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. 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 Claim ( 20) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim (20) is drawn to a computer readable medium having stored thereon a computer program, where the computer readable medium can be transitory, i.e., is not explicitly limited as disclosed as only being non-transitory computer readable media; therefore, fail(s) to fall within a statutory category of invention. Applicant should note that adding "non-transitory" to the claim to limit a claimed computer readable medium to being statutory would be acceptable. A claim directed to a computer readable medium having stored thereon a computer program is non-statutory, where the computer readable medium can be a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, per se , which are non-statutory as noted, infra . A claim directed to a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, per se , is non-statutory because it is not: A process, or A machine, or A manufacture, or A composition of matter. 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. Claim (s) (1-20) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtiss (8779921) . Regarding claim 1: Curtiss discloses a procedural method comprising: monitoring, by a processing system including at least one processor of a first sensor device, a performance of at least one sensor function of the first sensor device; detecting, by the processing system, an anomaly in the performance of the at least one sensor function; sending, by the processing system, a request to at least one neighboring sensor device to host the at least one sensor function of the first sensor device; receiving, by the processing system, an acceptance to the request from the at least one neighboring sensor device to host the at least one sensor function of the first sensor device; and transferring, by the processing system, a software code of the at least one sensor function to the at least one neighboring sensor device (col. 3, line 10 to col. 4, line 32 of Curtiss). Thus, Curtiss discloses monitoring and determination of an anomaly. Further, adaptively link with central processing unit and active other sensory detection within the node as closed in col. 3, line 66 to col. 4, line 12 of Curtiss. Although, Curtiss may not be reciting verbatim for transferring functions to neighboring sensor device(s). Hence , it would have been inherently obvious of artisan in the art at the time of the invention was to include functions to the neighboring sensor(s) and nodes as described col. 3, line 66 to col. 4, line 12 of Curtiss. The rationale is as follows: an artisan in art would motivates to increases the sensitivity and the correctness of the anomaly as suggested in col. 2, lines 43-53 of Curtiss. Regarding claim 2: further comprising: transmitting, by the processing system, a report that the at least one sensor function of the first sensor device has been transferred to the at least one neighboring sensor device (col. 4, lines 33-47 of Curtiss). Regarding claim 3: wherein the report is sent to a remote application server (col. 4, lines 33-47 of Curtiss where central system is remotely computer/sever). Regarding claim 4: wherein the report is sent to a user endpoint device of a user (col. 3, lines 53-65 of Curtiss) . Regarding claim 5: wherein the report comprises at least one of: an identification of the first sensor device, a physical location of the first sensor device, an identification of the at least one neighboring sensor device, a physical location of the at least one neighboring sensor device, a time of the transferring of the software code, at least one step taken prior to the transferring, or a nature of the anomaly (see fig 1 and col. 7, lines 1-17 of Curtiss). Regarding claim 6 : wherein the at least one step taken prior to the transferring comprises a resetting of the first sensor device (col. 31, lines 46-58 of where Curtiss describe re-configuring/reset sensor(s) that includes the first sensor). Regarding claim 7: wherein the at least one step taken prior to the transferring comprises an execution of a diagnostic test (col. 31, lines 46-58 where re-configuration/reset steps includes self-test/diagnostic test). Regarding claim 8: further comprising: resetting, by the processing system, the first sensor device prior to the transferring (see discussion of claim 7). Regarding claim 9: f urther comprising: executing, by the processing system, a diagnostic test prior to the transferring (col. 26, line 63 to col. 27, line 5). Regarding claim 10: wherein the at least one sensor function comprises a first sensor function and a second sensor function, wherein the at least one neighboring sensor device comprises a first neighboring sensor device and a second neighboring sensor device, and wherein the first sensor function is transferred to the first neighboring sensor device and the second sensor function is transferred to the second neighboring sensor device (col. 4, lines 13-32 of Curtiss). Regarding claim 11: further comprising: verifying, by the processing system, that the at least one neighboring sensor device is on an approved list prior to the transferring are considered inherently obvious procedural step sensor(s) or node(s). Regarding claim 12: wherein the first sensor device has a higher priority ranking /(level) relative to the least one neighboring sensor device (col. 4, lines 2-12 of Curtiss). Regarding claim 13: wherein the request comprises at least one of: an identity of first sensor device, a description of the at least one sensor function, a hardware requirement necessary to support the at least one sensor function, a software requirement necessary to support the at least one sensor function, or a priority ranking /(level) of the first sensor device (col. 4, lines 2-12 of Curtiss). Regarding claim 14: wherein the first sensor device or the least one neighboring sensor device comprises an internet of things device (col. 5, lines 5-29 of Curtiss where Curtiss internet linkage of the sensor(s) and monitoring which includes internet of thing (IOT)). Regarding claim 15: wherein the transferring further comprises transferring, by the processing system, a software code of a sensor device managing module of the first sensor device to the at least one neighboring sensor device (col. 10, lines 36-41 of Curtiss). Regarding claim 16: wherein the first sensor device initiates a communication directly with the least one neighboring sensor device to negotiate the transferring (col. 10, lines 36-41 of Curtiss). Regarding claim 17: wherein the communication is over a dedicated communication channel used solely for the transferring are considered inherently known network communication ( as stated in col. 8, lines 5-29 of Curtiss). Regarding claim 18: wherein the software code is encrypted or compressed are inherently known because all software is encrypted/(encoded) and compressed. Regarding claim 19: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processing system including at least one processor of a first sensor device, cause the processing system to perform operations, the operations comprising: monitoring a performance of at least one sensor function of the first sensor device; detecting an anomaly in the performance of the at least one sensor function; sending a request to at least one neighboring sensor device to host the at least one sensor function of the first sensor device; receiving an acceptance to the request from the at least one neighboring sensor device to host the at least one sensor function of the first sensor device; and transferring a software code of the at least one sensor function to the at least one neighboring sensor device (col. 15, lines 5-28 of Curtiss). Regarding claim 20: An apparatus comprising: a processing system including at least one processor of a first sensor device; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to perform operations, the operations comprising: monitoring a performance of at least one sensor function of the first sensor device; detecting an anomaly in the performance of the at least one sensor function; sending a request to at least one neighboring sensor device to host the at least one sensor function of the first sensor device; receiving an acceptance to the request from the at least one neighboring sensor device to host the at least one sensor function of the first sensor device; and transferring a software code of the at least one sensor function to the at least one neighboring sensor device ( col. 12, lines 48-58 and col. 15, lines 5-28 of Curtiss). The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ashar et al (10803717), Kato (2018/0288093), M ilinusic et al (6989745) and Valiulla (11055518) are cited sensor(s) control and management. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT K. Wong whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-7566 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT D. Goins can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-2957 . 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. /K. WONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689