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 .
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that claims 17-18 of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed May 14, 2026, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, Examiner could not find a copy of WO 2019/080935.
The information disclosure statement filed May 14, 2026, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, here, Examiner is referring to DE 202023102574.
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(s) 1-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1, Claim(s) 1 recite(s):
- management of a garden tool;
- working information of the at least one garden tool;
- receive the working information of the at least one garden tool;
- obtain work records of an operator from receiving operator information of the operator;
- send the working information or send the work records and the operator information.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): relates to work data, which typically is from commercial interactions;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages activity of the operator, who may be human.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- a system; a cloud server; provided with a communication module; being uploaded to the cloud server through the communication module; at least one intelligent terminal, the at least one intelligent terminal communicatively connected to receive the information, and communicatively connected with the cloud server to obtain other information through inputting the other information; upload information to the cloud server or upload information to the cloud server through the at least one intelligent terminal according to a communication protocol: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
- at least one garden tool: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained in that section of the MPEP, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use. Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As further explained in that section of the MPEP, the courts often cite to Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978), as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons. Processes for the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons were used in the petrochemical and oil-refining fields. Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed and found that this limitation did not amount to an inventive concept. The Court reasoned that to hold otherwise would exalt form over substance, because a competent claim drafter could attach a similar type of limitation to almost any mathematical formula.
These particular element(s)/limitation(s) do not meaningfully limit the claim because Applicant is simply applying a data collection system to a garden tool. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Examiner presents the following examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, as relevant to these particular Applicant element(s)/limitation(s):
Additional elements limiting the wireless delivery of regional broadcast content to cellular telephones (as opposed to any and all electronic devices such as televisions, cable boxes, computers, or the like) merely confined the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (cellular telephones) and thus failed to add an inventive concept to the claims. Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258-59, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
A step of administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to patients with an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, because limiting drug administration to this patient population did no more than simply refer to the relevant pre-existing audience of doctors who used thiopurine drugs to treat patients suffering from autoimmune disorders, Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012).
Identifying the participants in a process for hedging risk as commodity providers and commodity consumers, because limiting the use of the process to these participants did no more than describe how the abstract idea of hedging risk could be used in the commodities and energy markets, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010).
Limiting the use of the formula C = 2 (pi) r to determining the circumference of a wheel as opposed to other circular objects, because this limitation represents a mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978).
Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Language specifying that the process steps of virus screening were used within a telephone network or the Internet, because limiting the use of the process to these technological environments did not provide meaningful limits on the claim, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1319-20, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1361 (2016).
Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Language informing doctors to apply a law of nature (linkage disequilibrium) for purposes of detecting a genetic polymorphism, because this language merely informs the relevant audience that the law of nature can be used in this manner, Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1379, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1549 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Language specifying that the abstract idea of budgeting was to be implemented using a "communication medium" that broadly included the Internet and telephone networks, because this limitation merely limited the use of the exception to a particular technological environment, Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1640 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Specifying that the abstract idea of using advertising as currency is used on the Internet, because this narrowing limitation is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Requiring that the abstract idea of creating a contractual relationship that guarantees performance of a transaction (a) be performed using a computer that receives and sends information over a network, or (b) be limited to guaranteeing online transactions, because these limitations simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments, buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. As also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “at least one garden tool” represents mere field of use. A limitation that is mere field of use does not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2-13 and 15-18, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- upload information to the cloud server through a direct line according to the communication protocol (claims 2-3);
- upload information to the cloud server through the at least one intelligent terminal through an indirect line according to the communication protocol (claims 2-3);
- utilizing a line with stronger communication performance (claim 3);
- wherein, a comparison of the communication performance of the communication protocol comprises one or more of bit error rate, signal-to-noise ratio, bandwidth, data rate, delay and throughput (claim 4);
- wherein, when the lines are obstructed, the executed action is caching the information until one of the lines is unobstructed (claim 5);
- a gateway configured to communicate to upload (claim 6);
- wherein, the communication module is one or more of 4G, 5G, Wifi, Lora, Zigbee, Bluetooth, and a Bluetooth module, and the Bluetooth module is a Bluetooth device or a Bluetooth battery pack (claim 7);
- wherein, the at least one intelligent terminal is paired with the Bluetooth device (claim 8);
- scanning a QR code (claim 8);
- contacting an NFC (claim 8);
- inputting a PIN code (claim 8);
- the Bluetooth battery pack is configured to supply power (claim 8);
- the Bluetooth battery pack is configured to obtain the information and transmit the information through Bluetooth (claim 8);
- a positioning module (claims 9 and 11);
- a user interface configured to receive and execute user instructions and display information (claim 9);
- pairing (claim 9);
- display (claims 10 and 17);
- other intelligent terminals (claim 10);
- at least one terminal (claims 11-13 and 15-18);
- saving a record (claim 18).
(NOTE: The trailer in claim 6, and the accessories in claims 15-17, amount to further mere field of use, like the garden tool in claim 1).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, the remaining portion of claim 18 merely adds data processing relating to spare part information to the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15-18 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Claim(s) 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 19, Claim(s) 19 recite(s):
- management of a garden tool;
- obtaining work records of an operator from operator information of the operator;
- sending working information or sending the work records and the operator information.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): relates to work data, which typically is from commercial interactions;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages activity of the operator, who may be human.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- communicatively connecting an intelligent terminal with a cloud server respectively, and the intelligent terminal obtaining information through inputting information; communicatively connecting the intelligent terminal; setting a communication line to the cloud server as a direct line, and setting the communication line between the intelligent terminal and the cloud server as an indirect line; uploading information to the cloud server through the direct line or uploading information to the cloud server through the indirect line: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
- a garden tool: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained in that section of the MPEP, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use. Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As further explained in that section of the MPEP, the courts often cite to Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978), as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons. Processes for the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons were used in the petrochemical and oil-refining fields. Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed and found that this limitation did not amount to an inventive concept. The Court reasoned that to hold otherwise would exalt form over substance, because a competent claim drafter could attach a similar type of limitation to almost any mathematical formula.
These particular element(s)/limitation(s) do not meaningfully limit the claim because Applicant is simply applying a data collection system to a garden tool. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Examiner presents the following examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, as relevant to these particular Applicant element(s)/limitation(s):
Additional elements limiting the wireless delivery of regional broadcast content to cellular telephones (as opposed to any and all electronic devices such as televisions, cable boxes, computers, or the like) merely confined the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (cellular telephones) and thus failed to add an inventive concept to the claims. Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258-59, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
A step of administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to patients with an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, because limiting drug administration to this patient population did no more than simply refer to the relevant pre-existing audience of doctors who used thiopurine drugs to treat patients suffering from autoimmune disorders, Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012).
Identifying the participants in a process for hedging risk as commodity providers and commodity consumers, because limiting the use of the process to these participants did no more than describe how the abstract idea of hedging risk could be used in the commodities and energy markets, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010).
Limiting the use of the formula C = 2 (pi) r to determining the circumference of a wheel as opposed to other circular objects, because this limitation represents a mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978).
Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Language specifying that the process steps of virus screening were used within a telephone network or the Internet, because limiting the use of the process to these technological environments did not provide meaningful limits on the claim, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1319-20, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1361 (2016).
Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Language informing doctors to apply a law of nature (linkage disequilibrium) for purposes of detecting a genetic polymorphism, because this language merely informs the relevant audience that the law of nature can be used in this manner, Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1379, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1549 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Language specifying that the abstract idea of budgeting was to be implemented using a "communication medium" that broadly included the Internet and telephone networks, because this limitation merely limited the use of the exception to a particular technological environment, Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1640 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Specifying that the abstract idea of using advertising as currency is used on the Internet, because this narrowing limitation is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Requiring that the abstract idea of creating a contractual relationship that guarantees performance of a transaction (a) be performed using a computer that receives and sends information over a network, or (b) be limited to guaranteeing online transactions, because these limitations simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments, buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. As also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a garden tool” represents mere field of use. A limitation that is mere field of use does not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 19 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Claim(s) 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 20, Claim(s) 20 recite(s):
- management of a garden tool;
- obtaining work records of an operator from operator information of the operator;
- in response to communication instruction from management, obtaining the working information or obtaining the work records and the operator information.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): relates to work data, which typically is from commercial interactions;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages activity of the operator, who may be human.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- communicatively connecting an intelligent terminal and a terminal with a cloud server respectively, and the intelligent terminal obtaining information through inputting information; communicatively connecting the intelligent terminal; setting a communication line to the cloud server as a direct line, and setting a communication line between the intelligent terminal and the cloud server as an indirect line; in response to upload instruction from the terminal, the cloud server obtaining the information through the direct line or obtaining the information through the indirect line: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
- a garden tool: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained in that section of the MPEP, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use. Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As further explained in that section of the MPEP, the courts often cite to Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978), as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons. Processes for the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons were used in the petrochemical and oil-refining fields. Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed and found that this limitation did not amount to an inventive concept. The Court reasoned that to hold otherwise would exalt form over substance, because a competent claim drafter could attach a similar type of limitation to almost any mathematical formula.
These particular element(s)/limitation(s) do not meaningfully limit the claim because Applicant is simply applying a data collection system to a garden tool. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Examiner presents the following examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, as relevant to these particular Applicant element(s)/limitation(s):
Additional elements limiting the wireless delivery of regional broadcast content to cellular telephones (as opposed to any and all electronic devices such as televisions, cable boxes, computers, or the like) merely confined the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (cellular telephones) and thus failed to add an inventive concept to the claims. Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258-59, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
A step of administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to patients with an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, because limiting drug administration to this patient population did no more than simply refer to the relevant pre-existing audience of doctors who used thiopurine drugs to treat patients suffering from autoimmune disorders, Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012).
Identifying the participants in a process for hedging risk as commodity providers and commodity consumers, because limiting the use of the process to these participants did no more than describe how the abstract idea of hedging risk could be used in the commodities and energy markets, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010).
Limiting the use of the formula C = 2 (pi) r to determining the circumference of a wheel as opposed to other circular objects, because this limitation represents a mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978).
Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Language specifying that the process steps of virus screening were used within a telephone network or the Internet, because limiting the use of the process to these technological environments did not provide meaningful limits on the claim, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1319-20, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1361 (2016).
Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Language informing doctors to apply a law of nature (linkage disequilibrium) for purposes of detecting a genetic polymorphism, because this language merely informs the relevant audience that the law of nature can be used in this manner, Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1379, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1549 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Language specifying that the abstract idea of budgeting was to be implemented using a "communication medium" that broadly included the Internet and telephone networks, because this limitation merely limited the use of the exception to a particular technological environment, Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1640 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Specifying that the abstract idea of using advertising as currency is used on the Internet, because this narrowing limitation is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Requiring that the abstract idea of creating a contractual relationship that guarantees performance of a transaction (a) be performed using a computer that receives and sends information over a network, or (b) be limited to guaranteeing online transactions, because these limitations simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments, buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. As also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a garden tool” represents mere field of use. A limitation that is mere field of use does not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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) 1-2, 7, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennings, US 20190077003 A1, in view of He, US 20180000025 A1.
As per Claim 1, Lennings discloses:
- a management system of a garden tool (paragraph [0021] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0034] (“In some cases, the processing circuitry 310 may be configured to perform data processing, control function execution and/or other processing and management services according to an example embodiment. As such, the processing circuitry 310 may be configured to manage extraction, storage and/or communication of data received or generated at the processing circuitry 310.”));
- a server (Figure 1; paragraph [0011] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0030] (“Once data (such as the operation information and/or operator information) has been extracted from devices to which the wristband 140 is operably coupled (e.g., paired, linked, connected, etc.) or from the environment or operator, the data may be stored locally at the wristband 140 or at the user equipment 180 and/or the network 170, or analyzed (in real-time or post hoc) at one of the corresponding locations. The network 170 may therefore be a local area network, or a wide area network (e.g., the Internet), and the user equipment 180 could be a personal computer or laptop, a smart phone or tablet, a server, or any of a number of other such devices.”));
- at least one garden tool, the at least one garden tool provided with a communication module, and working information of the at least one garden tool being uploaded to the server through the communication module (Figure 1; paragraph [0005] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0021] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0028] (operation information); paragraph [0029] (“In some cases, the operation information and/or operator information may be stored locally at the wristband 140, or stored remotely in the network 170 or at the user equipment 180. As discussed above, if remote storage is employed, the storage may occur after communication of such information from the wristband 140 using the communication protocol employed to provide the information to the network 170 or user equipment 180.”); paragraph [0030] (“Once data (such as the operation information and/or operator information) has been extracted from devices to which the wristband 140 is operably coupled (e.g., paired, linked, connected, etc.) or from the environment or operator, the data may be stored locally at the wristband 140 or at the user equipment 180 and/or the network 170, or analyzed (in real-time or post hoc) at one of the corresponding locations. The network 170 may therefore be a local area network, or a wide area network (e.g., the Internet), and the user equipment 180 could be a personal computer or laptop, a smart phone or tablet, a server, or any of a number of other such devices. The access point 160 and/or the paired device may communicate with the wristband 140 via short range wireless communication (e.g., Bluetooth, WiFi, and/or the like), and the access point 160 may have a wired or longer range wireless connection to the network 170 and/or to the user equipment 180, although short range connection is also possible.”));
- at least one intelligent terminal, the at least one intelligent terminal communicatively connected with the at least one garden tool to receive the working information of the at least one garden tool, and communicatively connected with the server to obtain work records of an operator through inputting operator information of the operator (Figure 1; paragraph [0005] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0017] (“Some example embodiments may provide for a wearable device (e.g., wristband, smart watch, helmet, glove, pants, etc.) that can be useful in connection with operating powered tools or vehicles that may generally be referred to as outdoor power equipment or devices.”); paragraph [0021] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0025] (“The wristband 140 may also receive or generate operator information that is descriptive of various parameters associated with the operator of the paired device as described in further detail below.”); paragraph [0027] (most of paragraph); paragraph [0028] (operation information); paragraph [0029] (“In some cases, the operation information and/or operator information may be stored locally at the wristband 140, or stored remotely in the network 170 or at the user equipment 180. As discussed above, if remote storage is employed, the storage may occur after communication of such information from the wristband 140 using the communication protocol employed to provide the information to the network 170 or user equipment 180.”); paragraph [0030] (“Once data (such as the operation information and/or operator information) has been extracted from devices to which the wristband 140 is operably coupled (e.g., paired, linked, connected, etc.) or from the environment or operator, the data may be stored locally at the wristband 140 or at the user equipment 180 and/or the network 170, or analyzed (in real-time or post hoc) at one of the corresponding locations. The network 170 may therefore be a local area network, or a wide area network (e.g., the Internet), and the user equipment 180 could be a personal computer or laptop, a smart phone or tablet, a server, or any of a number of other such devices. The access point 160 and/or the paired device may communicate with the wristband 140 via short range wireless communication (e.g., Bluetooth, WiFi, and/or the like), and the access point 160 may have a wired or longer range wireless connection to the network 170 and/or to the user equipment 180, although short range connection is also possible.”); paragraph [0047] (much of paragraph));
- wherein, the at least one garden tool is configured to upload the working information to the server or upload the work records and the operator information to the server through the at least one intelligent terminal according to a communication protocol (Figure 1; paragraph [0005] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0021] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0028] (operation information); paragraph [0029] (“In some cases, the operation information and/or operator information may be stored locally at the wristband 140, or stored remotely in the network 170 or at the user equipment 180. As discussed above, if remote storage is employed, the storage may occur after communication of such information from the wristband 140 using the communication protocol employed to provide the information to the network 170 or user equipment 180.”); paragraph [0030] (“Once data (such as the operation information and/or operator information) has been extracted from devices to which the wristband 140 is operably coupled (e.g., paired, linked, connected, etc.) or from the environment or operator, the data may be stored locally at the wristband 140 or at the user equipment 180 and/or the network 170, or analyzed (in real-time or post hoc) at one of the corresponding locations. The network 170 may therefore be a local area network, or a wide area network (e.g., the Internet), and the user equipment 180 could be a personal computer or laptop, a smart phone or tablet, a server, or any of a number of other such devices. The access point 160 and/or the paired device may communicate with the wristband 140 via short range wireless communication (e.g., Bluetooth, WiFi, and/or the like), and the access point 160 may have a wired or longer range wireless connection to the network 170 and/or to the user equipment 180, although short range connection is also possible.”)).
Lennings fails to disclose wherein the server is a cloud server. He discloses wherein the server is a cloud server (paragraph [0121] (“The control center 33 may be arranged on the self-moving device, or in a stop of the self-moving device, may also be arranged in the user's home or at a fixed position in the garden, and may further be arranged on a remote server at a cloud.”)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lennings such that the server is a cloud server, as disclosed by He, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 2, Lennings further discloses wherein the at least one garden tool is configured to upload the work records and the operator information to the server through the at least one intelligent terminal through an indirect line according to the communication protocol (Figure 1; paragraph [0005]; paragraph [0017]; paragraph [0021]; paragraph [0025]; paragraph [0027]; paragraph [0028]; paragraph [0029]; paragraph [0030]; paragraph [0047]).
The modified Lennings fails to disclose wherein the at least one garden tool is configured to upload the working information to the cloud server through a direct line according to the communication protocol; wherein the server is a cloud server. He discloses wherein the at least one garden tool is configured to upload the working information to the cloud server through a direct line according to the communication protocol (paragraph [0055]; paragraph [0056]; paragraph [0093]; paragraph [0105]; paragraphs [0119]-[0120]; paragraph [0121]; paragraphs [0122]-[0126]); wherein the server is a cloud server (paragraph [0121]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Lennings such that the at least one garden tool is configured to upload the working information to the cloud server through a direct line according to the communication protocol; and the server is a cloud server, as disclosed by He, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 7, Lennings further discloses wherein, the communication module of the at least one garden tool is one or more of 4G, 5G, Wifi, Lora, Zigbee, Bluetooth, and a Bluetooth module, and the Bluetooth module is a Bluetooth device or a Bluetooth battery pack (paragraph [0030]).
As per Claim 19, Lennings discloses:
- a management method of a garden tool (paragraph [0021] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0034] (“In some cases, the processing circuitry 310 may be configured to perform data processing, control function execution and/or other processing and management services according to an example embodiment. As such, the processing circuitry 310 may be configured to manage extraction, storage and/or communication of data received or generated at the processing circuitry 310.”));
- communicatively connecting the garden tool and an intelligent terminal with a server respectively, and the intelligent terminal obtaining work records of an operator through inputting operator information of the operator (Figure 1; paragraph [0005] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0017] (“Some example embodiments may provide for a wearable device (e.g., wristband, smart watch, helmet, glove, pants, etc.) that can be useful in connection with operating powered tools or vehicles that may generally be referred to as outdoor power equipment or devices.”); paragraph [0021] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0025] (“The wristband 140 may also receive or generate operator information that is descriptive of various parameters associated with the operator of the paired device as described in further detail below.”); paragraph [0027] (most of paragraph); paragraph [0028] (operation information); paragraph [0029] (“In some cases, the operation information and/or operator information may be stored locally at the wristband 140, or stored remotely in the network 170 or at the user equipment 180. As discussed above, if remote storage is employed, the storage may occur after communication of such information from the wristband 140 using the communication protocol employed to provide the information to the network 170 or user equipment 180.”); paragraph [0030] (“Once data (such as the operation information and/or operator information) has been extracted from devices to which the wristband 140 is operably coupled (e.g., paired, linked, connected, etc.) or from the environment or operator, the data may be stored locally at the wristband 140 or at the user equipment 180 and/or the network 170, or analyzed (in real-time or post hoc) at one of the corresponding locations. The network 170 may therefore be a local area network, or a wide area network (e.g., the Internet), and the user equipment 180 could be a personal computer or laptop, a smart phone or tablet, a server, or any of a number of other such devices. The access point 160 and/or the paired device may communicate with the wristband 140 via short range wireless communication (e.g., Bluetooth, WiFi, and/or the like), and the access point 160 may have a wired or longer range wireless connection to the network 170 and/or to the user equipment 180, although short range connection is also possible.”); paragraph [0047] (much of paragraph));
- communicatively connecting the intelligent terminal with the corresponding garden tool (Figure 1; paragraph [0005] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0021] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0028] (operation information); paragraph [0029] (“In some cases, the operation information and/or operator information may be stored locally at the wristband 140, or stored remotely in the network 170 or at the user equipment 180. As discussed above, if remote storage is employed, the storage may occur after communication of such information from the wristband 140 using the communication protocol employed to provide the information to the network 170 or user equipment 180.”); paragraph [0030] (“Once data (such as the operation information and/or operator information) has been extracted from devices to which the wristband 140 is operably coupled (e.g., paired, linked, connected, etc.) or from the environment or operator, the data may be stored locally at the wristband 140 or at the user equipment 180 and/or the network 170, or analyzed (in real-time or post hoc) at one of the corresponding locations. The network 170 may therefore be a local area network, or a wide area network (e.g., the Internet), and the user equipment 180 could be a personal computer or laptop, a smart phone or tablet, a server, or any of a number of other such devices. The access point 160 and/or the paired device may communicate with the wristband 140 via short range wireless communication (e.g., Bluetooth, WiFi, and/or the like), and the access point 160 may have a wired or longer range wireless connection to the network 170 and/or to the user equipment 180, although short range connection is also possible.”));
- setting the communication line between the intelligent terminal and the server as an indirect line (Figure 1; paragraph [0005]; paragraph [0017]; paragraph [0021]; paragraph [0025]; paragraph [0027]; paragraph [0028]; paragraph [0029]; paragraph [0030]; paragraph [0047]);
- uploading the work records and the operator information to the server through the indirect line (Figure 1; paragraph [0005]; paragraph [0017]; paragraph [0021]; paragraph [0025]; paragraph [0027]; paragraph [0028]; paragraph [0029]; paragraph [0030]; paragraph [0047]).
Lennings fails to disclose setting a communication line between the garden tool and the cloud server as a direct line; uploading working information to the cloud server through the direct line; wherein the server is a cloud server. He discloses setting a communication line between the garden tool and the cloud server as a direct line (paragraph [0055]; paragraph [0056]; paragraph [0093]; paragraph [0105]; paragraphs [0119]-[0120]; paragraph [0121]; paragraphs [0122]-[0126]); uploading working information to the cloud server through the direct line (paragraph [0055]; paragraph [0056]; paragraph [0093]; paragraph [0105]; paragraphs [0119]-[0120]; paragraph [0121]; paragraphs [0122]-[0126]); wherein the server is a cloud server (paragraph [0121]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lennings such that the invention sets a communication line between the garden tool and the cloud server as a direct line; the invention uploads working information to the cloud server through the direct line; and the server is a cloud server, as disclosed by He, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 20, Lennings discloses:
- a management method of a garden tool (paragraph [0021] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0034] (“In some cases, the processing circuitry 310 may be configured to perform data processing, control function execution and/or other processing and management services according to an example embodiment. As such, the processing circuitry 310 may be configured to manage extraction, storage and/or communication of data received or generated at the processing circuitry 310.”));
- communicatively connecting the garden tool and an intelligent terminal with a server respectively, and the intelligent terminal obtaining work records of an operator through inputting operator information of the operator (Figure 1; paragraph [0005] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0017] (“Some example embodiments may provide for a wearable device (e.g., wristband, smart watch, helmet, glove, pants, etc.) that can be useful in connection with operating powered tools or vehicles that may generally be referred to as outdoor power equipment or devices.”); paragraph [0021] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0025] (“The wristband 140 may also receive or generate operator information that is descriptive of various parameters associated with the operator of the paired device as described in further detail below.”); paragraph [0027] (most of paragraph); paragraph [0028] (operation information); paragraph [0029] (“In some cases, the operation information and/or operator information may be stored locally at the wristband 140, or stored remotely in the network 170 or at the user equipment 180. As discussed above, if remote storage is employed, the storage may occur after communication of such information from the wristband 140 using the communication protocol employed to provide the information to the network 170 or user equipment 180.”); paragraph [0030] (“Once data (such as the operation information and/or operator information) has been extracted from devices to which the wristband 140 is operably coupled (e.g., paired, linked, connected, etc.) or from the environment or operator, the data may be stored locally at the wristband 140 or at the user equipment 180 and/or the network 170, or analyzed (in real-time or post hoc) at one of the corresponding locations. The network 170 may therefore be a local area network, or a wide area network (e.g., the Internet), and the user equipment 180 could be a personal computer or laptop, a smart phone or tablet, a server, or any of a number of other such devices. The access point 160 and/or the paired device may communicate with the wristband 140 via short range wireless communication (e.g., Bluetooth, WiFi, and/or the like), and the access point 160 may have a wired or longer range wireless connection to the network 170 and/or to the user equipment 180, although short range connection is also possible.”); paragraph [0047] (much of paragraph));
- communicatively connecting the intelligent terminal with the corresponding garden tool (Figure 1; paragraph [0005] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0021] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0028] (operation information); paragraph [0029] (“In some cases, the operation information and/or operator information may be stored locally at the wristband 140, or stored remotely in the network 170 or at the user equipment 180. As discussed above, if remote storage is employed, the storage may occur after communication of such information from the wristband 140 using the communication protocol employed to provide the information to the network 170 or user equipment 180.”); paragraph [0030] (“Once data (such as the operation information and/or operator information) has been extracted from devices to which the wristband 140 is operably coupled (e.g., paired, linked, connected, etc.) or from the environment or operator, the data may be stored locally at the wristband 140 or at the user equipment 180 and/or the network 170, or analyzed (in real-time or post hoc) at one of the corresponding locations. The network 170 may therefore be a local area network, or a wide area network (e.g., the Internet), and the user equipment 180 could be a personal computer or laptop, a smart phone or tablet, a server, or any of a number of other such devices. The access point 160 and/or the paired device may communicate with the wristband 140 via short range wireless communication (e.g., Bluetooth, WiFi, and/or the like), and the access point 160 may have a wired or longer range wireless connection to the network 170 and/or to the user equipment 180, although short range connection is also possible.”));
- setting a communication line between the intelligent terminal and the server as an indirect line (Figure 1; paragraph [0005]; paragraph [0017]; paragraph [0021]; paragraph [0025]; paragraph [0027]; paragraph [0028]; paragraph [0029]; paragraph [0030]; paragraph [0047]).
Lennings fails to disclose wherein the system includes a management terminal; setting a communication line between the garden tool and the cloud server as a direct line; in response to upload instruction from the management terminal, the cloud server obtaining the working information through the direct line; wherein the server is a cloud server. He discloses wherein the system includes a management terminal (paragraph [0121]; claim 17); setting a communication line between the garden tool and the cloud server as a direct line (paragraph [0055]; paragraph [0056]; paragraph [0093]; paragraph [0105]; paragraphs [0119]-[0120]; paragraph [0121]; paragraphs [0122]-[0126]); in response to upload instruction from the management terminal, the cloud server obtaining the working information through the direct line (paragraph [0055]; paragraph [0056]; paragraph [0093]; paragraph [0105]; paragraphs [0119]-[0120]; paragraph [0121]; paragraphs [0122]-[0126]; claim 17); wherein the server is a cloud server (paragraph [0121]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lennings such that the system includes a management terminal; the invention sets a communication line between the garden tool and the cloud server as a direct line; in response to upload instruction from the management terminal, the cloud server obtains the working information through the direct line; and the server is a cloud server, as disclosed by He, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennings in view of He in further view of Lavieja, WO 2023161431 A1.
As per Claim 3, the modified Lennings fails to disclose wherein, when a communication performance of the direct line is stronger than a communication performance of the indirect line, an executed action of the management system is to perform the data transmission option that uses the direct line, and when the communication performance of the direct line is weaker than the communication performance of the indirect line, the executed action is to perform the data transmission option that uses the indirect line. Lavieja discloses wherein, when a communication performance of the direct line is stronger than a communication performance of the indirect line, an executed action of the management system is to perform the data transmission option that uses the direct line, and when the communication performance of the direct line is weaker than the communication performance of the indirect line, the executed action is to perform the data transmission option that uses the indirect line (p. 24, lines 11-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Lennings such that, when a communication performance of the direct line is stronger than a communication performance of the indirect line, an executed action of the management system is to perform the data transmission option that uses the direct line, and when the communication performance of the direct line is weaker than the communication performance of the indirect line, the executed action is to perform the data transmission option that uses the indirect line, as disclosed by Lavieja, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 4, the modified Lennings fails to disclose wherein, a comparison of the communication performance of the communication protocol comprises signal-to-noise ratio. Lavieja further discloses wherein, a comparison of the communication performance of the communication protocol comprises signal-to-noise ratio (p. 12, lines 26-28; p. 18, lines 32-34; p. 24, lines 11-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Lennings such that a comparison of the communication performance of the communication protocol comprises signal-to-noise ratio, as disclosed by Lavieja, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennings in view of He in further view of Niklasson, US 20030179772 A1.
As per Claim 5, the modified Lennings fails to disclose wherein, when all of the lines are obstructed, the executed action is that the device caches the information until one of the lines is unobstructed. Niklasson discloses wherein, when all of the lines are obstructed, the executed action is that the device caches the information until one of the lines is unobstructed (paragraph [0077]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Lennings such that, when all of the lines are obstructed, the executed action is that the device caches the information until one of the lines is unobstructed, as disclosed by Niklasson, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 6, 8, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennings in view of He in further view of Bernier, US 20210127348 A1.
As per Claim 6, the modified Lennings fails to disclose a trailer, wherein, a gateway is provided on the trailer, the gateway is configured to communicate with the at least one garden tool, the at least one intelligent terminal, and the cloud server respectively to upload the working information and the operator information through the gateway. Bernier discloses a trailer, wherein, a gateway is provided on the trailer, the gateway is configured to communicate with the at least one garden tool, the at least one intelligent terminal, and the cloud server respectively to upload the working information and the operator information through the gateway (paragraph [0025]; paragraph [0032]; paragraph [0036]; paragraph [0040]; paragraph [0042]; paragraph [0043]; paragraph [0051]; paragraph [0057]; paragraph [0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Lennings such that the invention discloses a trailer, wherein, a gateway is provided on the trailer, the gateway is configured to communicate with the at least one garden tool, the at least one intelligent terminal, and the cloud server respectively to upload the working information and the operator information through the gateway, as disclosed by Bernier, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 8, the modified Lennings fails to disclose wherein the Bluetooth battery pack is configured to supply power to the at least one garden tool, and the Bluetooth battery pack is configured to obtain the working information of the at least one garden tool and transmit the working information to the at least one intelligent terminal through Bluetooth. He further discloses wherein the Bluetooth battery pack is configured to supply power to the at least one garden tool, and the Bluetooth battery pack is configured to obtain the working information of the at least one garden tool and transmit the working information to the at least one intelligent terminal through Bluetooth (paragraph [0058]; paragraph [0083]; paragraph [0084]; paragraph [0085]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Lennings such that the Bluetooth battery pack is configured to supply power to the at least one garden tool, and the Bluetooth battery pack is configured to obtain the working information of the at least one garden tool and transmit the working information to the at least one intelligent terminal through Bluetooth, as disclosed by He, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The modified Lennings fails to disclose wherein the at least one intelligent terminal is paired with the Bluetooth device through contacting an NFC. Bernier discloses wherein the at least one intelligent terminal is paired with the Bluetooth device through contacting an NFC (paragraph [0021]; paragraph [0022]; paragraph [0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Lennings such that the at least one intelligent terminal is paired with the Bluetooth device through contacting an NFC, as disclosed by Bernier, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 11, the modified Lennings fails to disclose wherein, the at least one garden tool is provided with a garden tool positioning module to position the at least one garden tool, the management system further comprises at least one management terminal, and the at least one management terminal is used to obtain information of the at least one garden tool and draw a geographic fence. He further discloses wherein, the at least one garden tool is provided with a garden tool positioning module to position the at least one garden tool, the management system further comprises at least one management terminal, and the at least one management terminal is used to obtain information of the at least one garden tool and draw a geographic fence (paragraph [0064]; paragraph [0094]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Lennings such that the at least one garden tool is provided with a garden tool positioning module to position the at least one garden tool, the management system further comprises at least one management terminal, and the at least one management terminal is used to obtain information of the at least one garden tool and draw a geographic fence, as disclosed by He, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The modified Lennings fails to disclose wherein the geographic fence is based on a position of a trailer and/or a working area. Bernier discloses wherein the geographic fence is based on a position of a trailer and/or a working area (paragraph [0029]; paragraph [0047]; paragraph [0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Lennings such that the geographic fence is based on a position of a trailer and/or a working area, as disclosed by Bernier, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 12, the modified Lennings fails to disclose wherein, the at least one management terminal is configured to preset the area and an abnormal area based on the geographic fence, when the at least one management terminal determines that a position of the at least one garden tool is within the area, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal issues a normal prompt, and when the at least one management terminal determines that the position of the at least one garden tool is within the abnormal area, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal issues a warning prompt or an alarm prompt. He further discloses wherein, the at least one management terminal is configured to preset the area and an abnormal area based on the geographic fence, when the at least one management terminal determines that a position of the at least one garden tool is within the area, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal issues a normal prompt, and when the at least one management terminal determines that the position of the at least one garden tool is within the abnormal area, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal issues a warning prompt or an alarm prompt (paragraph [0064]; paragraph [0094]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Lennings such that the at least one management terminal is configured to preset the area and an abnormal area based on the geographic fence, when the at least one management terminal determines that a position of the at least one garden tool is within the area, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal issues a normal prompt, and when the at least one management terminal determines that the position of the at least one garden tool is within the abnormal area, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal issues a warning prompt or an alarm prompt, as disclosed by He, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The modified Lennings fails to disclose wherein the geographic fence is based on a working area. Bernier further discloses wherein the geographic fence is based on a working area (paragraph [0029]; paragraph [0047]; paragraph [0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Lennings such that the geographic fence is based on a working area, as disclosed by Bernier, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennings in view of He in further view of Mannefred, US 20170344020 A1.
As per Claim 9, Lennings further discloses wherein the at least one intelligent terminal is provided with an intelligent terminal positioning module to obtain positioning information of the at least one intelligent terminal, the at least one intelligent terminal is further provided with a user interaction interface, and the user interaction interface is configured to display the working information of the at least one garden tool (paragraph [0020]; paragraph [0028]; paragraph [0037]; paragraph [0042]; paragraph [0047]).
The modified Lennings fails to disclose wherein the user interaction interface is configured to receive and execute user instructions, and the at least one intelligent terminal is configured to obtain corresponding working tasks according to the user instructions and pair with the corresponding garden tool according to the working tasks. Mannefred discloses wherein the user interaction interface is configured to receive and execute user instructions, and the at least one intelligent terminal is configured to obtain corresponding working tasks according to the user instructions and pair with the corresponding garden tool according to the working tasks (Figure 8; paragraph [0082]; paragraph [0086]; paragraph [0111]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Lennings such that the user interaction interface is configured to receive and execute user instructions, and the at least one intelligent terminal is configured to obtain corresponding working tasks according to the user instructions and pair with the corresponding garden tool according to the working tasks, as disclosed by Mannefred, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennings in view of He in further view of Dumont, US 20150339619 A1, in further view of Grom, US 20200043300 A1.
As per Claim 10, Lennings further discloses wherein, the at least one intelligent terminal is configured to at least display the operator's physical health status and information of bound garden tool, and when the at least one intelligent terminal determines that the operator's physical health status is not within preset conditions, the executed action is that the at least one intelligent terminal sends an alarm message to the server (paragraph [0020]; paragraph [0026]; paragraph [0027]; paragraph [0030]; paragraph [0037]; paragraph [0042]).
The modified Lennings fails to disclose wherein the at least one intelligent terminal is configured to at least display current working hours and historical work records. Dumont discloses wherein the at least one intelligent terminal is configured to at least display current working hours and historical work records (paragraph [0020]; paragraph [0031]; paragraph [0032]; paragraph [0043]; paragraph [0046]; paragraph [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Lennings such that the at least one intelligent terminal is configured to at least display current working hours and historical work records, as disclosed by Dumont, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The modified Lennings fails to disclose wherein the alarm message contains the obtained operator's positioning information; send the alarm message to other intelligent terminals based on the positioning information. Grom discloses wherein the alarm message contains the obtained operator's positioning information (paragraph [0074]; paragraph [0103]; paragraph [0105]; paragraph [0121]; paragraph [0122]; paragraph [0127]; paragraph [0157]; paragraph [0158]); send the alarm message to other intelligent terminals based on the positioning information (paragraph [0158]; paragraph [0186]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Lennings such that the alarm message contains the obtained operator's positioning information; and the invention sends the alarm message to other intelligent terminals based on the positioning information, as disclosed by Grom, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennings in view of He in further view of Bernier in further view of Messina, US 20220185643 A1.
As per Claim 13, the modified Lennings fails to disclose wherein, the at least one management terminal is configured to preset a warning area and an alarm area based on the abnormal area, when the at least one management terminal determines that the position of the at least one tool is within the warning area, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal issues the warning prompt, and when the at least one management terminal determines that the position of the at least one tool is within the alarm area, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal issues the alarm prompt. Messina discloses wherein, the at least one management terminal is configured to preset a warning area and an alarm area based on the abnormal area, when the at least one management terminal determines that the position of the at least one tool is within the warning area, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal issues the warning prompt, and when the at least one management terminal determines that the position of the at least one tool is within the alarm area, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal issues the alarm prompt (paragraph [0003]; paragraph [0017]; paragraph [0020]; paragraph [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Lennings such that the at least one management terminal is configured to preset a warning area and an alarm area based on the abnormal area, when the at least one management terminal determines that the position of the at least one tool is within the warning area, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal issues the warning prompt, and when the at least one management terminal determines that the position of the at least one tool is within the alarm area, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal issues the alarm prompt, as disclosed by Messina, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The modified Lennings fails to disclose wherein the geographic fence is based on a working area. Bernier further discloses wherein the geographic fence is based on a working area (paragraph [0029]; paragraph [0047]; paragraph [0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Lennings such that the geographic fence is based on a working area, as disclosed by Bernier, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennings in view of He in further view of Bernier in further view of Gottstein, US 20180018650 A1.
As per Claim 14, Lennings further discloses the executed action is that the at least one management terminal issues a locking instruction to a lost garden tool to lock the lost garden tool (paragraph [0026]; paragraph [0045]).
The modified Lennings fails to disclose wherein, when the at least one management terminal determines that an item taken out from a warehouse and an item stored back to the warehouse are different, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal determines that the item is lost. Gottstein discloses wherein, when the at least one management terminal determines that an item taken out from a warehouse and an item stored back to the warehouse are different, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal determines that the item is lost (paragraphs [0131]-[0134]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Lennings such that when the at least one management terminal determines that an item taken out from a warehouse and an item stored back to the warehouse are different, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal determines that the item is lost, as disclosed by Gottstein, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennings in view of He in further view of Bernier in further view of Volpert, US 20140184397 A1.
As per Claim 15, the modified Lennings fails to disclose wherein, the at least one management terminal is configured to preset a corresponding recommended working time period of each of different accessories of different tools, obtain an usage time period of each of the accessories, calculate a corresponding cumulative usage time period based on the usage time period of each of the accessories, and perform different operations based on a comparison result of the cumulative usage time period and the corresponding recommended working time period of each of the accessories. Volpert discloses wherein, the at least one management terminal is configured to preset a corresponding recommended working time period of each of different accessories of different tools, obtain an usage time period of each of the accessories, calculate a corresponding cumulative usage time period based on the usage time period of each of the accessories, and perform different operations based on a comparison result of the cumulative usage time period and the corresponding recommended working time period of each of the accessories (paragraph [0023]; paragraph [0024]; paragraph [0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Lennings such that the at least one management terminal is configured to preset a corresponding recommended working time period of each of different accessories of different tools, obtain an usage time period of each of the accessories, calculate a corresponding cumulative usage time period based on the usage time period of each of the accessories, and perform different operations based on a comparison result of the cumulative usage time period and the corresponding recommended working time period of each of the accessories, as disclosed by Volpert, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 16, the modified Lennings fails to disclose wherein, the at least one management terminal is configured to preset a normal working time period based on the recommended working time period of each of the accessories, when the at least one management terminal determines that the corresponding cumulative usage time period of one of the accessories is less than or equal to the normal working time period, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal issues a normal working instruction to the one of the accessories, and when the at least one management terminal determines that the corresponding cumulative usage time period of the one of the accessories is greater than the corresponding normal working time period, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal issues a warning working instruction or an alarm working instruction to the one of the accessories. Volpert further discloses wherein, the at least one management terminal is configured to preset a normal working time period based on the recommended working time period of each of the accessories, when the at least one management terminal determines that the corresponding cumulative usage time period of one of the accessories is less than or equal to the normal working time period, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal issues a normal working instruction to the one of the accessories, and when the at least one management terminal determines that the corresponding cumulative usage time period of the one of the accessories is greater than the corresponding normal working time period, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal issues a warning working instruction or an alarm working instruction to the one of the accessories (paragraph [0023]; paragraph [0024]; paragraph [0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Lennings such that the at least one management terminal is configured to preset a normal working time period based on the recommended working time period of each of the accessories, when the at least one management terminal determines that the corresponding cumulative usage time period of one of the accessories is less than or equal to the normal working time period, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal issues a normal working instruction to the one of the accessories, and when the at least one management terminal determines that the corresponding cumulative usage time period of the one of the accessories is greater than the corresponding normal working time period, the executed action is that the at least one management terminal issues a warning working instruction or an alarm working instruction to the one of the accessories, as disclosed by Volpert, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ebel, US 20240187404 A1 (web-based working device system and associated data access method).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 PM.
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, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights