DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is a response to the Application/Control Number: 18/360,574 filed on 02/23/2021.
Claims Status
2. This office action is based upon claims received on 07/27/2023, which replace all prior or other submitted versions of the claims.
-Claims 1-5 are pending.
-Claims 1, 4, 5 are rejected.
-Claims 2, 3 are objected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in JAPAN on 02/04/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2021-016779 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
5. Acknowledgment is made of a continuation of PCT/JP2021/037437 filed 10/08/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/27/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 1, 4, 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A. Regarding claim 1 and Claim 5 - Claim 1 (i.e. used as an example representing similar features in claim 5 ) recites terms “the received identifier” for the first time without prior introduction of a “received identifier”, where significant questions may be raised as to where the terms “the received identifier” possibly finds antecedent basis. While claim 1 (i.e. used as an example representing similar features in claim 5 ) prior to reciting “the received identifier” recites “receives an identifier transmitted by a detection-complete sensor”, where the “the received identifier” could be interpreted as possibly finding antecedence in prior recitation “receives an identifier transmitted by a detection-complete sensor”, claim 1 does not first make any such reference to a “received identifier”.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested to appropriately address and verify as applicable, applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
B. Regarding claim 1, Claim 4, and Claim 5 - Claim 1 (i.e. used as an example representing similar features in claim 4, and claim 5 ) recites terms “receives, from a detection-incomplete sensor that is one of the plurality of sensors and that has not detected the object, reception strength information including an identifier of the detection-incomplete sensor and a reception strength of a signal of another one or more of the plurality of sensors in the detection-incomplete sensor”, where “a reception strength of a signal of another one or more of the plurality of sensors” is interpreted as subject to recitation “receives, from a detection-incomplete sensor” being received “in the detection-incomplete sensor”.
However, the office action notes that questions may be raised as to whether “another one or more of the plurality of sensors in the detection-incomplete sensor” is intended to covey “another one or more of the plurality of sensors” somehow comprised within or situated within “the detection-incomplete sensor”.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested to appropriately address and verify as applicable, applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claim 1-5 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
A. Claim 1 (i.e. used as an example representing similar features in claim 4 and claim 5 ) recites terms “an identifier” recited a second time in recitation “an identifier transmitted by a detection-complete sensor” after a preceding recitation of “an identifier” recited a first time in recitation “an identifier of each of a plurality of sensors” in Claim 1, where the office action respectfully contends a lack of clarity as to where recitation of the terms “an identifier” recited the second time in Claim 1 finds antecedent basis, i.e. whether the recitation of “an identifier” recited the first time in claim 1 serves as the antecedent basis for the terms “an identifier” recited the second time in Claim 1, or whether the recitation “an identifier” recited the second time in claim 1 refers to a separate instance of “an identifier” different from the terms “an identifier” recited the first time claim 1.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and clarify as applicable applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
B. Regarding Claims 1, 4, 5 - Claim 1 (i.e. used as an example representing similar features in claim 4 and claim 5 ) recites terms “the known installation positions” for the first time without prior introduction or provision of a reference antecedence for “the known installation positions”. Furthermore while claim 1 (i.e. used as an example representing similar features in claim 4 and claim 5) makes a preceding reference to “a known installation position”, and subsequently after reciting “the known installation positions” also makes reference to “known installation positions” in recitation “the plurality of known installation positions”, Claim 1 does not recite “known installation positions” prior to referencing “the known installation positions”.
As such, this office action respectfully contends a lack of clear antecedent basis as to where recitation of the terms “the known installation positions” in Claim 1 finds antecedent basis. Furthermore there is also a lack of clarity whether “known installation positions” in recitation “the plurality of known installation positions” is intended to find antecedence in prior recited terms “the known installation positions”.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and clarify as applicable applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
C. Regarding Claims 1, 4, 5 - Claim 1 (i.e. used as an example representing similar features in claim 4 and claim 5 ) recites terms “the identifiers” for the first time without prior introduction or provision of a reference antecedence for “the identifiers”. Furthermore while claim 1 (i.e. used as an example representing similar features in claim 4 and claim 5 ) makes a preceding reference to “an identifier”, Claim 1 does not recite “identifiers” prior to referencing “the identifiers”.
As such, this office action respectfully contends a lack of clear antecedent basis as to where recitation of the terms “the identifiers” in Claim 1 finds antecedent basis.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and clarify as applicable applicant’s intent and objective for the claim language noted.
D. Regarding Claims 2-3, which depend from respective independent claims 1, these claims (i.e. Claim 2 and Claim 3) are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph at least via dependency to the respective independent claims.
Examiner interprets the subject claims listed as best possible. Applicant is requested and required to appropriately address and clarify as applicable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the
examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised
of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that
was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner
to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art
against the later invention.
11. Claims 1, 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARZENCKI et al. (US 20120036198 A1) i.e. “MARZENCKI”, in view of Jun et al. (US 20200190889 A1) i.e. “Jun”, further in view of Stone et al. (US 20210125488 A1), i.e. “Stone”.
Regarding Claim 1 MARZENCKI teaches: An information processing apparatus (MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 4, FIG. 5 & ¶0077 […] At operation 528, each responding PEG (e.g. PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22) that has received an identification message broadcast by the TAG 413 sends or transmits a reporting message to a processing center or control station (e.g. control station 150) […] The reporting message may include information regarding the power levels (e.g. power levels 414, 416) at which individual identification messages have been transmitted and received, and identification information regarding the reporting PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 (e.g. PEG ID) and the broadcasting TAG 413 (e.g. TAG ID); NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: Per ¶0077 i.e. control station 150 reads on: An information processing apparatus )
for associating an identifier of each of a plurality of sensors and a known installation position of a corresponding one of the plurality of sensors (MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 3.C, FIG. 4, FIG. 5 & ¶0060 […] combined relative and absolute PEG positions and known PEG IDs may thereafter be used to create a look-up table linking PEG IDs with their respective absolute PEG positions at operation 350 ; ¶0077 see above;¶0079 […] Following operation 530, the precise location of the TAG 413 relative to the reporting reference PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 may be translated into absolute location coordinates based on the known absolute locations of each PEG (such as may be determined from the layout of PEG locations 200 as planned prior to installation of the network of PEGs 110, as at operation 310 of the method of wireless sensor organization shown in FIG. 3); NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: where per ¶0060 i.e. a look-up table linking PEG IDs with their respective absolute PEG positions at operation 350 is known, and per ¶0077 i.e. The reporting message may include i.e. identification information regarding the reporting PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 (e.g. PEG ID, and per ¶0079 i.e. the reporting reference PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 may be translated into reads on: for associating to absolute location coordinates based on the known absolute locations of each PEG, and per ¶0077 i.e. The reporting message may include i.e. identification information regarding the reporting PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 (e.g. PEG ID, and per ¶0079 i.e. the reporting reference PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 an identifier and FIG. 4 and per ¶0077 and ¶0079 i.e. PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 reads on: of each of a plurality of sensors, per ¶0079 i.e. be translated into i.e. absolute location coordinates based on the known absolute locations of each PEG reads on: and a known installation position i.e. each PEG reads on: of a corresponding one of the plurality of sensors ),
the plurality of sensors being installed along a path and detecting an object traveling through the path (MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 3 FIG. 4, FIG. 5 & ¶0033 […] PEGs 110 collectively create a reference sensor grid for the detection and localization of a mobile node 120 (hereinafter referred to as a "TAG"), which is capable of moving or being moved within wireless sensor network 160. That is, as TAG 120 moves about within wireless sensor network 160; ¶0066 a method of localizing mobile nodes or TAGs (e.g. TAG 120) within a wireless sensor network 160 comprising a plurality of fixed sensor nodes or PEGs 110 […]; ¶0077 see above ; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per FIG. 1 – FIG. 4 & ¶0033 i.e. PEGs 110 collectively create a reference sensor grid within wireless sensor network 160 reads on: the plurality of sensors being installed , where per ¶0033 i.e. TAG 120 moves about within wireless sensor network 160 reads on: along a path i.e. within the sensor grid within wireless sensor network 160, where per ¶0077 i.e. operation 528, each responding PEG (e.g. PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22) that has received an identification message broadcast by the TAG 413 reads on: and detecting an object traveling through the path ),
the information processing apparatus comprising: reception circuitry (MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 3 FIG. 4, FIG. 5 & ¶0077 See above; ¶0126 […] implemented in whole or in part in a computer storage product with a computer-readable medium having computer code thereon for performing various computer-implemented operations according to […] methods described […] by a computer system. Such computer system may comprise […] computing system […] for implementing wireless sensor networks and/or control and operation […] and hardware devices that are specially configured to store and execute program code, such as application-specific integrated circuits; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per 0077 i.e. responding PEG (e.g. PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22) that i.e. sends or transmits a reporting message to a processing center or control station (e.g. control station 150) reads on: the information processing apparatus comprising: reception and per ¶0126 i.e. computer system implementing wireless sensor networks, hardware devices, circuits reads on: circuitry ),
which, in operation, receives an identifier transmitted by a detection-complete sensor that is one of the plurality of sensors and that has detected the object (MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 3 FIG. 4, FIG. 5 & ¶0033 See above ;¶0077 See above; ¶0079 see above ;NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0077 i.e. operation 528, each responding PEG (e.g. PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22) i.e. sends or transmits a reporting message to a processing center or control station (e.g. control station 150) reads on: which, in operation, receives . Furthermore per ¶0077 i.e. The reporting message may include i.e. identification information regarding the reporting PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 (e.g. PEG ID) reads on: an identifier, and per ¶0077 i.e. operation 528, each responding PEG i.e. (e.g. PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22) that has received an identification message broadcast by the TAG 413 reads on: reads on: transmitted by a detection-complete sensor, per ¶0077 i.e. e.g. PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 which are comprised in per ¶0033 i.e. within the sensor grid within wireless sensor network 160 that is one of the plurality of sensors);
and control circuitry which, in operation, (MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 3 FIG. 4, FIG. 5 & ¶0077 See above; ¶0126 See above; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per 0077 i.e. sends or transmits a reporting message to i.e. a processing center or control station (e.g. control station 150) and per ¶126 i.e. computing system for implementing wireless sensor networks and/or control and operation comprising hardware storage and circuitry reads on: and control circuitry which, in operation),
associates the identifier and an installation position of the detection-complete sensor, based on the received identifier and at least one of a plurality of the known installation positions of the plurality of sensors (MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 3 FIG. 4, FIG. 5 & ¶0060 See above; ¶0077 See above; ¶0079 See above; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: where per ¶0060 i.e. a look-up table linking PEG IDs with their respective absolute PEG positions at operation 350 is known, and per ¶0077 i.e. The reporting message may include i.e. identification information regarding the reporting PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 (e.g. PEG ID, and per ¶0079 i.e. the reporting reference PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 may be translated into reads on: associates to absolute location coordinates based on the known absolute locations of each PEG, and per ¶0077 i.e. The reporting message may include i.e. identification information regarding the reporting PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 (e.g. PEG ID, and per ¶0079 i.e. the reporting reference PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 the identifier, per ¶0079 i.e. be translated into i.e. absolute location coordinates based on the known absolute locations of each PEG reads on: and an installation position , where per ¶0077 each responding PEG i.e. (e.g. PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22) that has received an identification message broadcast by the TAG 413 of the detection-complete sensor . Furthermore per ¶0077 operation 528 i.e. The reporting message may include i.e. identification information regarding the reporting PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 (e.g. PEG ID) reads on: based on the received identifier and subsequently per ¶0079 operation 530 i.e. be translated into i.e. absolute location coordinates based on the known absolute locations of each PEG as per ¶0060 i.e. a look-up table linking PEG IDs with their respective absolute PEG positions at operation 350 reads on: and at least one of a plurality of the known installation positions of the plurality of sensors ),
wherein the control circuitry(MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 3 FIG. 4, FIG. 5 & ¶0077 See above; ¶0126 See above; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per 0077 i.e. sends or transmits a reporting message to i.e. a processing center or control station (e.g. control station 150) and per ¶126 i.e. computing system for implementing wireless sensor networks and/or control and operation comprising hardware storage and circuitry reads on: and control circuitry),
in a first path that is a part of the path (MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 3 FIG. 4, FIG. 5 & ¶0033 See above ;¶0077 See above; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0077 i.e. operation 528, each responding PEG (e.g. PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22) that has received an identification message broadcast by the TAG 413reads on: in a first path, per FIG. 1 – FIG. 4 & ¶0033 i.e. TAG 120 moves about within wireless sensor network 160 reads on: that is a part of the path where per ¶0033 i.e. PEGs 110 collectively create a reference sensor grid within wireless sensor network 160 and per ¶0077 responding PEG (e.g. PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22) that receive message broadcast i.e. detect TAG are part of the mobility area or the path of TAG ),
associates the identifier with the installation position of the detection-complete sensor, based on the plurality of known installation positions of the plurality of sensors (MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 3 FIG. 4, FIG. 5 & ¶0060 See above; ¶0077 See above; ¶0079 See above; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: where per ¶0060 i.e. a look-up table linking PEG IDs with their respective absolute PEG positions at operation 350 is known, and per ¶0077 i.e. The reporting message may include i.e. identification information regarding the reporting PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 (e.g. PEG ID, and per ¶0079 i.e. the reporting reference PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 may be translated into reads on: associates to absolute location coordinates based on the known absolute locations of each PEG, and per ¶0077 i.e. The reporting message may include i.e. identification information regarding the reporting PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 (e.g. PEG ID, and per ¶0079 i.e. the reporting reference PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 the identifier, per ¶0079 i.e. be translated into i.e. absolute location coordinates based on the known absolute locations of each PEG reads on: with the installation position, where per ¶0077 each responding PEG i.e. (e.g. PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22) that has received an identification message broadcast by the TAG 413 of the detection-complete sensor . Furthermore per ¶0077 operation 528 i.e. The reporting message may include i.e. identification information regarding the reporting PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 (e.g. PEG ID) and subsequently per ¶0079 operation 530 i.e. be translated into i.e. absolute location coordinates based on the known absolute locations of each PEG as per ¶0060 i.e. a look-up table linking PEG IDs with their respective absolute PEG positions at operation 350 reads on: based on the plurality of known installation positions of the plurality of sensors ),
the reception circuitry (MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 3C, ¶0054 […] Following the completion of neighbourhood detection by the selected requesting PEG 11, a reporting message assembling or including all of the responding messages received by the requesting PEG 11 is transmitted by the requesting PEG 11 to control station 150, as shown at operation 336, signifying the completion of neighbourhood detection by the requesting PEG 11 which transmitted the reporting message; ¶0126 […] implemented in whole or in part in a computer storage product with a computer-readable medium having computer code thereon for performing various computer-implemented operations according to […] methods described […] by a computer system. Such computer system may comprise […] computing system […] for implementing wireless sensor networks and/or control and operation […] and hardware devices that are specially configured to store and execute program code, such as application-specific integrated circuits; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per 0054 FIG. 3C i.e. a reporting message assembling or including all of the responding messages received by the requesting PEG 11 is transmitted by the requesting PEG 11 to control station 150 reads on: the information processing apparatus comprising: reception and per ¶0126 i.e. computer system implementing wireless sensor networks, hardware devices, circuits reads on: circuitry ),
receives from (MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 3C, FIG. 4 ¶0054 See above; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per 0054 FIG. 3C i.e. a reporting message assembling or including all of the responding messages i.e. received by the requesting PEG 11 is transmitted by the requesting PEG 11 to control station 150 reads on: receives from i.e. the requesting PEG 11)
a detection-incomplete sensor that is one of the plurality of sensors and that has not detected the object (MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 3C, FIG. 4; ¶0033 see above; ¶0054 See above; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per FIG. 4 all PEGs excluding per ¶0077 i.e. reporting PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 i.e. per FIG. 4 any one of PEGs 00, 03, 10, 20, 23, 30, 31, 32, 33 as depicted which are not identified as receiving broadcast message from TAG 413 reads on: a detection-incomplete sensor , where per FIG. 4 any one of PEGs 00, 03, 10, 20, 23, 30, 31, 32, 33 as depicted which are not identified as receiving broadcast message from TAG 413 reads on: that is one of the plurality of sensors and that has not detected the object),
reception strength information including an identifier of the detection-incomplete sensor and a reception strength of a signal of another one or more of the plurality of sensors in the detection-incomplete sensor (MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 3C, FIG. 4 & ¶0036 […] method of self-organizing a wireless sensor network 160 […] ; ¶0051 […] the broadcasting of identification messages by a requesting PEG 11, all other PEGs 110 are configured to receive, detect or listen for the identification messages broadcasted by the requesting PEG 11, and upon successful detection, to send or transmit a responding message to the requesting PEG 11 […] The responding message may include information on the power level at which the such identification messages were broadcasted and received, the PEG ID of the requesting PEG 11, and the PEG ID of the responding PEG (e.g. responding PEGs 01, 10, 12, 21) which has successfully detected the broadcasted identification message ; ¶0054 see above; ¶0055 […] at operation 338, the neighbourhood detection operations for the self-organization phase proceeds to determine if all PEGs 110 in the wireless sensor network 160 have detected their neighbourhoods. If not, the neighbourhood detection operations 330, 332, 334, 336 are repeated until all of the PEGs 110 in the wireless sensor network 160 have reported detection of their neighbourhoods ; ¶0059 [...] the relative distribution or location of PEGs 110 in space is oriented or mapped based on the known absolute locations of the gateway 130 and the anchor nodes 112 determined at operation 312; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: As part of per ¶0036 i.e. method of self-organizing a wireless sensor network 160, i.e. per ¶0051 i.e. The responding message may i.e. include information on the power level at which the such identification messages were broadcasted and received reads on: reception strength information and per ¶0051 i.e. the PEG ID of the requesting PEG 11 reads on: including an identifier of the detection-incomplete sensor inclusive of and the PEG ID of the responding PEG (e.g. responding PEGs 01, 10, 12, 21) as applied per ¶0055 and ¶0059 to all PEGS of sensor network 160 , and could be the PEGS of FIG. 4 i.e. any one of PEGs 00, 03, 10, 20, 23, 30, 31, 32, 33 as depicted which are not identified as receiving broadcast message from TAG 413 such as at least PEG 10 common with FIG. 4. Furthermore per ¶0051 i.e. The responding message may include information on the power level at which the such identification messages were broadcasted I.e. and received as applied to responding PEGs 01, 10, 12, 21 reads on: and a reception strength of a signal of another one or more of the plurality of sensors. Furthermore i.e. per ¶0051 i.e. to send or transmit a responding message to the requesting PEG 11 FIG. 3C 332 reads on: in the detection-incomplete sensor ),
and the control circuitry (MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 3C, FIG. 4 ¶0054 See above; ¶0126 See above; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per 0054 i.e. , a reporting message assembling or including all of the responding messages received by the requesting PEG 11 is i.e. transmitted by the requesting PEG 11 to control station 150 and per ¶126 i.e. computing system for implementing wireless sensor networks and/or control and operation comprising hardware storage and circuitry reads on: and control circuitry receiving the reporting message at control station 150)
associates (MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 3C, FIG. 4 ¶0054 See above; ¶0059 See above ; ¶0060 See above; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per 0059 i.e. at operation 346, the relative distribution or location of PEGs 110 in space is oriented or mapped based on the known absolute locations of the gateway 130 and the anchor nodes 112 determined at operation 312, and the overlapping neighbourhoods determined at operation 342 reads on: associates where using the information received per ¶0054, in ¶0060 i.e. at operation 348, the map of relative PEG positions with known PEG IDs in wireless sensor network 160, determined at operation 346, is correlated or combined with the map of absolute PEG positions 200 with unknown or unlinked PEG IDs determined from operation 310),
for the detection-incomplete sensor installed (MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 3C, FIG. 4; ¶0033 see above; ¶0054 See above; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: during self organization i.e. as applied per ¶0055 and ¶0059 to all PEGS of sensor network 160 , where per ¶0051 i.e. the PEG ID of the requesting PEG 11 could be the PEGS of FIG. 4 i.e. any one of PEGs 00, 03, 10, 20, 23, 30, 31, 32, 33 as depicted which are not identified as receiving broadcast message from TAG 413 reads on: for the detection-incomplete sensor installed such as PEG 10 overlapping with FIG. 4 )
on a second path that is a rest of the path (MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 3C, FIG. 4; ¶0033 see above; ¶0054 See above; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per FIG. 4 i.e. any one of PEGs 00, 03, 10, 20, 23, 30, 31, 32, 33 as depicted which are not identified as receiving broadcast message from TAG 413 are depicted as part of mobility area of TAG 413 reads on: on a second path where i.e. per FIG. 1 – FIG. 4 & ¶0033 i.e. TAG 120 moves about within wireless sensor network 160 reads on: that is a rest of the path where per ¶0033 i.e. PEGs 110 collectively create a reference sensor grid within wireless sensor network 160),
the identifier of the detection-incomplete sensor and an installation position of the detection-incomplete sensor, based on the reception strength information and an installation-position relation with the plurality of sensors (MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 2A., FIG. 3C, FIG. 4 ¶0039 […] (e.g. PEG 11) may in turn be configured as a requesting PEG 11 to consecutively send or broadcast wireless signals at predetermined time intervals and at incrementally increasing transmission power levels (e.g. transmission power levels 205 and 206) […] a neighbourhood which identifies each of the responding PEGs, such as PEGs 01, 10, 12, 21, which received the signal broadcast by that particular requesting PEG 11 […] the relative proximity of each of the responding PEGs 01, 10, 12, 21 to the requesting PEG 11 may be hierarchically determined, based on the power level at which the responding PEGs 01, 10, 12, 21 first detected the requesting PEG 11's broadcast signal; ¶0049 […] at operation 330, the selected requesting PEG 11 transmits, sends or broadcasts identification messages at incrementally increasing, predefined or predetermined power levels ;¶0054 See above; ¶0059 See above ; ¶0060 See above; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per 0054 FIG. 3C i.e. a reporting message assembling or including all of the responding messages which includes per ¶0051 i.e. the PEG ID of the requesting PEG 11 reads on: the identifier of the detection-incomplete sensor, where per 0059 i.e. at operation 346, the relative distribution or location of PEGs 110 in space is oriented or mapped based on the known absolute locations of the gateway 130 and the anchor nodes 112 determined at operation 312, and the overlapping neighbourhoods determined at operation 342 reads on: and an installation position of the detection-incomplete sensor, where per ¶0051 i.e. The responding message may include information on the power level at which the such identification messages were broadcasted and received reads on: based on the reception strength information , where per ¶0056 i.e. the neighbourhoods detected at different power levels are identified for each PEG 110 where per ¶0039 the neighbourhood of a particular requesting PEG 11 and i.e. the relative proximity of each of the responding PEGs i.e. may be hierarchically determined reads on: and an installation-position relation with the plurality of sensors , where using the information received per ¶0054, in ¶0060 i.e. at operation 348, the map of relative PEG positions with known PEG IDs in wireless sensor network 160, determined at operation 346, is correlated or combined with the map of absolute PEG positions 200 with unknown or unlinked PEG IDs determined from operation 310).
MARZENCKI does not appear to explicitly teach or strongly suggest (Note: See italicized portions): associates the identifier with the installation position in a reception order of a plurality of the identifiers;
Jun teaches: wherein the control circuitry in a first path that is a part of the path, associates the identifier with the installation position of the detection-complete sensor in a reception order of a plurality of the identifiers, based on the plurality of known installation positions of the plurality of sensors (Jun FIG. 4A-C & ¶0119 […] the controller 130 may acquire a change in position of the user on the basis of the reception order of the detection signals detected by the plurality of obstacle detectors ; ¶0131 […] a charging path in a case that the charging cap of the charging unit 117 is provided adjacent to the front panel 111; ¶0133 […] an obstacle detector 116a provided on the left side of the front panel 111 and approached by the user first outputs a detection signal of the obstacle for the first time, an obstacle detector 116b […] for the second time, and an obstacle detector 116c […] for the third time; ¶0134 […] vehicle may store the order of the first obstacle detector 116a, the second obstacle detector 116b, and the third obstacle detector 116c that output the detection signals in the storage as information corresponding to the charging path; ¶0189 The determining of the movement path of the user includes, in response to determining that an obstacle is detected by at least one obstacle detector, identifying the detection time at which the object is detected by each obstacle detector, identifying the installation positions of the obstacle detectors in the order of the earliest detection time first, acquiring a change in position of the user from the installation positions of the obstacle detectors corresponding to the order of the detection times, and identifying a movement path of the user corresponding to the acquired change in position of the user; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0119 the controller 130 may acquire a change in position of the user reads on: wherein the control circuitry per FIG. 4 ¶0131 i.e. a charging path where per ¶0133 obstacle detector 116a-116c are installed on segments of such as between from 116b to 116c reads on: in a first path where the whole path comprising all obstacle detectors as depicted reads on: that is a part of the path. Furthermore per ¶0189 i.e. identifying the detection time at which the object is detected by each obstacle detector, identifying the installation positions of the obstacle detectors in the order of the earliest detection time first reads on: associates the identifier with the installation position of , where i.e. identifying the detection time at which the object i.e. is detected by each obstacle detector reads on: the detection-complete sensor , i.e. identifying the installation positions of the obstacle detectors in the order of the earliest detection time first reads on: in a reception order of a plurality of the identifiers , per ¶0134 i.e. vehicle may store the order of the first obstacle detector 116a, the second obstacle detector 116b, and the third obstacle detector 116c reads on: based on the plurality of known installation positions of the plurality of sensors );
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of MARZENCKI with teachings of Jun, since Jun enables procedures that automatically detect obstacles and automatically performs functions, so that the convenience of use can be improved, and that increase the satisfaction of the user (Jun - ¶0358-¶0362).
While MARZENCKI in view of Jun teaches: An information processing apparatus for associating an identifier of each of a plurality of sensors and a known installation position of a corresponding one of the plurality of sensors, the plurality of sensors being installed along a path and detecting an object traveling through the path, the information processing apparatus comprising: reception circuitry, which, in operation, receives an identifier transmitted by a detection-complete sensor that is one of the plurality of sensors and that has detected the object; and control circuitry, which, in operation, associates the identifier and an installation position of the detection-complete sensor, based on the received identifier and at least one of a plurality of the known installation positions of the plurality of sensors, wherein the control circuitry, in a first path that is a part of the path, associates the identifier with the installation position of the detection-complete sensor in a reception order of a plurality of the identifiers, based on the plurality of known installation positions of the plurality of sensors, the reception circuitry receives, from a detection-incomplete sensor that is one of the plurality of sensors and that has not detected the object, reception strength information including an identifier of the detection-incomplete sensor and a reception strength of a signal of another one or more of the plurality of sensors in the detection-incomplete sensor, and the control circuitry associates, for the detection-incomplete sensor installed on a second path that is a rest of the path, the identifier of the detection-incomplete sensor and an installation position of the detection-incomplete sensor, based on the reception strength information and an installation-position relation with the plurality of sensors,
Where MARZENCKI as noted above teaches: receives, from a detection-incomplete sensor that is one of the plurality of sensors and that has not detected the object, reception strength information, and MARZENCKI combines teachings of FIG. 3C and FIG. 4, FIG. 5 to teach receives, from, and therefore as such,
MARZENCKI in view of Jun does not appear to explicitly teach or strongly suggest (i.e. MARZENCKI in a single embodiment does not appear to explicitly teach or strongly suggest, and i.e. appears to imply - see italicized portions): receives, from a detection-incomplete sensor;
Stone teaches: receives, from a detection-incomplete sensor that is one of the plurality of sensors and that has not detected the object, reception strength information (Stone – FIG. 1, ¶0014 […] premises management system that may monitor the premises and detect security events at the premises, […] The premises management system may comprise one or more premises device, such as one or more sensor devices […] of the premises ; ¶0020 […] alarm systems typically are unable to detect that a sensor device has become dislodged from its mounting and, for example, has fallen to the floor, resulting in a malfunction of the sensor device as opposed to a real security/alarm event […] ; ¶0068 […] At step 410, an apparatus, such as gateway device 120, gateway device 300, computing device 170 […] ;¶0076 […] The apparatus may determine that the sensor device moved in an abnormal manner based on a detected radio frequency (RF) value of the sensor device exceeding an RF power value (e.g., an average RF power value (e.g., −50 decibel milliwatts (dBm))) of the sensor device by a predetermined threshold (e.g., +/−10 dBm, +/−12 dBm, etc.) […] ; NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: per ¶0076 i.e. The apparatus may determine that the sensor device moved in an abnormal manner based on a detected radio frequency (RF) value of the sensor device exceeding an RF power value reads on: receives, from , where per ¶0076 i.e. the sensor device, and per ¶0020 i.e. a sensor device has become dislodged from its mounting and, for example, has fallen to the floor, i.e. resulting in a malfunction of the sensor device as opposed to a real security/alarm event reads on: a detection-incomplete sensor , and per FIG. 1 & ¶0014 i.e. premises management system that may monitor one or more sensor devices reads on: that is one of the plurality of sensors, and per ¶0020 i.e. resulting in a malfunction of the sensor device as opposed to a real security/alarm event reads on: and that has not detected the object and generates false alarms, where per ¶0076 i.e. based on a detected radio frequency (RF) value of the sensor device exceeding an RF power value reads on: reception strength information );
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of MARZENCKI in view of Jun with teachings of Stone, since Stone enables procedures to determine and verify a false alarm, where preventing false alarms may conserve processing capacity and memory resources of communication devices (Stone - ¶0020, ¶0067).
Regarding Claim 4 MARZENCKI teaches: An association method for an information processing apparatus (MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 4, FIG. 5 & ¶0077 […] At operation 528, each responding PEG (e.g. PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22) that has received an identification message broadcast by the TAG 413 sends or transmits a reporting message to a processing center or control station (e.g. control station 150) […] The reporting message may include information regarding the power levels (e.g. power levels 414, 416) at which individual identification messages have been transmitted and received, and identification information regarding the reporting PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 (e.g. PEG ID) and the broadcasting TAG 413 (e.g. TAG ID); NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: FIG. 5 & ¶0077 […] At operation 528 reads on: An association method Per ¶0077 i.e. control station 150 reads on: an information processing apparatus )
(See the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 4 recites reciprocal features that are similar and parallel to the features of Claim 1, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 1 applies similarly to Claim 4. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)
for associating an identifier of each of a plurality of sensors and a known installation position of a corresponding one of the plurality of sensors, the plurality of sensors being installed along a path and detecting an object traveling through the path,
the association method comprising: receiving an identifier transmitted by a detection-complete sensor that is one of the plurality of sensors and that has detected the object; associating, in a first path that is a part of the path, the identifier with an installation position of the detection-complete sensor in a reception order of a plurality of the identifiers, based on a plurality of the known installation positions of the plurality of sensors; receiving, from a detection-incomplete sensor that is one of the plurality of sensors and that has not detected the object, reception strength information including an identifier of the detection-incomplete sensor and a reception strength of a signal of another one or more of the plurality of sensors in the detection-incomplete sensor; and associating, for the detection-incomplete sensor installed on a second path that is a rest of the path, the identifier of the detection-incomplete sensor and an installation position of the detection-incomplete sensor, based on the reception strength information and an installation-position relation with the plurality of sensors(See the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 4 recites reciprocal features that are similar and parallel to the features of Claim 1, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 1 applies similarly to Claim 4. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Regarding Claim 5 MARZENCKI teaches: A sensor system (MARZENCKI – FIG. 1, FIG. 4, FIG. 5 & ¶0077 […] At operation 528, each responding PEG (e.g. PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22) that has received an identification message broadcast by the TAG 413 sends or transmits a reporting message to a processing center or control station (e.g. control station 150) […] The reporting message may include information regarding the power levels (e.g. power levels 414, 416) at which individual identification messages have been transmitted and received, and identification information regarding the reporting PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22 (e.g. PEG ID) and the broadcasting TAG 413 (e.g. TAG ID); NOTE-DISCLOSURE & TEACHING: FIG. 1-FIG. 4 per ¶0077 i.e. PEG (e.g. PEGs 01, 02, 11, 12, 13, 21, and 22), the network 160, the TAG 413 a processing center or control station (e.g. control station 150) reads on: A sensor system),
(See the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 5 recites reciprocal features that are similar and parallel to the features of Claim 1, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 1 applies similarly to Claim 5. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate)
comprising: a plurality of sensors that is installed along a path and detects an object traveling through the path; and an information processing apparatus that associates an identifier of each of the plurality of sensors and a known installation position of a corresponding one of the plurality of sensors, wherein the information processing apparatus comprises: reception circuitry, which, in operation, receives an identifier transmitted by a detection-complete sensor that is one of the plurality of sensors and that has detected the object; and control circuitry, which, in operation, associates the identifier and an installation position of the detection-complete sensor, based on the received identifier and at least one of a plurality of the known installation positions of the plurality of sensors, wherein the control circuitry, in a first path that is a part of the path, associates the identifier with the installation position of the detection-complete sensor in a reception order of a plurality of the identifiers, based on the plurality of known installation positions of the plurality of sensors, the reception circuitry receives, from a detection-incomplete sensor that is one of the plurality of sensors and that has not detected the object, reception strength information including an identifier of the detection-incomplete sensor and a reception strength of a signal of another one or more of the plurality of sensors in the detection-incomplete sensor, and the control circuitry associates, for the detection-incomplete sensor installed on a second path that is a rest of the path, the identifier of the detection-incomplete sensor and an installation position of the detection-incomplete sensor, based on the reception strength information and an installation-position relation with the plurality of sensors(See the rejection of Claim 1, Claim 5 recites reciprocal features that are similar and parallel to the features of Claim 1, and the rationale for the rejection of Claim 1 applies similarly to Claim 5. Where applicable, minor differences between claims are noted as appropriate).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 2, 3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable contingent upon or subject to all of the following conditions:
(1) that the claims are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as presented by applicant and referenced herein,
(2) that all independent claims were amended with similar, identical and parallel features and amendments in the independent claims representing identical features were submitted in a formal response,
(3) that the claim limitation(s) are not taken alone but in view of the entirety of the claim language including any preceding claim limitations, any proceeding claim limitations, and any intervening claim limitations,
(4) that all pending issues associated with the claims including:
(a) clarifying applicable issues related with claim objections under minor informalities and 112 (b) rejections,
(b) issues related with the entirety of the claim language including any preceding claim limitations, any proceeding claim limitations, and any intervening claim limitations, including the independent claims,
are all acceptably resolved, and do not result in a case where, given the scope of any applicant claimed amendments and/or arguments, examination would require would require further consideration and search.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 2 The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein the control circuitry sets, as the first path, a path through which the object travels such that the number of sensors that detect the object is maximized”.
Regarding Claim 3 The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “wherein the control circuitry sets, as the first path, a path through which the object travels such that the object travels over the widest range”.
Please note: The examiner notes the above limitation(s) are not taken alon