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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
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, and 10-18 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.
The independent claims have been amended to contain the limitation “…regardless of the startup method that used before the modification have not been made…”. This limitation is indefinite as it appears to read as though the system is disregarding the startup method used before the modifications that weren’t made which does not refer to a clear time period as anytime period can refer to a period before modifications were not made if they haven’t yet been made.
Additionally, the independent claims contain the limitation “start the target device using the learned startup method” which appears to take place subsequent to the limitation “start the target device using the selected startup method” and it is unclear how a startup can occur when a startup has already occurred with no shutdown action occurring between.
Additionally, the independent claims contain the limitation “the target device being one of devices that are connected…” which is a sentence that is unclear because of an apparent grammatical error in “one of devices”. It is not clear which devices the target device is one of.
Examiner’s Note: the amendment further contains the limitation “the processing circuitry is configured to” which is subsequent to a limitation that states “the management device comprising processing circuitry configured to” it is unclear whether the second instance is meant to redefine what the processing circuitry is configured to do or further limit and define additional actions that the processing circuitry is configured to do and therefore it is suggested that the limitation be changed to “the processing circuitry is further configured to”
Prior Art Rejections
No prior art rejections are being made as neither the most closely related prior art, Honner (US 2011/0046844) in view of Arai (JP 2017-33321) in view of Hirano (US 2021/0009054), nor any other prior art discloses or renders obvious the subject matter of the newly amended independent claims. The applicant has made arguments concerning this matter with which the examiner agrees on pages 10-11 of Remarks dated 06/30/2026.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights