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 .
Status of Claims
The following is in response to the amendments and arguments filed 1/20/2026. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are pending. Claim 5 has been canceled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The application has a priority date of January 19, 2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: a typographical error in line 12 “the computing module using a a specification” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 8 include the new limitations of “specifications including physical and logical contracts defining agreements between the modules for controlling data sharing and/or network operations” are not provided for in the originally filed disclosure.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9-10 inherit the deficiencies of claims 1 and 8, respectively, and are therefore also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 8-10 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.
With regards to the limitations in the step of “if compatible, mounting the computing module to the new main module” in line 17 of claim 8, Examiner notes, in method claims, only those steps that must be performed are considered in the BRI, so the BRI would not include steps contingent on meeting a certain condition.
Claims 9-10 inherit the deficiencies of claim 8 and are therefore also rejected.
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 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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lucero et al. (US 2021/0307189, hereinafter “Lucero”) in view of Barth et al. (US 2022/0155765 A1, hereinafter “Barth”) further in view of Nolan et al. (US 2019/0349254 A1).
Claim 1 and 8, Lucero teaches: A device (and related method for recycling) comprising:
a main module configured to serve at least one physical function selected from the group consisting of: moving a mechanical element, lighting or heating (see, e.g., ¶ 42 teaching that the IoT device performs one or more physical functions; ¶s 239 teaching pressure sensors, temperature sensors, et al. controlling actuators such as power switches; see also ¶ 135 teaching adjusting lighting));
a computing module configured to serve an operating and/or controlling function for the main module (see, e.g., ¶ 37 teaching the microprocessor control unit);
wherein both modules are structurally separable and the computing module is recyclable (see, e.g., ¶s 123, 137, and 139 teaching the reusability of the microprocessor control unit);
wherein each module comprises a respective storage component storing specifications including physical and logical contracts defining agreements between the modules for controlling data sharing and/or network operations and a respective I/O-module to communicate the specifications (see, e.g., ¶ 144 teaching that each time a block plugs into a data manager or router, a predetermined contract between the modules can be put into place that defines the requirements on, e.g., how to route the data (a “network operation”); see further, e.g., ¶s 49, 64, 81, 85, 235, and 237 teaching that different communication modules have different promulgated specifications that affect how the modules communicate); and
a specification validation module comprising a software component configured to match computing module and main module depending on their respective specifications (see, e.g., ¶ 81 teaching that the devices work according to specific specifications such as the OpenFog Consortium specification, or, as taught in ¶s 61 and 64, the LPWAN IETE specification, or as taught in ¶ 85, the open interconnect consortium (OIC) standard specification 1.0 released by the Open Connectivity Foundation; see further ¶s 235-237 teaching further specifications for matching different software components) but does not specifically disclose provide an associated compatibility indicator.
Regarding the limitation of wherein each module comprises a respective storage component storing specifications including physical and logical contracts and a respective I/O-module to communicate the specifications, Examiner notes that Lucero teaches this as described above. For the purposes of compact prosecution, however, to the extent that Lucero fails to expressly teach that that each module has a respective storage component storing specifications and modules to communicate the specifications, Examiner asserts that analogous reference Barth teaches such a limitation. Specifically, Barth teaches that any time a new process module is integrated with the rest of the modular network, the specifications “stored in the process module description are recorded or retrieved and compared with each other via the functionality comparison function” (see Barth ¶ 37). Barth further teaches that this is done in order to validate compatibility of the components (see Barth ¶ 40) and later to verify that the elements are deployed and used according to those specifications (see Barth ¶ 54). Barth is similar to Lucero and the instant application because it relates to compatibilities of newly integrated process modules (see, e.g., Barth ¶ 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of storing each respective module in storage for communicating the specifications (as disclosed by Barth) to the known method and system of coupling different modules on stacked connectors (as disclosed by Lucero). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of storing each respective module in storage for communicating the specifications because it validates compatibility of the components (see Barth ¶ 40) and later to verify that the elements are deployed and used according to those specifications (see Barth ¶ 54).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of storing each respective module in storage for communicating the specifications (as disclosed by Barth) to the known method and system of coupling different modules on stacked connectors (as disclosed by Lucero), because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained because predictably stored specifications that describe module compatibility can be used when checking module compatibilities). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Nolan et al. disclose minimum functional compatibility between resource component and the external module to function together indicators for full compatibility between such (see at least Nolan et al. para 572).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Lucero the ability to provide compatibility indication as taught by Nolan et al. since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. A person of ordinary skill would have understood prior art teachings, or what a person of ordinary skill would have known or could have done.
Claim 2. The combination of Lucero, Barth and Nolan et al. teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Lucero further teaches: A device according to claim 1, wherein the specification validation module stores the specification as a logical contract (see, e.g., ¶s 77-78 teaching providing the validation of the data as a logical contract in a blockchain).
Claim 3. The combination of Lucero, Barth and Nolan et al. teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Lucero further teaches: A device according to claim 1, wherein the specification is stored in a catalogue and is obtained by the I/O-module (see, e.g., ¶s 150 and 153 teaching providing the modules in a database).
Claim 4. The combination of Lucero, Barth, and Nolan et al. teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Lucero further teaches: A device according to claim 1, wherein the specification validation module provides an output component serving as compatibility indicator (see, e.g., ¶s 123, 137, and 139 teaching the reusability of the microprocessor control unit, which includes a determination of whether it can be reused).
Claim 6. The combination of Lucero, Barth, and Nolan et al. teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Lucero further teaches: A device according to claim 1, wherein the operating and/or controlling function comprises a function selected from the group consisting of: speed control, force control, pressure control, vibrational movement control, rotational movement control, on-off-switch, and temperature control (see, e.g., ¶s 239 teaching pressure sensors, temperature sensors, et al. controlling actuators).
Claim 7. The combination of Lucero, Barth, and Nolan et al. teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Lucero further teaches: A device according to claim 1, wherein the specification validation module is integrated in the computing module (see, e.g., ¶ 81 teaching that the devices work er specific specifications).
Claim 9. The combination of Lucero, Barth, and Nolan et al. teaches the limitations of Claim 8. Lucero further teaches: A method according to claim 8, further comprising providing computing modules in a catalogue (see, e.g., ¶s 150 and 153 teaching providing the modules in a database).
Claim 10. The combination of Lucero, Barth, and Nolan et al. teaches the limitations of Claim 8. Lucero further teaches: A method according to claim 8, further comprising maintaining and recycling computing modules by adapting a software configuration to serve different and/or more operating and/or controlling functions for a main module (see, e.g., ¶s 137 and 139 regarding reusability across different MCU architectures).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-10 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Hayward, US 10,956,178 B1.
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 Kelly Campen whose telephone number is (571)272-6740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-3pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
Kelly S. Campen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691