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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This action is responsive to the Application filed on 11/12/2024. A filing date 11/12/2024 is acknowledged. The sought benefit of provisional application 63599317 (which was filed on 11/15/2023), and CN application 202411235050.8 (which was filed on 11/19/2024) is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 11 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a device alarm identification module, a register, a click detection module, a real-time data refresh module, an icon rendering module in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the server 1 of the disclosure is a device with a processor and a non-transitory storage medium (e.g., a memory, a hard drive, or an optical disk), such as a personal computer, an industrial computer, a local server, an industrial server, or a cloud server. The server 1 stores an application program through the non-transitory storage medium, and the application program has multiple computer-readable codes. After the server 1 executes the multiple computer-readable code by the processor, the graphical control page 11 and the multiple modules 12-19 are created virtually in the server 1, so that the server 1 constitutes the alarm system of the disclosure and implements an alarm method of the disclosure by the graphical control page 11, the multiple modules 12-19, and the register 10 (implemented in software or hardware) ([0038]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 nonobviousness.
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.
4. Claims 1-7, 10-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas Sherrill et al (US Publication 20070239351 A1, hereinafter Sherrill and in view of David Johnston et al (US Publication 20220100177 A1, hereinafter Johnston), and Byan Kim (US Publication 20160195864 A1, hereinafter Kim).
As for independent claim 1, Sherrill discloses: An alarm system for electronic devices connected with a plurality of electronic devices in an environment ([0007], the system management application components receive a variety of status data regarding the health and performance of process control system equipment including, for example: control processors, network switches, fieldbus modules, field devices connected to a process control network) and comprising: a graphical control page, configured for displaying a device icon of the plurality of electronic devices respectively (Abstract, a navigation tree that displays equipment status via icons);
a device alarm identification module, configured for respectively decoding an alarm point of each of the electronic devices (Abstract, The GUI also provides access to a variety of system information including: alarms, messages, watched system management parameters, and a legend for symbols displayed in a system management navigation tree; [0063], the alarms graphical user interface includes a set of columns for specifying: an acknowledge status, an index number, a data/time stamp, a source station of the alarm message, a path of a component from which the alarm arose (used to propagate an alarm to ancestors on the tree within the navigation pane 300), and an alarm message), … a click detection module, configured for, when detecting that the device icon of any of the electronic devices is clicked, reading the device real-time data of the electronic device being clicked from the register, and displaying the device real-time data of the electronic device being clicked on the graphical control page ([0059], one of the easiest way to access the content for a system component for display within the information pane 302 is by selecting (e.g., double-clicking) that node on the hierarchical tree in the navigation pane 300); a real-time data refresh module, configured for repeatedly reading the register and refreshing displayed content of the graphical control page based on a preset cycle ([0060], In an illustrative embodiment the HMI application 200 supports designating the refresh behavior of the counters including: refresh on demand, refresh only some parameters, refresh all or a portion of the displayed parameters on a periodic basis; [0068], With regard to refreshing counter values displayed in the accessories pane 310, the exemplary embodiment supports a variety of refresh modes/commands including read on demand and periodic update modes); and an icon rendering module, configured for rendering a display color of the device icon of the plurality of electronic devices based on data in the register, wherein the display color corresponds to a highest alarm level currently experienced by each of the electronic devices ([0021], the status of system components represented in the navigation tree is reflected in one or more visual traits (e.g., text, color, icons); [0038], indicate status through combined use of icons, text, colors, and visual effects (e.g., flashing); [0054], Examples of such indicators include multiple formats such as changing the color of a tag or other graphical representation of a system component to ensure differentiation between normal and abnormal operational states of represented equipment. Examples of differentiation include color, shape (alter or replace previously displayed icon/representation of component), and text; [0071], the legend 800 defines icon symbols that convey unique status/alarm conditions based upon symbolic graphics, text and/or colors; [0085], the status indicators below shows how symbols, text, blinking, and color-coding are used to visually convey alarm states and indicate equipment health status in association with icons representing specific system equipment).
Sherrill discloses processing alarm data but does not clearly disclose alarm array, in an analogous art of monitoring and displaying device status data, Johnston discloses: and creating an alarm array based on the alarm points and a plurality of alarm codes of the plurality of electronic devices ([0088], A fourth reference array in this example may include one or more entries, where each entry respectively corresponds to a respective alarm (e.g., [Alarm 1], [Alarm 2], [Alarm 3], [Alarm 4], [Alarm 5])), wherein each of the alarm codes respectively corresponds to different alarm level (Johnston: [0086], status-related parameters (e.g., open, closed, light on, light off, light blinking, red light, green light, blue light, high level alarm, alarm on, alarm off, trip, on, off));
Sherrill and Johnston are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, monitoring and displaying device status data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Sherrill using the teachings of Johnston to include processing alarm array data. It would provide Sherrill’s system with enhanced capabilities of processing alarm data more efficiently.
Further, Sherrill discloses storing the device data and status data, but does not clearly disclose register the device data, in another analogous art of monitoring and displaying device status data, Kim discloses: a register, configured for storing respective device real-time data and the alarm array of the plurality of electronic devices (Kim: [0152], registration and access control of network devices 102, 104, 106; [0155], the network devices 102, 104, 106 may be registered with the cloud network 114 and associated with a logical network within the local area network 100; [0456], the display 4900 is flexible and can dynamically display the most appropriate tile 4906, 4908, 4910 for whatever environment the application is run in. For instance, the display 4900 enables a mechanism wherein a user can configure a tile to display the most appropriate message for a connected sensor);
Sherrill and Kim are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, monitoring and displaying device status data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Sherrill using the teachings of Kim to include registering the device and the device status data. It would provide Sherrill’s system with enhanced capabilities of processing alarm data more efficiently.
As for claim 2, Sherrill- Johnston-Kim discloses: further comprising a device data receiving module, configured for receiving the device real-time data from one of the plurality of electronic devices and, after identifying a device type of the electronic device based on a device ID of the electronic device, decoding the device real-time data being received based on the device type, wherein the device alarm identification module is configured for performing an alarm determination based on the alarm point native to the electronic device according to the device real-time data being received, and when the electronic device is determined to have an alarm event, storing the alarm code corresponding to the alarm event to the alarm array (Johnston: [0058], the reference array 42 includes entries for palletizer devices (e.g., represented by identifier 134), for a sorter device (e.g., represented by identifier 136), and for a delta device (e.g., represented by identifier 138) may operate together for sorting and palletizing loads of the objects; Kim: [0021], a type of the electronic device can be analyzed based on the analysis; [0092], The keys may be specifically encrypted with unique information identifiable only to the network device and the access device; [0093], the network device may also send to the server information relating to the network device (e.g., MAC address, serial number, or the like) and/or information relating to the access device (e.g., MAC address, serial number, application unique identifier, or the like); [0100], The techniques described herein may help identify the types of electronic devices using image data and textual data and may use the identification to enhance the operability of the electronic device).
As for claim 3, Sherrill- Johnston-Kim discloses: wherein the graphical control page has a first display area and a second display area, the first display area is configured for displaying the device icon of the plurality of electronic devices (Sherrill: Fig. 3, the left side panel displays icons representing the plurality of devices), and the second display area is configured for displaying device real-time data of the plurality of electronic devices (Sherrill: Fig. 3, the right side display area displays component-specific information of the selected device), wherein the device icon of the plurality of electronic devices constitutes a dynamic single-line diagram, and the dynamic single-line diagram corresponds to a power network formed by the plurality of electronic devices in the environment (Sherrill: Fig. 8, each icon represents a component/equipment/device in the environment).
As for claim 4, Sherrill- Johnston-Kim discloses: wherein when the device icon of any of the electronic devices is clicked, the second display area is configured for displaying the device real-time information of the electronic device being clicked and a plurality of alarm fields (Sherrill: Fig. 3, the right side display area displays component-specific information of the selected device), wherein the plurality of alarm fields respectively corresponds to different alarm types (Sherrill: [0063], The user interface supports selecting and acknowledging a single alarm, all pending alarms, and particular types of alarms (e.g., cable connection alarms)), and the plurality of alarm fields are defaulted to a collapsed state and respectively have an expand button (Kim: [0392], The main panel 4106 can include a collapse/expand element 4124 that can hide or reveal one or more subpanels. The subpanels can display information based on the electrical characteristics determined by the network device; please note user may expand or collapse detailed information of the network device using button/icon in the user interface).
As for claim 5, Sherrill- Johnston-Kim discloses: wherein when the expand button of any of the alarm fields is triggered, the alarm system reads the register to correspondingly obtain the alarm array based on the device ID of the electronic device being clicked and the alarm type of the alarm field being triggered, and generates and displays an alarm table based on content of the alarm array, wherein the alarm table has a plurality of alarm rows, wherein each of the alarm rows respectively records a certain alarm code in the alarm array (Sherrill: [0060], The counter values are displayed in table format containing, by way of example, columns identifying: a counter name, current value, previous value, lowest value and highest value; Johnston: Abstract, The reference array may include rows and columns, where each row may correspond to a respective industrial component of the industrial components; Kim: [0182], A status table may include all statuses of each network device, or individual storage tables for each local area network or other subset of its network devices/networks), and each of the alarm rows is rendered to a color assigned to the alarm level corresponding to the certain alarm code (Sherrill: [0021], the status of system components represented in the navigation tree is reflected in one or more visual traits (e.g., text, color, icons); [0038], indicate status through combined use of icons, text, colors, and visual effects (e.g., flashing); [0054], Examples of such indicators include multiple formats such as changing the color of a tag or other graphical representation of a system component to ensure differentiation between normal and abnormal operational states of represented equipment. Examples of differentiation include color, shape (alter or replace previously displayed icon/representation of component), and text; [0071], the legend 800 defines icon symbols that convey unique status/alarm conditions based upon symbolic graphics, text and/or colors; [0085], the status indicators below shows how symbols, text, blinking, and color-coding are used to visually convey alarm states and indicate equipment health status in association with icons representing specific system equipment).
As for claim 6, Sherrill- Johnston-Kim discloses: wherein when the click detection module detects that the device icon of any of the electronic devices is clicked, the alarm system identifies a device type of the electronic device being clicked as a breaker control element, a system efficiency element, or a general element based on a device ID of the electronic device being clicked, and displays different content on the second display area based on the device type (Johnston: [0058], the reference array 42 includes entries for palletizer devices (e.g., represented by identifier 134), for a sorter device (e.g., represented by identifier 136), and for a delta device (e.g., represented by identifier 138) may operate together for sorting and palletizing loads of the objects; Kim: [0021], a type of the electronic device can be analyzed based on the analysis; [0092], The keys may be specifically encrypted with unique information identifiable only to the network device and the access device; [0093], the network device may also send to the server information relating to the network device (e.g., MAC address, serial number, or the like) and/or information relating to the access device (e.g., MAC address, serial number, application unique identifier, or the like); [0100], The techniques described herein may help identify the types of electronic devices using image data and textual data and may use the identification to enhance the operability of the electronic device).
As for claim 7, Sherrill- Johnston-Kim discloses: wherein when the electronic device being clicked is the general element, the alarm system executes following operations: starting a real-time data refresh thread; correspondingly reading the device real-time data from the register based on the device ID of the electronic device being clicked; calling the real-time data refresh module to refresh real-time values displayed on the second display area based on the device real-time data of the electronic device being clicked (Sherrill: [0060], In an illustrative embodiment the HMI application 200 supports designating the refresh behavior of the counters including: refresh on demand, refresh only some parameters, refresh all or a portion of the displayed parameters on a periodic basis. A reset control will also resetting all or individual ones of the counters); and before leaving the real-time data refresh thread, delaying the real-time data refresh thread for a period of system time, and performing the real-time data refresh thread again (Kim: [0113], An action can include one or more sub-actions performed simultaneously, sequentially, or with predetermined and/or dynamic delays; [0120], The network device can then, or after a pre-programmed delay, initiate an action; [0272], including introducing one or more time delays to allow the operation of the network devices suitable time to influence the physical quantities sensed by the sensors; [0292], refresh icon 2314 can be selected to refresh information presented in display 2300, such as status and state information displayed in tiles 2302A, 2302B, and 2302C. For instance, the status 2310B in tile 2302B for the motion sensor can be refreshed on an automatic, periodic basis, in addition to being manually updated when refresh icon 2314 is selected).
As for claim 10, Sherrill- Johnston-Kim discloses wherein the alarm system starts an icon rendering thread and the icon rendering thread performs: traversing the plurality of electronic devices displayed on the first display area, and when a first electronic device in the plurality of electronic devices is not connected, calling the icon rendering module to render the device icon of the first electronic device to a first color; when a second electronic device in the plurality of electronic devices is connected and does not have any alarm event, calling the icon rendering module to render the device icon of the second electronic device in the plurality of electronic devices to a second color; when a third electronic device in the plurality of electronic devices has alarm events and a highest alarm level of the alarm events is a first level, calling the icon rendering module to render the device icon of the third electronic device to a third color; when a fourth electronic device in the plurality of electronic devices has alarm events and the highest alarm level of the alarm events is a second level, calling the icon rendering module to render the device icon of the fourth electronic device to a fourth color; and when a fifth electronic device in the plurality of electronic devices has alarm events and the highest alarm level of the alarm events is a third level, calling the icon rendering module to render the device icon of the fifth electronic device to a fifth color (Sherrill: [0021], the status of system components represented in the navigation tree is reflected in one or more visual traits (e.g., text, color, icons); [0038], indicate status through combined use of icons, text, colors, and visual effects (e.g., flashing); [0054], Examples of such indicators include multiple formats such as changing the color of a tag or other graphical representation of a system component to ensure differentiation between normal and abnormal operational states of represented equipment. Examples of differentiation include color, shape (alter or replace previously displayed icon/representation of component), and text; [0071], the legend 800 defines icon symbols that convey unique status/alarm conditions based upon symbolic graphics, text and/or colors; [0085], the status indicators below shows how symbols, text, blinking, and color-coding are used to visually convey alarm states and indicate equipment health status in association with icons representing specific system equipment; Johnston: [0086], status-related parameters (e.g., open, closed, light on, light off, light blinking, red light, green light, blue light, high level alarm, alarm on, alarm off, trip, on, off); Kim: [0205], The light source may depict different colors or other characteristics (e.g., flashing, dimming, or the like) to indicate different levels of signal strength or mode of operation; please note different colors may indicate different levels for status/state/mode of the device/event data).
As per claim 11, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 12, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 2, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 2 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 13, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 3, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 3 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 14, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 4, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 4 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 15, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 5, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 5 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 16, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claims 6 and 7, thus the rationales for rejecting claims 6 and 7 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 19, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 10, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 10 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 20, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein.
6. Claims 8, 9, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherrill, Johnston, Kim as applied on claims 1 and 11, and further in view of Stuart Laval et al (US Publication 20140195844 A1, hereinafter Laval).
As for claim 8, Sherrill- Johnston-Kim discloses starting the real-time data refresh thread; correspondingly reading the device real-time data of the electronic device being clicked from the register based on the device ID of the electronic device being clicked; calling the real-time data refresh module to refresh the real-time values and the breaker control option displayed on the second display area based on the device real-time data of the electronic device being clicked (Sherrill: [0060], In an illustrative embodiment the HMI application 200 supports designating the refresh behavior of the counters including: refresh on demand, refresh only some parameters, refresh all or a portion of the displayed parameters on a periodic basis. A reset control will also resetting all or individual ones of the counters); and before leaving the real-time data refresh thread, delaying the real-time data refresh thread for the period of system time, and performing the real-time data refresh thread again (Kim: [0113], An action can include one or more sub-actions performed simultaneously, sequentially, or with predetermined and/or dynamic delays; [0120], The network device can then, or after a pre-programmed delay, initiate an action; [0272], including introducing one or more time delays to allow the operation of the network devices suitable time to influence the physical quantities sensed by the sensors; [0292], refresh icon 2314 can be selected to refresh information presented in display 2300, such as status and state information displayed in tiles 2302A, 2302B, and 2302C. For instance, the status 2310B in tile 2302B for the motion sensor can be refreshed on an automatic, periodic basis, in addition to being manually updated when refresh icon 2314 is selected); but Sherrill-Johnston-Kim does not clearly disclose performing permission control for breaker control element, Laval discloses: wherein when the electronic device being clicked is the breaker control element (Laval: [0004], The NCC typically has several large screens showing real-time single line diagrams of the network status. Single line diagrams show elements on the network such as source, load, and devices such as transformers, circuit breakers, switchgear, re-closers, switches, and sensors), the alarm system executes following operations: calling a permission management module to obtain a user control permission for a current user; determining whether the current user possesses a substantive control permission over the breaker control element based on the user control permission; when determining that possesses a substantive control permission over the breaker control element, unlocking a breaker control option of the breaker control element (Laval: [0060], The security management module 24 controls user authentication, user access levels, and message/transport encryptions; [0103], an authentication and authorization page 110 is shown);
Sherrill and Laval are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, of monitoring and displaying device status data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Sherrill using the teachings of Laval to include security management module controls user authentication and user access levels. It would provide Sherrill’s system with enhanced capabilities of managing user’s access level for certain operations in order to prevent user from make unauthorized operation.
As for claim 9, Sherrill- Johnston-Kim does not disclose displaying a curve graph based on the collected data, Laval discloses: wherein when the electronic device being clicked is the system efficiency element, the alarm system executes following operations: calling a system efficiency calculation module to calculate a system efficiency of the electronic device being clicked; displaying the system efficiency on the second display area; and drawing a system efficiency curve graph based on the system efficiency and displaying the system efficiency curve graph on that second display area (Laval: Fig. 8, display a bar chart 60; Fig. 9, display a plot 72 of data points of the characteristic or property corresponding to the data item being monitored; Fig. 23 and [0118], display plot 131 with the values of the selected variables; Fig. 24, display curve graph 135).
Sherrill and Laval are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, of monitoring and displaying device status data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Sherrill using the teachings of Laval to include displaying graph in curve, plot, and/or bar charts based on the monitored property. It would provide Sherrill’s system with enhanced capabilities of allowing user to aware of the data and event in an intuitive way.
As per claim 17, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 8, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 8 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 18, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 9, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 9 are incorporated herein.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Koh (US Publication 20190392926) METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PROVIDING AND ORGANIZING MEDICAL INFORMATION
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Lu whose telephone number is 571-270-1410 and fax number is 571-270-2410. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached on 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-273-8300.
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.
/Hua Lu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
