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. DETAILED ACTION 1. The pending claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 2. 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. 3 . Claims 1 -20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to FILLIN "Identify whether the claim(s) are directed to a law of nature; a natural phenomenon; or an abstract idea." \* MERGEFORMAT an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the guidance set forth in MPEP 2106 which has incorporated the 2019 PEG . Regarding to claim 1, Step 1 Analysis : Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim 1 recites: A method for data transfer, comprising: “ determining a data generation temporal pattern ”. This element reads on a person determines a data generation temporal pattern which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation. “ creating a data collection strategy based on the data generation temporal pattern ”. This element reads on a person creates a data collection strategy based on the data generation temporal pattern which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation. “ generating a data collection policy based on the data collection strategy and a data infrastructure evaluation ”. This element reads on a person generates a data collection policy based on the data collection strategy and a data infrastructure evaluation which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation. “ creating a data transfer schedule for transfer of data from one or more data source devices to a data store based on the data collection policy ”. This element reads on a person creates a data transfer schedule for transfer of data from one or more data source devices to a data store based on the data collection policy which could be considered a mental process of an observation or evaluation. Overall, the limitations directed to create a data transfer schedule and the various mental process limitations in the context of this claim encompasses limitations that are not only considered to be directed to limitations that could be practically performed in the human mind (including observations and preform an evaluation, judgment, and opinion) aided by the use of pen and paper. If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: In Step 2A Prong 2, we are directed to Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of “ a computer-implemented ” Regarding the computer- implemented , The processor of a computer system for generating and storing in all steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e. , as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (generating and storing). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element “a computer- implemented ” is simply applying the abstract idea, and there is nothing done with results. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and does not provide any improvement in computer technology (see MPEP2106.05(a)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis : In Step 2B, we are directed to Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, The additional elements “ a computer-based ” is simply applying the abstract idea, and there is nothing done with results. Accordingly, this additional element(s), taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 2, Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 2 recites “ wherein the data generation temporal pattern includes at least one of monthly, weekly, daily, and hourly " That is, the claim recites the data generation temporal pattern includes at least one of monthly, weekly, daily, and hourly . The above-noted limitation of claim 2, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 3, Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 3 recites “ receiving one or more user preferences ." That is, the claim recites receiving one or more user preferences . The above-noted limitation of claim 3, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 4 , Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim 4 is dependent on claims 1&3, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 4 recites “ the user preferences include a maximum delay factor ." That is, the claim recites the user preferences include a maximum delay factor . The above-noted limitation of claim 4, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 5 , Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim 5 is dependent on claims 1&3, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 5 recites “ the user preferences include a data compression option ." That is, the claim recites the user preferences include a data compression option . The above-noted limitation of claim 5, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 6 , Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim 6 is dependent on claims 1&3, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 6 recites “ the user preferences include a data sampling option ." That is, the claim recites the user preferences include a data sampling option . The above-noted limitation of claim 6, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 7 , Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim 7 is dependent on claims 1, 3 & 6, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 7 recites “ the data sampling option includes a data size ." That is, the claim recites the data sampling option includes a data size . The above-noted limitation of claim 7, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element, taken individually and in combination, does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 8 , Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim 8 is dependent on claims 1&3, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 8 recites “ the user preferences include a data limits option. " That is, the claim recites the user preferences include a data limits option. The above-noted limitation of claim 8, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 9 , Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim 9 is dependent on claims 1&3, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 9 recites “ the data collection policy is based on the user preferences ." That is, the claim recites the data collection policy is based on the user preferences . The above-noted limitation of claim 9, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 10 , Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 10 recites “ determining a data generation temporospatial pattern, and wherein the data collection strategy is based on the data generation temporospatial pattern ." That is, the claim recites determining a data generation temporospatial pattern, and wherein the data collection strategy is based on the data generation temporospatial pattern . The above-noted limitation of claim 10, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 11 , Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim 11 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 11 recites “ enabling editing of the data collection strategy ." That is, the claim recites enabling editing of the data collection strategy . The above-noted limitation of claim 11, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 12 , Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim 12 is dependent on claims 1&11, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 12 recites “ the editing enables selection of a fastest data strategy ." That is, the claim recites the editing enables selection of a fastest data strategy . The above-noted limitation of claim 12, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 13 , Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim 13 is dependent on claims 1&11, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 13 recites “ the editing enables selection of a newest data strategy ." That is, the claim recites the editing enables selection of a newest data strategy . The above-noted limitation of claim 13, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 14 , Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim 14 is dependent on claims 1&11, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 14 recites “ the editing enables selection of a cheapest data strategy ." That is, the claim recites the editing enables selection of a cheapest data strategy . The above-noted limitation of claim 14, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 15 , Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim 15 is dependent on claim 1, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 15 recites “ the data infrastructure evaluation includes obtaining an electricity pricing model ." That is, the claim recites the data infrastructure evaluation includes obtaining an electricity pricing model . The above-noted limitation of claim 15, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 16 , Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim 16 is dependent on claims 1&15, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 16 recites “ the data infrastructure evaluation includes obtaining a bandwidth pricing model ." That is, the claim recites the data infrastructure evaluation includes obtaining a bandwidth pricing model . The above-noted limitation of claim 16, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 17 , Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim 17 is dependent on claims 1& 15-16, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 17 recites “ changing the data transfer schedule in response to detecting a change in the data infrastructure evaluation ." That is, the claim recites changing the data transfer schedule in response to detecting a change in the data infrastructure evaluation . The above-noted limitation of claim 17, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 18 , Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Claim 18 is dependent on claims 1&15-17, which as indicated in the analysis above, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 18 recites “ issuing an alert in response to the changing of the data transfer schedule ." That is, the claim recites issuing an alert in response to the changing of the data transfer schedule . The above-noted limitation of claim 18, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the same rational of claim 1 . Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the same rational of claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 4. 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. 5. Claims 1-3, 9-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cella et al (U.S. 20180284758 A1 hereinafter, “ Cella ”). 6. With respect to claim 1, Cella discloses a computer-implemented method for data transfer, comprising: determining a data generation temporal pattern ( Cella [0006], [0018], [0030], [0056], [0205], [0211], [0220], [0222], [0226], [0241], [0253], [0260], [0269] – [0274], [0281], [0325] – [0327], [0339], [0350], [0355], [0463], [0564], [0904], [0919], [0933], [0947], [0950] , [2185] e.g. data collection; time series patterns. [0564] In embodiments, ultrasonic monitoring in an industrial environment may be performed by a system for data collection as described herein on rotating elements (e.g., motor shafts and the like), bearings, fittings, couplings, housings, load bearing elements, and the like. The ultrasonic data may be used for pattern recognition , state determination, time-series analysis , and the like, any of which may be performed by computing resources of the industrial environment , which may include local computing resources (e.g., resources located within the environment and/or within a machine in the environment, and the like) and remote computing resources (e.g., cloud-based computing resources, and the like). [0933] In embodiments, methods and systems described herein that involve an expert system or self-organization capability may use an echo state network (“ESN”), which may comprise a recurrent neural network with a sparsely connected, random hidden layer. The weights of output neurons may be changed (e.g., the weights may be trained based on feedback). In embodiments, an ESN may be used to handle time series patterns , such as, in an example, recognizing a pattern of events associated with a gear shift in an industrial turbine, generator, or the like) ; creating a data collection strategy based on the data generation temporal pattern ( Cella [0006], [0018], [0030], [0056], [0205], [0211], [0220], [0222], [0226], [0241], [0253], [0260], [0269] – [0274], [0281], [0325] – [0327], [0339], [0350], [0355], [0463], [0564], [0904], [0919], [0933], [0947], [0950] , [2185] e.g. data collection; time series patterns) ; generating a data collection policy based on the data collection strategy and a data infrastructure evaluation ( Cella [0011], [0333], [0337], [0342], [0346], [0367], [0884], [0959], [0960] – [0969], [0977], [0980] – [0994], [1532], [1602], [2174] e.g. data collection; time series patterns [0337] bandwidth costs, [2174] lowest current price) ; and creating a data transfer schedule for transfer of data from one or more data source devices to a data store based on the data collection policy ( Cella [0011], [0333], [0337], [0342], [0346], [0367], [0884], [0959], [0960] – [0969], [0977], [0980] – [0994], [1532], [1602], [2174] e.g. [0337] bandwidth costs, [2174] lowest current price. [0884] The sensors 9706 may provide a stream of data over time that has a phase component, such as relating to acceleration or vibration, allowing for the evaluation of phase or frequency analysis of different operational aspects of a piece of equipment or an operating component. … The sensors 9706 may provide a continuous or near continuous stream of data overtime, periodic readings, event-driven readings, and/or readings according to a selected interval or schedule . [0960] In embodiments, evaluation of the current routing templates may be based on operational mode routing collection schemes , such as a normal operational mode, a peak operational mode, an idle operational mode, a maintenance operational mode, …. The evaluation of the current routing template collection routine may be based on a collection routine with respect to a collection parameter, such as network availability, sensor availability, a time-based collection routine (e.g., on a schedule, over time), and the like. [0961] …. The evaluation of the current routing template may be based on operational mode routing collection schemes . …. The evaluation of the current routing template collection routine may be based on a collection routine with respect to a collection parameter, such as where the parameter is network availability, sensor availability, a time-based collection routine (e.g., where a routine collects sensor data on a schedule, evaluates sensor data over time) . [0966] … and providing a machine learning data analysis circuit structured to receive output data from the plurality of input channels and evaluate a current routing template collection routine based on the received output data received over time , wherein the machine learning data analysis circuit learns received output data patterns, wherein the data collector is configured to switch from the current routing template collection routine to an alternative routing template collection routine based on the learned received output data patterns . In embodiments, the instructions may be deployed locally on the data collector, such as deployed in part locally on the data collector and in part on a remote information technology infrastructure component apart from the collector, where each of the input channels correspond to a sensor located in the environment . [0967] The evaluation of the received output data may be based on operational mode routing collection schemes, where the operational mode is at least one of a normal operational mode, a peak operational mode, an idle operational mode, a maintenance operational mode, and a power saving operational mode. … The evaluation of the received output data may be based on a collection routine with respect to a collection parameter, wherein the parameter is a network availability, a sensor availability, a time-based collection routine (e.g., collects sensor data on a schedule or over time) , and the like. [0982]… providing a data collector communicatively coupled to a plurality of input channels; providing a data acquisition circuit structured to interpret a plurality of detection values , each of the plurality of detection values corresponding to at least one of the input channels, wherein the data acquisition circuit acquires sensor data from a first route of input channels for the plurality of input channels; providing a data storage structured to store sensor specifications for sensors that correspond to the input channels ; providing a data analysis circuit structured to evaluate the sensor data with respect to stored anticipated state information, wherein the anticipated state information comprises an alarm threshold level , …) . 7. With respect to claim 2, Cella discloses wherein the data generation temporal pattern includes at least one of monthly, weekly, daily, and hourly ( Cella [0252] e.g. hourly; daily) . 8. With respect to claim 3, Cella discloses receiving one or more user preferences ( Cella [1514], [2066], [2076] e.g. user preference) . 9. With respect to claim 9, Cella discloses wherein the data collection policy is based on the user preferences ( Cella [0355], [0463], [0564], [0904], [0919], [0933], [0947], [0950] [1514], [2066], [2076] e.g. data collection; user preference) . 10. With respect to claim 10, Cella discloses determining a data generation temporospatial pattern, and wherein the data collection strategy is based on the data generation temporospatial pattern ( Cella [1070], [1534], [1650], [1653] e.g. spatial, time) . 11. With respect to claim 11, Cella discloses enabling editing of the data collection strategy ( Cella [0057], [0415], [0451] e.g. edit) . 12. With respect to claim 13, Cella discloses wherein the editing enables selection of a newest data strategy ( Cella [0232], [0420], [0565], [1996] e.g. most recent) . 13. With respect to claim 14, Cella discloses wherein the editing enables selection of a cheapest data strategy ( Cella [2174] e.g. lowest current price) . 14. With respect to claim 15, Cella discloses wherein the data infrastructure evaluation includes obtaining an electricity pricing model ( Cella [2174] e.g. lowest current price) . 15. With respect to claim 16, Cella discloses wherein the data infrastructure evaluation includes obtaining a bandwidth pricing model ( Cella [0011], [0333], [0337], [0342], [0346], [0367], [1532], [1602] e.g. bandwidth costs) . 16. With respect to claim 17, Cella discloses changing the data transfer schedule in response to detecting a change in the data infrastructure evaluation ( Cella [0011], [0333], [0337], [0342], [0346], [0367], [1532], [1602] e.g. a change) . 17. With respect to claim 18, Cella discloses issuing an alert in response to the changing of the data transfer schedule ( Cella [0011], [0333], [0337], [0342], [0346], [0348], [0367], [1531] – [1532], [1601] - [1602] e.g. alert) . 18. Claim 19 is same as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove. 19. Claim 20 is same as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 20. 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 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. 21. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 22. 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. 23. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 . 24. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella in view of BERG et al (WO 2020067066 A1 hereinafter, “BERG”). 25. With respect to claim 4, Although Cella substantially teaches the claimed invention, Cella does not explicitly indicate wherein the user preferences include a maximum delay factor . BERG teaches the limitations by stating wherein the user preferences include a maximum delay factor (BERG [0068] e.g. In an example, user preferences/constraints may include, without limitation, a time window for the action being requested, maximum delay caused by the action being requested and the like) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, in view of the teachings of Cella and BERG, to leveraging collected data for monitoring, remote control, autonomous action, and other activities in industrial environments ( Cella [0002]). 26. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella in view of Wang et al (US 20160344646 A1 hereinafter, “Wang”). 27. With respect to claim 5, Although Cella substantially teaches the claimed invention, Cella does not explicitly indicate wherein the user preferences include a data compression option . Wang teaches the limitations by stating wherein the user preferences include a data compression option (Wang [0012] e.g. user preferences; data compression) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, in view of the teachings of Cella and Wang, to leveraging collected data for monitoring, remote control, autonomous action, and other activities in industrial environments ( Cella [0002]). 28. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella in view of Karni (US 20230121239 A1 hereinafter, “Karni”). 29. With respect to claim 6, Although Cella substantially teaches the claimed invention, Cella does not explicitly indicate wherein the user preferences include a data sampling option . Karni teaches the limitations by stating wherein the user preferences include a data sampling option (Karni [0072] e.g. For example, when new user preference data is obtained (e.g. when a user changes at least one user preference as described above), the process may update, insubstantially real-time, the financial asset value data which is obtained. In one aspect, a change in user preferences may comprise at least one of resampling of financial asset value data based on anew sampling interval,, switching from one financial asset to another when a new financial asset identifier is obtained, etc.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, in view of the teachings of Cella and Karni, to leveraging collected data for monitoring, remote control, autonomous action, and other activities in industrial environments ( Cella [0002]). 30. With respect to claim 7, Cella discloses wherein the data sampling option includes a data size ( Cella [0423], [1414] – [1422] e.g. sampling; size) . 31. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella in view of Jagannath et al (US 20190124486 A1 hereinafter, “Jagannath”). 32. With respect to claim 8, Although Cella substantially teaches the claimed invention, Cella does not explicitly indicate wherein the user preferences include a data limits option . Jagannath teaches the limitations by stating wherein the user preferences include a data limits option (Jagannath [0019] e.g. the user preferences include a data limits) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, in view of the teachings of Cella and Jagannath, to leveraging collected data for monitoring, remote control, autonomous action, and other activities in industrial environments ( Cella [0002]). 33. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella in view of Chen et al (US 20130084878 A1 hereinafter, “Chen”). 34. With respect to claim 12, Although Cella substantially teaches the claimed invention, Cella does not explicitly indicate wherein the editing enables selection of a fastest data strategy . Chen teaches the limitations by stating wherein the editing enables selection of a fastest data strategy (Chen [0057] e.g. edit; fastest data) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, in view of the teachings of Cella and Chen, to leveraging collected data for monitoring, remote control, autonomous action, and other activities in industrial environments ( Cella [0002]). Conclusion The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 35. The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. 36. When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SANJIV SHAH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4098 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at 571-272-4098 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /SYLING YEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166 February 22, 2026