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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 23-26, 28, 34-37 and 49 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 34, and 49 are currently amended. Claims 4-5, 9, 11, 15-22, 27, 29-33, 38-48, and 50-52 have been canceled. Claims 23-26 and 28 have been withdrawn from consideration as a result of the earlier Restriction requirement. No new claims are currently added.
Response to Arguments
With regard to Applicant’s remarks dated April 6, 2026:
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 34-37, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant’s amendment and arguments have been fully considered. Some issues were resolved by the amendment. Therefore, obviated portions of the rejection are withdrawn. However, other issues are maintained. In particular, Applicants argue at pages 8-9 of the Remarks, as filed, that “the present Specification discloses that the combined measurement data is collected by a measurement collection system for validating the existence of a controllable pattern within the data. Paragraphs [0108] and [0109] further describe that the enablement operation includes transferring data from the measurement collection system via the measurement system.” In response to this argument, it is noted that 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). Therefore, scope “enabling” is still deemed indefinite and Applicants are advised to replace “enabling” with an active step of “transferring data” from one entity to another, as argued.
Applicants further argue at pages 9-10 of the Remarks, as filed, that “the identified steps such as "a controllable pattern that is updated by the measurement collection system responsive to fraud detection events or network topology changes" and "validation of existence of the controllable pattern in the combined measurement data" are not insignificant pre- or post-solution activity, but rather form an integral part of the claimed invention and are necessary to achieve the additional protection while collecting measurement data from various managed entities by altering the controllable pattern dynamically by the measurement collection system in the events of fraud detection. Further, the step "validation of existence of the controllable pattern in the combined measurement data" is an additional integral part of the invention ensuring no tampering of the dynamically updated controllable pattern.” In support of their argument, Applicants rely on MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(e). However, Applicant’s reliance on these sections of MPEP is misplaced because the issue at hand is not whether claims recite features that integrate an abstract idea into a practical application, thus, rendering the claim statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101, but rather the issue is whether the claim contains limitations that are completely outside of the scope of the claim. In particular, Examiner noted that the system claim 35 is directed to a management system that combines measurement data from at least two managed entities. Therefore, the functionality performed by a measurement collection system, which is a separate system distinct from the claimed management system, is outside of the scope of the claim and is not accorded patentable weight. Other independent claims 1 and 49, both comprise analogous step of combining measurement data from at least two managed entities by a management system while also reciting steps performed by a measurement collection system that is not part of the claimed scope because the recited functions performed by the measurement collection system fail to further limit the only active step of combining measurement data.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 34-37, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s amendment and arguments have been fully considered. Applicants generally argue, at page 10 of the Remarks, as filed, that no prior art has been provided to teach the feature of defining a controllable pattern that is updated by a measurement collection system. Examiner agrees because this feature is not deemed to be outside of the claimed scope because the claim is not directed to a measurement collection system, as discussed above and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. However, for the purposes of advancing the prosecution, Examiner provides a reference that teaches this feature under Relevant Prior Art heading.
As to any arguments not specifically addressed, they are the same as those discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 34-37, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As to claims 1, 34, and 49, it is unclear how the linear function operation can define a controllable pattern defining an order of managed entities in which the combining of measurement data is to be performed, which are two different concepts. Linear function, as generally understood in the context of combining data, is a process where multiple data inputs are multiplied by constant coefficients and then added together. Specification appears to support this in par. [0143] as published. On the other hand, “controllable pattern”, as explained in the specification, defines an order of managed entities in which the combining of measurement data is performed (par. [0020] as published), where the set of managed entities is traversed in a certain order and measurement data from the managed entities is combined in this particular order. Therefore, the controllable pattern is an order of traversal for collection of measurement data while linear function operation defines weights applied to each piece of collected data. The specification fails to explain how the linear function operation defines a controllable pattern. The specification analogously fails to explain how the cyclic group operation defines the controllable pattern, rendering the claim ambiguous because it is unclear how it works. The only time the linear function/cyclic group operation is mentioned in the specification together with a controllable pattern in the same paragraph is at par. [0143] (as published) lacking any explanation as to how “defining” is accomplished.
As to claims 1, 34, and 49, “enabling the combined data to be collected” does not appear to be an active step, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. In particular, it is unclear what action is performed to “enable” the combined data to be collected. While specification discusses transferring data from one entity to another as part of data collection operation performed by the measuring collection system, it does not define “enabling” as necessarily requiring data transmission.
It is further noted that since the “measurement collection system” is not claimed to be part of the claim (as evidenced by the system claim 34 and CRM claim 49 that are directed to a management system configured to perform the functionality of the method steps of claim 1), the operations performed by the measurement collection system fall outside of the scope of the claim and are not accorded patentable weight. In particular, the language “a controllable pattern that is updated by the measurement collection system responsive to fraud detection events or network topology changes”, “validation of existence of the controllable pattern in the combined measurement data”, and “the controllable pattern is dynamically updated by the measurement collection system during active data collection” are all outside of the claimed scope because they are directed to activities that do not further limit the only active step of “combining measurement data”, which is performed by the management system.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons.
Relevant Prior Art
Oyake et al. (US 2017/0039256 A1) is directed to processing pieces of collected data based on data arrival states (abstract). In particular, Oyake teaches that a number of multiple individual processes into which the data conversion process is segmented and the execution order of the individual processes (claimed “controllable pattern”) are dynamically changed by the entire flow control unit 15 in response to the collection status of the data and the contents of the data (par. [0056], [0060], [0088]-[0089], [0130], [0180]). Therefore, Oyake can be relied to teach the feature of defining a controllable pattern that is dynamically updated by a measurement collection system during active data collection, as recited in the pending claims.
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, 6-7, 34-37 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2005/0254520 A1) in view of Yoshida (US 2019/0203963 A1).
As to claim 1, Jung teaches a method for supporting protected collection of measurement data [log data is encrypted] (par. [0084]) that is representative of usage of network capabilities within a communication network [antenna information, communication quality of service information, coordinates information] (Figs 2 and 5 log data), referred to as managed entities [motes in the network] and managed by a management system associated with the communication network (Fig. 11), said method comprises:
combining measurement data related to a set of at least two of said managed entities by applying a function operation defining by a controllable pattern [aggregating mote-associated log data] (Fig. 5, par. [0058], [0060]), said pattern defining at least the order of managed entities in which the combining of measurement data is to be performed [log data is aggregated in motes up the stream that have a multi-mote log creation agent, where reporting entity at every mote transmits log data to other entities at designated mote addresses and/or designated gateway-proximate motes] (par. [0071]); and
enabling [“enabling” under the BRI suggests inaction] the combined measurement data to be collected by a measuring system [device in the network receiving the content log] for validation of existence of the controllable pattern in the combined measurement data [utilizing both public and private key encryption techniques to transmit content log data] (par. [0084]-[0085]), wherein the management system and the managed entities are network customer-controlled [devices in the network are differently administered] (par. [0055], [0088]).
Jung fails to teach that the measurement data is combined by applying a linear function operation or cyclic group operation.
Yoshida is directed to a temperature characteristic evaluation method (abstract). In particular, Yoshida teaches obtaining a set of temperature data and combining the data by a linear function to obtain the linear function as a temperature function by the computer (par. [0009]).
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 method and system of Jung by having the measurement data combined by applying a linear function operation or cyclic group operation defining a controllable pattern of Jung, in order to perform an evaluation of combined measurement data (par. [0009] in Yoshida).
While not required by the claim, as explained above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, Examiner provides a prior art reference teaching the feature of dynamically updating, by a measurement collection system, a controllable pattern of data collection. Therefore, if Applicants make amendments to require this feature as an active step, it will be rejected by the teachings of Oyake et al.
As to claim 2, Jung teaches that said step of combining measurement data comprises cryptographically combining measurement data related to said set of at least two of said managed entities according to said controllable pattern [aggregated multi-mote content log data is encrypted and decrypted using keys] (par. [0073]).
As to claim 3, Jung teaches that said step of enabling the combined measurement data to be collected for validation comprises preparing the combined measurement data for transfer towards a measurement collection system [gateway motes or mainframe] (Fig. 11) for enabling validation [“for enabling validation” is a statement of intended use and is not an active step] of existence of the controllable pattern in the combined measurement data [content log data is transmitted up the stream towards mainframe for combining into a federated content log] (par. [0093]), wherein said step of enabling the combined measurement data to be collected for validation comprises sending the combined measurement data to said measurement collection system via said management system (Fig. 11, par. [0094]).
As to claim 6, Jung teaches that said method is performed by a combiner/weaver/controller arranged as a controlling proxy [gateway mote 704] (par. [0051], [0053]) between at least a subset of said managed entities and said management system (Fig. 11).
As to claim 7, Jung teaches that said weaver or combiner is independently controlled by a measurement collection system for enabling [“for enabling” suggests intended use, as previously discussed] network customer- independent validation of measurement data [devices in the network are differently administered] (par. [0055], [0088]).
As to claim 34, Jung in view of Yoshida teaches a management system configured to support protected collection of measurement data (Fig. 11 in Jung), the management system comprises: a processor; a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a set of instructions, that is when executed by the processor (par. [0120] in Jung), causes the management system to perform the functionality as discussed per claim 1 above.
As to claims 35-36, Jung teaches all the elements as discussed per corresponding method claims 2-3 above.
As to claim 37, Jung teaches a network entity arranged between at least a subset of said managed entities [regular motes] and said management system [mainframe] (Fig. 11), said network entity comprising a system [intermediate mote that includes a multi-mote agent or gateway mote] (Fig. 11) configured to support protected collection of measurement data according to claim 34 as discussed above.
As to claim 49, Jung in view of Yoshida teaches a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon (par. [0120] in Jung) a computer program for supporting, for protected collection of measurement data that is representative of usage of network capabilities within a communication network, referred to as managed entities and managed by a management system associated with the communication network, the computer program when executed by the at least one processor causing the system to perform the method steps as discussed per claim 1 above.
Claims 8, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of Yoshida and in further view of Hummel et al. (US 2020/0387639 A1).
As to claim 8, Jung in view of Yoshida teaches all the elements except that the weaver or combiner cryptographically combines hashed measurement data related to at least one managed entity of said set of at least two managed entities with hashed measurement data related to at least one other managed entity of said set of at least two managed entities, wherein the weaver or combiner cryptographically combines hashed measurement data by performing hashing of the hashed measurement data related to at least one managed entity of said set of at least two managed entities and the hashed measurement data related to at least one other managed entity of said set of at least two managed entities.
Hummel is directed to a method for manipulation-proof storage of payload data of measurement values of one or more sensors (par. [0007], [0053]). In particular, Hummel teaches cryptographically combining hashed measurement data related to at least one managed entity of said set of at least two managed entities with hashed measurement data related to at least one other managed entity of said set of at least two managed entities [forming the hash value over the payload data again and comparing with the hash value previously stored in the data record] (par. [0008], [0053]), wherein the weaver or combiner cryptographically combines hashed measurement data by performing hashing of the hashed measurement data related to at least one managed entity of said set of at least two managed entities and the hashed measurement data related to at least one other managed entity of said set of at least two managed entities [combine payload data with a predecessor hash value] (par. [0053], [0067]).
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 weaver or combiner of Jung in view of Yoshida by having a gateway mote cryptographically combines hashed measurement data related to at least one managed entity of said set of at least two managed entities with hashed measurement data related to at least one other managed entity of said set of at least two managed entities, wherein the weaver or combiner cryptographically combines hashed measurement data by performing hashing of the hashed measurement data related to at least one managed entity of said set of at least two managed entities and the hashed measurement data related to at least one other managed entity of said set of at least two managed entities in order to make sure the content of the content log of Jung is not manipulated at any point during transmission, aggregation, or storage (par. [0007] in Hummel).
As to claim 10, Jung teaches that said method is performed by a managed entity being part of said set of at least two of said managed entities from which measurement data is to be combined [gateway mote 704, 705] (par. [0051], [0053]).
Jung in view of Yoshida fails to teach that the managed entity cryptographically combines hashed measurement data related to at least one other managed entity of said set of at least two managed entities with hashed measurement data related to the managed entity.
Hummel is directed to a method for manipulation-proof storage of payload data of measurement values of one or more sensors (par. [0007], [0053]). In particular, Hummel teaches cryptographically combining hashed measurement data related to at least one other managed entity of said set of at least two managed entities with hashed measurement data related to the managed entity [forming the hash value over the payload data again and comparing with the hash value previously stored in the data record] (par. [0008], [0053], [0067]).
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 weaver or combiner of Jung in view of Yoshida by having a gateway mote cryptographically combine hashed measurement data related to at least one other managed entity of said set of at least two managed entities with hashed measurement data related to the managed entity in order to make sure the content of the content log of Jung is not manipulated at any point during transmission, aggregation, or storage (par. [0007] in Hummel).
As to claim 12, Jung in view of Yoshida and Hummel teaches that the managed entity cryptographically combines hashed measurement data by performing hashing of hashed measurement data related to at least one other managed entity of said set of at least two managed entities and hashed measurement data related to the managed entity (par. [0008], [0053], [0067] in Hummel) to produce [“to produce” suggests intended use and is not an active step] a combined hash for validation.
As to claim 13, Jung in view of Yoshida and Hummel teaches that the managed entity sends the combined hash to a controlling proxy [proxy mote that is gateway to WAN in Jung] (Fig. 11) arranged between at least a subset of said managed entities and said management system [mainframe 990] (Fig. 11 in Jung), enabling [“enabling” suggests capability and is not an active step, as discussed above] the controlling proxy to send the combined hash to a measurement collection system for validation of existence of the controllable pattern in the combined hash and/or send the combined hash to a next managed entity defined by said order of managed entities in which the combining of measurement data is to be performed for updating the combined hash (par. [0008], [0053], [0067] in Hummel).
As to claim 14, Jung in view of Yoshida and Hummel teaches that the managed entity digitally signs the combined hash (par. [0020] in Hummel).
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 OLEG SURVILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/OLEG SURVILLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights