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 .
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.
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 display information generator configured to” in claims 1-13.
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: [0013] of the Specification discloses that “The CPU22 includes an initial communication processor 221, a periodic communication processor 222, a monitoring controller 223, and a display information generator 224. The CPU22 is provided with a peripheral circuit (not illustrated), and functions of the initial communication processor 221, the periodic communication processor 222, the monitoring controller 223, and the display information generator 224 are executed by the CPU22 reading and processing a program stored in a read only memory (ROM) therein.”
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 § 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) 1-3, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kida (US 20140032173 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kida teaches an equipment device management apparatus comprising:
an initial communication processor configured to execute communication establishment processing by initial communication with an equipment device to be managed for which communication has not been established; ([0043]: In the case where a network fault is suspected, the determination unit 1 d may request the connection unit 1 e to attempt to set up a network connection with the target device 2. When this attempt by the connection unit 1 e is unsuccessful, the determination unit 1 d concludes that there is a network fault associated with the target device 2.)
a periodic communication processor configured to periodically execute communication confirmation processing by periodic communication for confirming whether a communication state is normal with respect to the equipment device for which communication has been established by the communication establishment processing; ([0094]: The regular monitoring unit 110 performs regular monitoring of other devices, i.e., management control unit 211 and internal server monitoring unit 212. For example, the regular monitoring unit 110 periodically sends a regular monitoring message to each of the management control unit 211 and internal server monitoring unit 212. When a response to this regular monitoring message is received from one of the destination devices (target devices), the regular monitoring unit 110 determines that the responding target device is operating properly.)
a display information generator configured to, upon recognizing that a communication abnormality has occurred with the equipment device based on an execution result of the communication establishment processing and an execution result of the communication confirmation processing, generate display information for distinguishing whether the communication abnormality is an abnormality of the initial communication or an abnormality of the periodic communication; and (Fig. 6: Monitor 11. [0045] and Fig. 17: the connection unit 1 e attempts to set up a network connection to reach the target device 2 when so requested by the determination unit 1 d. The connection unit 1 e informs the determination unit 1 d of whether it has successfully established a network connection (e.g., initial communication) with the target device 2. Fig. 15 and [0182]: FIG. 15 illustrates an exemplary error log produced in the case of a timeout during regular monitoring. The illustrated error log 151 includes a status value of “Error” and a message “Alive-check error” indicating a failure found in the regular monitoring (e.g., periodic communication).)
a display configured to display the display information generated by the display information generator. (Fig. 6: Monitor 11. Fig. 15, 17, 19)
Regarding claim 2, Kida teaches the equipment device management apparatus according to claim 1.
Kida teaches wherein the equipment device to be managed is provided in a plurality, and the display information generator is further configured to generate the display information including information on a number of equipment devices in which the abnormality of the initial communication occurs. ([0094]: When a response to this regular monitoring message is received from one of the destination devices (target devices), the regular monitoring unit 110 determines that the responding target device is operating properly. [0045] and Fig. 17: the connection unit 1 e attempts to set up a network connection to reach the target device 2 when so requested by the determination unit 1 d. The connection unit 1 e informs the determination unit 1 d of whether it has successfully established a network connection (e.g., initial communication) with the target device 2.)
Regarding claim 3, Kida teaches the equipment device management apparatus according to claim 1.
Kida teaches wherein the equipment device to be managed is provided in a plurality, and the display information generator is further configured to generate the display information including information on a number of equipment devices in which the abnormality of the periodic communication occurs. ([0094]: When a response to this regular monitoring message is received from one of the destination devices (target devices), the regular monitoring unit 110 determines that the responding target device is operating properly. Fig. 15 and [0182]: FIG. 15 illustrates an exemplary error log produced in the case of a timeout during regular monitoring. The illustrated error log 151 includes a status value of “Error” and a message “Alive-check error” indicating a failure found in the regular monitoring (e.g., periodic communication).)
Regarding claim 12, Kida teaches the equipment device management apparatus according to claim 1.
Kida teaches wherein the equipment device to be managed is provided in a plurality, and the display information generator is configured to generate the display information including information that distinguishes whether the communication abnormality is the abnormality of the initial communication or the abnormality of the periodic communication for each equipment device for which the display information generator has recognized that the communication abnormality has occurred. ([0094]: When a response to this regular monitoring message is received from one of the destination devices (target devices), the regular monitoring unit 110 determines that the responding target device is operating properly. [0045] and Fig. 17: the connection unit 1 e attempts to set up a network connection to reach the target device 2 when so requested by the determination unit 1 d. The connection unit 1 e informs the determination unit 1 d of whether it has successfully established a network connection (e.g., initial communication) with the target device 2. Fig. 15 and [0182]: FIG. 15 illustrates an exemplary error log produced in the case of a timeout during regular monitoring. The illustrated error log 151 includes a status value of “Error” and a message “Alive-check error” indicating a failure found in the regular monitoring (e.g., periodic communication).)
Similar rationales apply to rejection of claim 14 (method) because it is substantially similar to the combination of claim 1 (apparatus).
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.
Claim(s) 4-7, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kida (US 20140032173 A1) in view of Sakaguchi (JP2012178798A).
Regarding claim 4, Kida teaches the equipment device management apparatus according to claim 2.
Kida does not explicitly disclose wherein the display information generator is further configured to generate the display information including information on a total number of the equipment devices to be managed.
However, Sakaguchi teaches wherein the display information generator is further configured to generate the display information including information on a total number of the equipment devices to be managed. (Fig. 2 S1: Total monitored device 1300, normal 1296, abnormal 4.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Kida. One would have been motivated to do so because it is important to know the total number of devices/equipment being monitored to ensure all devices are being monitored accordingly.
Regarding claim 5, Kida teaches the equipment device management apparatus according to claim 3.
Kida does not explicitly disclose wherein the display information generator is further configured to generate the display information including information on a total number of the equipment devices to be managed
However, Sakaguchi teaches wherein the display information generator is further configured to generate the display information including information on a total number of the equipment devices to be managed. (Fig. 2 S1: Total monitored device 1300, normal 1296, abnormal 4.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Kida. One would have been motivated to do so because it is important to know the total number of devices/equipment being monitored to ensure all devices are being monitored accordingly.
Regarding claim 6, Kida teaches the equipment device management apparatus according to claim 2.
Kida does not explicitly disclose wherein the display information generator is configured to generate the display information so as to simultaneously display information on the number of the equipment devices in which the abnormality of the initial communication has occurred and information on a total number of the equipment devices to be managed.
However, Sakaguchi teaches wherein the display information generator is configured to generate the display information so as to simultaneously display information on the number of the equipment devices in which the abnormality of the initial communication has occurred and information on a total number of the equipment devices to be managed. (Fig. 2 S1: Total monitored device 1300, normal 1296, abnormal 4. Fig. 2 S2: List of abnormal devices with details.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Kida. One would have been motivated to do so because it is important to know the total number of devices/equipment being monitored to ensure all devices are being monitored accordingly and it is desirable to display the device(s) that are in abnormality to ensure the problem/issue is addressed accordingly.
Regarding claim 7, Kida teaches the equipment device management apparatus according to claim 3.
Kida does not explicitly disclose wherein the display information generator is further configured to generate the display information including information on a total number of equipment devices in which communication abnormality has currently occurred, the total number being obtained by adding the number of the equipment devices in which the abnormality of the periodic communication has occurred to a number of equipment devices in which the abnormality of the initial communication has occurred.
However, Sakaguchi teaches wherein the display information generator is further configured to generate the display information including information on a total number of equipment devices in which communication abnormality has currently occurred, the total number being obtained by adding the number of the equipment devices in which the abnormality of the periodic communication has occurred to a number of equipment devices in which the abnormality of the initial communication has occurred. (Fig. 2 S1: Total monitored device 1300, normal 1296, abnormal 4. Fig. 2 S2: List of abnormal devices with details.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Kida. One would have been motivated to do so because it is important to know the total number of devices/equipment being monitored to ensure all devices are being monitored accordingly and it is desirable to display the device(s) that are in abnormality to ensure the problem/issue is addressed accordingly.
Regarding claim 10, Kida and Sakaguchi teach the equipment device management apparatus according to claim 6.
Kida teaches wherein the display has a liquid crystal screen, andthe display information generator is configured to display the generated display information on a single screen of the liquid crystal screen. ([0080]: The monitor may be, for example, a cathode ray tube (CRT) display or a liquid crystal display.)
Regarding claim 13, Kida teaches the equipment device management apparatus according to claim 12.
Kida does not explicitly disclose wherein the display information generator is further configured to generate the display information including information indicating that the communication state is normal for each equipment device for which the display information generator has recognized that the communication state is normal, based on the execution result of the communication establishment processing and the execution result of the communication confirmation processing.
However, Sakaguchi teaches wherein the display information generator is further configured to generate the display information including information indicating that the communication state is normal for each equipment device for which the display information generator has recognized that the communication state is normal, based on the execution result of the communication establishment processing and the execution result of the communication confirmation processing (Fig. 2 S1: Total monitored device 1300, normal 1296, abnormal 4. Fig. 2 S2: List of abnormal devices with details.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Kida. One would have been motivated to do so because it is desirable to display the device(s) that are operating normally to get a sense of the overall health among the devices being monitored.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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: The prior art of record fail to explicitly disclose each and every limitation recited in claim 8. Claims 9 and 11 are dependent claims of claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZI YE whose telephone number is (571)270-1039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 5712723865. 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.
/ZI YE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights