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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 1/29/2001. It is noted, however, that an attempt by the Office to electronically retrieve, under the priority document exchange program, the foreign application 2022-013111 to which priority is claimed has FAILED. Thus, the requirement of providing a certified copy of the foreign application has not been fulfilled. Please note the communication sent out by the Office (7/28/2025) for resolving the above issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bentley et al (WO 2017/011817).
Regarding claim 1, Bentley et al discloses a program for causing a computer (160, Fig.1A) to function as: a receiving unit (160, 101, 102, Fig.1; Figs. 1C, 17-19; paragraph 209) that receives, from each of a plurality of sensor devices (111, Figs.1, 1B; paragraphs 22, 39, 159, 168), first information including sensor identification information for identifying the sensor device (paragraphs 28, 39, 91, 1580159, 224; Figs.1, 1B), sensor information based on detection by the sensor device (paragraphs 22, 39, 51, 224; Fig.17), and timing information that indicates timing of the detection by the sensor device (Figs.1E, 17; paragraphs 51-53, 56, 61, 209, 229); and a processing unit that generates second information based on the first information received from the plurality of sensor devices (abstract; Figs.1A, 1C, 17; claim 1). Regarding a method claim 10 and an apparatus claim 11, these claims merely recite the similar limitations of claim 1 and are rejected due to the similar reasons set for with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraphs 24 and 103 of Bentley et al.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraphs 22 and 29 of Bentley et al.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraph 52 of Bentley et al.
Regarding claims 5-6 and 8, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraphs 103, 155, 296 of Bentley et al (Fig.42).
Regarding claim 7, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraphs 57, 74, 165 and 237 of Bentley et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley et al (WO 2017/011817) in view of Holsti (US 2021/0202061).
Regarding claim 9, while Bentley et al discloses the use of wireless communication between a sensor and a receiving unit (i.e. BLE; Fig.1D; paragraph 40), it doesn’t specifically mention the use of unidirectional communication. However, the use of unidirectional communication or bidirectional communication for wireless communication is well known in the art as disclosed by Holsti (paragraph 38; BLE link maybe bidirectional or unidirectional) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Holsti in the device of Bentley in view of meeting different design requirements and achieving the particular desired performance.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jiang et al (US 2019/0132696 A1) is cited for disclosing the use of BLE in unidirectional communication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN K PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-2445. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30 PM.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/KEVIN K PYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights