Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 13 and 14 has/have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In regards to claim 16, the claim is dependent on claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1. Claim 1 already recite the limitations that are recited in claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
In regards to claim 17-19, the claims have the same issues described in the rejection of claim 16 above. Therefore, claims 17-19 are of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 6, 9-11 and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoferer (US-2015/0142363) in view of Derdzinski et al. (US-12,205,718), Poleg et al. (US-9,642,086) and Luxford (US-2023/0048720).
In regards to claim 1, Hoferer teaches a processor (evaluation circuitry having a drag pointer) configured to calculate a process measurement variable [fig. 1 element 106, par. 0043 L. 2-6, par. 0044 L. 3-5].
Hoferer teaches that the drag pointer comprises computing circuitry configured to calculate a current value of the process variable from a past value of the process measurement variable from process measurement data of a measuring device [par. 0010 L. 1-5]. However, Hoferer does not teach that the past value is a past temporal development.
On the other hand, Derdzinski teaches that a system can predict a value of a measurement based on patterns learned from past measured values [abstract L. 12-18]. This teaching means that the control circuitry is configured to approximate calculation of a past temporal development of a value (leaning patterns) of the process measurement variable from process measurement data of a measuring device and calculate a current value of the process measurement variable from the past temporal development.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Derdzinski’s teachings of calculating the current value from a past temporal development in the system taught by Hoferer because it will permit the system to obtain the current value with great accuracy.
The combination of Hoferer and Derdzinski does not teach that the computing circuitry is configured to instruct the measuring device to transmit process measurement data to an external receiver when the calculated current value of the process measurement variable deviates from the current value of the process measurement variable attributable to the current process measurement data by more than a predetermined threshold value. The combination also does not teach that the computing circuitry is configured to not instruct the measuring device to transmit process measurement data to an external receiver when the calculated current value of the process measurement variable deviates from the current value of the process measurement variable attributable to the current process measurement data by less than a predetermined threshold value.
On the other hand, Poleg teaches that monitored data can be transmitted remotely by transmitting data only when a difference between a predicted value and a measured value is greater than a threshold [col. 6 L. 20-27]. This teaching means that the computing circuitry is configured to instruct the measuring device to transmit process measurement data to an external receiver when the calculated current value of the process measurement variable deviates from the current value of the process measurement variable attributable to the current process measurement data by more than a predetermined threshold value. Also, Poleg teaches that monitored data can be transmitted remotely by transmitting data only when a difference between a predicted value and a measured value is greater than a threshold [col. 6 L. 20-27]. This teaching means that the computing circuitry is configured to not instruct the measuring device to transmit process measurement data to an external receiver when the calculated current value of the process measurement variable deviates from the current value of the process measurement variable attributable to the current process measurement data by less than a predetermined threshold value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Poleg’s teachings of comparing the predicted valued with the measured value in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system to transmit data for remote access in an efficient manner [see Poleg col. 4 L. 1-4].
The combination of Hoferer, Derdzinski and Poleg does not teach that the transmission of the data is done via energy-efficient long-range communication or short range communication.
On the other hand, Luxford teaches that NB-IoT or LoRa (energy-efficient long-range communication) or Bluetooth (short range communication) can be used to transmit data [par. 0206 L. 1-4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Luxford’s teachings of using NB-IoT, LoRa or Bluetooth to perform the transmission of data in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system to transmit process measurement data to the external receiver in an reliable and power efficient manner.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Hoferer, Derdzinski, Poleg and Luxford, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the approximate calculation of the past temporal development of the value of the process measurement variable includes identifying a process measurement variable pattern [see Derdzinski abstract L. 12-18].
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Hoferer, Derdzinski, Poleg and Luxford, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that monitored data can be transmitted remotely by transmitting data only when a difference between a predicted value and a measured value is greater than a threshold [see Poleg col. 6 L. 20-27]. This teaching means that the control circuitry is configured to compare the calculated current value of the process measurement variable with a current value of the process measurement variable attributable to current process measurement data.
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Hoferer, Derdzinski, Poleg and Luxford, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the approximate calculation of the past temporal development of the value of the process measurement variable includes identifying a process measurement variable pattern [see Derdzinski abstract L. 12-18]. This teaching means that the approximate calculation of the past temporal development of the value of the process measurement variable comprises generating a mathematical description of the past temporal development.
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Hoferer, Derdzinski, Poleg and Luxford, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the process measurement variable is a level of a container [see Hoferer fig. 1, par. 0043].
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Hoferer, Derdzinski, Poleg and Luxford, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the process measurement data is level measurement data from a level measurement device [see Hoferer fig. 1, par. 0043].
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Hoferer, Derdzinski, Poleg and Luxford, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches a measuring device comprising an evaluation circuitry according to claim 1 [see Hoferer fig. 1 elements 106 and 107].
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Hoferer, Derdzinski, Poleg and Luxford, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches a drag pointer performing the claimed functions. Therefore, the combination also teaches the claimed method.
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Hoferer, Derdzinski, Poleg and Luxford, as shown in the rejection of claims 1 and 13 above, teaches the claimed functions. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the method can be implemented using a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a program element which, when executed on computing circuitry of a drag pointer, instructs the computing circuitry to perform the method [see Hoferer par. 0032-0033].
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Hoferer, Derdzinski, Poleg and Luxford, as shown in the rejection of claim 3 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Hoferer, Derdzinski, Poleg and Luxford, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Hoferer, Derdzinski, Poleg and Luxford, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Hoferer, Derdzinski, Poleg and Luxford, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Hoferer, Derdzinski, Poleg and Luxford, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoferer (US-2015/0142363) in view of Derdzinski et al. (US-12,205,718), Poleg et al. (US-9,642,086) and Luxford (US-2023/0048720) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Talbot et al. (US-12,295,419).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Hoferer, Derdzinski, Poleg and Luxford, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that the process measurement data is wirelessly transmitted from the measuring device to the drag pointer.
On the other hand, Talbot teaches that data from a sensor can be processed by a user mobile device or at a cloud by transmitting the data wirelessly to the user mobile device or cloud [fig. 1 element 2 and 4, col. 15 L. 56-59 and L. 64-67, col. 16 L. 1-11, col. 28 L. 8-19 and L. 23-25]. This teaching means that that the process measurement data is wirelessly transmitted from the measuring device to the drag pointer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Talbot’s teachings of processing the data at a user terminal or a cloud in the system taught by the combination because the user terminal and the cloud have more processing power.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688