DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/380,960 filed on 10/17/2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Claim 1-11 is/are pending in the application.
Claims 1, and 10-11 is/are independent claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on 10/19/2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 201.15.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 10/17/2023 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 8, it is objected to because it includes the limitation "generating/referring/deleting" in line 2. The "generating/referring/deleting" makes the claim vague, the examiner is not sure whether it means "generating", “referring” and “deleting” or it means "generating", “referring” or “deleting” as part of the limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, the claim calls for a system; however, there is no hardware element found within the claimed system. As recited in the body of the claim, the claimed system contains “a data integration device”, “an agent management server”, and “an agent setting automation device” The specification does not explicitly define how “a data integration device”, “an agent management server”, and “an agent setting automation device” are implemented. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “a data integration device”, “an agent management server”, and “an agent setting automation device” could be implemented in software, which is non-statutory subject matter. The nominal recitation of the machine/device in the preamble with an absence of a hardware element in the body of the claim fails to make the claim statutory under 35 USC 101. See Am. Med. Sys., Inc v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See also Ex parte Cohen et al., (Appeal No. 2009-011366) for details. It is suggested that the claim be further amended to positively recite at least one hardware embodiment in the body of the claim to make the claim statutory under 35. U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 2-9; Claims 2-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11, the claim calls for a system; however, there is no hardware element found within the claimed system. As recited in the body of the claim, the claimed system contains “a data integration device”, and “an agent setting automation device” The specification does not explicitly define how “a data integration device”, and “an agent setting automation device” are implemented. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “a data integration device”, and “an agent setting automation device” could be implemented in software, which is non-statutory subject matter. The nominal recitation of the machine/device in the preamble with an absence of a hardware element in the body of the claim fails to make the claim statutory under 35 USC 101. See Am. Med. Sys., Inc v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See also Ex parte Cohen et al., (Appeal No. 2009-011366) for details. It is suggested that the claim be further amended to positively recite at least one hardware embodiment in the body of the claim to make the claim statutory under 35. U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 1-11, claims 1-11 are/is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claims are/is directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more.
Per Claims 1-9 and 11, the claims are not within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a system claims under Step 1. Per Claim 10, the claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a method claim under Step 1. However, claim 1-11 are/is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claims are/is directed to an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application nor being significantly more.
Per claims 1 and 10, the limitations “to integrate … data which is collected through a collection agent” and “… configured to set an optimal set value …”, as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “to integrate … data which is collected through a collection agent” and “… configured to set an optimal set value …” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2 Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “a data integration device”, “an agent management server”, “an agent”, “configured to store …”, “periodically polls data …”, “… transmit the data …” and “configured to manage the collection agent …” The “a data integration device”, “an agent management server”, and “an agent” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. The addition element “configured to store …”, “periodically polls data …”, “… transmit the data …” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc... The addition element “configured to manage the collection agent …” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “managing” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The addition element “configured to store …” and “periodically polls data …” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc..., thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept.. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “to predict …” and “to recommend …” are additional metal processes under prong 1. Under prong 2, the “to store” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 3, under prong 2, the “to store” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 4, under prong 2, the “to periodically collect …” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 5, under prong 2, the “a set value …” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “to generate …” are additional metal processes under prong 1.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “to predict …” and “to recommend …” are additional metal processes under prong 1.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “generating/referring/deleting …” and “to generate …” are additional metal processes under prong 1.
Regarding claim 9, under prong 2, the “the performance index …” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Per claim 11, the limitations “to integrate … data which is collected through a collection agent” and “… configured to predict a performance …”, and “… to recommend …” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “to integrate … data which is collected through a collection agent” and “… configured to predict a performance …”, and “… to recommend …” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2 Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “a data integration device”, “an agent”, “configured to store …”, “periodically polls data …”, and “… transmit the data” The “a data integration device”, and “an agent” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. The addition element “configured to store …”, “periodically polls data …”, and “… transmit the data” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc... Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The addition element “configured to store …”, “periodically polls data …”, and “… transmit the data” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc..., thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept.. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
Prior arts:
US 2023/0300352 to Gesang
each microprocessor of the ACE HDT directs related sensors to locally collect and store at least the following variable values: current longitude L.sub.1g (l.sub.i), latitude L.sub.lat (l.sub.i), longitudinal slope G (l.sub.i), vehicle speed v(t.sub.i), vehicle acceleration a (t.sub.i), direct current I.sub.g (l.sub.i) of the generator 110, summated direct current I.sub.m (t.sub.i) of driving motors 140 & 170, summated direct current I.sub.bat (t) of battery packs 130a&b, direct current voltage V.sub.bat (t.sub.i) at a direct current bus junction X, state of charge C.sub.bat (t.sub.i) of battery packs 130a&b, direct current I.sub.bk (t.sub.i) of brake resistance, external environmental temperature T (t.sub.i) and environmental wind speed and wind direction v.sub.syz (t.sub.i) of the ACE HDT
US 2021/0236020 to Matijevich
using only tiny, low-power and lightweight sensors that integrate easily into socks/shoes, and fusing data from multiple wearable sensors on the foot/shank to estimate the two major components of total bone force: GRF and muscle forces (ligament and other forces are small for bones we monitor).
US 2021/0107539 to Howard
The cab electronics system 238 may comprise at least one integrated display computer configured to receive and display data from the outputs of one or more of machine gauges, indicators, sensors, and controls. The cab electronics system 238 may be configured to process and integrate the received data, receive command signals from the off-board remote controller interface 204, and communicate commands such as throttle, dynamic braking, and pneumatic braking commands 233 to the microprocessor-based locomotive control system 237.
US 2019/0174207 to Cella
Methods and systems described herein for industrial machine sensor data streaming, collection, processing, and storage may be configured to operate and integrate with existing data collection, processing and storage systems and may include a method for capturing a plurality of streams of sensed data from sensors deployed to monitor aspects of an industrial machine associated with at least one moving part of the machine; at least one of the streams containing a plurality of frequencies of data.
US 2016/0198996 to Dullen
Through the analysis and continual integration of data, the PMD has an evolutionary nature, in that it will constantly be evaluating data input from a number of different sources, for example health care providers who are gathering biometrics data on patients that may be suffering from various disease states, new research and journal references related to specific disease states, and biophysical data through multiple biosensors used in monitoring the patient with the initial scope of analysis directed to include evaluations of acute and chronic pain as it relates to interventions.
US 2015/0168964 to Wu
a data collecting module that collects field information data and setup data; an optimization module that integrates the building heat load model, the field information data, and the setup data to produce optimal setup data by optimal computation; and a controller that controls the HVAC system to modulate the indoor environment of the building.
US 2009/0204232 to Guru
System operation may be prescribed based on the predicted or probabalistic state or condition of the sensor or device in conjunction with the anticipated workload or demand or probabalistic demand along with other operational and performance constraints.
The prior art of record does not disclose and/or fairly suggest at least claimed limitations recited in such manners in dependent claims 3-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0058390 to Dyell et al. (hereafter “Dyell”) in view of US 2009/0240193 to Mensinger et al. (hereafter “Mensinger”) and US 2008/0198036 to Songkakul et al. (hereafter “Songkakul”)
As per claim 1, Dyell discloses a system for setting an optimal synchronization agent (FIGs. 1-3; paragraphs 0045-0048: “Although in this example, data compilation module 125 identifies (or selects) sensors 140, 144, 150, 152, 154, and 156 that are associated with the identified patients 162, 166, and 168 for the request, data compilation module 125 can be programmed to further select only a subset of sensors 140, 144, 150, 152, 154, and 156 based on the parameters as not all sensors may be applicable to the request in some cases. For example, patient data exchange engine 105 may select sensors that have the capabilities to fulfill the needs (e.g., sampling rate requirement, sensibility requirement, etc.) specified in the parameters, and ignore other sensors.”) according to a workload (FIGs. 1-3; paragraphs 0040 and 0045-0048: “data compilation module 125 may reconfigure at least some of identified sensors 140, 144, 150, 152, 154, and 156 in a new sensor configuration to compile the necessary sensor data for the request.”), the system comprising:
a data integration device configured to integrate and store data which is collected through a collection agent (FIGs. 1-; paragraphs 0025, 0036, 0041 and 0051: “cOS 32 may include a suitable operating system (or platform, or other appropriate software) that can federate various disparate data (e.g., from health providers, patients, sensors, other medical devices, etc.), aggregate the data in disparate formats to a uniform format (e.g., XML based format), and store the uniformly formatted data in a suitable data store (e.g., federated centralized database; data store for aggregated data) such as sensor database 20 and patient database 34 in network 30.”);
an agent management server configured to manage the collection agent (FIGs. 1-3; paragraphs 0045-0048: “data compilation module 125 can be programmed to further select only a subset of sensors 140, 144, 150, 152, 154, and 156 based on the parameters as not all sensors may be applicable to the request in some cases. For example, patient data exchange engine 105 may select sensors that have the capabilities to fulfill the needs (e.g., sampling rate requirement, sensibility requirement, etc.) specified in the parameters, and ignore other sensors.”) that periodically polls data (paragraphs 0026 and 0024: pulling data in every 2 hours or 30 minutes) from a data source (FIGs. 1-3; paragraphs 0024 and 0040); and
an agent setting automation device configured to set an optimal agent set value related to collection of data of the collection agent (FIG. 2; paragraphs 0043-0046: “select only a subset of sensors 140, 144, 150, 152, 154, and 156 based on the parameters as not all sensors may be applicable to the request in some cases. For example, patient data exchange engine 105 may select sensors that have the capabilities to fulfill the needs (e.g., sampling rate requirement, sensibility requirement, etc.) specified in the parameters, and ignore other sensors.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] 175 including 105 configuring the attributes related to collection of sensors (collection agent)).
Dyell discloses data of the collection agent (FIGs. 1-3: data collected by the sensors), however, Dyell does not explicitly disclose transmits the data to the data integration device; and an agent setting automation device configured to set an optimal agent set value related to set an optimal agent set value related to transmission of data.
Mensinger further discloses transmits the data to the data integration device (paragraph 0114).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Mensinger into Dyell’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of selecting data associated with the sensor data for transmission to the first display device, wherein the data selected comprises at least the sensor data content indicated in the selected delivery options, generating at the sensor electronics module a data package for transmission to the first display device, wherein the data package includes the selected data, and initiating transmission of the data package to the first display device (Mensinger, paragraph 0006).
Songkakul further discloses to set an optimal agent set value related to set an optimal agent set value related to transmission of data (FIG. 5; paragraph 0050)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Songkakul into Dyell’s teaching and Mensinger’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of adjusting and optimizing communications between wireless devices and/or automation components operating within a building automation system (BAS) (Songkakul, paragraph 0008).
As per claim 10, Dyell discloses a method for setting an optimal synchronization agent (FIGs. 1-3; paragraphs 0045-0048: “Although in this example, data compilation module 125 identifies (or selects) sensors 140, 144, 150, 152, 154, and 156 that are associated with the identified patients 162, 166, and 168 for the request, data compilation module 125 can be programmed to further select only a subset of sensors 140, 144, 150, 152, 154, and 156 based on the parameters as not all sensors may be applicable to the request in some cases. For example, patient data exchange engine 105 may select sensors that have the capabilities to fulfill the needs (e.g., sampling rate requirement, sensibility requirement, etc.) specified in the parameters, and ignore other sensors.”) according to a workload (FIGs. 1-3; paragraphs 0040 and 0045-0048: “data compilation module 125 may reconfigure at least some of identified sensors 140, 144, 150, 152, 154, and 156 in a new sensor configuration to compile the necessary sensor data for the request.”), the method comprising:
setting, by an agent setting automation device, an optimal agent set value related to collection of a collection agent (FIG. 2; paragraphs 0043-0046: “select only a subset of sensors 140, 144, 150, 152, 154, and 156 based on the parameters as not all sensors may be applicable to the request in some cases. For example, patient data exchange engine 105 may select sensors that have the capabilities to fulfill the needs (e.g., sampling rate requirement, sensibility requirement, etc.) specified in the parameters, and ignore other sensors.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] 175 including 105 configuring the attributes related to collection of sensors (collection agent));
periodically polling, by a collection agent, data (paragraphs 0026 and 0024: pulling data in every 2 hours or 30 minutes) from a data source according to the set agent set value (FIGs. 1-3; paragraphs 0045-0048: “data compilation module 125 can be programmed to further select only a subset of sensors 140, 144, 150, 152, 154, and 156 based on the parameters as not all sensors may be applicable to the request in some cases. For example, patient data exchange engine 105 may select sensors that have the capabilities to fulfill the needs (e.g., sampling rate requirement, sensibility requirement, etc.) specified in the parameters, and ignore other sensors.”); and
integrating, by the data integration device, data collected through the collection agent, and storing the data (FIGs. 1-; paragraphs 0025, 0036, 0041 and 0051: “cOS 32 may include a suitable operating system (or platform, or other appropriate software) that can federate various disparate data (e.g., from health providers, patients, sensors, other medical devices, etc.), aggregate the data in disparate formats to a uniform format (e.g., XML based format), and store the uniformly formatted data in a suitable data store (e.g., federated centralized database; data store for aggregated data) such as sensor database 20 and patient database 34 in network 30.”).
Dyell discloses data of the collection agent (FIGs. 1-3: data collected by the sensors), however, Dyell does not explicitly disclose transmits the data to the data integration device; to set an optimal agent set value.
Mensinger further discloses transmits the data to the data integration device (paragraph 0114).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Mensinger into Dyell’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of selecting data associated with the sensor data for transmission to the first display device, wherein the data selected comprises at least the sensor data content indicated in the selected delivery options, generating at the sensor electronics module a data package for transmission to the first display device, wherein the data package includes the selected data, and initiating transmission of the data package to the first display device (Mensinger, paragraph 0006).
Songkakul further discloses to set an optimal agent set value (FIG. 5; paragraph 0050)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Songkakul into Dyell’s teaching and Mensinger’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of adjusting and optimizing communications between wireless devices and/or automation components operating within a building automation system (BAS) (Songkakul, paragraph 0008).
Claims 2, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyell in view of Mensinger and Songkakul, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2020/0104609 to Clothier et al. (hereafter “Clothier”) and US 2020/0272913 to Yu et al. (hereafter “Yu”)
As per claim 2, Dyell discloses wherein the agent setting automation device comprises:
a user interface unit (FIGs. 1-3; paragraphs 0019, 0028, 0038, and 0043);
a storage unit configured to store history data (FIGs. 3; paragraphs 0019, 0028 and 0038).
Dyell discloses an device as the data integration device (FIGs. 1-3), however, Dyell does not explicitly disclose history data regarding performance of the collection agent;
a performance prediction module configured to predict a performance index of the data integration device; and
a set value recommendation module configured to recommend an agent set value based on a result of predicting the index performance.
Clothier further discloses history data regarding performance of the collection agent (paragraph 00038).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Clothier into Dyell’s teaching, Mensinger’s teaching, and Songkakul’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of combining sensor detection data with prior detection likelihood and prior performance models for the sensor; derive, from the one or more probability distributions of pseudo-range estimates, an estimate of the pseudo-range to the detected, unknown object; and output the estimated pseudo-range to the detected, unknown object (Clothier, paragraph 0019).
Yu further discloses a performance prediction module configured to predict a performance index of the data integration device (paragraph 0129); and
a set value recommendation module configured to recommend an agent set value based on a result of predicting the index performance (paragraphs 0046, 008, 0117, 0119 and 0150: recommendation is from the predicted scores).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Yu into Dyell’s teaching, Mensinger’s teaching, Songkakul’s teaching, and Clothier’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of recommending the target object to the user when the predicted score is greater than or equal to a preset threshold (Yu, paragraph 0007).
As per claim 8, Dyell discloses wherein the user interface (FIGs. 1-3; paragraph 0043) is configured to perform an operation of generating/referring/deleting a collection agent (paragraphs 0049-0052: adding/removing/adjusting sensors), and to generate a collection agent based on a set value that (paragraphs 0049-0052: adding/removing/adjusting sensors).
Yu further discloses a set value that is recommended by the set value recommendation module (paragraphs 0046, 008, 0117, 0119 and 0150: recommendation is from the predicted scores).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Yu into Dyell’s teaching, Mensinger’s teaching, Songkakul’s teaching, and Clothier’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of recommending the target object to the user when the predicted score is greater than or equal to a preset threshold (Yu, paragraph 0007).
Claims 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyell in view of Mensinger, Songkakul, Cothier and Yu, as applied to claim 2, and further in view of US 2019/0303223 to Frolikov.
As per claim 9, Deyell does not explicitly disclose wherein the performance index of the data integration device is a data throughput of the data integration device.
Frolikov further discloses wherein the performance index of the data integration device is a data throughput of the data integration device (paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Frolikov into Dyell’s teaching, Mensinger’s teaching, Songkakul’s teaching, Clothier’s teaching, and Yu’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of the performance level of the memory system can be improved by combining the series of requests into the combined request for processing in the memory system (Frolikov, paragraph 0013).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyell in view of Mensinger, Songkakul, and Yu.
As per claim 11, Dyell discloses a system for setting an optimal synchronization agent (FIGs. 1-3; paragraphs 0045-0048: “Although in this example, data compilation module 125 identifies (or selects) sensors 140, 144, 150, 152, 154, and 156 that are associated with the identified patients 162, 166, and 168 for the request, data compilation module 125 can be programmed to further select only a subset of sensors 140, 144, 150, 152, 154, and 156 based on the parameters as not all sensors may be applicable to the request in some cases. For example, patient data exchange engine 105 may select sensors that have the capabilities to fulfill the needs (e.g., sampling rate requirement, sensibility requirement, etc.) specified in the parameters, and ignore other sensors.”) according to a workload (FIGs. 1-3; paragraphs 0040 and 0045-0048: “data compilation module 125 may reconfigure at least some of identified sensors 140, 144, 150, 152, 154, and 156 in a new sensor configuration to compile the necessary sensor data for the request.”), the system comprising:
a data integration device configured to integrate and store data which is collected through a collection agent (FIGs. 1-; paragraphs 0025, 0036, 0041 and 0051: “cOS 32 may include a suitable operating system (or platform, or other appropriate software) that can federate various disparate data (e.g., from health providers, patients, sensors, other medical devices, etc.), aggregate the data in disparate formats to a uniform format (e.g., XML based format), and store the uniformly formatted data in a suitable data store (e.g., federated centralized database; data store for aggregated data) such as sensor database 20 and patient database 34 in network 30.”), the collection agent configured to periodically poll data (paragraphs 0026 and 0024: pulling data in every 2 hours or 30 minutes) from a data source (FIGs. 1-3; paragraphs 0024 and 0040).
Dyell discloses data of the collection agent (FIGs. 1-3: data collected by the sensors), however, Dyell does not explicitly disclose transmit the data to the data integration device; and an agent setting automation device configured to predict a performance index of the data integration device, to recommend an agent set value related to the performance index based on a result of predicting the performance index, and to set an optimal agent set value.
Mensinger further discloses transmits the data to the data integration device (paragraph 0114).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Mensinger into Dyell’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of selecting data associated with the sensor data for transmission to the first display device, wherein the data selected comprises at least the sensor data content indicated in the selected delivery options, generating at the sensor electronics module a data package for transmission to the first display device, wherein the data package includes the selected data, and initiating transmission of the data package to the first display device (Mensinger, paragraph 0006).
Songkakul further discloses to set an optimal agent set value (FIG. 5; paragraph 0050)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Songkakul into Dyell’s teaching and Mensinger’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of adjusting and optimizing communications between wireless devices and/or automation components operating within a building automation system (BAS) (Songkakul, paragraph 0008).
Dyell discloses an device as the data integration device (FIGs. 1-3), however, Dyell does not explicitly disclose an agent setting automation device configured to predict a performance index of the data integration device, to recommend an agent set value related to the performance index based on a result of predicting the performance index.
Yu further discloses an agent setting automation device configured to predict a performance index of the data integration device (paragraph 0129),
to recommend an agent set value related to the performance index based on a result of predicting the performance index (paragraphs 0046, 008, 0117, 0119 and 0150: recommendation is from the predicted scores).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Yu into Dyell’s teaching, Mensinger’s teaching, and Songkakul’s teaching, because it would provide for the purpose of recommending the target object to the user when the predicted score is greater than or equal to a preset threshold (Yu, paragraph 0007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan Dao whose telephone number is (571) 270 3387. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 09am to 05pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272 4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TUAN C DAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198