DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the original application filed on 10/10/2024. Claims 1-22 are pending.
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
Claims 7, 15, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 7, 15, and 22, “operations of the second” should be -- operations of the second system -- (line 5).
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 1-22 are rejected 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.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claims 8 and 16), the claim recites “wherein the message includes a message identifier (ID), payload data, and an interpretation of the payload data is indeterminate from any data in the message”, which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear as to whether (a) the message includes a message ID and payload data, where an interpretation of the payload data is indeterminate from any data in the message, or (b) the message includes a message ID, payload data, and an interpretation of the payload data, which is indeterminate from any data in the message, making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Regarding claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-22, which claim dependency from claims 1, 8, and 16, they are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 16 above.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Trossen (US 2004/0003058 A1, hereinafter “Trossen”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claims 8 and 16), Trossen discloses:
A method for at least communicating between multiple systems, the method comprising:
receiving a message with a first system from a second system, wherein the message includes a message identifier (ID), payload data, and an interpretation of the payload data is indeterminate from any data in the message (receiving from mobile terminal message including identifier and payload data, Trossen: [0028]-[0030]);
accessing a mapping of the message ID to a format specification of the payload data, wherein the format specification of the payload data defines a structure of the payload data associated with the ID (identifying type format of payload based on identifier value associated with payload format, Trossen: [0029]-[0032]);
interpreting the payload data in accordance with the format specification of the payload data mapped to the message ID (interpreting payload data according to type format of payload to identify associated service agents, Trossen: [0030]-[0033]); and
performing one or more actions based on an interpretation of the payload data (sending messages to service agents identified based on interpretation of payload data, Trossen: [0030]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 2, Trossen teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Trossen further discloses:
wherein the format specification comprises a sequence having a configurable structure (format type identified by flag within message, Trossen: [0032]).
Regarding claim 3, Trossen teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Trossen further discloses:
wherein the configurable structure comprises at least one of: one or more binary bytes; one or more elements and each element has multiple bytes; and one or more elements and one or more element tags (format type identified by flag value, Trossen: [0032]).
Regarding claim 4, Trossen teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Trossen further discloses:
setting the format specification for the payload of the message having the message ID (identifying type format of payload based on identifier value associated with payload format, Trossen: [0029]-[0032]); and
mapping the format specification to the message ID (associating identifier value with payload format, Trossen: [0029]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 5, Trossen teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Trossen further discloses:
subscribing by the first system to messages having the message ID (registering to service agents compatible with type format associated with identifier value, Trossen: [0030]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 6, Trossen teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Trossen further discloses:
communicatively coupling the first system to the second system via bridge (registering to compatible service agents via SIP proxy, Trossen: [0030]-[0033]); and
receiving the message via the bridge (communicating messages via SIP proxy, Trossen: [0030]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 7, Trossen teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Trossen further discloses:
wherein the payload data includes one or more operating parameters of the second system, and performing one or more actions based on an interpretation of the payload data comprises (payload data including identifier value associated with type format compatible with service agents, Trossen: [0029]-[0032]):
analyzing the one or more operating parameters of the second system (identifying service agents compatible with type format of payload, Trossen: [0030]-[0033]); and
controlling one or more operations of the second in accordance with the analysis of the one or more operating parameters (sending messages to identified service agents, Trossen: [0030]-[0033]).
Regarding claims 9-15 and 17-22, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 2-7. Therefore, claims 9-15 and 17-22 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 2-7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Lee et al. (US 2014/0185088 A1: Image Forming Apparatus Supporting Near Field Communication (NFC) Function and Method of Setting an Image Job Using NFC Device), Grzegorczyk (US 2022/0060543 A1: Method and System for Collecting Manufacturer-Specific Controller-Area Network Data), and Huang et al. (US 2013/0235795 A1: Distributed Application System and Method for Controlling Quality of Service in Data Transmission Thereof).
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIL H. LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3408. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm 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, Brian J. Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/GIL H. LEE/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights