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 .
Herein after “it would have been obvious” should be read as “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because drawings do not include descriptive labels see MPEP 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (o). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 13, 15-16, 20-21, 23, 25-26, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al PN 2014/0325035 in view of Haziza et al PN 2009/0013353, Park et al PN 2020/0064322 and Wild et al PN 2015/0286393.
In regards to claims 11, 21, 30: Ding et al teaches a method for automatically configuring (Abstract: “The method further includes sending a response to the application call from the remote IHS, the response including information for configuring the application to comply with the compliance criterion. Associated apparatuses and systems are disclosed”) a service application (application) on a terminal device (information handling system 110), comprising: establishing a connection between the terminal device and a computing device ([0021] “over a network” means a connection is established); establishing a connection to a database ([0028] “Although a single database 400 is shown, information may be stored in any suitable number and kinds of entities for storing such information. Database 400 may be implemented by, for example, a relational database, table, a distributed database, a file, a file system, a cloud data storage system, a data structure, or any combinations thereof”… “Information stored in database 400 may be stored after collection by data collection module 210”); determining a decision criterion Abstract: “determining a compliance criterion of the application based on the location of operation of the remote IHS”); determining a selection list based on the decision criterion ([0041] “Alternatively, the response may include results from application call 114, such as a list of requirements. IHS 110 running the developed application may determine, from such a list of requirements, which option from a variety of options may be used to be compliant”), wherein the selection list comprises at least a subset of data from the database (Claim 14: “determining the compliance criterion further comprises: automatically generating and updating a database of regulatory requirements; and looking up current regulatory requirements in the database”); generating configuration information based on the selection list ([0004] “the response including information for configuring the application to comply with the compliance criterion”); executing the service application on the terminal device based on the configuration information (operating thereon is executing [0023] “IHS 110 may include an application 112 operating thereon containing at least one function that may be configured to initiate a remote application call 114”). Ding teaches the list being from the data but the list is not based on criteria. Ding et al also does not teach the application being a gas measuring service application or displaying a range of functions of the application. Haziza et al teaches configuring a television channel presenter (claim 19: “a list generator configured for generating one or more channel lists based on selection criteria;”). It would have been obvious to have the selection list be based on the criteria because this would have allowed user input in the configuring. Park et al teaches automatically configuring a gas measuring device ([0009] “Various embodiments of the disclosure may provide an electronic device for collecting information relating to an environment surrounding the electronic device measuring gas and information relating to the operation of the electronic device, may acquire configuration information for gas measurement for the current situation from the collected information, and may control gas measurement on the basis of the acquired configuration information”. Ding et al does not limit the types of applications that can be configured. It would have been obvious to configure a gas measuring service application because this is a type of application. Wild et al teaches (Abstract: “A user interface and a method for adapting a view on a display unit of a user interface wherein the method includes calling up a configuration mode for allocating a range of functions to at least one tile displayed on the display unit, displaying first operating areas representing a respective range of functions, receiving a first user input for the first operating area and, in response thereto, displaying second operating areas thematically associated with the first operating area” [0013] “This also makes it possible to group large ranges of functions or many functions in a clear and conveniently selectable manner and, in a hierarchically structured manner, to select them for the purpose of configuring a tile”). It would have been obvious to display the range of functions supported in the configuration because this would have allowed a user to actually use the functions.
In regards to claims 13, 23: Ding et al teaches Abstract: “the response including information for configuring the application to comply with the compliance criterion”. The configuration information is in a response thus it is sent.
In regards to claims 15, 25: Ding et al teaches Abstract: “The method also includes determining a location of operation of the remote IHS and determining a compliance criterion of the application based on the location of operation of the remote IHS. The method further includes sending a response to the application call from the remote IHS, the response including information for configuring the application to comply with the compliance criterion. Associated apparatuses and systems are disclosed.”
In regards to claims 16, 26: Park et al teaches the gas measuring device monitoring events. ([0035] “In other embodiments, the electronic device may include at least one of various medical devices (e.g., various portable medical measuring devices (a blood glucose monitoring device, a heart rate monitoring device, a blood pressure measuring device, a body temperature measuring device, etc.), a Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRA), a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), a Computed Tomography (CT) machine, and an ultrasonic machine), a navigation device, a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver, an Event Data Recorder (EDR)” [0074] “The connectivity manager 348 may manage, for example, a wireless connection. The notification manager 349 may provide information on an event (for example, an arrival message, an appointment, a proximity notification, or the like) to a user”. An appointment must include time information.)
In regards to claim 20: Ding et al teaches ([0015] “For example, an information handling system may be a personal computer (e.g., desktop or laptop), tablet computer, mobile device (e.g., personal digital assistant (PDA) or smart phone)”).
Claim(s) 12, 18, 22, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al PN 2014/0325035 in view of Haziza et al PN 2009/0013353, Park et al PN 2020/0064322 and Wild et al PN 2015/0286393 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Cooke, Jr. et al PN 6,574,629.
In regards to claims 12, 22: Ding et al teaches a criteria for the configuring but does not state the source of the criteria being a login message. Cooke, Jr. et al teaches (“default query button 182 applies default sort and select criteria for the user based on the user's login ID. This default criteria may be specified, and subsequently changed, by altering the user's profile”). It would have been obvious to base the decision criteria on a user login message because this would have allowed configurations based upon users desires. The only two devices are the computer device and the terminal device thus the login message must come from one.
In regards to claims 18, 28: Ding et al teaches the configuration information is based upon the selection criteria. Cooke, Jr et al teaches after a login message a login ID is provided and the selection criteria is based upon the login ID.
Claim(s) 14, 24, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al PN 2014/0325035 in view of Haziza et al PN 2009/0013353, Park et al PN 2020/0064322 and Wild et al PN 2015/0286393 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Fung PN 6,574,629.
In regards to claims 14, 24, 29: Ding et al does not teach the terminals having an ID. Fung teaches ([0095] “Where registration of each network device is based on the device's unique identifier, the configuration step 1804 includes inputting information about the device being added, along with the unique frequency, address or encryption key of the of the device” [0099] “Where the obtained identifier is on the registered device list, the main server determines that the data packet originated from a registered device. If the obtained identifier is not on the registered device list, the main server determines that the data packet did not originate from a registered device. Thus, the main server 1708 in FIG. 17 would determine that one wireless data packet was received from registered wireless electronic device 1740, while another data packet was received from unregistered wireless electronic device 1742”). It would have been obvious to configuration based upon terminal device identification because this would have allowed different devices to be configured differently based upon which device it is.
Claim(s) 17, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al PN 2014/0325035 in view of Haziza et al PN 2009/0013353, Park et al PN 2020/0064322 and Wild et al PN 2015/0286393 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Tsern et al PN 2009/0195350.
In regards to claims 17, 27. Ding et al configures based upon the regulations associated with the property/location of the terminal with these regulations drawn from a database. ([0027] “FIG. 3 illustrates an example embodiment of data collection module 210. As shown in FIG. 3, data collection module 210 may receive or collect information from a plurality of regulations 305, including regulations 305A, 305B, and 305C. For example, data collection module 210 may be configured to retrieve an electronic copy of a regulation stored on an IHS designated as an official source of truth for the regulation, for example, a governmental agency's server” Abstract: “The method also includes determining a location of operation of the remote IHS and determining a compliance criterion of the application based on the location of operation of the remote HIS” [0028] “FIG. 4 illustrates an example embodiment of storage of information regarding regulations in an automated compliance system, in accordance with the present disclosure. Information may be stored in any acceptable manner, such as in a database 400”). Ding et al however does not disclose the dimensions or resolution of the terminal device being included in the properties of the terminal device. Tsern et al teaches configuring a terminal device including configuring being based upon dimensions/size of the display (claim 31 “The self-configuring electronic data and communication device of (claim 30 “wherein the self-contained module configures its' display size, shape, and operational mode based on the brand, type, and shape of the accessory to which it is attached”). It would have been obvious to configure the display based upon the size/dimensions of the display because this would have allowed for different size gas metering devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 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: Ding et al teaches configuring an application based on decision criteria from a database. Park et al teaches configuring a gas meter, thus configuring a gas measuring application based upon decision criteria from a database would be obvious. Claim 19 includes limitations on how the gas meter is configured based on a user profile and device type. The examiner notes Atai et al PN 2023/0032845. That teaches the claimed identifying based on the user profile/ID the device type. ([0089] “The example household scoring circuitry 112 obtains device type based on the publisher-assigned user ID (block 604)”). The claim also includes the limitation “selecting the range of functions of the service application, wherein selecting the range of functions comprises excluding, from a plurality of candidate functions of the service application, one or more functions corresponding to gas measuring device types different from the one or more gas measuring device types”. While excluding functions not supported are known this would have increased the number of references to past the point of undue hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL R MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3639. The examiner can normally be reached telework M-F start 7-8 leave 4-5.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/Paul R. MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights