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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment/reconsideration filed 12/13/2024, the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claims 128-140, 145-146 and 148-152 are pending for examination, the rejection cited as stated below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the following issues.
(A) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Issue 1: The applicant argues with respect to claims 128 and 145 that claim 48 of the ‘296 application does not teach the claimed limitations because claim 48 of the ‘296 requires an OEM database and asset manager that reads proprietary data from the OEM database and combines it with operating data from refrigeration appliance assets”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Without conceding, even if claim 48 of the ‘296 had such an additional requirement, having additional or more specific required limitations would not impact the anticipation.
Issue 2: The applicant argues with respect to claims 128 and 145 that claim 48 of the ‘296 application does not teach the claimed limitations because claim 48 of the ‘296 fails to disclose “any requirements for product temperature simulations being performed in the edge computing device of an IOT device for a refrigeration application, as set forth in claims 129 and 145 of the present application”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First of all, it is to be noted that claim 48 of the ‘296 application depends on claim 45 which further depends on claim 44, wherein claim 44 recites “each IOT device being bound to a respective refrigeration appliance and comprising a modem configured for network communication and one or more I/O ports configured for wired connection to the respective refrigeration appliance; an asset manager configured to receive operating data from source refrigeration appliances transmitted via the modems of the plurality of IOT devices”, wherein the IOT device is equivalent to an edge computing device. Secondly, it is to be noted that the claimed limitation “a simulation of a product temperature based on the return air temperature data read from the I/O port” without requiring a specific relationship between the simulated temperature and the read temperature data, as a result, Examiner interprets any relationship including being identical. As a result, claim 48 of the ‘296 application including all its parent claims reads on the claimed limitation when the read data is identical to or used as simulated data.
Issue 3: The applicant argues with respect to claims 128 and 145 that claim 107 of the ‘421 application does not teach the claimed limitations because claim 107 of the ‘421 requires an OEM database and asset manager that reads proprietary data from the OEM database and combines it with operating data from refrigeration appliance assets.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Without conceding, even if claim 48 of the ‘296 had such an additional requirement, having additional or more specific required limitations would not impact the anticipation.
(B) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Issue 1: The applicant argues with respect to claim 145 that Hirsch in view of Allsbrook fails to teach “each edge computing device being bound to a respective refrigeration appliance and configured to read an air temperature from the refrigeration appliance at a sampling frequency, each edge computing device being further configured to simulate a product temperature representative of a product stored in the refrigeration appliance based on the air temperature at a simulation frequency” because “in Allsbrook, the temperature prediction API is handled by an "edge" in the network that is located an analogous network level to the control unit of Hirsh - not the level of Hirsch's temperature sensor units.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because Allsbrook is merely brought in to teach a concept of a computing device being an edge computing device for performing simulation/prediction based on measured temperature data. It is not a mechanical combination of two systems of Hirsch and Allsbrook, but instead, it is the concept taught by Allsbrook regarding a computing device being an edge computing device for performing simulation/prediction based on measured temperature that is relied upon to be combined with Hirssch. For example, Allsbrook teaches layers of edge devices as cited in the office action, e.g. Figure 5, one of the edge devices can be located at the premises being a SmartRoom Edge which can have the simulation functionality. Also see [0052], “a SmartRoom Edge 502 would need sufficient dataset or integrations to fulfill a request to implement the/getRoomTemperature APL”
Issue 2: The Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 129-140 are based on the Applicant’s arguments above. See Examiner’s response above.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
4. Claims 128 and 145 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 48 of co-pending application 18362296. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of the independent claim 128 of the instant application are claimed in claim 48 of the co-pending application, i.e., claim 48 of the co-pending application is more specific. Thus the invention of claim 48 of the co-pending application is in effect a "species" of the "generic" invention of claim 128 of the instant application. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 145 is similarly rejected.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
4. Claims 128 and 145 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 107 of co-pending application 18362421. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of the independent claim 128 of the instant application are claimed in claim 107 of the co-pending application, i.e., claim 107 of the co-pending application is more specific. Thus the invention of claim 107 of the co-pending application is in effect a "species" of the "generic" invention of claim 128 of the instant application. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 145 is similarly rejected.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claims 145-146, and 148-152 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch et al (US 2022/0011045) in view of Allsbrook et al (US 2020/0195716).
As to claim 145, Hirsch discloses an asset management system for a plurality of refrigeration appliances (Figure 5), the asset management system comprising:
a remote asset manager configured to receive a stream of operating data from the refrigeration appliances (Figure 5, the control center; [0020], “The temperature sensor unit has a temperature sensor, a power supply, a data transmission element and a control unit. The temperature sensor unit can be battery based for the power supply. The data transmission element is intended to make a direct or indirect connection with the control center, wherein direct would comprise connections e.g. in the same LAN, while indirect means, e.g. over the internet or other wireless transmission means”; [0056], “The temperature sensor unit 20 records every 2 minutes the environment temperature Te in the cooler 10 and transfers it to a remote control unit”);
a plurality of edge computing devices, each edge computing device being bound to a respective refrigeration appliance and configured to read an air temperature from the refrigeration appliance at a sampling frequency (see Figure 5 for a plurality of temperature sensor units, each including a control unit, see Figure 4, the control unit 27 is equivalent to an edge computing device operatively connected to the I/O port of the temperature sensor 25 to read temperature in predetermined intervals, see [0058]), the edge computing device comprising a processor and a memory storing processor executable instructions configuring the processor for reading return air temperature data from the I/O port at a sampling frequency (Figure 4; [0058], “The temperature sensor 25 is connected to a control unit 27 which is connected to a battery or power supply 28 to control taking measurements with the temperature sensor 25 in predefined intervals (here 2 minutes) and to send them vie antenna unit 29 to the remote control center 300, preferably via LoRaWan 200 as shown in FIG. 5 but also other especially wireless transmission means are possible”; [0056], “The temperature sensor unit 20 records every 2 minutes the environment temperature Te in the cooler 10 and transfers it to a remote control unit”),
wherein each edge computing device is further configured to transmit operating data to the asset manager via an asset management network in transmissions transmitted at a transmission frequency, each transmission including the air temperature read from the refrigeration appliance at the sampling frequency (Figure 4; [0058], “The temperature sensor 25 is connected to a control unit 27 which is connected to a battery or power supply 28 to control taking measurements with the temperature sensor 25 in predefined intervals (here 2 minutes) and to send them vie antenna unit 29 to the remote control center 300, preferably via LoRaWan 200 as shown in FIG. 5 but also other especially wireless transmission means are possible”; [0020], “The temperature sensor unit has a temperature sensor, a power supply, a data transmission element and a control unit. The temperature sensor unit can be battery based for the power supply. The data transmission element is intended to make a direct or indirect connection with the control center, wherein direct would comprise connections e.g. in the same LAN, while indirect means, e.g. over the internet or other wireless transmission means”; [0059], “data transfer via LoRaWan 200 and the internet 205 also to use the GSM/mobile phone infrastructure 210”).
Hirsch further teaches a computer device being further configured to simulate a product temperature representative of a product stored in the refrigeration appliance based on the air temperature at a simulation frequency ([0055], “The model then allows to estimate core temperatures Tc at any location within the cooler 10, 10', 13”; [0059], “data transfer via LoRaWan 200 and the internet 205 also to use the GSM/mobile phone infrastructure 210”; abstract, “A control center unit having a computer processor and a memory is adapted to execute a deterministic mode function to predict the core temperature change of such a food item on a predefined food item position in said cooler. The deterministic mode function depends on heat transfer parameters related to the predefined food item position of the cooler used, food specific coefficients related to the kind of food item taken from a group of food types, the environment temperature measured by the temperature sensor, and the predicted current core temperature of the food item”, wherein the predicted current core temperature of the food item being based on for further prediction/simulation indicates that the prediction/simulation is being periodically run at a simulation frequency. It is to be noted that the claim does not require a constant simulation/prediction frequency),
However, Hirsch does not expressly disclose that the computer device is an edge computer device or that the product temperature simulated/predicted at the simulation frequency is transmitted by the edge device.
Allsbrook discloses a concept of a computing device being an edge computing device for performing simulation/prediction based on measured temperature data (figure 5; figure 9; [0051], “Activities of the IoT system 1 implemented by the edges can be defined as a set of application programming interfaces or "API's." This set may be referred to herein as a "schema." For temperature related operations, a schema of the system 1 can include APIs for activities such as requesting a room temperature, requesting a list of authorized room users, requesting a list of room owners, predicting the temperature based on a temperature history for the room, and predicting the room's temperature based on information from external data sources”) and transmitting the predicted/simulated temperature data by the edge device ([0054], “although in one embodiment, each edge may have exactly one edge and 0 to many child edges. In addition, a connection between edges may be configured to have a bi-directional information flow. An edge can ask its parent and any children for an API request to be fulfilled, and the networked edge will then either answer the request or pass it along to its connections for fulfillment”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Hirsch with Allsbrook. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to utilize distributed edges to perform tasks (Allsbrook, figure 5; [0051]).
As to claim 146 Hirsch-Allsbrook discloses the asset management system as set forth in claim 145, wherein for each edge computing device, the transmission frequency is less than the sampling frequency and the simulation frequency (Hirsch, see citation in rejection to claim 145, wherein the sampling frequency is once every 2 minutesl See Allsbrook, figure 7, responding to the request is conditional on sufficient dataset which can be true or false, therefore the responding/transmitting frequency is less than the sampling frequency and predicting/simulation frequency).
As to claim 148, Hirsch-Allsbrook discloses the asset management system as set forth in claim 145, wherein the remote asset manager is configured to store the air temperatures and product temperatures in each transmission in a time series database (Hirsch, [0021], “The control center unit has a computer processor and a memory, adapted to execute a deterministic mode function predicting the core temperature change over time, i.e. for a food item on a predefined food item position in said monitored cooler. Within the memory is stored a database with data entries specific for each cooler type intended to be monitored by the food safety system…the environment temperature (Tec1) measured by the temperature sensor of the temperature sensor unit and the predicted current core temperature”; [0048], “The model, e.g. based on SDEs, is then checked with calibrated available data as data-driven parameter inference. Based on a time series analysis with prediction the core temperature of product groups at specific places in the cooler is predicted”).
As to claim 149, Hirsch-Allsbrook discloses the asset management system as set forth in claim 148, wherein each edge computing device is configured to detect an alarm condition when the simulated product temperature crosses an alarm threshold (Hirsch, [0060], “the knowledge, if a temperature of one food category at a specific position in the cooler 10 would raise and perhaps rise beyond the authorized threshold for the product base on the predicted temperature, is transmitted via an alarm server 310 to a user 320 at the premises 110 via e.g. a smartphone or an alarm computer in the unit 110”; Allsbrook, the wherein the computer systems can reside in an edge system, see Figure 5; Figure 9; and [0051]; [0054]).
As to claim 150, Hirsch-Allsbrook discloses the asset management system as set forth in claim 149, wherein each edge computing device is configured to send an alarm indication to the remote asset manager via the asset management network immediately upon detecting the alarm condition (Hirsch, [0060], “the knowledge, if a temperature of one food category at a specific position in the cooler 10 would raise and perhaps rise beyond the authorized threshold for the product base on the predicted temperature, is transmitted via an alarm server 310 to a user 320 at the premises 110 via e.g. a smartphone or an alarm computer in the unit 110. The user 320, usually an employee of the company can then check the reasons for this finding and take appropriate measures, e.g. replace a faulty cooler, check the isolation of doors 18 etc,” without disclosing a delay for the transmission; See Allsbrook, the wherein the computer systems can reside in an edge system, see Figure 5; Figure 9; and [0051]; [0054]).
As to claim 151 Hirsch-Allsbrook discloses the asset management system as set forth in claim 150, wherein each edge computing device is configured to send the alarm indication asynchronously with respect to the transmission frequency ([0060], “the knowledge, if a temperature of one food category at a specific position in the cooler 10 would raise and perhaps rise beyond the authorized threshold for the product base on the predicted temperature, is transmitted via an alarm server 310 to a user 320 at the premises 110 via e.g. a smartphone or an alarm computer in the unit 110. The user 320, usually an employee of the company can then check the reasons for this finding and take appropriate measures, e.g. replace a faulty cooler, check the isolation of doors 18 etc,” without disclosing waiting for the completion before any further prediction. See Allsbrook, the wherein the computer systems can reside in an edge system, see Figure 5; Figure 9; and [0051]; [0054).
As to claim 152 Hirsch-Allsbrook discloses the asset management system as set forth in claim 151, wherein the asset manager is configured to recognize each alarm indication as an event and immediately conduct event driven processing to push a notification to one or more users ([0060], “the knowledge, if a temperature of one food category at a specific position in the cooler 10 would raise and perhaps rise beyond the authorized threshold for the product base on the predicted temperature, is transmitted via an alarm server 310 to a user 320 at the premises 110 via e.g. a smartphone or an alarm computer in the unit 110. The user 320, usually an employee of the company can then check the reasons for this finding and take appropriate measures, e.g. replace a faulty cooler, check the isolation of doors 18 etc,” without disclosing a delay for the notification. See Allsbrook, the wherein the computer systems can reside in an edge system, see Figure 5; Figure 9; and [0051]; [0054]).
9. Claims 128-129 and 134-137 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch et al (US 2022/0011045) in view of Spencer et al (US 2022/0034847) and Allsbrook et al (US 2020/0195716).
As to claim 128, Hirsch discloses an IoT device for connecting a refrigeration appliance to a
remote asset management system, the IOT device (Figure 5; [0059], the distributed temperature sensor unit 20) comprising:
an I/O port configured to connect to a cable connector terminating a wire carrying a signal including an indication of a return air temperature of the refrigeration appliance (Figure 5 and abstract; Figure 4; [0058], “The temperature sensor 25 is connected to a control unit 27 which is connected to a battery or power supply 28 to control taking measurements with the temperature sensor 25 in predefined intervals (here 2 minutes) and to send them vie antenna unit 29 to the remote control center 300, preferably via LoRaWan 200 as shown in FIG. 5 but also other especially wireless transmission means are possible”; [0020], “The temperature sensor unit has a temperature sensor, a power supply, a data transmission element and a control unit. The temperature sensor unit can be battery based for the power supply. The data transmission element is intended to make a direct or indirect connection with the control center, wherein direct would comprise connections e.g. in the same LAN, while indirect means, e.g. over the internet or other wireless transmission means”. Here, the control unit 27 is equivalent to an edge computing device operatively connected to the I/O port of the temperature sensor 25 as illustrated in Figure 4, the I/O port is configured to connect to a cable connector terminating a wire carrying a signal (see Figure 4, the connection between temperature sensor 25 and control unit 27) including an indication of a return air temperature of the refrigeration appliance to be sent to the control unit 27, which further transmitted out via the data transmission element 29 (see [0058]. See also [0056], “The temperature sensor unit 20 records every 2 minutes the environment temperature Te in the cooler 10 and transfers it to a remote control unit”);
an edge computing device operatively connected to the I/O port (see Figure 4, the control unit 27 is equivalent to an edge computing device operatively connected to the I/O port of the temperature sensor 25 to read temperature in predetermined intervals, see [0058]), the edge computing device comprising a processor and a memory storing processor executable instructions configuring the processor for reading return air temperature data from the I/O port at a sampling frequency (Figure 4; [0058], “The temperature sensor 25 is connected to a control unit 27 which is connected to a battery or power supply 28 to control taking measurements with the temperature sensor 25 in predefined intervals (here 2 minutes) and to send them vie antenna unit 29 to the remote control center 300, preferably via LoRaWan 200 as shown in FIG. 5 but also other especially wireless transmission means are possible”; [0056], “The temperature sensor unit 20 records every 2 minutes the environment temperature Te in the cooler 10 and transfers it to a remote control unit”); and
a data transmission element configured for network communication, the edge computing device configured to control transmission of the return air temperature data read from the I/O port to the asset management system via the data transmission element (Figure 4; [0058], “The temperature sensor 25 is connected to a control unit 27 which is connected to a battery or power supply 28 to control taking measurements with the temperature sensor 25 in predefined intervals (here 2 minutes) and to send them vie antenna unit 29 to the remote control center 300, preferably via LoRaWan 200 as shown in FIG. 5 but also other especially wireless transmission means are possible”; [0020], “The temperature sensor unit has a temperature sensor, a power supply, a data transmission element and a control unit. The temperature sensor unit can be battery based for the power supply. The data transmission element is intended to make a direct or indirect connection with the control center, wherein direct would comprise connections e.g. in the same LAN, while indirect means, e.g. over the internet or other wireless transmission means”; [0059], “data transfer via LoRaWan 200 and the internet 205 also to use the GSM/mobile phone infrastructure 210”);
wherein a computing device is configured to periodically run a simulation of a product temperature based on the return air temperature data read from the I/O port ([0055], “The model then allows to estimate core temperatures Tc at any location within the cooler 10, 10', 13”; [0059], “data transfer via LoRaWan 200 and the internet 205 also to use the GSM/mobile phone infrastructure 210”; abstract, “A cont`rol center unit having a computer processor and a memory is adapted to execute a deterministic mode function to predict the core temperature change of such a food item on a predefined food item position in said cooler. The deterministic mode function depends on heat transfer parameters related to the predefined food item position of the cooler used, food specific coefficients related to the kind of food item taken from a group of food types, the environment temperature measured by the temperature sensor, and the predicted current core temperature of the food item”, wherein the predicted current core temperature of the food item being based on for further prediction/simulation indicates that the prediction/simulation is being periodically run),
However, Hirsch does not expressly disclose that the data transmission element is a modem, or that the computing device is an edge computing device.
Spencer et al discloses a data transmission element being a modem for transmitting sensor signal/data ([0074], “The wireless transceiver 26 may feature in Internet of Things modem which may be a LoRaWan modem…The transceiver 26 may be configured to communicate with one or more pole sensor system 23, wherein the 4G modem 27 may be configured to communicate with the server 21”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Hirsch with Spencer. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to enable communicating between sensor systems and a server (Spencer, [0074]).
Allsbrook discloses a concept of a computing device being an edge computing device for performing simulation/prediction based on measured temperature data (figure 5; figure 9; [0051], “Activities of the IoT system 1 implemented by the edges can be defined as a set of application programming interfaces or "API's." This set may be referred to herein as a "schema." For temperature related operations, a schema of the system 1 can include APIs for activities such as requesting a room temperature, requesting a list of authorized room users, requesting a list of room owners, predicting the temperature based on a temperature history for the room, and predicting the room's temperature based on information from external data sources”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Hirsch with Allsbrook. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to utilize distributed edges to perform tasks (Allsbrook, figure 5; [0051]).
As to claim 129, Hirsch-Spencer-Allsbrook discloses the IOT device as set forth in claim 128, wherein the edge computing device is configured to run the simulation of the product temperature at the sampling frequency (Hirsch, [0022], “therefore calculating a predicted core temperature for a specific food type specimen at a specific food item position in a predetermined cooler type based on the input value of a measured temperature” indicating each measured temperature results in a predicted temperature, wherein the measured temperate is available at the sampling frequency, see [0056], “The temperature sensor unit 20 records every 2 minutes the environment temperature Te in the cooler 10 and transfers it to a remote control unit.”).
As to claim 134, Hirsch-Spencer-Allsbrook discloses the device of claim 128, wherein the edge computing device is configured to transmit the return air temperature read from the I/O port to the asset management system via the modem at a transmission frequency less than the sampling frequency (Hirsch, see citation in rejection to claim 128, wherein the sampling frequency is once every 2 minutes. See Allsbrook, figure 7, responding to the request is conditional on sufficient dataset which can be true or false, therefore the responding/transmitting frequency is less than the sampling frequency and predicting/simulation frequency).
As to claim 135, Hirsch-Spencer-Allsbrook discloses the IOT device of claim 134, wherein the edge computing device is configured to run the simulation of the product temperature at a simulation frequency, the transmission frequency being less than the simulation frequency (Hirsch, see citation in rejection to claim 145, wherein the sampling frequency is once every 2 minutesl See Allsbrook, figure 7, responding to the request is conditional on sufficient dataset which can be true or false, therefore the responding/transmitting frequency is less than the sampling frequency and predicting/simulation frequency).
As to claim 136, Hirsch-Spencer-Allsbrook discloses the IOT device of claim 134, wherein the edge computing device is configured to detect an alarm condition when the simulated product temperature crosses a product temperature threshold (see similar rejection to claim 149).
As to claim 137, Hirsch-Spencer-Allsbrook discloses the IOT device of claim 136, wherein the edge computing device is configured to send an alarm indication to the asset management system via the modem immediately upon detecting the alarm condition such that sending the alarm indication is asynchronous with respect to the transmission frequency (see similar rejection to claims 150-151; See Spencer regarding modem used for transmission).
10. Claims 130-133 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch in view of Spencer and Allsbrook, as applied to claim 128 above, and further in view of Nam et al (US 5262758).
As to claim 130, Hirsch-Spencer-Allsbrook discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in 129, but does not expressly disclose wherein the sampling frequency is in an inclusive range of from 0.1 to 10 samples-per-second. Nam discloses a concept of sampling temperature in a frequency that is in an inclusive range of from 0.1 to 10 samples-per-second (col. 7, lines 62-70, “temperature samples might be required every 10 seconds, or every 10 minutes, or any other suitable period depending on the specific environment. Alarm periods might be much shorter or much longer” wherein every 10 seconds equals 0.1 samples-per-second hence is in an inclusive range of from 0.1 to 10 samples-per-second).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Hirsch-Spencer-Allsbrook with Nam. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to sample sufficiently quickly to allow notification of problems (Nam, col. 7, lines 62-70).
As to claim 131, Hirsch-Spencer-Allsbrook-Nam discloses the IOT device as set forth in claim 128, wherein the edge computing device is configured to run the simulation of the product temperature at least once per minute (Nam, col. 7, lines 62-70, “temperature samples might be required every 10 seconds, or every 10 minutes, or any other suitable period depending on the specific environment. Alarm periods might be much shorter or much longer” wherein every 10 seconds is at least once per minute. See Hirsch, Hirsch, [0022], “therefore calculating a predicted core temperature for a specific food type specimen at a specific food item position in a predetermined cooler type based on the input value of a measured temperature” indicating each measured temperature results in a predicted temperature, hence same frequency, e.g., at once every 10 seconds as disclosed by Nam as cited above).
As to claim 132, Hirsch-Spencer-Allsbrook-Nam discloses the IOT device as set forth in claim 128, wherein the edge computing device is configured to run the simulation of the product temperature at least six times per minute (see citation and explaination in rejection to claim 131 above, wherein once every 10 seconds is at least six times per minute).
As to claim 133, Hirsch-Spencer-Allsbrook-Nam discloses the IOT device as set forth in claim 128, wherein the edge computing device is configured to run the simulation of the product temperature at a simulation frequency in an inclusive range of from 0.1 to 10 simulations-per-second (see citation and explanation in rejection to claim 131 above, wherein once every 10 seconds is in an inclusive range of from 0.1 to 10 simulations-per-second).
11. Claims 138-139 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch in view of Spencer and Allsbrook, as applied to claim 128 above, and further in view of Konovalenko (“Real-time temperature prediction in a cold supply chain based on Newton’s law of cooling”).
As to claim 138, Hirsch-Spencer-Allsbrook discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 128, including that the simulation of the product temperature is based on a filter function, the filter function being a function of the sampled return air temperature (Hirsch, [0050], but does not expressly disclose that the filter function includes an exponentially decay filter. Konovalenko discloses a concept for predicting/simulating a temperature based on a filter function including an exponentially decay filter (page 4, equation (3) and the corresponding description of the equation in the subsequent lines on the same page).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Hirsch-Spencer-Allsbrook with Konovalenko. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to predict temperature based on an ambient temperature (Konovalenko, page 4, equation (3) and the corresponding description of the equation in the subsequent lines on the same page).
As to claim 139, Hirsch-Spencer-Allsbrook-Konovalenko discloses the IOT device of claim 138, wherein the edge computing device is configured to simulate the product temperature by calculating an equation:
T(t) = Ts + (T0 - Ts) e-kt; wherein T(t) is the simulated product temperature;
Ts is the return air temperature read by the edge computing device;
T0 is an initial product temperature when the product was loaded into the refrigeration
appliance; and
k is an experimentally derived heat transfer coefficient for the product
(Konovalenko, page 4, equation (3) and the corresponding description of the equation in the subsequent lines on the same page).
12. Claim 140 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch in view of Spencer and Allsbrook-Konovalenko, as applied to claim 139 above, and further in view McGann et al (US 2006/0063141).
As to claim 140, Hirsch-Spencer-Allsbrook-Konovalenko discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 139, but does not expressly disclose read an ambient temperature outside the refrigeration appliance and automatically set T0 to the ambient temperature when the product is loaded into the refrigeration appliance. McGann discloses determining temperature using Newton’s Law of Cooling and setting the initial temperature of a product sample to be the room temperature ([0135]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Hirsch-Spencer-Allsbrook-Konovalenko with McGann. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to determine a sample’s temperature starting from room temperature (McGann, [0135]).
Conclusion
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
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, Glen Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUA FAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458