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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group II (claims 5, 8, and 11-14) in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no serious search burden because search for group 2 will include search for other groups; and that there are no apparent differences between Group 2 and Groups 1 and 3-5 with respect to non-prior art issues, such as under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 112. This is not found persuasive because the different groups require different search strategies due to their distinct features. Findings for one does not necessarily result in findings of the details for the others. There would be a serious burden to search for the detailed features of each group. The consideration under 35 USC 101 and 112 being similar does not change the search (and burden) required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Upon review of supports for the claims, the earliest priority date for the current application is determined to be 10/04/2021 based on parent application SN 17/493440, which are CIPs of other earlier applications.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [1272], line 1, “Figure 158” should be --Figure 117-- to be consistent with the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In FIGs 8, 9, 34, 35, 41-98, 102-104, 107, 110, 119, and 128, boxes or simple shapes are labeled only with reference numbers, without descriptive legends. The Examiner directs the applicant to 37 C.F.R. 1.84(n) and 1.84(o) which state, “Graphical drawing symbols may be used for conventional elements when appropriate” while “[o]ther symbols which are not universally recognized may be used, subject to approval by the Office” and that “[s]uitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing”. Since the boxes or simple shapes in FIGs 8, 9, 34, 35, 41-98, 102-104, 107, 110, 119, and 128 are not universally recognized for the elements they represent, the Examiner may require descriptive legends for better understanding of the drawings. See MPEP 608.02.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, 11-14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “a network control circuit for sending and receiving information related to the plurality of sensor inputs to an external system” in lines 5-6. It is unclear whether it means “a network control circuit for sending and receiving information related to the plurality of sensor inputs to and from an external system” or “a network control circuit for sending information related to the plurality of sensor inputs to an external system and receiving another information related to the plurality of sensor inputs from another source”; or else. For examination purpose, --a network control circuit for sending information related to the plurality of sensor inputs to an external system-- is assumed.
The other claim(s) not discussed above are rejected for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 11-14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella et al. (US 20180284755 A1; cited in IDS; hereinafter “Cella”) in view of Mukkamala et al. (US 20170192414 A1; cited in IDS; hereinafter “Mukkamala”).
Regarding claim 1, Cella teaches a system for data collection in an industrial environment having a self-sufficient data acquisition box for capturing and analyzing data in an industrial process (i.e., “a system for data collection in an industrial environment having a self-sufficient data acquisition box for capturing and analyzing data in an industrial process”; see [1297]), the system comprising:
a data circuit for analyzing a plurality of sensor inputs (i.e., “a data circuit for analyzing a plurality of sensor inputs”; see [1297]); and
a network control circuit for sending and receiving information related to the plurality of sensor inputs to an external system (i.e., “a network control circuit for sending and receiving information related to the sensor inputs to an external system”; see [1297]),
wherein the system provides sensor data to one or more other systems for data collection (i.e., “the system provides sensor data to one or more similarly configured systems”; see [1297]), and
wherein the data circuit dynamically reconfigures a route by which the system sends the sensor data based on how many devices are requesting the information (i.e., “the data circuit dynamically reconfigures the route by which it sends data based on how many other devices are requesting the information”; see [1297]).
Cella does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the information sent and received by the network control system is based at least in part on a role-based reporting rule and encoded with role-based information that is used by the external system to report the information sent and received to a specified role taxonomy.
But Mukkamala teaches:
communicating sensor data (i.e., “Data from the one or more sensors can be recorded or transmitted to a cloud-based or other remote computing environment”; see [0031]) based on a role-based access control (i.e., “ensure users are authorized to access data from a data domain 1538. For example, the session service 1526 can send a message to a role-based access control system 1530 (RBAC) for a user to be authorized via the authorization service 1536. The RBAC 1530 and/or the authorization service 1536 can apply rules and policies determined by a data domain 1538 for which users can access which data from the data domain 1538”; see [0210]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cella in view of Mukkamala, such that the information sent and received by the network control system is based at least in part on a role-based reporting rule and encoded with role-based information that is used by the external system to report the information sent and received to a specified role taxonomy, as claimed. The rationale would be to provide data access control to prevent unauthorized data access.
Regarding claim 5, Cella further teaches:
wherein the system continuously provides a single copy of its information to another system for data collection and directs requesters of its information to the another system for data collection (i.e., “the system continuously provides a single copy of its information to another similarly configured system and directs requesters of its information to the another similarly configured system”; see [1298]).
Regarding claim 6, Cella further teaches:
wherein at least one of the one or more other systems for data collection has different operational characteristics than the system (i.e., “the another similarly configured system has different operational characteristics than the system”; see [1298]).
Regarding claim 7, Cella further teaches:
wherein the different operational characteristics are selected from a list comprising: power, storage, network connectivity, proximity, reliability, duty cycle (i.e., “the different operational characteristics can be power, storage, network connectivity, proximity, reliability, duty cycle”; see [1298]).
Regarding claim 8, Cella further teaches:
wherein, after a configurable time period, the system stores only digests of the information and discards underlying information (i.e., “after a configurable time period, the system stores only digests of the information and discards the underlying information”; see [1298]).
Regarding claim 11, Cella further teaches:
wherein the network control circuit arranges the system into a redundant storage network (i.e., “the network control circuit self-arranges the system into a redundant storage network with one or more similarly configured systems”; see [1300]).
Regarding claim 12, Cella further teaches:
wherein the system accumulates data received from the other systems for data collection while an upstream network connection is unavailable, and then sends all accumulated data once the upstream network connection is restored (i.e., “the system accumulates data received from other similarly configured systems while an upstream network connection is unavailable, and then sends all accumulated data once the upstream network connection is restored”; see [1300]).
Regarding claim 13, Cella further teaches:
wherein the system further comprises an intelligent agent circuit that combines the sensor data between the system and the other systems for data collection (i.e., “an intelligent agent circuit that combines the data between systems”; see [1302]).
Regarding claim 14, Cella further teaches:
wherein the intelligent agent circuit chooses what sensor data to collect or store based on a machine learning algorithm (i.e., “an intelligent agent circuit that chooses what data to collect or store based on a machine learning algorithm”; see [1302]).
Regarding claim 21, as a result of modification applied to claim 1 above, Cella in view of Mukkamala further teaches:
wherein the specified role type is at least one of a CEO taxonomy, a COO taxonomy, a CFO taxonomy, a counsel taxonomy, a board member taxonomy, a CTO taxonomy, a chief marketing officer taxonomy, an information technology manager taxonomy, a chief information officer taxonomy, a chief data officer taxonomy, an investor taxonomy, a customer taxonomy, a vendor taxonomy, a supplier taxonomy, an engineering manager taxonomy, a project manager taxonomy, an operations manager taxonomy, a sales manager taxonomy, a salesperson taxonomy, a service manager taxonomy, a maintenance operator taxonomy, or a business development taxonomy (i.e., “For example, there can be a private channel of data that only users in an executive group can be able to access”; see Mukkamala, [0210]).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jain et al. (US 12261906 B1) teaches a system for a hierarchical multi-tenant data access platforms configured to collect data for each of multiple tenant organizations and to selectively make the collected data available according to policies associated with the respective tenant organizations.
Peisert (US 20220229908 A1) teaches a system for implementing trusted execution environments in the context of data security and data storage.
Jaikla et al. ("A Secure Network Architecture for Heterogeneous IoT Devices using Role-based Access Control" 2019 International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks (SoftCOM)) teaches an IoT security framework using role-based strategy to limit user's device manageability and to protect the IoT network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857