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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 7, 9-10, 15, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Basile et al, US Patent Pub US 20160070629 A1 (hereinafter Basile).
Claim 1
Basile discloses a method for device troubleshooting comprising: identifying, by an automation device, an occurrence of a fault condition in the automation device (Basile, para 45 – Detecting a failure/”occurrence of a fault condition” in a hardware appliance/”automation device”.), loading, by the automation device, a fault code associated with the fault condition into non-volatile memory of a near field communication (NFC) chip (Basile, para 19, 48-49, 51 – Loading a fault code in non-volatile memory of an NFC tag/chip.); and obtaining, at a software application on a mobile device, the fault code from the NFC chip when the automation device is in a powered-off state, wherein the obtaining is performed wirelessly via an NFC link. (Basile, Abstract, para 27-28, 48, Claim 1 – A hand held NFC tag reader/”mobile device” wirelessly reads the fault code from the NFC tag/chip when the hardware/device is not powered/”powered off state” using software.)
This rejection also applies to claims 9 and 17.
Claim 2
Basile discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Basile further discloses receiving, at the software application of the mobile device, a request to view documentation associated with the fault code (Basile, para 17, 51-52, Claim 1 - Forming a query based on the identified one or more component faults and/or issues.); retrieving, by the software application of the mobile device, the documentation from a data repository (Basile, para 17, 51-52, Claim 1 - Querying a diagnostic database in the hand-held reader, based on the formed query.); and displaying, at the software application of the mobile device, the documentation in a user interface of the mobile device. (Basile, para 17, 51-52, Claim 1 - Displaying one or more query results in a ranked order on a display of the hand-held reader.)
This rejection also applies to claim 10.
Claim 7
Basile discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Basile further discloses the NFC chip is incorporated in the automation device. (Basile, para 31 – NFC tags on the appliance chassis.)
This rejection also applies to claims 15 and 20.
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 (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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 4, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basile et al, US Patent Pub US 20160070629 A1 (hereinafter Basile) as applied to claims 1-2, 7, 9-10, 15, 17, 20 above, and in view of Miyata, US Patent Pub US 20170265232 A1 (hereinafter Miyata).
Claim 4
Basile discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Basile fails to specify loading, by the automation device, an identification of the automation device and an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the automation device into the non-volatile memory of the NFC chip; and obtaining, at the software application, the identification and the IP address concurrently with obtaining the fault code.
However Miyata teaches loading, by the automation device, an identification of the automation device and an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the automation device into the non-volatile memory of the NFC chip; and obtaining, at the software application, the identification and the IP address concurrently with obtaining the fault code. (Miyata, para 39-42 – Storing the IP address and MAC address/”device identification” information into an NFC chip. This can be combined with the teachings of Basile to include the IP and identification information when reading the fault code from the NFC tag.)
Basile and Miyata are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to NFC usage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above NFC usage, as taught by Basile, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Miyata.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to determine that the apparatus is the target apparatus and perform control to use the target apparatus by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Miyata (Abstract).
This rejection also applies to claim 12.
Claim(s) 5-6, 13-14, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basile et al, US Patent Pub US 20160070629 A1 (hereinafter Basile) as applied to claims 1-2, 7, 9-10, 15, 17, 20 above, and in view of Siltala, “POWER SUPPLY CONFIGURATION USING NFC”, June 2023, LUT University, pp 13-14, 37, 55 (hereinafter Siltala).
Claim 5
Basile discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Basile fails to specify receiving, at the software application, one or more configuration selections from a user via a user interface of the mobile device, and loading, at the software application, the one or more configuration selections to the NFC chip via the NFC link, wherein the loading the selections is performed when the automation device is in the powered-off state; and retrieving, by the automation device, the configuration selections from the NFC chip during startup of the automation device, and configuring, by the automation device, the automation device according to the one or more configuration selections.
However Siltala teaches receiving, at the software application, one or more configuration selections from a user via a user interface of the mobile device, and loading, at the software application, the one or more configuration selections to the NFC chip via the NFC link, wherein the loading the selections is performed when the automation device is in the powered-off state; and retrieving, by the automation device, the configuration selections from the NFC chip during startup of the automation device, and configuring, by the automation device, the automation device according to the one or more configuration selections. (Siltala, pg 14, 37, 55 – Selecting configuration options from a user interface of a mobile device to load into an NFC chip while the connected power supply was powered down, and when the connected power supply is started, it reads and implements the configuration data from the NFC chip.)
Basile and Siltala are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to NFC usage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above NFC usage, as taught by Basile, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Siltala.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to reduce the difficulty in configuring hard to reach devices and increase the speed and security of configuration changes by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Siltala (pg 13).
This rejection also applies to claims 13 and 18.
Claim 6
The combination of Basile and Siltala teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Siltala further teaches one or more operating parameter selections. (Siltala, pg 13 – Configurable operating parameters such as output current and voltage.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above NFC usage, as taught by Basile and Siltala, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Siltala.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to reduce the difficulty in configuring hard to reach devices and increase the speed and security of configuration changes by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Siltala (pg 13).
This rejection also applies to claims 14 and 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s claim defines over the prior art of record because the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, does not teach generating, at the software application of the mobile device, a prompt for an artificial intelligence model trained to provide recommendations for device troubleshooting, wherein the prompt comprises a request for a recommendation for addressing the fault condition;
receiving, at the software application of the mobile device, the recommendation from the artificial intelligence model; and displaying, at the software application of the mobile device, the recommendation in a user interface of the mobile device.
Claims 8 and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s claim defines over the prior art of record because the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, does not teach the automation device is one of a plurality of automation devices in a panel, and the NFC chip is in communication with each of the plurality of automation devices to receive fault codes from each of the plurality of automation devices.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schwagmann et al, US Patent Pub US 20220027582 A1 relates to claims regarding storing a fault code in an NFC tag that is readable when the device is powered off.
Zeuch et al, US Patent Pub US 20170052555 A1 relates to claims regarding storing operating parameters in NFC memory.
Nair et al, US Patent Pub US 20150287318 A1 relates to claims regarding an industrial-enabled mobile electronic device allowing a user to wirelessly interact and configure industrial devices using NFC.
Ramirez, Brazil Patent Num BR102017018091A2 relates to claims regarding an automation control center incorporating an NFC chip for receiving, storing and transmitting configuration data using a mobile device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E OGG whose telephone number is (469) 295-9163. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 7:30 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/DAVID EARL OGG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights