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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 12, 2025 and August 20, 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-10 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.
As per claims 1 and 9-10, Applicant is required to clarify what “conditions” being determined and where it is coming from?
As per claims 1 and 9-10, Applicant is required to clarify what “whether each of the alarms is a subject of inhibition that is inhibited from being displayed on a screen on which a notification on alarm generation is made” being determined?
As per claims 1 and 9-10, it is unclear what applicant intended for “when an alarm that is the subject of inhibition is not contained, outputs each of the alarms to screens the respective users browse”?
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the entire system" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the top" in line 6 and “the entire system” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-8 should have been rejected for the same reason for their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claimed invention is directed to non-statutory-subject matter.
MPEP 2106 IV.B2.(b)
Claim 10, in view of the above cited MPEP sections, are not statutory because they merely recite a number of computing steps without producing any tangible result and/or being limited to a practical application within the technological arts.
The “computer readable media” recited in claim 10, can comprise “communication media”, including signals (forms of “energy”, not “matter”), carrier wave, and wired/wireless transmission medium, which are non-statutory.
As per claim 10, line 1, insert ----non-transitory---- in front of “computer-readable” in order to overcome the 101 Rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(10 as being anticipated by Richetta et al. (US 2018/0120825). (The rejection below is based on the best interpreted by examiner).
As per claim 1, Richetta et al. disclose an alarm management apparatus (10, figures 1-4) comprising:
a determination unit (14, 16) that, when conditions for generation of a plurality of alarms (from a plurality of sensors, 22) in a device (machinery, 12) that is a subject of monitoring are met (paragraph 0021-0022), determines whether each of the alarms is a subject of inhibition that is inhibited (inhibited alarms) from being displayed on a screen (32) on which a notification on alarm generation is made (paragraph 0023); and
a display controller that, when there is an alarm that is the inhibition subject, changes a style of displaying the alarms according to a type of each user who monitors
alarms and outputs the style to a screen that each user browses and, when an alarm that is the subject of inhibition is not contained, outputs each of the alarms to screens the respective users browse (paragraphs 0024-0025).
As per claim 2, Richetta et al. disclose when there is an alarm that is the subject of inhibition, the display controller outputs an alarm representing a status where display of the alarms is inhibited to the screen (32) of a first operator who monitors each of devices from which alarms are generated, respectively, among the users and outputs an alarm representing a status where there are the alarms and there is an inhibited alarm to the screen of a second operator who overviews and monitors the entire system containing each device (paragraphs 0029-0030).
As per claims 9-10, The method claim 9 and its associated computer program products claim 10 is essentially the same in scope as system claim 1 above and is rejected similarly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAI T. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2961. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/TAI T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 June 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights