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 Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered as follows:
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant argues that the claim amendments have addressed the issues under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The rejections 101 is based upon the claims not being directed to statutory subject matter, i.e. directed towards software per se, but Applicant has not specified what language within the amended claims would address the 101 rejection.
The basis for the 101 rejection is that a “control module” for Claims 1-11 can be entirely realized as a software element, and as such the entirety of Claims 1-11 must be rejected as being directed to a non-statutory category.
Applicant is required to show that the control module comprises a non-software, i.e. hardware element to address this rejection. Applicant has not done so either via amendment, not via arguments. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
Examiner agrees the amendments have addressed the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, the new subject matter in the material is taught by Devor et al. (US 20200401826 A1) as Devor teaches sensing sensitivity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed towards software per se, which is not one of the four categories.
Specifically, a control module may comprise a software element. (Specification, ¶0039, moreover the control module 130… can be part of the software… of the network devices) Furthermore, the sensing area definer and the sensitivity controller can be interpreted as software per se as being part of the control module, and also having no definition in the specification limiting the interpretation of the elements to being hardware.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
3. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 recites a sensing area definer and a sensitivity controller. However, the terms “definer” nor “controller” is not recited in the specification, and as such is not part of the original disclosure and lacks written description.
Claims 2-11 are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
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.
4. Claims 1-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monaci et al. (US 20160198548 A1) in view of Rast (US 20050141997 A1) and Devor et al. (US 20200401826 A1).
Claim 1 Monaci teaches a control module for controlling a radio frequency sensing performed by at least two network devices being part of a network of network devices, the control module (Monaci, FIG. 1, Lighting Network 100, ¶0018) being configured to:
define at least two sensing areas for the network by assigning at least one network device of the at least two network devices of the network to each area, (Monaci, FIG. 1, ¶0024, wherein CMS 102 defines sensing areas by for the network by implementing a lighting strategy for sensing areas wherein the lighting strategy assigns network devise to each of the areas according to the lighting strategy) and
receive a signal indicative of a status of at least one network device of the network, (Monaci, FIG. 1, ¶0027, receiving status information regarding connected device 114) the status of the at least one network device having a lighting status of the lighting device (Monaci, ¶0027, wherein the status information comprises a lighting status, for example yellow light status) and a sensing result in at least one of the at least two sensing areas; (Monaci, ¶0027, wherein the lighting status comprises a sensing result, i.e. the lighting is a result of sensors)
control at least one assigned network device in at least one of the at least two sensing areas based on the lighting status of a lighting device (Monaci, FIGs. 1 and 2, ¶0018, wherein the controller 105 controls at least one device 106-n in a sensing area 207-n, ¶0027 based upon a lighting status, for example, a lighting status is used to forecast control for neighboring devices) and based on a sensing result in at least one of the at least two sensing areas such that a sensing sensitivity is configured, (Monaci, ¶0027, wherein the lighting status comprises a sensing result, i.e. the lighting is a result of sensors) and the sensing sensitivity being based on a classification threshold between a positive sensing result and a negative sensing result; (Monaci, ¶0027, wherein the light status takes the form of positive or negative, i.e. green or red)
control at least one assigned network device in at least one of the at least two sensing areas based on the lighting status of the lighting device (Monaci, FIGs. 1 and 2, ¶0018, wherein the controller 105 controls at least one device 106-n in a sensing area 207-n, ¶0027 based upon a lighting status, for example, a lighting status is used to forecast control for neighboring devices) and based on a sensing result in at least one of the at least two sensing areas such that the sensing sensitivity in at least one sensing area is configured based on the lighting status; (Monaci, ¶0027, wherein the lighting status comprises a sensing result, i.e. the lighting)
wherein at least one of the network devices is the lighting device, (Monaci, FIG. 1, Connected Device 114, ¶0027, wherein Connected Device 114 comprises a light device, such as a traffic light, ¶0020, wherein Connected Device 114 comprises a network device of a smart city connected infrastructure) and the control module is arranged for controlling the at least two network devices via a control communication between the control module and the at least two network devices or performed by the control module (Examiner notes that this is an intended use statement, i.e. “for controlling…” and therefore the limitation does not have patentable weight) when the control module is part of a network device of the at least two network devices. (Examiner notes that this is a conditional limitation, and as the condition is not necessary for the claims, therefor the limitation does not have patentable weight)
However, Monaci does not explicitly teach that the control module being configured to control the assigned network devices to perform radio frequency sensing in a respective one of the at least two sensing areas; and
wherein the sensing sensitivity being a ratio within a predetermined evaluation time of (i) a number of true positives divided by (ii) a sum of a number of true positives and a number of false positives.
From a related technology, Rast teaches assigned network devices that contribute to the radio frequency sensing (Rast, ¶0037, sensing in the form of RF sensing) in the respective one of at least two sensing areas. (Rast, ¶0369-¶0371, detecting, i.e. sensing, an area of an intersection of two possible sensing areas, i.e. intersection and non-intersection)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Monaci to incorporate particularly RF sensing technology implemented in Rast in order to more efficiently utilize network technology.
However, Monaci in view of Rast does not explicitly teach wherein the sensing sensitivity being a ratio within a predetermined evaluation time of (i) a number of true positives divided by (ii) a sum of a number of true positives and a number of false positives.
From a related technology, Devor teaches a sensing sensitivity being a ratio of (i) a number of true positives divided by (ii) a sum of a number of true positives and a number of false positives (¶0079, a ratio of true positive detections divided by the sum of true positive and false positive detections) within a predetermined evaluation time. (¶0045, within a certain time interval)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of to modify the teachings of Monaci in view of Rast to incorporate the techniques used to address true and false positives as described by Devor in order to more effectively filter and analyze prospective analytic results.
Claim 2 Monaci in view of Rast and Devor teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the control module is adapted to control at least one assigned network device in each of the at least two sensing areas such that a sensing mode in each of the at least two sensing areas is configured. (Monaci, ¶0024, controlling the sensing mode in the sensing area)
Claim 3 Monaci in view of Rast and Devor teaches Claim 2, and further teaches wherein the control module is adapted to control at least one assigned network device in each of the at least two sensing areas such that the sensing sensitivity in at least one area is increased and in at least one other area is decreased with respect to a current sensing sensitivity. (Monaci, ¶0024, controlling the sensing mode in the sensing area to increase or decrease the sensing sensitivity)
Claim 4 Monaci in view of Rast and Devor teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the lighting status of the at least one lighting device refers to at least one of an on/off state, a dim level, a light spectrum, a UV spectrum, a directionality of UV light, a UV radiance power, a battery status, a light intensity, an illumination of the environment. (Monaci, ¶0027, the lighting status referring to an illumination, e.g. green light, of the environment)
Claim 5 Monaci in view of Rast and Devor teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the sensing result comprises information on the presence or absence of at least one person or object in at least one of the at least two sensing areas. (Examiner notes that “the sensing result” refers to an element within a Markush group which is not being interpreted as being embodied, and therefore the limitation has no patentable weight)
Claim 6 Monaci in view of Rast and Devor teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the sensing result comprises information on a number of persons or classification of persons detected in at least one of the at least two sensing areas. (Examiner notes that “the sensing result” refers to an element within a Markush group which is not being interpreted as being embodied, and therefore the limitation has no patentable weight)
Claim 7 Monaci in view of Rast and Devor teaches Claim 5, and further teaches wherein the sensitivity controlling unit is adapted to control at least one assigned network device in each of the at least two sensing areas such that the sensing sensitivity is increased in a sensing area for which the sensing result indicates the presence of a person or a specific activity of a person in the sensing area (Monaci, ¶0039, detecting the presence of a pedestrian) and such that the sensing sensitivity is decreased in at least one other sensing area with respect to a current sensing sensitivity. (Monaci, ¶0039, lowering detection threshold)
Claim 8 Monaci in view of Rast and Devor teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the sensitivity controlling unit comprises an activity expectation estimating unit for estimating an activity expectation for each of the at least two sensing areas, (Monaci, ¶0027, wherein controller 105 forecasts the level of traffic for neighboring light unit areas, i.e. activity expectation estimating) wherein the sensitivity controlling unit is adapted to control the at least one assigned network device based on the activity expectation. (Monaci, ¶0027, increases or decreases threshold detection based on forecast)
Claim 9 Monaci in view of Rast and Devor teaches Claim 8, and further teaches wherein the sensitivity controlling unit is adapted to determine whether the activity expectation is estimated to lie above a threshold in at least one sensing area (Monaci, ¶0027, wherein controller 105 forecasts the level of traffic for neighboring light unit areas, i.e. activity expectation estimating) and wherein the sensitivity controlling unit is adapted to control at least one assigned network device in each sensing area such that the sensing sensitivity is decreased in each sensing areas for which the activity expectation lies above the threshold (Monaci, ¶0027, increases or decreases threshold detection based on forecast) and/or such that the sensing sensitivity is increased in at least one other sensing area with respect to a current sensing sensitivity. (See 112(b), Examiner notes that “and/or…” is interpreted as simply “or” for purposes of interpretation, and as a Markush Group, only one embodiment needs to be taught)
Claim 10 Monaci in view of Rast and Devor teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the sensitivity controlling unit is adapted to control the at least one assigned network device by controlling at least one radio frequency operating variable of the network device such that the sensing sensitivity and/or sensing mode is configured. (Monaci, ¶0027, increases or decreases threshold detection, where threshold detection comprises radio frequency operating variable)
Claim 11 Monaci in view of Rast and Devor teaches Claim 10, and further teaches wherein the radio frequency operating variable refers to at least one of a threshold defining the detection of motion, (Monaci, ¶0027, increases or decreases threshold detection, where threshold detection comprises radio frequency operating variable; ¶0039, wherein the detection comprises a detection of a pedestrian, i.e. movement by a person) a number or frequency of sent or received radio frequency signals utilized for the radio frequency sensing, an amplitude of a radio frequency signal utilized for the radio frequency sensing, a sending direction of a radio frequency signal utilized for the radio frequency sensing, a focus of the radio frequency signal utilized for the radio frequency sensing, a radio frequency sensing frequency, a receiving antenna pattern and a utilized processing algorithm.
Claim 13 is taught by Monaci in view of Rast and Devor as described for Claim 1.
Claim 14 is taught by Monaci in view of Rast and Devor as described for Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PALACA CADORNA whose telephone number is (571)270-0584. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P CADORNA/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights