CTFR 17/928,088 CTFR 97884 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Applicant’s amendment filed on February 24, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-10 are presently pending with claims 1, 7, and 9 being independent. Claims 2 and 8 are original claims. Claims 5 and 6 have been previously presented. Claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 9-10 are currently amended. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments, pages 5-8, filed February 24, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Otto (US 2011/0032106 A1; hereinafter Otto) is silent as to “when the first monitoring data do not satisfy the predetermined reference”, as recited in claim 1. Applicant states that Otto “does not disclose any timing condition or reference…that is used to determine when the collected physical and/or physiological data are transferred from the sensors to the controller.” See Otto Fig. 12: PNG media_image1.png 936 1079 media_image1.png Greyscale Otto teaches the disputed conditional transmission under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim. The claim does not require a separate clock based “timing condition”; rather, the “when” language recites transmission under a condition, i.e., whether the first monitoring data do or do not satisfy the predetermined reference. Otto teaches that sensor 103 continuously monitors heartbeats and transfers data indicative of ordinary heartbeats 1200 to the controller 102, and that such heartbeat data can be sent via the network to the medical server (Otto Fig. 12 and ¶ [0115]). Thus, when the monitored heartbeat data does not indicate an arrhythmic event (i.e., data does not satisfy the predetermined reference), Otto teaches transmitting the first monitoring data via the network to the server. Otto further teaches the complementary condition: when the sensing device detects an arrhythmic event, the data indicating an abnormal heartbeat (i.e., first monitoring data) is transferred 1202 and transmits raw data 1203 (i.e., second monitoring data) continuously to the controller (Otto Fig. 12 and ¶ [0116]). Accordingly, Otto teaches transmitting first monitoring data in the non-event condition and transmitting additional monitoring/raw data when the event condition is satisfied. Applicant’s assertion that Otto lacks a timing condition is therefore not commensurate with the claim language and does not overcome the rejection. Applicant argues that Otto fails to disclose that the event is detected in accordance with the comparison using information corresponding to “predetermined reference” recited in claim 1 (“when the first monitoring data satisfy the predetermined reference”). However, Applicant is attacking Otto individually, whereas the rejection relies on Stephenson et al. (US 2008/0032727 A1; hereinafter Stephenson) for the claimed deciding feature and Otto for the conditional transmission of additional monitoring data when the event/reference condition is satisfied. Stephenson teaches deciding whether first monitoring data satisfy a predetermined reference by determining whether a pre-alarm condition exists using parameters and thresholds, including comparing samples below a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) threshold to the total number of samples (Stephenson ¶ [0040]). Otto is then relied upon to teach that, when the condition/event is detected, additional data are transmitted together with the monitored data. Otto teaches monitoring heartbeats for arrhythmic events, transmitting ordinary heartbeat data, and when an arrhythmic event is detected, transmitting data indicative of the arrhythmic event and raw data for review (Otto Fig. 12 and ¶¶ [0115]-[0116]). Further, even if considered independently, Otto is not silent regarding detection according to a predetermined event criterion. Otto teaches that raw data samples are provided to application specific sensor logic, and that the sensor logic employs event detects algorithms for detecting a pre-defined event, such as an arrhythmic occurrence when processing heartbeat signals (Otto ¶ [0118]). Upon detection of the event by the event detection algorithm, the transmit algorithm begins transmission of raw samples providing context for the event (Otto ¶ [0119]). Under the BRI, the claim does not require Otto to disclose the same numerical threshold comparison as Stephenson, nor does it require a specific form of “predetermined reference” beyond a condition/reference used to determine whether the first monitoring data satisfy the recited condition. Accordingly, the combined teaches of Stephenson and Otto teach or suggest transmitting additional monitoring data together with the first monitoring data when the first monitoring data satisfy the predetermined reference, and Applicant’s argument does not overcome the rejection. Applicant argues that “the first monitoring data and the second monitoring data refer to the same type of data (“monitoring data”).” Applicant submits that “Otto fails to teach the first monitoring data and the second monitoring data of claim 1.” However, Applicant is reading a narrower “same type” requirement into claim 1 than the claim language requires. Claim 1 recites “first monitoring data” and “second monitoring data” included in a plurality of pieces of monitoring data, but does not require the first and second monitoring data to have the same format, level of processing or semantic label (e.g., ordinary heartbeat data or raw heartbeat data). Under BRI, “monitoring data” encompasses data generated from monitoring the relevant signal, including ordinary monitored heartbeat data, event-indicative data, preserved contextual data, and raw data associated with the monitored signal. Otto teaches such monitoring data. Otto’s ordinary heartbeat data and event/raw heartbeat data are both “monitoring data” under BRI, therefore Applicant’s argument does not overcome the rejection. Applicant argues that claim 9 is allowable based on the above arguments. For the same reasons as stated above, mutatis mutandis , the rejection of claim 9 will not be withdrawn. Applicant argues that dependent claims 2-8 and 10 are allowable as they depend on claim 1 and 9. No substantive argument has been made related to dependent claims. Since the §103 rejection of claims 1 and 9 are sustained, the rejections on the dependent claims will not be withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenson et al. (US 2008/0032727 A1; hereinafter Stephenson) in view of Otto (US 2011/0032106 A1; hereinafter Otto) . Regarding claim 1, Stephenson teaches a data collection method comprising (¶ [0039] Wireless access point may collect data.) : collecting (read as records) a packet being transmitted in a wireless system (¶ [0039] Wireless access point may collect RSSI data. Wireless access point records RSSI data of the received packets.) ; generating a plurality of pieces of monitoring data being determined based on the packet (¶ [0039] Records RSSI data of the received packets in an RSSI histogram.) ; deciding (read as determines) whether first monitoring data (read as samples) included in the plurality of pieces of the monitoring data satisfy a predetermined reference (read as RSSI threshold) (¶ [0040] Wireless access point determines whether a pre-alarm condition exists. Parameters and thresholds can be used to determine a “pre-alarm” condition such as comparing the number of samples below an RSSI threshold to the total number of samples, etc.) ; Stephenson does not explicitly teach transmitting the first monitoring data to a server device via a network when the first monitoring data do not satisfy the predetermined reference; and transmitting second monitoring data included in a plurality of pieces of the monitoring data together with the first monitoring data to the server device via the network when the first monitoring data satisfy the predetermined reference. In analogous art, Otto teaches transmitting the first monitoring data to a server device via a network when the first monitoring data do not satisfy the predetermined reference (Fig. 1, element 108 Network, element 109 Medical Server; ¶ [0036] The system comprises a medical server, which is communicatively coupled to the controller via a network.; ¶ [0037] During operation, the controller communicates with the plurality of sensors to collect physical and/or physiological data. The data collected can be uneventful and historical in nature, and such data can be used to as a physical and/or physiological baseline.; ¶ [0115] The sensor is employed in a health monitoring application wherein the sensor continuously monitors heartbeats. The data indicative of the heartbeats can be sent, via the network to the medical server.) ; and transmitting second monitoring data included in a plurality of pieces of the monitoring data together with (read as in addition) the first monitoring data to the server device via the network when the first monitoring data satisfy the predetermined reference (Fig. 1, element 108 Network, element 109 Medical Server; ¶ [0010] Upon receiving information that an event has occurred, transmitting event data indicative of the event as well as a fraction of the preserved data indicative of the original signal representing context of the event to a controller via a network.; ¶ [0036] The system further comprises a medical server, which is communicatively coupled to the controller via the network.; ¶ [0113] Upon detection of an event by the sensor, the sensor autonomously transitions to raw data mode so as to provide maximum context.; ¶ [0114] When the sensor logic detects an event, the sensor transmits the circular history buffer, which represents context prior to the event of the occurrence. In addition, the sensor logic transmits raw event data following the event of interest.; ¶ [0115] The data can be sent via the network to the medical server.; ¶ [0118] The sensor logic employs event detection algorithms for detecting a pre-defined event.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine transmitting data dependent on whether events occur as taught by Otto with the data collection method as taught by Stephenson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce network traffic and power consumption by transmitting less or more data depending on the situation (Otto: ¶¶ [0006-0007]). Regarding claim 2, Stephenson teaches wherein the first monitoring data (read as RSSI histogram) are data related to wireless quality (read as RSSI) (¶ [0039] Wireless access point may collect RSSI data for each transmission stream. Wireless access point records RSSI data of the received packets in an RSSI histogram.) . Regarding claim 3, Stephenson teaches wherein the first monitoring data (read as RSSI data histogram) indicate reception signal strength (read as RSSI) when the packet being transmitted from the wireless terminal in the wireless system is received (¶ [0037] The data in the RSSI histograms correspond to the received signal strength indicators associated with frames transmitted by wireless clients.; ¶ [0039] Wireless access point may collect RSSI data for each transmission stream. Wireless access point records RSSI data of the received packets in an RSSI histogram.) . Regarding claim 4, Stephenson teaches wherein the second monitoring data are generated by combining (read as aggregate) two or more pieces of the monitoring data (read as RSSI histograms) included in the plurality of pieces of the monitoring data (¶ [0047] Wireless access point may aggregate RSSI histograms into a single CHD report.) . Regarding claim 5, Stephenson teaches wherein, when collecting the packet, the server device collects the packet according to a predetermined collection condition (read as measurement interval) (¶ [0039] Wireless access point may collect RSSI data for each transmission stream.; ¶ [0040] Management server may provide wireless access point with parameters. The number of packets are received in a measurement interval.; Note that on page 10, lines 17-18, the instant application states, “The collection condition may be…a collection time or collection period.”) . Regarding claim 6, Stephenson teaches wherein the predetermined reference (read as threshold) and the predetermined collection condition (read as measurement interval) are received from the server device prior to collecting the packet (¶ [0040] Management server may provide wireless access point with parameters. Wireless clients enter a pre-alarm condition when the number of packets received at or below a RSSI threshold in a measurement interval is above a threshold count.) . Regarding claim 7, Stephenson teaches a sensor device comprising (read as access point) (Fig. 1A, elements 50(a-d) Access Point (AP); ¶ [0039] Wireless access point records RSSI data of the received packets.) : at least one memory storing instructions (read as software) (Fig. 3, element 300 wireless access point, element 312 memory; ¶ [0028] The wireless access point includes a memory. The wireless access point may also include software. The software components are loaded into memory.) , and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (Fig. 3, element 310 processor; ¶ [0028] The wireless access point includes a processor. The software are loaded into memory and then accessed and executed by processor 310.) : collect (read as records) a packet being transmitted in a wireless system (¶ [0039] Wireless access point may collect RSSI data. Wireless access point records RSSI data of the received packets.) ; generate a plurality of pieces of monitoring data being determined based on the packet (¶ [0039] Records RSSI data of the received packets in an RSSI histogram.) ; decide (read as determines) whether first monitoring data (read as samples) included in a plurality of pieces of the monitoring data satisfy a predetermined reference (read as RSSI threshold) (¶ [0040] Wireless access point determines whether a pre-alarm condition exists. Parameters and thresholds can be used to determine a “pre-alarm” condition such as comparing the number of samples below an RSSI threshold to the total number of samples, etc.) ; and Stephenson does not explicitly teach transmit the first monitoring data to a server device via a network when the first monitoring data do not satisfy the predetermined reference; and transmit second monitoring data included in a plurality of pieces of the monitoring data together with the first monitoring data to the server device via the network when the first monitoring data satisfy the predetermined reference. In analogous art, Otto teaches transmit the first monitoring data to a server device via a network when the first monitoring data do not satisfy the predetermined reference (Fig. 1, element 108 Network, element 109 Medical Server; ¶ [0036] The system comprises a medical server, which is communicatively coupled to the controller via a network.; ¶ [0037] During operation, the controller communicates with the plurality of sensors to collect physical and/or physiological data. The data collected can be uneventful and historical in nature, and such data can be used to as a physical and/or physiological baseline.; ¶ [0115] The sensor is employed in a health monitoring application wherein the sensor continuously monitors heartbeats. The data indicative of the heartbeats can be sent, via the network to the medical server.) ; and transmit second monitoring data included in a plurality of pieces of the monitoring data together with (read as in addition) the first monitoring data to the server device via the network when the first monitoring data satisfy the predetermined reference (Fig. 1, element 108 Network, element 109 Medical Server; ¶ [0010] Upon receiving information that an event has occurred, transmitting event data indicative of the event as well as a fraction of the preserved data indicative of the original signal representing context of the event to a controller via a network.; ¶ [0036] The system further comprises a medical server, which is communicatively coupled to the controller via the network.; ¶ [0113] Upon detection of an event by the sensor, the sensor autonomously transitions to raw data mode so as to provide maximum context.; ¶ [0114] When the sensor logic detects an event, the sensor transmits the circular history buffer, which represents context prior to the event of the occurrence. In addition, the sensor logic transmits raw event data following the event of interest.; ¶ [0115] The data can be sent via the network to the medical server.; ¶ [0118] The sensor logic employs event detection algorithms for detecting a pre-defined event.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine transmitting data dependent on whether events occur as taught by Otto with the data collection method as taught by Stephenson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce network traffic and power consumption by transmitting less or more data depending on the situation (Otto: ¶¶ [0006-0007]). Regarding claim 8, Stephenson teaches wherein the first monitoring data (read as RSSI histogram) are data related to wireless quality (read as RSSI) (¶ [0039] Wireless access point may collect RSSI data for each transmission stream. Wireless access point records RSSI data of the received packets in an RSSI histogram.) . Regarding claim 9, Stephenson teaches a server device, comprising (Fig. 1A, element 20 Management Server; ¶ The present invention includes a management server.) : at least one memory storing instructions (read as software) (Fig. 2, element 204 memory; ¶ [0022] Hardware system may be used to implement management server. Hardware system comprises memory and software applications.) , and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (Fig. 2, element 202 processor; ¶ [0023] Memory provides storage for programming instructions when executed by processor 202.) ; transmit, via a network (read as WLAN) , a reference (read as threshold) to be satisfied by first monitoring data (read as samples) included in a plurality of pieces of monitoring data determined based on a packet to a sensor device (read as access point) that collects the packet being transmitted in a wireless system (¶ [0038] Transmit the RSSI histograms to an upstream node such as a WLAN management server.; ¶ [0039] Wireless access point may collect RSSI data for each transmission. Wireless access point records RSSI data of the received packets.; ¶ [0040] Wireless access point determines whether a pre-alarm condition exists. Management server may provide wireless access point with parameters. Parameters and thresholds can be used to determine a “pre-alarm” condition such as comparing the number of samples below an RSSI threshold to the total number of samples, etc.) , and Stephenson does not explicitly teach receive, via the network, the first monitoring data that do not satisfy the reference; or receive the first monitoring data that satisfy the reference and second monitoring data included in the plurality of pieces of the monitoring data. In analogous art, Otto teaches receive, via the network, the first monitoring data that do not satisfy the reference (Fig. 1, element 108 Network, element 109 Medical Server; ¶ [0036] The system comprises a medical server, which is communicatively coupled to the controller via a network.; ¶ [0037] During operation, the controller communicates with the plurality of sensors to collect physical and/or physiological data. The data collected can be uneventful and historical in nature, and such data can be used to as a physical and/or physiological baseline.; ¶ [0115] The sensor is employed in a health monitoring application wherein the sensor continuously monitors heartbeats. The data indicative of the heartbeats can be sent, via the network to the medical server.) ; or receive the first monitoring data that satisfy the reference and second monitoring data included in the plurality of pieces of the monitoring data (Fig. 1, element 108 Network, element 109 Medical Server; ¶ [0010] Upon receiving information that an event has occurred, transmitting event data indicative of the event as well as a fraction of the preserved data indicative of the original signal representing context of the event to a controller via a network.; ¶ [0036] The system further comprises a medical server, which is communicatively coupled to the controller via the network.; ¶ [0113] Upon detection of an event by the sensor, the sensor autonomously transitions to raw data mode so as to provide maximum context.; ¶ [0114] When the sensor logic detects an event, the sensor transmits the circular history buffer, which represents context prior to the event of the occurrence. In addition, the sensor logic transmits raw event data following the event of interest.; ¶ [0115] The data can be sent via the network to the medical server.; ¶ [0118] The sensor logic employs event detection algorithms for detecting a pre-defined event.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine transmitting data dependent on whether events occur as taught by Otto with the data collection method as taught by Stephenson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce network traffic and power consumption by transmitting less or more data depending on the situation (Otto: ¶¶ [0006-0007]). Regarding claim 10, Stephenson teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to transmit a collection condition (read as measurement interval) indicating a condition of the packet to be collected by the sensor device (read as access point) , to the sensor device (Fig. 2, element 202 processor; ¶ [0023] Memory provides storage for programming instructions when executed by processor 202.; ¶ [0040] Management server may provide wireless access point with parameters. Wireless clients enter a pre-alarm condition when the number of packets received at or below a RSSI threshold in a measurement interval is above a threshold count.) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Choudhary et al. (US 2013/0077505 A1) discloses “Method and Apparatus for Using Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) Filtering to Provide Air-Time Optimization in Wireless Networks” Halla et al. (US 7,299,068 B1) discloses “Wireless Sensor Network for Monitoring One or More Selected Environmental Characteristics” Yadav et al. (US 2016/0359872 A1) discloses “System for Monitoring and Managing Datacenters” 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 DAVID M KAYAL whose telephone number is (703)756-4576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 ET. 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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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. /D.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2464 /RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464 Application/Control Number: 17/928,088 Page 2 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 17/928,088 Page 3 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 17/928,088 Page 4 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 17/928,088 Page 5 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 17/928,088 Page 7 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 17/928,088 Page 8 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 17/928,088 Page 9 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 17/928,088 Page 10 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 17/928,088 Page 11 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 17/928,088 Page 12 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 17/928,088 Page 13 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 17/928,088 Page 14 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 17/928,088 Page 15 Art Unit: 2464 Application/Control Number: 17/928,088 Page 16 Art Unit: 2464
Prosecution Insights