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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 has been amended.
Rejections to claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 based on Maltseff et al. (US 2009/0058634)(herein after “Maltseff”) in view of Sun et al. (US 2011/0101788)(herein after “Sun”) and further in view of Eldering et al. (US 2011/0023025)(herein after “Eldering”) and other references cited in the previous record have been withdrawn based on amendments to claim 1. However, after further consideration, rejections to claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 based on Maltseff in view of Sun and Eldering and further in view of new reference He et al. (US 12287361)(herein after “He”) and other references cited in this office action have been introduced.
Rejections to claim 1 under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) have been introduced based on amendments to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 12/17/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 based on Maltseff in view of Sun and further in view of Eldering and other references cited in the previous record have been withdrawn based on amendments to claim 1. However, after further consideration, rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 based on Maltseff in view of Sun and Eldering and other references cited in this office action, and further in view of new reference He have been introduced.
Regarding claim 1, applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 1. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this office action. Hence a new ground of rejection is further made under 35 USC 103 in view of new reference He et al. (US 12287361)(herein after “He”).
Regarding claims 2-20, applicant submits that these claims traverse the prior rejection of record for these claims under 35 USC 103 based on the amendments and same arguments recited for claim 1 and because these claims are dependent on claim 1. Examiner agrees and withdraws prior rejections of record to claims 2-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103. However, for the same reasons as discussed above, examiner introduces new grounds of rejections to claims 2-20 under 35 USC 103 based on new reference He.
Claim Interpretation
Several of the claims in the current application recite “edge nodes”. Edge nodes are known to one of ordinary skill in the art to be devices or computing resources that process and manage data, often being data from sensors and often near the edge of a network. The term “sensor node” can be interpreted in different manners. Sensors are typically positioned at the edge of a network. However, a sensor node could be interpreted as only a device that collects data from the environment. Alternatively, a sensor node could be interpreted as a node with a sensor and processing capabilities for managing the data collected by the sensor, or in other words, an edge device with an associated sensor. For the purpose of this review, the examiner is interpreting a sensor node that comprises a device with a processor and an associated sensor as being an edge node.
Claim 5 in the present application recites a Markush group in the format of “at least of A, B or C”. For the purpose of this review, the examiner is interpreting this Markush claim as a single element selection from a closed group of elements consisting of alternatives A, B or C.
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.
Claim 1 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. This claim 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 inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of edge nodes are disposed sequentially and linearly such that each edge node of the plurality of edge nodes has at most two neighbor edge nodes”. Examiner is not able to find any discussion in the current application specification that explains what is meant by disposing edge nodes linearly and how that differs from disposing edge nodes sequentially. Disposing edge nodes linearly could mean the same thing as disposing edge nodes sequentially from a logical deployment perspective. Conversely, disposing edge nodes linearly could have a different meaning than sequentially from a physical deployment perspective. For example edge nodes could be deployed sequentially (or linearly) from a logical deployment perspective where a first edge node connects to a second edge node that connects to a third edge node, etc.. But from a physical perspective, edge nodes could be deployed sequentially in a zigzag pattern (non-linearly), or sequentially in a straight line linear pattern (linearly). However, the current application specification is silent to whether linearly refers to a logical or physical deployment requirement.
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.
Claim 1 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of edge nodes are disposed sequentially and linearly such that each edge node of the plurality of edge nodes has at most two neighbor edge nodes”. It is unclear what is meant by disposing edge nodes linearly and how that differs from disposing edge nodes sequentially. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting disposing edge nodes linearly to mean from a logical perspective, and having the same meaning as disposing edge nodes sequentially.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-8, 18 & 19 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maltseff et al. (US 2009/0058634)(herein after “Maltseff”) in view of Sun et al. (US 2011/0101788)(herein after “Sun”) and further in view of Eldering et al. (US 2011/0023025)(herein after “Eldering”) and He et al. (US 12287361)(herein after “He”).
Regarding Claim 1, Maltseff discloses a detection system, comprising: a base device including a plurality of edge nodes of a sensor network (Fig 1 & [0017] disclose a mobile computing device 104, representing a base device, and a plurality of sensor nodes 102 in a sensor network. [0014] discloses that the sensor nodes may comprise a sensor, a processor for executing instructions and a memory that stores instructions. For the purpose of this review, the examiner is interpreting a sensor node comprising a processor with an associated sensor as being an edge node (see Claim Interpretation Section).), wherein the base device is configured to:
transmit a sensor interrogation signal to at least one of the plurality of edge nodes in the detection system (Fig 2A & [0041] disclose the mobile computing device 104 may include a wireless interface, representing a base data link, through which it can communicate to at least one of the sensor nodes. Fig 2A & [0044]-[0045] disclose the mobile computing device transmitting a data request signal, representing an interrogation signal, to sensor nodes 1 and 2.); and
receive reporting information from at least one of the plurality of edge nodes (Fig 2B, [0053] & [0056] disclose the mobile computing device receiving a reply to the data request signal from a source sensor node 6. [0045] & [0053] discloses that the reply to the data request signal may contain reporting information related to environmental characteristics accessible by sensor node 6 such as temperature values or humidity values.);
the plurality of edge nodes sequentially coupled within the sensor network (Fig 2A & [0047] disclose a plurality of sensor nodes, for example sensor nodes 1, 4 & 6, sequentially coupled, through a path identified as (0,1,4,6) from the mobile computing device, identified by 0, to sensor node1, to sensor node 4 and finally to sensor node 6.), wherein each edge node is configured to:
receive at least a portion of the sensor interrogation signal (Fig 2A & [0035] disclose wireless sensor nodes 102 my each include a wireless interface, representing an edge data link, through which they can communicate with each other. Fig 2A & [0047] disclose sensor node 1 receiving a data request signal from mobile computing device 104, sensor node 4 receiving the data request signal from sensor node 1, and sensor node 6 receiving the data request signal from sensor node 4.);
relay the at least a portion of the sensor interrogation signal to a next edge node of the plurality of edge nodes (Fig 2A & [0047] disclose sensor node 1 relaying a data request signal to sensor node 4, and sensor node 4 relaying the data request signal to sensor node 6.); and
transmit to the base device, in response to the sensor interrogation signal, the reporting information including sensor information associated with the edge node (Fig 2B & [0051]-[0053] disclose node 6 transmitting a reply back to the mobile computing device, in response to a data request signal. [0045] & [0053] discloses that the reply to the data request signal may contain reporting information related to environmental characteristics accessible by sensor node 6 such as temperature values or humidity values.).
Maltseff fails to discloses a base device including: a power source configured to provide electrical energy to a plurality of edge nodes of a sensor network; the plurality of edge nodes sequentially coupled within the sensor network wherein each edge node includes an edge data link configured to: receive at least a portion of the electrical energy; relay the at least a portion of the electrical energy to a next edge node of the plurality of edge node; and transmit to the base device, in response to the sensor interrogation signal, a no selection match indication.
However, Sun teaches a base device including: a power source configured to provide electrical energy to a plurality of edge nodes of a sensor network (Fig 1 & [0056] disclose a wireless energy transfer system 2 with an RF signal generator 4 acting as a power source configured to provide RF energy 8. Fig 1 & [0020] disclose that the wireless energy transfer system 2 may be part of a wireless sensor network with a plurality of sensors and wireless energy transfer units.);
the plurality of edge nodes sequentially coupled within the sensor network wherein each edge node includes an edge data link configured to: receive at least a portion of the electrical energy (Fig 14, [0020] & [0086] disclose a plurality of wireless energy transfer units sequentially coupled within a sensor network where the wireless energy transfer units are linked to relay at least a portion of RF energy from one wireless energy transfer unit to the next. [0018] discloses that the link to a second wireless energy transfer unit receiving at least a portion of RF energy from a first wireless energy transfer unit is established through the second wireless energy transfer unit having a conductor coil resonant with a second electromagnetic wave generated by the first wireless energy transfer unit.);
relay the at least a portion of the electrical energy to a next edge node of the plurality of edge node (Fig 14, [0018] & [0086] disclose that the second wireless energy transfer unit generates a third electromagnetic wave resonant with a conductive coil in a third wireless energy transfer unit, thereby relaying RF energy from the first wireless energy transfer unit to the third wireless energy transfer unit.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a detection system, comprising: a base device including: a base data link configured to: transmit a sensor interrogation signal to at least one of a plurality of edge nodes in the detection system; and receive reporting information from at least one of the plurality of edge nodes; the plurality of edge nodes sequentially coupled within the sensor network, wherein each edge node includes an edge data link configured to: receive at least a portion of the sensor interrogation signal; relay the at least a portion of the sensor interrogation signal to a next edge node of the plurality of edge nodes; and transmit to the base device, in response to the sensor interrogation signal, the reporting information including sensor information associated with the edge node, as disclosed by Maltseff, and comprising: the base device including: a power source configured to provide electrical energy to a plurality of edge nodes of a sensor network, the plurality of edge nodes sequentially coupled within the sensor network, wherein each edge node includes an edge data link configured to: receive at least a portion of the electrical energy; and relay the at least a portion of the electrical energy to a next edge node of the plurality of edge nodes; and transmit to the base device, in response to the sensor interrogation signal, the reporting information including sensor information associated with the edge node, as taught by Sun. The motivation to do so would be to have a detection system with a sensor network capable of efficiently providing sensor data, when available, to a data request from a mobile computing device through a most direct sequential sensor node path between the mobile computing device and sensor node providing the sensor data and sequentially providing power between sensor nodes using conductor coils along the most direct sequential sensor node path.
Maltseff fails to disclose an edge data link configured to: transmit to the base device, in response to the sensor interrogation signal, a no selection match indication.
However Eldering further teaches an edge data link configured to: transmit to the base device, in response to the sensor interrogation signal, a no selection match indication (Fig 2 & [0033] disclose a communication link 160 between a temperature sensor device 102 to a computing device 110. Fig 15 & [0063] discloses a temperature sensor device 112 that responds to a computing device 130 with an indication that a requested temperature prediction in unavailable.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a detection system, comprising: a base device including: a base data link configured to: transmit a sensor interrogation signal to at least one of the plurality of edge nodes in the detection system; and receive reporting information from at least one of the plurality of edge nodes; the plurality of edge nodes sequentially coupled within the sensor network, wherein each edge node includes an edge data link configured to: receive at least a portion of the sensor interrogation signal; relay the at least a portion of the sensor interrogation signal to a next edge node of the plurality of edge nodes; and transmit to the base device, in response to the sensor interrogation signal, the reporting information including sensor information associated with the edge node, as disclosed by Maltseff, and comprising: an edge data link configured to: transmit to the base device, in response to the sensor interrogation signal, a no selection match indication, as further taught by Eldering. The motivation to do so would be to have a detection system with a sensor network capable of providing a data unavailable indication to a mobile computing device when sensor data is unavailable, based on a data request from the mobile computing device, from any sensor node along a most direct sensor node path from the mobile computing device to a furthest sensor node in the sensor network.
Maltseff fails to disclose wherein the plurality of edge nodes are disposed sequentially and linearly such that each edge node of the plurality of edge nodes has at most two neighbor edge nodes.
However, He further teaches wherein the plurality of edge nodes are disposed sequentially and linearly such that each edge node of the plurality of edge nodes has at most two neighbor edge nodes (Fig 3 & col 6, lines 33-50 disclose a plurality of edge nodes 120 disposed sequentially where a first edge node 120-1 is disposed near a tower T1 and communicates with a second edge node 120-2 disposed near an adjacent tower T2, then the second edge node 120-2 communicates with a third edge node 120-3 disposed near an adjacent tower T3,…, such that each edge node of the plurality of edge nodes has at most two neighbors.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a detection system, comprising: a plurality of edge nodes, as disclosed by Maltseff, wherein the plurality of edge nodes are disposed sequentially and linearly such that each edge node of the plurality of edge nodes has at most two neighbor edge nodes, as further taught by He. The motivation to do so would be to have a detection system for power line transmission monitoring where a plurality of edge nodes are disposed sequentially, each edge node having at most two neighbor edge nodes, such that monitoring data from a functional node can be transmitted to a collection node through the plurality of edge nodes using chain type communication so that the functional node and collection node can be very far apart and still communicate with each other without requiring a direct connection.
Regarding Claim 2, Maltseff discloses wherein the sensor interrogation signal further includes request information that identifies one or more sensors selected from a plurality of different sensors whose respective sensor information is to be included in the reporting information (Fig 2A, [0039] & [0044]-[0045] disclose a data request signal that includes request information including identifiers of specific wireless sensor nodes from a plurality of sensor nodes that have been exposed to the requested data and are to include the requested data in reporting.).
Regarding Claim 3, Maltseff discloses wherein the request information includes one or more of a sensor type identifier (ID) that identifies one of a plurality of sensor types, a sensor ID that uniquely identifies a specific sensor, or a sensor group ID of a set of sensors selected from a plurality of different sensors associated with a region of interest in the sensor network (Fig 2A, [0039] & [0044]-[0045] disclose a data request signal that includes request information including identifiers of either specific wireless sensor nodes from a plurality of sensor nodes that have been exposed to the requested data, or identifiers for a group of sensors associated with a region of interest such as all sensor nodes having sensors that can detect particular environmental characteristics, or identifiers for a group of sensors representing a portion of a sensor network.).
Regarding Claim 4, Maltseff discloses further comprising a plurality of sensors, wherein at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors is associated with each edge node (Fig 1 & [0017] disclose a plurality of sensor nodes 102. [0014] discloses that the sensor nodes may comprise a sensor, a processor for executing instructions and a memory that stores instructions. For the purpose of this review, the examiner is interpreting a sensor node comprising a sensor and processor as an edge node (see Claim Interpretation Section). Thus, sensor nodes 102 each comprise edge nodes with an associated sensor.).
Regarding Claim 5, Maltseff discloses wherein each of the plurality of sensors are configured to detect at least one of fatigue, cracks, corrosion, erosion, humidity, stress, vibration, strain, or temperature (Fig 1 & [0033] discloses sensor nodes configured to detect humidity.).
Regarding Claim 6, Maltseff discloses wherein the plurality of sensors include an unpowered sensor and a powered sensor (Fig 1 & [0036] disclose sensor nodes 102 my include a discrete power source such as a battery, or may scavenge power from the environment (e.g. including a solar cell).).
Regarding Claim 7, Maltseff discloses wherein: the sensor interrogation signal further includes request information that identifies a group identifier of a set of sensors selected from a plurality of different sensors associated with a region of interest in the sensor network (Fig 2A & [0045] disclose a data request signal that includes request information with identifiers for a group of sensors associated with a region of interest such as all sensor nodes having sensors that can detect particular environmental characteristics, or identifiers for a group of sensors representing a portion of a sensor network.),
the base device is further configured to: receive the sensor information from one or more of the plurality of edge nodes associated with the set of sensors in the region of interest (Fig 2B & [0057] disclose the mobile computing device may receive replies with sensor information from a plurality of sensor nodes based on a data request. Fig 2A & [0044]-[0045] disclose that the data request may include request information with identifiers for a group of sensors associated with a region of interest such as all sensor nodes having sensors that can detect particular environmental characteristics, or identifiers for a group of sensors representing a portion of a sensor network.); and
synchronize the received sensor information from the region of interest (Fig 2B and [0058] disclose the mobile computing device may filter the replies from the plurality of sensor nodes, and may synchronize the replies by determining if the replies originated from the same source sensor node and arranging the arrivals in time order so the first arrival can be stored while discarding later arrivals).
Regarding Claim 8, Maltseff discloses wherein the sensor interrogation signal is associated with an interrogation time period ([0085] discloses a data request signal may include a timeout provision), and
wherein the base device is configured to synchronize the received sensor information from the region of interest based on the interrogation time period ([0085] discloses that if the data request signal does not reach a sensor node within a certain period of time (i.e. the timeout period), then the data request shall not be forwarded. Fig 2B and [0058] disclose a mobile computing device may filter the replies from the plurality of sensor nodes, and may synchronize the replies by determining if the replies originated from the same source sensor node and arranging the arrivals in time order so the first arrival can be stored while discarding later arrivals. Fig 2A & [0045] disclose that the data request may include request information with identifiers for a group of sensors associated with a region of interest such as all sensor nodes having sensors that can detect particular environmental characteristics, or identifiers for a group of sensors representing a portion of a sensor network. Thus, through use of the timeout period, the mobile computing device may be configured to synchronize received sensor information from a region of interest based only on data requests received by sensor nodes within the timeout provision.).
Regarding Claim 18, Maltseff discloses wherein each of the plurality of edge nodes includes one or more of a sensor type identifier (ID) that identifies one of a plurality of sensor types, a sensor ID that uniquely identifies a specific sensor, a sensor group ID of a set of sensors selected from a plurality of different sensors associated with a region of interest in the sensor network, or cyclic redundancy check (CRC) information (Fig 2A & [0039] disclose each wireless sensor node may be associated with an identifier stored in the sensor node during manufacturing that would uniquely identify the sensor node. [0045] discloses that each sensor node may have identifiers indicating particular environmental characteristics the sensor node can detect or have been exposed to.).
Regarding Claim 19, Maltseff discloses wherein the base device is further configured to receive, sequentially, respective portions of the sensor information from each of the plurality of edge nodes (Fig 2A & [0049]-[0050] discloses that a mobile computing device may send a data request and each wireless sensor node may process the data request, determine what part of the data request the sensor node has access to and can provide a response. Thus, the mobile computing device would be receiving, sequentially, portions of sensor information from each sensor node as the data request from the mobile computing device is forwarded through sensor network 100.).
Claim 9 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maltseff et al. (US 2009/0058634)(herein after “Maltseff”) in view of Sun et al. (US 2011/0101788)(herein after “Sun”) and Eldering et al. (US 2011/0023025)(herein after “Eldering”) and He et al. (US 12287361)(herein after “He”), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Akanda et al. (US 2017/0298592)(herein after “Akanda”).
Regarding Claim 9, Maltseff in view of Sun and Eldering and He disclose the system of Claim 1.
Maltseff fails to disclose wherein the base device includes a processor configured to detect an error in the sensor network in response to failing to receive the reporting information from at least one of the plurality of edge nodes.
However, Akanda further teaches wherein the base device includes a processor configured to detect an error in the sensor network in response to failing to receive the reporting information from at least one of the plurality of edge nodes (Fig 10 & [0045] disclose a controller that detects an error when data from one or more sensors is unavailable.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the detection system of Claim 1, as disclosed by Maltseff in view of Sun and Eldering and He, wherein the base device includes a processor configured to detect an error in the sensor network in response to failing to receive the reporting information from at least one of the plurality of edge nodes, as further taught by Akanda. The motivation to do so would be to have a detection system that can detect when potential wide-scale connectivity issues may be occurring in a sensor network when receiving no reporting from any sensor node based on a data request.
Claims 10 & 11 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maltseff et al. (US 2009/0058634)(herein after “Maltseff”) in view of Sun et al. (US 2011/0101788)(herein after “Sun”) and Eldering et al. (US 2011/0023025)(herein after “Eldering”) and Akanda et al. (US 2017/0298592)(herein after “Akanda”) and He et al. (US 12287361)(herein after “He”), as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Tsubouchi et al. (US 2022/0378336)(herein after “Tsubouchi”).
Regarding Claim 10, Maltseff in view of Sun, Eldering and Akanda and He disclose the detection system of Claim 9.
Maltseff fails to disclose wherein the processor of the base device is further configured to detect an error in the sensor network based on the reporting information failing to include an end of network indication.
However, Tsubouchi further teaches wherein the processor of the base device is further configured to detect an error in the sensor network based on the reporting information failing to include an end of network indication (Fig 9 & [0032] disclose a biosensor system with a controller and a series of tandem sensors. Fig 14 & [0043] disclose that the controller may check if a concentration level of a target substance is below a threshold, in which case the controller may check to see if there is another tandem sensor remaining in the series of tandem sensors to begin receiving concentration measurements from. When the controller receives measurements from the last tandem sensor (e.g. S3 in Fig 9), then the controller would detect an end of network. The controller may then detect and generate an error message when there are no remaining tandem sensors to provide a concentration measurement report indicating an end of network.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the detection system of Claim 9, as disclosed by Maltseff in view of Sun and Eldering and Akanda and He, wherein the processor of the base device is further configured to detect an error in the sensor network based on the reporting information failing to include an end of network indication, as further taught by Tsubouchi. The motivation to do so would be to have a detection system that can detect when a series of tandem sensors in a biosensor system are all no longer providing measurement reports and no longer useable and thus need to be upgraded or replaced.
Regarding Claim 11, Maltseff in view of Sun, Eldering, Akanda and Tsubouchi and He disclose the detection system of Claim 10.
Maltseff fails to disclose wherein the processor of the base device is further configured to locate a faulty edge node in the sensor network based on receiving information from at least one of a last valid reporting edge node or failing to receive the end of network indication.
However, Tsubouchi further teaches wherein the processor of the base device is further configured to locate a faulty edge node in the sensor network based on receiving information from at least one of a last valid reporting edge node (Fig 9 & [0032] disclose a biosensor system with a controller and a series of tandem sensors. Fig 14 & [0043] disclose that the controller may locate a faulty or unusable tandem sensor in the series of tandem sensors based on receiving concentration measurement information from at least one of the tandem sensors that was not previously deemed faulty and unusable.) or
failing to receive the end of network indication (Fig 14 & [0043] disclose that the controller may check if a concentration level of a target substance is below a threshold, in which case the controller may check to see if there is another tandem sensor remaining in the series of tandem sensors to begin receiving concentration measurements from. When the controller receives measurements from the last tandem sensor (e.g. S3 in Fig 9), then the controller would detect an end of network. The controller may then detect and generate an error message when there are no remaining tandem sensors to provide a concentration measurement report indicating an end of network.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the detection system of Claim 10, as disclosed by Maltseff in view of Sun, Eldering, Akanda, Tsubouchi and He, wherein the processor of the base device is further configured to locate a faulty edge node in the sensor network based on receiving information from at least one of a last valid reporting edge node or failing to receive the end of network indication, as further taught by Tsubouchi. The motivation to do so would be to have a detection system that can detect when a specific tandem sensor in a biosensor system is no longer providing measurement reports and no longer useable and thus needs to be upgraded or replaced.
Claim 12 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maltseff et al. (US 2009/0058634)(herein after “Maltseff”) in view of Sun et al. (US 2011/0101788)(herein after “Sun”) and Eldering et al. (US 2011/0023025)(herein after “Eldering”) and He et al. (US 12287361)(herein after “He”), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tsubouchi et al. (US 2022/0378336)(herein after “Tsubouchi”).
Regarding Claim 12, Maltseff in view of Sun and He and Eldering disclose the detection system of claim 1.
Maltseff fails to disclose wherein the base device includes a processor configured to calibrate one or more of the plurality of edge nodes.
However, Tsubouchi further teaches wherein the base device includes a processor configured to calibrate one or more of the plurality of edge nodes (Fig 9 & [0032] disclose a biosensor system with a controller and a series of tandem sensors. [0036] discloses the controller may calibrate a tandem sensor in the series of tandem sensors by compensating for measurement based on a degradation state of the tandem sensor.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the detection system of claim 1, as disclosed by Maltseff in view of Sun and He and Eldering, wherein the base device includes a processor configured to calibrate one or more of the plurality of edge nodes, as further taught by Tsubouchi. The motivation to do so would be to have a detection system that can improve accuracy of measurements by compensation for measurement errors in tandem sensors that have degraded.
Claim 13 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maltseff et al. (US 2009/0058634)(herein after “Maltseff”) in view of Sun et al. (US 2011/0101788)(herein after “Sun”) and Eldering et al. (US 2011/0023025)(herein after “Eldering”) and Tsubouchi et al. (US 2022/0378336)(herein after “Tsubouchi”) and He et al. (US 12287361)(herein after “He”), as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Metal et al. (US 5552791)(herein after “Metal”).
Regarding Claim 13, Maltseff in view of Sun and Eldering and He and Tsubouchi disclose the detection system of Claim 12.
Maltseff discloses one or more of a sensor type identifier (ID) that identifies one of a plurality of sensor types, a sensor ID that uniquely identifies a specific sensor, or a sensor group ID of a set of sensors selected from a plurality of different sensors associated with a region of interest in the sensor network (Fig 2A, [0039] & [0044]-[0045] disclose identifiers of either specific wireless sensor nodes from a plurality of sensor nodes that have been exposed to a requested data, or identifiers for a group of sensors associated with a region of interest such as all sensor nodes having sensors that can detect particular environmental characteristics, or identifiers for a group of sensors representing a portion of a sensor network.)
Maltseff fails to disclose wherein the base device is further configured to transmit a device sensor calibrate signal to select and calibrate one or more of the plurality of edge nodes.
However, Metal further teaches wherein the base device is further configured to transmit a device sensor calibrate signal to select and calibrate one or more of the plurality of edge nodes (Column 1, lines 35-57 disclose a calibration signal detector transmitting a calibration signal to select and calibrate each sensor of a sensor array system.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the detection system of Claim 12, as disclosed by Maltseff in view of Sun and Eldering and He and Tsubouchi, wherein the base device is further configured to transmit a device sensor calibrate signal to select and calibrate one or more of the plurality of edge nodes, as further taught by Metal, based on one or more of a sensor type identifier (ID) that identifies one of a plurality of sensor types, a sensor ID that uniquely identifies a specific sensor, or a sensor group ID of a set of sensors selected from a plurality of different sensors associated with a region of interest in the sensor network, as disclosed by Maltseff. The motivation to do so would be to have a detection system that can enable a mobile computing device to perform calibration of a sensor array through transmitting different types of calibration signals to different sensors based on sensor type and where the sensor is located in the sensor array.
Claims 14, 15 & 17 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maltseff et al. (US 2009/0058634)(herein after “Maltseff”) in view of Sun et al. (US 2011/0101788)(herein after “Sun”) and Eldering et al. (US 2011/0023025)(herein after “Eldering”) and He et al. (US 12287361)(herein after “He”), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of O’Driscoll et al. (US 10088358)(herein after “O’Driscoll”).
Regarding Claim 14, , Maltseff in view of Sun and Eldering and He disclose the detection system of Claim 1.
Maltseff fails to disclose further comprising a reader or a Health Usage Monitoring System (HUMS) having: a reader power source configured to provide the electrical energy to the base device, and a data link configured to receive, from the base device, the sensor information.
However, O’Driscoll further teaches further comprising a reader or a Health Usage Monitoring System (HUMS) having: a reader power source configured to provide the electrical energy to the base device, and a data link configured to receive, from the base device, the sensor information (Column 1, lines 60-67 & Column 2, lines 1-11 disclose a reader including a power source to provide wireless energy to an implantable microchip and can receive data from the implantable microchip.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the detection system of claim 1, as disclosed by Maltseff in view of Sun and Eldering and He, further comprising a reader or a Health Usage Monitoring System (HUMS) having: a reader power source configured to provide the electrical energy to the base device, and a data link configured to receive, from the base device, the sensor information, as further taught by O’Driscoll. The motivation to do so would be to have a detection system that can eliminate the need for batteries in an implantable microchip.
Regarding Claim 15, Maltseff in view of Sun and Eldering and He and O’Driscoll disclose the detection system of claim 14.
Maltseff fails to disclose wherein the reader power source is further configured to wirelessly provide the electrical energy to the base device.
However, O’Driscoll further teaches wherein the reader power source is further configured to wirelessly provide the electrical energy to the base device (Column 1, lines 60-67 & Column 2, lines 1-11 disclose a reader including a power source to provide wireless energy to an implantable microchip.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the detection system of Claim 14, as disclosed by Maltseff in view of Sun and Eldering and He and O’Driscoll, wherein the reader power source is further configured to wirelessly provide the electrical energy to the base device, as further taught by O’Driscoll. The motivation to do so would be to have a detection system that can eliminate the need for batteries in an implantable microchip.
Regarding Claim 17, Maltseff in view of Sun and Eldering and He and O’Driscoll disclose the detection system of Claim 14.
Maltseff fails to disclose wherein the reader is further configured to transmit the sensor information to a cloud computing system.
However, O’Driscoll further teaches wherein the reader is further configured to transmit the sensor information to a cloud computing system (Column 7, lines 19-27 disclose a reader integrated into a wearable device configured to transmit UV light intensity or UV dose information to a cloud.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the detection system of Claim 14, as disclosed by Maltseff in view of Sun and Eldering and He and O’Driscoll, wherein the reader is further configured to transmit the sensor information to a cloud computing system, as further taught by O’Driscoll. The motivation to do so would be to have a detection system that can leverage cloud computing capabilities in analyzing sensor data from wearable devices.
Claim 16 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maltseff et al. (US 2009/0058634)(herein after “Maltseff”) in view of Sun et al. (US 2011/0101788)(herein after “Sun”) and Eldering et al. (US 2011/0023025)(herein after “Eldering”) and O’Driscoll et al. (US 10088358)(herein after “O’Driscoll”) and He et al. (US 12287361)(herein after “He”), as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Carroll et al. (WO 2013130782)(herein after “Carroll”).
Regarding Claim 16, Maltseff in view of Sun and Eldering and He and O’Driscoll disclose the detection system of claim 14.
Maltseff fails to disclose wherein the reader power source of the HUMS is further configured to provide the electrical energy to the base device via a wire.
However, Carroll further teaches wherein the reader power source of the HUMS is further configured to provide the electrical energy to the base device via a wire (Page 5, lines 20-25 disclose a wireless strain gauge with an RFID tag that is being powered by an internal reader power source which would require a wired connection. Pages 11, lines 30-31 & Page 12, line a disclose that the wireless strain gauge may be used for Health and Usage Monitoring Systems (HUMS).).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the detection system of Claim 14, as disclosed by Maltseff in view of Sun and Eldering and He and O’Driscoll, wherein the reader power source of the HUMS is further configured to provide the electrical energy to the base device via a wire, as further taught by Carroll. The motivation to do so would be to have a backup internal power source available can provide power to a strain gauge in a HUMS system through a wired connection in case there are interference issue with providing wireless power to the strain gauge.
Claim 20 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maltseff et al. (US 2009/0058634)(herein after “Maltseff”) in view of Sun et al. (US 2011/0101788)(herein after “Sun”) and Eldering et al. (US 2011/0023025)(herein after “Eldering”) and He et al. (US 12287361)(herein after “He”), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Fujiwara et al. (US 2005/0241126)(herein after “Fujiwara”).
Regarding Claim 20, Maltseff in view of Sun and Eldering and He disclose the detection system of claim 1.
Maltseff fails to disclose further comprising a plurality of wires, wherein each of the plurality of wires interconnects two of the plurality of edge nodes.
However, Fujiwara further teaches further comprising a plurality of wires, wherein each of the plurality of wires interconnects two of the plurality of edge nodes (Fig 9 & [0007] discloses a grid formed with edge nodes connected by means of wires.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the detection system of claim 1, as disclosed by Maltseff in view of Sun and Eldering and He, further comprising a plurality of wires, wherein each of the plurality of wires interconnects two of the plurality of edge nodes, as further taught by Fujiwara. The motivation to do so would be to have a detection system that can provide high speed, reliable communication within a sensor node network in areas where wireless communication between the sensor nodes may be a concern due to interference issues.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES P SEYMOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/JAMES P SEYMOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419