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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2 and 4-21 are pending of which claim 1 is in independent form. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-2 and 4-21 are rejected.
Response to Claim Amendments and Arguments
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of the claims has been obviated by applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant argues on page 6 of the remarks filed on 1/20/26, that “the Examiner describes the "local device" receiving sensor data and then cites the Rose-Phersson sensor system device as comparable to the Applicant's "interface computer." This reading of the prior art omits the Applicant's recited "local device computer" of Claim 1, which the Applicant argues is the actual device that receives the sensor data (not the Applicant's interface computer).”
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. Firstly, it is noted that claim 1 does not recite sensor data, much less the local device receiving sensor data, as argued by applicant. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the local device receiving sensor data) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, Applicant’s argument appears to rest on a misinterpretation of the Examiner’s position. As set forth in the rejection below, the rejection equates the sensor suite of Rose-Pehrsson, which receives sensor data, to the local device, and equates the sensor system device of Rose-Pehrsson to the claimed interface computer. The combination of references renders claim 1 obvious and the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-12 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose-Pehrsson et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0036593 (hereinafter “Rose-Pehrsson”) in view of Walker et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0005197 (hereinafter “Walker”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Rose-Pehrsson discloses:
A system for providing communications between local device installations and a remote monitoring computer, the system comprising: at least one local device transmitting local device data to the remote monitoring computer on a bi-directional communications network (Rose-Pehrsson at paragraphs [0015], [0035], [0037] and [0044] discloses sensors[i.e., local device installations] transmitting data to sensor machines, wherein the raw sensor data is formatted into data packets using an XML schema, containing sensor information and said raw sensor data, and transmitting the data packets to a data fusion center [i.e., remote monitoring computer] to read, format, aggregate and transform the sensor data which is then transmitted to a supervisory control system. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson at paragraph [0050] discloses transmitting data to the sensors. Examiner is of the position that because Rose-Pehrsson, as cited above, discloses sensors transmitting and receiving data, the communication network disclosed in Rose-Pehrsson is bi-directional.)
wherein the local device comprises a local device computer implementing a local device method comprising: receiving raw data formatted according to a device manufacturer protocol; and implementing local computing instructions according to data protocols managed by an interface computer to transform the raw data to interface protocol data (Rose-Pehrsson at paragraph [0014] discloses different data formats and interfaces for various commercially available sensors [i.e., data formatted according to a device manufacturer protocol]. Further, Rose-Phersson at paragraph [0015] discloses “one sensor suite [i.e. local device] to acquire signals [i.e., receiving raw data formatted according to a device manufacturer protocol], transmitting the signals [i.e., transmits raw data] to a sensor system device [i.e., interface computer] where the signal is processed into data packets [i.e., transform the raw data to interface protocol data]”. Further, Rose-Phersson at paragraph [0044] specifies using an XML schema to format raw sensor data into data packets, specifying, “Each data packet encapsulates information regarding data collection: sensor type, location, and ID, as well as collection time and the sensor data itself”, and additionally reads on the claim limitation reciting, transform the raw data to interface protocol data.)
the interface computer receiving the local device data and formatting the local device data for further transmission to the remote monitoring computer, wherein the interface computer comprises a processor and computer memory storing interface software that implements a method comprising: storing the local device data in the computer memory of the interface computer; transforming the local device data into a formatted data set that fits at least one format protocol (Rose-Pehrsson at paragraphs [0015], [0035], [0037] and [0044]-[0045] discloses sensors [i.e., local device] transmitting raw sensor data to PC based sensor machines [i.e., interface computer] which transforms the signal into data packets using an XML schema, the data packets containing the signal data and transmitting the data packets to a data fusion center [i.e., remote monitoring computer] where the data packets are aggregated and algorithmic data fusion analysis is performed to generate threat level information. More specifically, Rose-Phersson at paragraph [0015] discloses, “one sensor suite to acquire signals, transmitting the signals to a sensor system device where the signal is processed into data packets, transmitting the data packets to a data fusion device, where the data packets are aggregated and algorithmic data fusion analysis is performed to generate threat level information” Further, Rose-Phersson at paragraph [0044] specifies using an XML schema to format raw sensor data into data packets, specifying, “Each data packet encapsulates information regarding data collection: sensor type, location, and ID, as well as collection time and the sensor data itself”.)
While Rose-Phersson at paragraph [0044] discloses formatting data into a schema [i.e., template] and Rose-Phersson in the Abstract discloses transmitting formatted data to a control system, Rose-Phersson does not disclose:
providing a template at the interface computer to fit the formatted data set into the format protocol and further to hold additional raw data that does not fit into the format protocol; and transmitting the formatted data set and the additional raw data to at least one remote monitoring computer.
In other words, Rose-Phersson does not disclose holding additional raw data that does not fit a format protocol.
However, Walker at paragraph [0016], [0028] and [0032] teaches converting portions of raw data and transmitting raw and formatted data to different data handlers.
Both the Rose-Pehrsson reference and the Walker reference, in the sections cited by the Examiner, are in the field of endeavor of data conversion. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the formatting of data into a schema and the transmission of said data as disclosed in Rose-Pehrsson with the converting portions of raw data and transmitting raw and formatted data to different data handlers as taught in Walker to facilitate in transforming data into a formatted structure (See Walker at paragraph [0005]).
Regarding dependent claim 2, all of the particulars of claim 1 have been addressed above. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson discloses:
wherein the local device data comprises multimedia data (Rose-Pehrsson at paragraph [0042] discloses sensors comprising video data [i.e., multimedia data].)
Regarding dependent claim 4, all of the particulars of claims 1 and 3 have been addressed above. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson discloses:
transforming the interface protocol data into the formatted data set according to the computing instructions and an expected format protocol; and transmitting the formatted data set to the remote monitoring computer (Rose-Pehrsson at paragraphs [0015], [0035] and [0037] discloses sensors transmitting data to PC based sensor machines and a data fusion center to read, format, aggregate and transform the sensor data which is then transmitted to a supervisory control system. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson at paragraphs [0044] and [0046] discloses various data format protocols and an XML schema for formatting data [i.e., expected format protocol].)
Regarding dependent claim 5, all of the particulars of claims 1 have been addressed above. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson discloses:
wherein the local device comprises a sensor and the local device data comprises at least one sensor measurement (Rose-Pehrsson at paragraphs [0015], [0035] and [0037] discloses sensors transmitting data to PC based sensor machines and a data fusion center to read, format, aggregate and transform the sensor data which is then transmitted to a supervisory control system.)
Regarding dependent claim 6, all of the particulars of claims 1 and 5 have been addressed above. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson discloses:
wherein the sensor comprises at least one of a biometric sensor and a geospatial location sensor (Rose-Pehrsson at paragraph [0014] discloses different data formats and interfaces for various commercially available sensors. With respect to the claim limitation specifying the type of sensor from which data is collected, Examiner is of the position that the dependent claim in conjunction with the independent claim merely recites collecting data from a sensor, and the type of sensor from which the data is collected does not have a functional relationship with collecting data. Therefore, specifying the type of sensor from which data is collected amounts to nonfunctional descriptive material, consistent with MPEP 2111.05 and will not be given patentable weight.)
Regarding dependent claim 7, all of the particulars of claim 1 have been addressed above. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson discloses:
wherein the local device comprises at least one in situ process sensor selected from the group consisting of acoustic sensors, proximity sensors, tilt sensors, temperature sensors, humidity sensors, infrared imaging sensors, ultrasonic sensors, chemical sensors, biometric sensors, flow sensors, level sensors, pressure sensors, and touch sensors (Rose-Pehrsson at paragraph [0014] discloses different data formats and interfaces for various commercially available sensors. With respect to the claim limitation specifying the type of sensor from which data is collected, Examiner is of the position that the dependent claim in conjunction with the independent claim merely recites collecting data from a sensor, and the type of sensor from which the data is collected does not have a functional relationship with collecting data. Therefore, specifying the type of sensor from which data is collected amounts to nonfunctional descriptive material, consistent with MPEP 2111.05 and will not be given patentable weight.)
Regarding dependent claim 8, all of the particulars of claim 1 have been addressed above. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson discloses:
further comprising a local device computer connected to the local device, the local device computer comprising bi-directional communications hardware for receiving the local device data as raw data and forwarding the raw data to a processing hub computer on the network (Rose-Pehrsson at paragraphs [0015], [0035] and [0037] discloses sensors [i.e., local device] transmitting data to PC based sensor machines and a data fusion center [i.e., processing hub] to read, format, aggregate and transform the sensor data. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson at paragraph [0050] discloses transmitting data to the sensors. Examiner is of the position that because Rose-Pehrsson, as cited above, discloses sensors transmitting and receiving data, the communication network disclosed in Rose-Pehrsson is bi-directional. Lastly, Rose-Pehrsson at paragraph [0038] discloses acquiring raw sensor data.)
Regarding dependent claim 9, all of the particulars of claims 1 and 8 have been addressed above. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson discloses:
wherein the processing hub computer is the local device computer or a different computer on the network (Rose-Pehrsson at paragraphs [0015], [0035] and [0037] discloses sensors [i.e., local device] transmitting data to PC based sensor machines and a data fusion center [i.e., processing hub…different computer on the network] to read, format, aggregate and transform the sensor data.)
Regarding dependent claim 10, all of the particulars of claims 1 and 8 have been addressed above. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson discloses:
wherein transforming the local device data comprises using the processing hub computer to receive the local device data as raw data, parse the raw data, and transform the data per the interface computer protocol (Rose-Pehrsson at paragraphs [0015], [0035] and [0037] discloses sensors [i.e., local device] transmitting data to PC based sensor machines and a data fusion center [i.e., processing hub] to read, format, aggregate and transform the sensor data. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson at paragraph [0038] discloses acquiring raw sensor data. Lastly, Rose-Pehrsson at paragraphs [0044] and [0046] discloses various data format protocols and an XML schema for formatting data [i.e., interface computer protocol].)
Regarding dependent claim 11, all of the particulars of claims 1, 8 and 10 have been addressed above. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson discloses:
wherein the method implemented by the interface computer comprises adaptive data exchanges that collectively format the interface protocol data received from the local device or local device computer according to at least one of the expected format protocols (Rose-Pehrsson at paragraphs [0015], [0035] and [0037] discloses sensors transmitting data [i.e., data exchange] to PC based sensor machines and a data fusion center to read, format, aggregate and transform the sensor data which is then transmitted to a supervisory control system. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson at paragraphs [0044] and [0046] discloses various data format protocols and an XML schema for formatting data. Additionally, Examiner is interpreting the claim term adaptive as a label for the data exchange, if Applicant wishes for the term adaptive to be given a functional interpretation, the function must be described in the claim.)
Regarding dependent claim 12, all of the particulars of claims 1, 8 and 10 have been addressed above. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson discloses:
wherein the expected format protocol is stored in a database that is accessible by the interface computer (Rose-Pehrsson at paragraph [0044] discloses transforming data into an XML schema. Examiner is of the position that in order for the Schema of Rose-Pehrsson to be used to format data it must be stored in a way that it is accessible and usable to format data. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson at paragraph [0055] discloses an event database for storing events [i.e., event data structures and their respective schemas stored in a database accessible to the interface computer]).
Regarding dependent claim 17, all of the particulars of claims 1, 8 and 10 have been addressed above. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson discloses:
wherein the expected format protocols follow a structured template (Rose-Pehrsson at paragraphs [0015], [0035] and [0037] discloses sensors transmitting data to PC based sensor machines and a data fusion center to read, format, aggregate and transform the sensor data which is then transmitted to a supervisory control system. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson at paragraph [0044] discloses converting data to XML using a schema [i.e., expected format protocol follow a structured template].)
Regarding dependent claim 19, all of the particulars of claims 1, 8 and 10 have been addressed above. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson discloses:
wherein the expected format protocols of the remote monitoring computers comprise at least a portion of the local device data in Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR®) format, JSON, HL7, XML protocols, and/or another protocol required by the remote monitoring computer (Rose-Pehrsson at paragraph [0044] discloses converting sensor data to XML.)
Regarding dependent claim 20, all of the particulars of claim 1 have been addressed above. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson discloses:
further comprising alerting options, calendaring options, and notification options implemented by the interface computer (Rose-Phersson in the Abstract discloses taking the formatted and transformed sensor data and generating an alarm [i.e., alert or notification] based on a predetermined criteria being met. Additionally, Rose-Phersson at paragraph [0047] discloses time dependent data and event detection and when combined with the alert/notification disclosed in Rose-Phersson in the Abstract, reads on calendaring options.)
Regarding dependent claim 21, all of the particulars of claims 1 and 20 have been addressed above. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson discloses:
wherein the alerting options and calendaring options are transmitted to the local device computer on the bi-directional communications network (Rose-Phersson, in the Abstract discloses taking the formatted and transformed sensor data and generating an alarm [i.e., alert or notification] based on a predetermined criteria being met. Additionally, Rose-Phersson at paragraph [0047] discloses time dependent data and event detection and when combined with the alert/notification disclosed in Rose-Phersson in the Abstract, reads on calendaring options. Lastly, Rose-Pehrsson at paragraphs [0015], [0035] and [0037] discloses sensors [i.e., local device installations] transmitting data to PC based sensor machines and a data fusion center to read, format, aggregate and transform the sensor data which is then transmitted to a supervisory control system and Rose-Pehrsson at paragraph [0050] discloses transmitting data to the sensors. Examiner is of the position that because Rose-Pehrsson, as cited above, discloses sensors transmitting and receiving data, the communication network disclosed in Rose-Pehrsson is bi-directional.)
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose-Pehrsson in view of Walker in further view of Foreign Patent No. KR 101737545 B1 (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding dependent claim 13, all of the particulars of claims 1, 8 and 10-12 have been addressed above. While, Rose-Pehrsson at paragraph [0014] discloses receiving raw data in a plurality of formats, Rose-Pehrsson does not disclose:
wherein the method comprises using the processing hub computer to convert the raw data from a binary format to an interface protocol format, and using the interface computer to transform converted interface protocol format data to at least one of the expected format protocols for respective remote monitoring computers.
In other words, Rose-Pehrsson does not disclose receiving the raw data in binary format.
However, Kim at Page 2 of the attached PDF in the second text block teaches converting binary data collected from a sensor into XML or JSON.
Both the Rose-Pehrsson reference and the Kim reference, in the sections cited by the Examiner, are in the field of endeavor of data conversion. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the converting of a plurality of formats of sensor data disclosed in Rose-Pehrsson with the conversion of binary sensor data taught in Kim to facilitate in generating and transmitting various kinds of data (See Kim at page 1 of the attached PDF in the BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION section).
Regarding dependent claim 14, all of the particulars of claims 1, 8 and 10-13 have been addressed above. While, Rose-Pehrsson at paragraph [0014] discloses converting raw data into XML or a plurality of formats, Rose-Pehrsson does not disclose:
wherein the formatted data comprises JSON formatted data.
In other words, Rose-Pehrsson does not disclose converting data into JSON format.
However, Kim at Page 2 of the attached PDF in the second text block teaches converting data collected from a sensor into JSON.
Regarding dependent claim 15, all of the particulars of claims 1, 8 and 10-13 have been addressed above. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson discloses:
wherein the expected format protocols comprise human readable data (Rose-Pehrsson at paragraph [0044] discloses converting sensor data to XML [i.e., human readable data].)
Regarding dependent claim 16, all of the particulars of claims 1, 8, 10-13 and 15 have been addressed above. Additionally, Rose-Pehrsson discloses:
wherein the human readable data is organized using JSON, FHIR, HL7, and/or XML protocols, and/or another protocol required by the remote monitoring computer (Rose-Pehrsson at paragraph [0044] discloses converting sensor data to XML.)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose-Pehrsson in view of Walker in further view of Vargas et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0108055 (hereinafter “Vargas”).
Regarding dependent claim 18, all of the particulars of claims 1, 8 and 10 have been addressed above. While, Rose-Pehrsson at paragraph [0044] discloses transforming raw data using an XML schema, Rose-Pehrsson does not disclose:
wherein the expected format protocols optionally allow for insertions of meta data retrieved from at least one of a database connected to the interface computer and/or the local device.
However, Vargas at paragraph [0026] teaches appending metadata to data being converted using an XML schema.
Both the Rose-Pehrsson reference and the Vargas reference, in the sections cited by the Examiner, are in the field of endeavor of data conversion. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the converting of a plurality of formats of sensor data using an XML schemas as disclosed in Rose-Pehrsson with the appending of metadata to data being converted using an XML schema to facilitate in the collection and organization of data (See Vargas at paragraph [0003]).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Kavita Stanley whose telephone number is (571)272-8352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cordelia (Dede) Zecher can be reached at 571-272-7771. 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.
/KAVITA STANLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights