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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), filed on 6/17/2025 in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-12 and 14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. 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: The applicant argues with respect to independent claims such as claim 1 that the amended limitations overcome the current rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. See Examiner’s response in the rejection to the amended limitations below. It is to be noted that the Examiner’s rejection is based upon her broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, but that the specification cannot be read into the claims. Applicant argues by pointing to the examples in the specification, however, the examples cannot be read into the claims, without a controlling definition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-5, 7-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa (JP2022133981, submitted by IDS, Google Translation relied upon) in view of John et al (US 2014/0142876).
As to claim 1, Kitagawa discloses a method of constructing a factory energy management system (FEMS) network (page 4, “The present disclosure relates to a wireless communication area construction support system, a support device, and a mobile object. In factories, buildings, and other indoor locations, there may be a mixture of communication areas where radio waves can be transmitted and received between the base station of a mobile communication network and dead areas where radio waves cannot be transmitted and received. One method for reducing dead areas is to install relay devices inside the building that relay communications between communication terminals and the base station”; page 6, paragraph 2, “According to the present disclosure, it is possible to identify candidate installation positions for relay units capable of relaying radio waves to blind areas”; and claim 1, “wireless communication area construction support system”. Here, the system of managing the radio wave energy distribution in a factory is equivalent to a factory energy management system (FEMS)), the method comprising:
obtaining a first metric and a second metric based on configuration information of the FEMS network (page 2, claim 1, “a first receiving unit that receives, from a communication device mounted on the first moving object, first communication quality information indicating a first communication quality between the radio control station and the communication device”; “an insensitive area identifying unit that identifies an insensitive area in the target area based on the first communication quality information at a plurality of positions in the target area acquired while the first moving object is moving in the target area”; “a second receiving unit that receives second communication quality information indicating a second communication quality by a communication device mounted on the first mobile object or the second mobile object”, wherein the first communication quality information is a first metric, and the second communication quality information is a second metric), both obtained based on configuration information such as communication channels between radio control station and the communication devices on first or second mobile objects), and
optimizing distribution of repeaters included in the FEMS network based on the first metric and the second metric (page 2, claim 1, “an insensitive area identifying unit that identifies an insensitive area in the target area based on the first communication quality information at a plurality of positions in the target area acquired while the first moving object is moving in the target area”; “a candidate position determination unit that determines a candidate installation position of the relay unit based on the second communication quality information acquired while a relay mobile body, which is one of the first mobile body and the second mobile body, is located in a communication available area other than the undetectable area of the target area, and a terminal mobile body, which is one of the first mobile body and the second mobile body other than the relay mobile body, is moving in the undetectable area”, wherein the undetectable/dead/insensitive area was determined based on the first communication quality information),
wherein the first metric indicates whether a signal sent by a communication node is transmitted normally (see citation above, e.g., page 2, claim 1, “an insensitive area identifying unit that identifies an insensitive area in the target area based on the first communication quality information at a plurality of positions in the target area acquired while the first moving object is moving in the target area”, wherein identifying “dead area” indicates determining whether the signal from said area is normal),
wherein the second metric is related to a probability that a specific repeater is included in a communication path through which the signal is transmitted (page 2, claim 1, “a first receiving unit that receives, from a communication device mounted on the first moving object, first communication quality information indicating a first communication quality between the radio control station and the communication device”; “an insensitive area identifying unit that identifies an insensitive area in the target area based on the first communication quality information at a plurality of positions in the target area acquired while the first moving object is moving in the target area”; “a second receiving unit that receives second communication quality information indicating a second communication quality by a communication device mounted on the first mobile object or the second mobile object”; “a candidate position determination unit that determines a candidate installation position of the relay unit based on the second communication quality information acquired while a relay mobile body, which is one of the first mobile body and the second mobile body, is located in a communication available area other than the undetectable area of the target area, and a terminal mobile body, which is one of the first mobile body and the second mobile body other than the relay mobile body, is moving in the undetectable area”; page 2, “The wireless communication area construction support system according to claim 1 , wherein the second receiving unit receives, from the first communication device or the second communication device, the second communication quality information indicating the second communication quality between the first communication device and the second communication device”; “a terminal communication device, which is one of the first communication device and the second communication device and is mounted on the terminal mobile body, wirelessly communicates with a relay communication device, which is one of the first communication device and the second communication device and is mounted on the relay mobile body, at a plurality of heights different from each other”; page 3, “the dead area identifying unit identifies, as the dead area, a convex hull of a plurality of positions in the target area where the first communication quality is lower than a first reference value…When the area of the convex hull is smaller than a predetermined lower limit, the blind area identifying unit creates an area of a predetermined area including each position where the first communication quality is lower than the first reference value, and identifies a union of the created areas as the blind area.”
Here, the dead area is identified by identifying positions wherein the first communication quality of the signal received from the specific communication device/repeater at the position is lower than the first reference value, therefore identifying the dead area reflects that the specific communication device/repeater at each position of said positions is included in a communication path through which the corresponding signal is transmitted. See citation above, e.g., page 2, “determines a candidate installation position of the relay unit based on the second communication quality information acquired while a relay mobile body, which is one of the first mobile body and the second mobile body, is located in a communication available area other than the undetectable area of the target area”, here, the second metric is disclosed to be related to whether a specific repeater/relay mobile body is located in an area other than the identified dead area, which in turn is related to the communication path from which the signal is received).
However, Kitagawa does not expressly disclose that the second metric indicates a probability that a specific repeater is included in the communication path, or identifying whether the second metric is less than a threshold related to a probability that the specific repeater is included in the communication path: and removing an unnecessary repeater in response to identifying that the second metric is less than the threshold.
John discloses a concept of a second metric that indicates a probability that a specific repeater is included in a communication path, and identifying whether the second metric is less than a threshold related to a probability that the specific repeater is included in the communication path: and removing an unnecessary repeater in response to identifying that the second metric is less than the threshold ([0243], “An example of how this type of path defining operation may benefit a user of the network can be illustrated using the case of a floor carpeted with X rows and Y columns of repeater tiles, which in this exemplary embodiment will be set to be 4 rows and 4 columns. In the example deployment shown in FIG. 9, a tile repeater 810-16 at location (2, 2) was found to be performing at 50% efficiency during a calibration session. In the case where the PPC 1002 cannot reprogram the repeater 810-16 or otherwise adjust it to potentially improve its performance, it may be advantageous to avoid the potentially negative impact of this repeater tile 810-16 on the system performance by effectively removing this repeater from the system. Repeater 810-16 could be physically removed from the system …Repeater 810-16 could also be logically removed from the system, by detuning or open circuiting the resonator for example. Alternatively, if by replacement or improvement of the existing repeater structure 810-16, it performance could be improved, for example by raising the efficiency from 50% to 85%, it may be reasonable to keep the repeater active in the intended path.” Also see [0329], “The repeater set protocol can define which repeaters 810 are activated, deactivated (e.g., detuned) and can also determine what paths energy takes when moving from a transmitter 802 to a target device 806. The repeater set protocol can also change the resonant frequency that the repeater set is tuned to”.
Here, “determining what paths energy takes when moving from a transmitter 802 to a target device 806” indicates determining the repeaters in the paths, see Figure 8, therefore, is equivalent to determining whether each of these repeaters are included in the communication path, wherein the probability is either 0 or 1. A second metric such as the repeater efficiency (see [0243], “50%”) is compared to a threshold efficiency ([0243], “85%”) to determine remove the repeater if the metric (efficiency) is less than the threhold, wherein the threshold efficiency 85% is related to the probability (“1”) that the specific repeater is included in the communication path, the relationship being that the threshold is used to determine whether to maintenance the probability that the specific repeater is included in the communication path, e.g., turned to the system frequency or physically remain. It is to be noted that the claimed does not limit a specific type of relationship between the threshold and the probability therefore Examiner interprets as any type of relationship.
“a second metric that indicates a probability that a specific repeater is included in the communication path” is also taught by the above cited portions, since the claimed does not require a specific type of “indication”. For example, a positive calibration efficiency indicates that a probability of the repeater being in the current communication path is “1”, as supported by the disclosure, e.g., [0243], “it performance could be improved, for example by raising the efficiency from 50% to 85%, it may be reasonable to keep the repeater active in the intended path”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Kitagawa with John. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to maintain a desirable efficient in the intended path (John, [0243]).
As to claim 8, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 2, Kitagawa-John discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the FEMS network provides a wireless communication method having a function of identifying a transmission error of the signal transmitted from the communication node and a function of identifying the communication path of the signal (Kitagawa, page 3, “the dead area identifying unit identifies, as the dead area, a convex hull of a plurality of positions in the target area where the first communication quality is lower than a first reference value…When the area of the convex hull is smaller than a predetermined lower limit, the blind area identifying unit creates an area of a predetermined area including each position where the first communication quality is lower than the first reference value, and identifies a union of the created areas as the blind area.
As to claim 9, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Kitagawa-John discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the optimizing of the distribution of the repeaters comprises:
detecting a communication shaded area on the FEMS network based on the first metric (Kitagawa, page 3, “the dead area identifying unit identifies, as the dead area, a convex hull of a plurality of positions in the target area where the first communication quality is lower than a first reference value…When the area of the convex hull is smaller than a predetermined lower limit, the blind area identifying unit creates an area of a predetermined area including each position where the first communication quality is lower than the first reference value, and identifies a union of the created areas as the blind area); and
adding a repeater to solve the communication shaded area when the communication shaded area is detected (page 2, claim 1).
As to claim 10, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Kitagawa-John discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the detecting of the communication shaded area comprises:
identifying whether the first metric is less than a threshold related to a probability that the signal is transmitted normally; and detecting the communication shaded area in response to identifying that the first metric is less than the threshold (Kitagawa, page 3, “the dead area identifying unit identifies, as the dead area, a convex hull of a plurality of positions in the target area where the first communication quality is lower than a first reference value…When the area of the convex hull is smaller than a predetermined lower limit, the blind area identifying unit creates an area of a predetermined area including each position where the first communication quality is lower than the first reference value, and identifies a union of the created areas as the blind area).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 7, Kitagawa-John discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining of the first metric and the second metric and the optimizing of the distribution of repeaters are performed for all processes to be managed by the FEMS (see citation in rejection to claim 1, Kitagawa, wherein the FEMS system manages all processes).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 5, Kitagawa discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 2, but does not expressly disclose removing an unnecessary repeater from the FEMS network based on the second metric. John discloses a concept of removing an unnecessary repeater from an energy management system network based on a metric that is related to whether a specific repeater is in a communication path of a signal ([0317], “it may be desirable to turn off a repeater that is to effectively remove it from the wireless power transmission path. In embodiments that comprise multiple repeaters 810, a subset of these repeaters may be turned off in order that the field transmitted by the transmitter 802 is not distributed to unwanted locations. In wireless power systems, potential power paths may be deactivated and/or re-routing by turning repeaters along the path on and off and or by detuning them. The amount of power carried by different paths may be adjusted by adjusting the resonant frequency of repeaters along the various paths. In certain embodiments, it may be desirable to turn off adjacent repeaters to a repeater being calibrated in order to isolate the evaluation of a particular repeater”; [0320], “there may be situations where a fluctuation in the fields of the first subset of repeaters causes fluctuations, detuning, field shaping, and the like in an adjacent second subset. Deactivating zones that are not needed may provide for activated zone(s) that are more stable and/or more efficient.” Here, any signals/data that are related or contributed to the determination that the be removed repeaters are not in the communication path/zone/location is equivalent to a metric).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Kitagawa with John. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to provide more stability and efficiency (John, [0317]; [0320]).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 5.
Conclusion
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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