UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/707,032
`
`09/18/2017
`
`Shunsuke SAITO
`
`PANDP023 SUS
`
`1058
`
`MARK D. SARALINO (PAN)
`RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
`1621 EUCLID AVENUE
`19TH FLOOR
`CLEVELAND, OH 441 15
`
`SPRINGER JAMES E
`
`ART UNIT
`2454
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/09/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`ipdoeket@rennerotto.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/707,032
`Examiner
`JAMES E SPRINGER
`
`Applicant(s)
`SAITO, Shunsuke
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`2454
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 22 July 2019.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—10 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabie. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)[:] The drawing(s) filed on
`
`is/are: a)D accepted or b)l:] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12):] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)D All
`
`b)I:I Some**
`
`c)CI None of the:
`
`1.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.[:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) C] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail DateW.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190806
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/707,032
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Claim 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.
`
`Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Righi et al. (US 7,421,688), hereafter “Righi,” in view of
`
`Edelstein et al. (US 2009/0177791), hereafter “Edelstein.”
`
`Regarding Claim 1, Righi teaches an electronic device (Righi: 2A of FIG. 1)
`
`comprising:
`
`a communication unit (Righi: 20A of FIG. 1) that communicates with a
`
`management server apparatus (Righi: 4 of FIG. 1; col. 3 lines 45-48) via a network
`
`(Righi: 18 of FIG. 1;col. 4 lines 12-24);
`
`a display that displays predetermined information (Righi: col. 6 lines 45-48); and
`
`a controller that controls an operation of the display (Righi: col. 6 lines 45-
`
`48), wherein
`
`when the communication unit receives a control command from the management
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/707,032
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`Page 3
`
`server apparatus via the network, the controller executes processing corresponding to
`
`the control command and transmits a notification signal including information, which
`
`indicates a state of execution of the processing, to the management server apparatus
`
`via the network (Righi: 402, 410, 432 of FIG. 4; col. 7 lines 42-56; col. 8 lines 38-45),
`
`and
`
`when the controller fails to transmit the notification signal to the management
`
`server apparatus via the network (Righi: col. 8 lines 55-61 [If aftera predetermined
`
`number of attempts at interrogating the computers without acknowledgement, the
`
`update operations for those computers or nodes are terminated.]).
`
`Righi does not teach:
`
`when the controller fails to transmit the notification signal to the management
`
`server apparatus via the network, the controller causes a state indicator including the
`
`information which indicates the state of execution of the processing to be displayed on
`
`the display.
`
`Edelstein teaches a technique of:
`
`when a controller fails to transmit a notification signal to a management server
`
`apparatus via a network, the controller causes a state indicator including the information
`
`which indicates the state of execution of the processing to be displayed on the display
`
`(Edelstein: 706, 708 of FIG. 7; par 0029 [At 706, a client status display area is displayed
`
`on the client device indicating at least a connection status with the host device. At 708,
`
`a corresponding host status display area is displayed on the host device indicating a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/707,032
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`connection status with the client device.]).
`
`Page 4
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the
`
`connection status display of Edelstein on the displays of both the management server
`
`and the managed device with predictable results. One would be motivated to make the
`
`combination in order to provide valuable information to users of the system with respect
`
`to the connection status between the two machines. One would further be motivated to
`
`make the combination because end users on both sides of the connection may have an
`
`interest in viewing the connection status. Accordingly it would have been apparent that
`
`providing such information to the end users would have had predictable beneficial
`
`effects. One would further be motivated to make the combination in view of the
`
`substantial similarity of the references. Both Righi and Edelstein disclose systems for
`
`remote management of devices. In view of this substantial similarity it would have been
`
`readily apparent that various beneficial features of Edelstein could have been
`
`implemented within the Righi system with predictable results and a beneficial effect.
`
`Regarding claim 2, the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the
`
`electronic device is a computer that includes a basic input/output system (BIOS) and an
`
`operating system (OS) (Righi: 13A, 16A of FIG. 1);
`
`the communication unit communicates with the management server apparatus
`
`via the network even while the BIOS and the OS is in a non-operating state (Righi: col.
`
`4 lines 12-27 [...A network interface card (“N/C”) of a PXE enabled computer. . .is
`
`connected to the network 18 via a jumper, which keeps the computer connected to the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/707,032
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`network even when the power is off.]); and
`
`Page 5
`
`the controller activates the BIOS and executes the processing by using the BIOS
`
`when the communication unit receives the control command from the management
`
`server apparatus via the network while the BIOS and the OS is in the non-operating
`
`state (Righi: col. 4 lines 49-64).
`
`Regarding claim 3, the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the
`
`electronic device is a computer that includes a basic input/output system (BIOS) and an
`
`operating system (OS) (Righi: 13A, 16A of FIG. 1);
`
`the communication unit communicates with the management server apparatus
`
`via the network while the OS is in an operating state (Righi: col. 4 lines 49-64); and
`
`when the communication unit receives the control command from the
`
`management server apparatus via the network while the OS is in the operating state,
`
`the controller terminates the OS and activates the BIOS and executes the processing by
`
`using the BIOS (Righi: 408, 410 of FIG. 4; col. 7 lines 45-60).
`
`Regarding claim 5, the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the
`
`information which indicates the state of execution of the processing includes information
`
`indicating that the processing has started and/or information indicating that the
`
`processing has terminated (Righi: 410, 432 of FIG. 4; col. 7 lines 51 -64).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/707,032
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`Page 6
`
`Regarding claim 6, the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the state
`
`indicator further includes destination information of the management server apparatus
`
`(Edelstein: par 0038).
`
`Regarding claim 9, a remote control system comprising:
`
`at least one electronic device according to claim 1 and the management server
`
`apparatus (Righi: 2A, 4 of FIG. 1).
`
`Claim 4 is rejected as being unpatentable over Righi et al. (US 7,421,688), in
`
`view of Edelstein et al. (US 2009/0177791), and further in view of Childs et al. (US
`
`2010/0159911), hereafter “Childs.”
`
`Regarding claim 4, Righi-Edelstein does not teach the electronic device
`
`according to claim 1, wherein
`
`the communication unit receives the control command from the management
`
`server apparatus via the network in a format of a short message of short message
`
`service (SMS).
`
`Childs teaches a technique of:
`
`a communication unit receives a control command from a management
`
`apparatus via a network in a format of a short message of short message service (SMS)
`
`(Childs: par 0025).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to implement the commands
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/707,032
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`Page 7
`
`of Righi-Edelstein using SMS with predictable results. One would be motivated to utilize
`
`SMS because it would have been apparent that any of a variety of network protocols
`
`could have been used to communicate the commands of Righi-Edelstein. Accordingly,
`
`implementing the communication using SMS would have amounted to simple
`
`substitution of one known element for another with predictable results. One would
`
`further be motivated to make the combination in order to provide a communication
`
`alternative to regular TCP/IP communication in the event a network is down. One would
`
`further be motivated to make the combination in view of the explicit suggestion in Righi
`
`that alternative communication protocols may be used, including wireless protocols
`
`(Righi: col. 3 lines 58-65).
`
`Claims 7 and 10 are rejected as being unpatentable over Righi et al. (US
`
`7,421,688), in view of Edelstein et al. (US 2009/0177791), and further in view of
`
`Rodriguez et al. (US 2015/0161496), hereafter “Rodriguez.”
`
`Regarding claim 7, Righi-Edelstein does not teach the electronic device
`
`according to claim 1, wherein the state indicator is in a form of a quick response (QR)
`
`code.
`
`Rodriguez teaches wherein the state indicator is in a form of a quick response
`
`(QR) code (Rodriguez: 206 of FIG. 1; par 0036).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to display the
`
`disconnection information of Righi-Edelstein in the form of a QR code according to the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/707,032
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`Page 8
`
`technique of Rodriguez with predictable results. One would be motivated to make the
`
`combination in order to adapt the Righi-Edelstein system to function on devices with
`
`smaller displays. One would further be motivated to make the combination if it were
`
`desired to obfuscate information from user whose device is being managed. One would
`
`further be motivated to make the combination in view of the suggestion in Righi that any
`
`of a variety of devices may be managed using the system. Accordingly, implementing
`
`the device management techniques of Righi-Edelstein upon the devices of Rodriguez
`
`would have amounted to a predictable use of the system.
`
`Regarding claim 10, the remote control system according to claim 9,
`
`further comprising:
`
`a camera that is capable of capturing the state indicator (Rodriguez: par 0018)
`
`and a terminal device including a communication unit that is capable of communicating
`
`with the management server apparatus (Righi: 2B of FIG. 1).
`
`Claim 8 is rejected as being unpatentable over Righi et al. (US 7,421,688), in
`
`view of Edelstein et al. (US 2009/0177791), and further in view of McCallum et al.
`
`(US 2015/0271130), hereafter “McCallum.”
`
`Regarding claim 8, Righi-Edelstein teaches the electronic device according to claim 1,
`
`wherein the electronic device further includes a storage (Righi: col. 4 lines 12-25).
`
`Righi-Edelstein does not teach and the control command is a command to delete
`
`data stored in the storage.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/707,032
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`Page 9
`
`McCallum teaches a control command is a command to delete data stored in the
`
`storage (McCallum: par 0061 [The communication from the management engine 124 to
`
`the device 129 may include commands sent to the device 129 indicating functions to be
`
`completed, such as changing an application configuration, changing a system
`
`configuration, running a program, deleting a file. . .]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to implement the additional
`
`control functionality of McCallum within the Righi-Edelstein system with predictable
`
`results. One would be motivated to make the combination because McCallum, like
`
`Righi-Edelstein, is a system for remote management of networked computers.
`
`Accordingly, it would have been readily apparent that augmenting Righi-Edelstein to
`
`include the enhanced functionality of McCallum would have provided the predictable
`
`benefit of enhanced functionality and power for end users of the system. Further, in
`
`view of the substantial similarity of the references it would have been readily apparent to
`
`one of ordinary skill that various beneficial features of McCallum could have been
`
`implemented within the Righi-Edelstein system with predictable results and a beneficial
`
`effect.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 22 July 2019 have been fully considered and are
`
`discussed in detail below.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/707,032
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`Page 10
`
`With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues that the Righi-Edelstein is deficient
`
`because Edelstein teaches displaying a status of a connection rather than the status of
`
`an execution process. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the prior art is deficient.
`
`ln Righi, the connection status is indicative of a state of execution processing
`
`because disconnection indicates the update has failed (Righi: col. 8 lines 55-61 [Ifa
`
`notification of update is not received from any of the computers 2A -2X, the manager
`
`computer interrogates the computers 2A-@X that have not acknowledged update
`
`status. If after a predetermined number of attempts at interrogating the computers
`
`without acknowledgement, the update operations for those computers or nodes are
`
`terminated.]). While Righi discloses that the status (i.e. state of execution) is displayed
`
`when the nodes are communicable and therefore successfully updated, it does not
`
`explicitly disclose updating a display to indicate a node is incommunicable or that the
`
`update failed (Righi: 440, 442 of FIG. 4; col. 8 lines 50-55 [At operation 440, the
`
`manager computer receives the notifications of the update. The operational flow 400
`
`then continues to operation 442 where the status display is updated based on the
`
`notification of update.]). This is despite the fact that Righi discloses that disconnection is
`
`indicative of a failure of the update and that Righi already displays a “state of execution
`
`processing” in step 442 where the status of the update is displayed. Supra. Examiner’s
`
`proposed combination is to additionally provide an indication to the users of Righi of the
`
`nodes that are incommunicable according to the technique of Edelstein. While Edelstein
`
`does not relate to providing notifications regarding software updates it would have been
`
`apparent that the technique of notifying about a disconnection would have been
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/707,032
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`Page 11
`
`applicable and of interest to the user in the context of Righi given that disconnection is
`
`indicative of a failed execution state. Supra. Accordingly, Examiner maintains that Righi-
`
`Edelstein fairly meets the disputed limitation.
`
`The remaining arguments depend on or relate to the arguments addressed
`
`above. In view of the foregoing the rejections are maintained.
`
`Conclusion
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time
`
`policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the event a first reply is filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the
`
`shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to JAMES E SPRINGER whose telephone number is
`
`(571)270-5640. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 5:30pm ET.
`
`Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video
`
`conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/707,032
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`Page 12
`
`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, GLENTON BURGESS can be reached on 571-272—3949. The fax phone
`
`number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -
`
`273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272—1000.
`
`JAMES E. SPRINGER
`
`Primary Examiner
`Art Unit 2454
`
`/JAMES E SPRINGER/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
`
`