DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Examiner has considered Amendment after Non-Final mailed 7/20/2026.
Claims 1-14, 18-23 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 9, “first prediction part” should be corrected. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner would appreciate if any other corrections similar to above that were overlooked be made by the Applicant.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “encoding part” and “transmission part”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 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.
Claim limitations “encoding part” and “transmission part” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Examiner reviewed the instant application and it failed to disclose the corresponding hardware of the claimed parts. Furthermore, the specification discloses, in para. 0088, the originally filed, individual parts of the communication quality prediction apparatus in each example embodiment can each be realized by a computer program that causes a processor mounted on the corresponding apparatus to execute the corresponding processing. The specification does not describe hardware structure.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9, 12, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruso et al. US 11545852.
Regarding claim 1, A data distribution system (network aggregation and data processing system, Figure 5), comprising: at least a processor and a memory in circuit communication with the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to perform first predicting of communication quality of a network used for transmission of first sensor data based on the first sensor data (sensors, Figure 6, element 610, monitor a metric associated with a power grid and are coupled with network nodes which communicate the data collected by the sensors to the aggregation server, the aggregation server creates a consensus among many sensors and provides information such as the overall network or significant parts of it are mis-behaving because one or more sensors are far out of range in a significant part of the network. column 20, lines 56-63, column 21, lines 59-65); determining a parameter related to transmission quality of the first sensor data according to the communication quality predicted by the first prediction part (the aggregation server determines which sensor associated with the network node detects a value within the data that is most out of range from normalized range, column 24, lines 59-64, column 25, lines 1-3).
Caruso does not expressly disclose an encoding part for encoding the first sensor data using the parameter related to the transmission quality of the first sensor data and a transmission part for transmitting the encoded first sensor data via the network.
Caruso discloses the data collected in real-time is securely stored in an aggregation and processing server in order to construct a historic dataset which will enable analysis and the power quality metrics could be utilized for restoration and recovery prediction capabilities, column 10, lines 40-46. Caruso discloses the aggregation server compares the consensus value determined to a threshold value and if it exceeds the threshold value, the aggregation server triggers an alert indicate a decreased health of the power grid system based on the measured values of the power grid metric, column 10, lines 51-59. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Caruso to expressly disclose encoding sensor data and transmitting using the quality parameter of the sensor data. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to do so since the highly granular nature of sensor data combined with in-network machine learning enables a system to have significant event prediction capabilities due to the significant amount of raw data input in real-time and historically, column 10, lines 51-56.
Regarding claim 4, The data distribution system according to claim 1, The data distribution system according to wherein the first predicting further comprises predicting the communication quality of the network using a history of communication quality of the network (data collected by the sensors and sent to the aggregation server, the aggregation server creates a consensus among many sensors and provides information such as the overall network are mis-behaving because one or more sensors are far out of range in a significant part of the network. column 20, lines 56-63, column 21, lines 59-65, data collected in real-time is securely stored in an aggregation and processing server(s) in order to construct a historic dataset used for restoration predictions and cost predictions, column 10, lines 51-56.)
Regarding claim 9, A communication quality prediction apparatus (aggregation server, Figures 7 and 8), comprising: at least a processor; and a memory in circuit communication with the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to perform first predicting communication quality of a network used for transmission of first sensor data based on the first sensor data (sensors, Figure 6, element 610, monitor a metric associated with a power grid and are coupled with network nodes which communicate the data collected by the sensors to the aggregation server, the aggregation server creates a consensus among many sensors and provides information about the overall network or significant parts of it are mis-behaving because one or more sensors are far out of range in a significant part of the network. column 20, lines 56-63, column 21, lines 59-65).
Caruso does not expressly disclose transmitting the predicted communication quality of the network used for transmission of the first sensor data to an apparatus of a transmission source of the first sensor data; wherein the communication quality prediction apparatus causes the apparatus of the transmission source of the first sensor data to execute to encode the first sensor data according to the predicted communication quality of the network used for transmission of the first sensor data and to transmit the encoded first sensor data. Caruso discloses the data collected in real-time is securely stored in an aggregation and processing server in order to construct a historic dataset which will enable analysis and the power quality metrics could be utilized for restoration and recovery prediction capabilities, column 10, lines 40-46.
Caruso discloses the aggregation server compares the consensus value determined to a threshold value and if it exceeds the threshold value, the aggregation server triggers an alert indicate a decreased health of the power grid system based on the measured values of the power grid metric, column 10, lines 51-59. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Caruso to expressly disclose encoding sensor data and transmitting using the quality parameter of the sensor data. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to do so since the highly granular nature of sensor data combined with in-network machine learning enables a system to have significant event prediction capabilities due to the significant amount of raw data input in real-time and historically, column 10, lines 51-56.
Claims 12, 14, and 21 are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11, 13, 18-20, 22-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, with respect to “part” limitations have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, a part of the rejection has been withdrawn. However, “encoding part” and “transmission part” are still claimed and therefore, the 112 rejection with respect to those limitations are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Greenboim et al. US 20260118209 discloses a monitoring system for monitoring using IoT devices and machine learning, one or more Monitoring Device(s) are attached to specific physical equipment/structure(s) to be monitored and perform comprehensive field data gathering used to train a customized ML model, which is stored locally in that Monitoring Device and the device monitors current conditions using various sensors, and uses its locally stored customized, trained model to perform real-time, edge-based analysis of the monitored data to identify possible issues in real-time.
Ostrometsky et al. US 12556937 discloses determining, based on the obtained measurement data, predictive data representative of future performance of the wireless communication network at one or more future time instances subsequent to an end of the first interval of time, and managing resources of the wireless communication network based, at least in part, on the determined predictive data.
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 MELANIE JAGANNATHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached at 571-270-1096. 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.
/MELANIE JAGANNATHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights