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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Almeida et al (Proposal of a Hybrid LoRa Mesh / LoRaWAN Network). Hereinafter referred to as Almeida.
Regarding claim 1. Almeida discloses an internet of things (IOT) mesh system for smart cities (see at least abstract), the system comprising: at least one primary module for on-street use (see at least introduction); and a plurality of secondary modules configured to communicate with each other and with the at least one primary module using a wireless mesh communications protocol, each secondary module for on-street use (see at least section III); wherein the at least one primary module is configured to communicate with a control server using a low power wide area network (LPWAN) communications protocol (see at least section III).
Regarding claim 2. Almeida discloses a system wherein the wireless mesh communications protocol operates in the 2.4 GHz band (See at least introduction: Bluetooth and ZigBee).
Regarding claim 4. Almeida discloses system wherein at least one of the plurality of modules is an air quality monitor, temperature sensor, solar intensity sensor, or other smart city device (see at least section V).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida in view of Florucci et al (US 2011/0320256). Hereinafter referred to as Florucci.
Regarding claim 3, Almeida discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that the at least one primary module, and at least a subset of the plurality of secondary modules are vehicle detectors configured to detect the presence of a vehicle at a location associated with the respective primary or secondary module. However, Florucci, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the at least one primary module, and at least a subset of the plurality of secondary modules are vehicle detectors configured to detect the presence of a vehicle at a location associated with the respective primary or secondary module (see at least paragraph [0028]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Florucci, as indicated, into the communication method of Almeida for the purpose of providing city services.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida in view of Johnson et al (US 2015/0087920). Hereinafter referred to as Johnson.
Regarding claim 5, Almeida discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that the receiving a request from an additional module to access the system; authenticate, via one of the at least one primary modules, the additional module with the control server; receive, via one of the at least one primary modules, confirmation from the control server that the additional module is authenticated; and allow the additional module to access the system as a secondary module. However, Johnson, from the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving a request from an additional module to access the system; authenticate, via one of the at least one primary modules, the additional module with the control server; receive, via one of the at least one primary modules, confirmation from the control server that the additional module is authenticated; and allow the additional module to access the system as a secondary module (see at least figure 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Johnson, as indicated, into the communication method of Almeida for the purpose of adding/removing network sensors as needed and rendering it agile.
Claims 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida in view of Florucci and further in view of Alrasheed et al (US 2021/0319699). Hereinafter referred to as Alrasheed.
Regarding claim 6. Almeida in view of Florucci discloses all the limitations of claimed invention with exception that the control server is configured to communicate with a navigation system associated with a first vehicle, or an occupant of the first vehicle, to direct the first vehicle to a specified module of the at least one primary modules and plurality of secondary modules; and the specified module is configured to detect arrival of the first vehicle at a location associated with the specified module, and to report the arrival of the first vehicle to the control server. However, Alrasheed, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the control server is configured to communicate with a navigation system associated with a first vehicle, or an occupant of the first vehicle, to direct the first vehicle to a specified module of the at least one primary modules and plurality of secondary modules; and the specified module is configured to detect arrival of the first vehicle at a location associated with the specified module, and to report the arrival of the first vehicle to the control server (see at least figure 5A). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Alrasheed, as indicated, into the communication system of Almeida in view of Florucci for the purpose of managing a parking efficiently.
Regarding claim 7. Almeida in view of Florucci and further in view of Alrasheed discloses a wherein upon receipt of the report of arrival of the first vehicle, the control server is configured transmit a notification to the first vehicle, or to a user of the first vehicle (see at least figure 5A).
Regarding claim 8. Almeida in view of Florucci and further in view of Alrasheed discloses a system wherein the notification is dependent upon at least one of: the location of the specified module, and a time of arrival of the first vehicle at the specified module (see at least abstract and figure 5A).
Regarding claim 9. Almeida in view of Florucci and further in view of Alrasheed discloses a system wherein the notification is dependent upon the location of the specified module, wherein the control server is configured to: determine an identifier of the specified module; determine a geographical location associated with the identifier; and generate a notification based at least in part on the determined geographical location (see at least paragraph [0033] and figure 5A).
Regarding claim 10. Almeida in view of Florucci and further in view of Alrasheed discloses a system of claim 6, wherein the specified module is selected by the control server from the at one least primary module and plurality of secondary modules based on status reports received from each of the at one least primary module and plurality of secondary modules, each status report indicating the presence or absence of a vehicle in a respective location associated with a respective primary or secondary module (see at least figure 5A).
Regarding claim 11. Almeida in view of Florucci and further in view of Alrasheed discloses a system wherein the specified module is selected by the occupant of the first vehicle (Florucci: see at least paragraph [0163]).
Regarding claim 12. Almeida in view of Florucci and further in view of Alrasheed discloses a system wherein the specified module is a secondary module, and wherein the secondary module is configured to transmit a status report indicating arrival of the first vehicle to a nearest primary module via one or more intermediary secondary modules in accordance with the wireless mesh communications protocol; and the nearest primary module is configured to, upon receipt of the status report indicating arrival of the first vehicle, transmit the status report to the control server using the LPWAN communications protocol (see at least figure 5A).
Regarding claim 14. Almeida in view of Florucci and further in view of Alrasheed discloses a method wherein identifying a target module from the sub-set of modules comprises: receiving, from the navigation system associated with the vehicle, a request for parking at an intended destination; selecting one of the sub-set of modules based on distance or travel time between the selected module and the intended destination; and identifying the selected module as the target module (see at least figure 5A).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida in view of Florucci in view of Alrasheed and further in view of Beaurepaire et al (US 2015/0087920). Hereinafter referred to as Johnson.
Regarding claim 5, Almeida in view of Florucci and further in view of Alrasheed discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception identifying a target module from the sub-set of modules comprises receiving, from the navigation system associated with the vehicle, a request for parking, wherein the request specifies the target module. However, Beaurepaire, from the same field of endeavor, teaches identifying a target module from the sub-set of modules comprises receiving, from the navigation system associated with the vehicle, a request for parking, wherein the request specifies the target module (see at least col. 14, lines 23-34). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Beaurepaire, as indicated, into the communication method of Almeida in view of Florucci and further in view of Alrasheed for the purpose of parking vehicles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476