the usage plan is determined based on the usage history information (e.g. stored operation schedule), the remaining power information (e.g. power supply status), and the user information (e.g. status of user) (e.g. ¶18-20 and 102-114).
Regarding claim 15, Myamoto discloses the information provision method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one device includes a plurality of devices (e.g. ¶18-20 and 102-114), and locations, in the facility, of the plurality of devices that are operable with the backup power supply are displayed and outputted with characters, graphics, symbols, colors, or a combination thereof (e.g. ¶45-47 and 64, displayed state of each device).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myamoto as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Sato et al. U.S. PGPub 2017/0324246 (hereinafter “Sato”).
Regarding claim 16, Myamoto discloses storing user information and remaining power information but does not explictly disclose storing the user information and remaining power information in a server on the web.
Sato discloses storing data home management related data in a server on the web (e.g. ¶290)
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to store home management data in a web server. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to have professional and secure access to the data from any location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Myamoto with Sato to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-8 and 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record does not disclose an information provision method, wherein the user information includes user attribute information indicating a user attribute that is determined based on at least one selected from the group consisting of ages of people living or working in the facility, number of the people, sexes of the people, presence or absence of diseases, and presence or absence of pregnant women, and the usage plan is determined according to the user attribute.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record does not disclose an information provision method, wherein the facility is a general house, and the user attribute is a family composition that is determined based on at least one selected from the group consisting of ages, number of people, sexes, presence or absence of diseases, and presence or absence of pregnant women.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record does not disclose an information provision method, wherein the usage plan includes time information indicating a remaining available time when the device is used with the backup power supply, and the available time is calculated from the usage history information and the remaining power information.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R KASENGE whose telephone number is (571)272-3743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am to 4pm EST.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
CK
July 21, 2026
/CHARLES R KASENGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights