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 .
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 9-11, 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madonna et al. (US 2014/0029407), Burke, Jr. et al. (US 2017/0280009) and Parry (US 2002/0128875). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1, Madonna discloses a user device (fig. 2, item 230; para. 23, note: PCS/cellular phone) comprising (fig. 3) at least one processor (item 320), and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the user device at least to have capability to (paras. 34 and 73): receive information indicating at least: a phone number of a remote support device (fig. 6C); and initiate a voice communication session with the remote support device by using the phone number of the remote support device (para. 43; note: call customer service center).
However, Madonna fails to disclose receiving the information and initiating a voice call. Burke discloses these features (paras. 45 and 65-68; note: a user calling customer service and reporting an error code for troubleshooting by an agent). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive a phone number and initiate a voice call in the invention of Madonna. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, allow a user to solve a problem with customer service as is well known in the art (Burke, paras. 45 and 65-68; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Further, Madonna in view of Burke discloses troubleshooting an industrial automation device (fig. 2, item 220; note: in the broadest reasonable interpretation, an industrial automation device is a switch or router that is used to communicate in a service provider network 260; see paras. 35 and 38 of the specification of the instant application), but fails to teach and make obvious receiving an identifier of an industrial automation device and transmit, to the remote support device, via the voice communication session, at least the identifier of the industrial automation device. However, Parry discloses a serial number of a device used in troubleshooting (para. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have receiving an identifier of an industrial automation device and transmit, to the remote support device, via the voice communication session, at least the identifier of the industrial automation device in the invention of Burke. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing solutions for a particular identified device as is well known in the art (Parry, para. 3); MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 2, Madonna in view of Burke and Parry teaches and makes obvious the user device of claim 1, wherein at least the identifier of the industrial automation device is represented by an extension number comprised in the information (Parry, para. 3), wherein the extension number is used for transmitting at least the identifier to the remote support device via the voice communication session (Madonna, fig. 6C; Burke, paras. 45 and 65-68.; Parry, para. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Madonna in view of Burke and Parry teaches and makes obvious the user device of claim 1, wherein the information further indicates one or more error codes associated with the industrial automation device (Madonna, fig. 6C and Burke, paras. 65-68), wherein the user device is further caused to transmit, to the remote support device, via the voice communication session, the one or more error codes associated with the industrial automation device (Madonna, fig. 6C and Burke, paras. 65-68).
Regarding claim 9-11, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 1-3, respectively, from the perspective of the industrial automation device. In addition, Madonna discloses an industrial automation device (fig. 3 and paras. 34 and 73) comprising at least one processor, and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the industrial automation device at least to: generate information indicating at least: a phone number of a remote support device, and an identifier of the industrial automation device; and provide, to a user device, the information indicating at least: the phone number of the remote support device, and the identifier of the industrial automation device as noted in the rejection of claims 1-3.
Regarding claim 14-15, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 1-2, respectively from the perspective of the report support device. In addition, Madonna discloses a remote support device comprising (fig. 3 and paras. 34 and 73) at least one processor, and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the remote support device at least to: receive, from a user device, via a voice communication session, at least an identifier of an industrial automation device; and display at least the identifier to an operator as noted in the rejection of claims 1-2.
Regarding claims 19-20, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 1, 9 and 14.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madonna in view of Burke and Parry as applied to claim 1, 9 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (US 2021/0103786).
Regarding claim 5, Madonna in view of Burke and Parry fails to teach and make obvious the user device of claim 1, wherein the information is received by reading a quick-response code comprising the information. However, Yoshida discloses a QR code having various information (para. 431). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have information is received by reading a quick-response code comprising the information in the invention of Madonna in view of Burke and Parry. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing information in user-accessible format as is well known in the art (Yoshida, para. 431; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 13, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 5.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madonna in view of Burke and Parry as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wakabayashi et al. (US 2019/0147423) or Sugamata (US 2018/0182021).
Regarding claim 6, Madonna in view of Burke and Parry fails to teach and make obvious the user device of claim 1, wherein the information is received from the industrial automation device via a wireless connection or a wired connection. However, Wakabayashi (fig. 1, items 10 and 20, and para. 48) and Sugamata (fig. 1, item 100 and para. 95) each disclose information received wirelessly from a device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have information is received from the industrial automation device via a wireless connection or a wired connection in the invention of Madonna in view of Burke and Parry. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, exchanging information in available mediums as is well known in the art (Wakabayashi, fig. 1, items 10 and 20, and para. 48; Sugamata, fig. 1, item 100 and para. 95; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madonna in view of Burke and Parry as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wakabayashi et al. (US 2019/0147423) or Sugamata (US 2018/0182021), and Yasuoka et al. (US 2019/0149660), and Fujimoto (US 2015/0215446) or Ray (US 20100260327).
Regarding claim 7, Madonna in view of Burke and Parry fails to teach and make obvious the user device of claim 1, further being caused to: display, to a user, the phone number and an extension number, wherein the extension number represents at least the identifier of the industrial automation device; and receive, from the user, a user input indicating to initiate the voice communication session with the remote support device, wherein the voice communication session is initiated in response to receiving the user input, and wherein the extension number is used for transmitting at least the identifier to the remote support device via the voice communication session.
However, Madonna in view of Burke, Parry, and Wakabayashi or Sugamata teaches and makes obvious wirelessly receiving information from a device to a user device as noted in the rejection of claim 6.
Further, Yasuoka discloses displaying received device information (figs. 1, 7 and 9, and paras. 31-33) and making a call to a support center, and Fujimoto (fig. 4 and para. 113) and Ray (fig. 3 and para. 22) each disclose displaying a to-be-called telephone number. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display, to a user, the phone number and an extension number, wherein the extension number represents at least the identifier of the industrial automation device; and receive, from the user, a user input indicating to initiate the voice communication session with the remote support device, wherein the voice communication session is initiated in response to receiving the user input, and wherein the extension number is used for transmitting at least the identifier to the remote support device via the voice communication session in the invention of Madonna in view of Burke, Parry, and Wakabayashi or Sugamata. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, transmitting device and call data to a user device for a user to initiate support services, and offering user verification of a phone number as are well known in the art (Yasuoka, figs. 1, 7 and 9, and paras. 31-33; Fujimoto, fig. 4 and para. 113; Ray, fig. 3 and para. 22; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madonna in view of Burke and Parry as applied to claim 1 or 14 above, and further in view of Chidambaram (US 9,247,059).
Regarding claim 8, Madonna in view of Burke and Parry fails to teach and make obvious the user device of claim 1, wherein the voice communication session comprises a circuit-switched voice call. However, Chidambaram discloses this feature (fig. 2 and col. 2, line 57 through col. 3, line 3; col. 5, lines 25-38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the voice communication session comprises a circuit-switched voice call in the invention of Madonna in view of Burke and Parry. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing information in user-accessible format as is well known in the art (Chidambaram, fig. 2; col. 2, line 57 through col. 3, line 3; col. 5, lines 25-38); MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 18, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 8.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madonna in view of Burke and Parry as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Yasuoka et al. (US 2019/0149660).
Regarding claim 16, Madonna in view of Burke and Parry the remote support device of claim 14, further being caused to: receive, from the user device, via the voice communication session, one or more error codes associated with the industrial automation device as noted in the rejection of claim 3, but fails to teach and make obvious selecting, based on the identifier and the one or more error codes, the operator for troubleshooting associated with the industrial automation device and assigning the voice communication session to the operator based on the selection.
However, Yasuoka discloses this feature (figs.1, 3-4 and 8 (steps SA11-SA12 and SA16 and corresponding steps of fig. 10), and para. 47 (note: the information is routed to the operator). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select, based on the identifier and the one or more error codes, the operator for troubleshooting associated with the industrial automation device and assigning the voice communication session to the operator based on the selection in the invention of Madonna in view of Burke and Parry. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing information to a support operator as is known in the art (Yasuoka, figs.1, 3-4, 8 and 10, and para. 47; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 12 and 17 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights