DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for missing steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. Claim 1 is a method claim with no step. Also, it appears to mix with an apparatus claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Claim 8 rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claim is narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. Claim 8 is a device claim with no transitional phrase (e.g. comprise, consist of…). It is unclear which parts of the claim are the preamble or the body of the claim.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 are rejected with similar rationales since they are the dependent claims of 1 and 8. Correction/Clarification is required. The art references below are based on the Examiner’s best interpretation of claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7-8, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips (US 8649909) in view of Publication (COSEM Identification System and Interface Objects, hereafter Pub).
As to claim 1, Phillips discloses a method for transmitting data from and to an electronic device (fig. 1, controller 18) configured to implement at least transmissions of metering data on consumption of a physical quantity (col 5 ln 39-42 “temperature, viscosity, flowrate…”, col 9 ln 55-60 “voltage or current”), said electronic device comprising an internal electronic circuit of the command interpreter type (command translator 76, 78, 80), said transmissions being implemented by said electronic device according to at least one data communication protocol (col 6 ln 20-35 “different protocol”) referring to data defined according to an object-oriented data model (col 6 ln 34-40 “Modbus”), wherein said object-oriented data model comprises at least one class of communication interface objects (col 6 ln 34-40 “Modbus”) for implementing data transmissions via a communication port of the serial port type included in said electronic device or connected thereto (“serial communication protocol”), and
in that first commands (“commands”), received in the form of a series of bytes (“encoded in binary signals”), in a buffer in transmission mode of said communication port of the serial port type (fig. 2 s106), are translated by the command interpreter into second commands (s110) and sent via said communication port of the serial port type to devices of actuator or sensor types (s112, col 10 ln 1-5).
Phillips does not disclose other limitations in claim 1. In the same field of art (peripheral configuration), Pub discloses transmissions being implemented by an electronic device according to at least one data communication protocol (page 1, DLMS) referring to data defined according to an object-oriented data model (page 36 “assemble model”), said data model defining a plurality of classes of communication interface objects (“set of different interface classes”), each of said classes of objects defined according to said model comprising a set of attributes representing characteristics of an object defined according to said class (page 13, “attribute(s)”), as well as a set of methods for accessing values of said attributes (“specific method(s)”) in read mode and/or in write mode (page 4 “access rights (read only, write only…”), said method being executed in said electronic device or in a remote server connected to said electronic device (“established between the client and the server”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Phillips and Pub, by comprising said transmissions being implemented by said electronic device according to at least one data communication protocol referring to data defined according to an object-oriented data model, said data model defining a plurality of classes of communication interface objects, each of said classes of objects defined according to said model comprising a set of attributes representing characteristics of an object defined according to said class, as well as a set of methods for accessing values of said attributes in read mode and/or in write mode, said method being executed in said electronic device or in a remote server connected to said electronic device and wherein said object-oriented data model comprises at least one class of communication interface objects comprising attributes and methods for implementing data transmissions via a communication port of the serial port type included in said electronic device or connected thereto. The motivation is to provide the flexibility, to improve the functionality of the system (page 22).
As to claim 4, Phillips/Pub discloses the data transmission method according to claim 1, wherein at least one class of communication interface objects comprises attributes and methods (Pub, page 13) for implementing communications by means of a serial port of the asynchronous type (Phillips, col 6 ln 34-40. Note: RTU is an asynchronous serial communication protocol).
As to claim 6, Phillips/Pub discloses the data transmission method according to claim 1, wherein said set of methods comprises a method for obtaining a number of bytes available in read mode in a buffer of the serial port (Phillips, fig. 2, s116), a method for writing a predetermined series of bytes in the buffer in transmission mode of the serial port or a method for reading a series of bytes available in a buffer in reception mode of the serial port (fig. 2, s112).
As to claim 7, Phillips/Pub discloses the data transmission method according to claim 1, wherein said at least one class of communication interface objects comprises attributes and methods for implementing communications (Pub, page 13) by means of a serial port of the asynchronous type (Phillips, col 6 ln 34-40. Note: RTU is an asynchronous serial communication protocol).
As to claims 8, 14, all the same elements of claim 1 are listed, but in a device or a non-transitory storage form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally to claim 8 or 14.
As to claim 12, Phillips/Pub discloses the electronic device according to claim 8, the electronic device being an electricity consumption meter (Phillips, col 11 lns 58-67) or a residential gateway configured for connecting an electricity consumption meter to a powerline communication network.
As to claim 13, Phillips/Pub discloses the communication system comprising at least one electronic device according to claim 1 and a remote server connected via a communication network (Phillips, fig. 1, server 14).
Claims 2-3, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of Publication and further in view of Publication (International standard, hereafter Pub2).
As to claim 2, Phillips/Pub discloses the data transmission method according to claim 1, wherein said object-oriented data model is a COSEM model (Pub, page 1) but does not disclose other limitations in claim 2. In the same field of art (peripheral configuration), Pub2 discloses a COSEM model derived from the COSEM model according to IEC 62056-6-2: 2017 (page 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Phillips/Pub and Pub2, by comprising a COSEM model derived from the COSEM model according to IEC 62056-6-2: 2017. The motivation is to improve the functionality of the system (page 14, “provides different users and manufacturers with a maximum of diversity”).
As to claim 3, Phillips/Pub/Pub2 discloses the data transmission method according to claim 2, wherein at least one communication protocol is a DLMS protocol in the standardised protocol set according to IEC 62056 (Pub2 “DLMS/COSEM suite”).
As to claims 9-10, all the same elements of claim 2-3 are listed in a device form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 2-3 applies equally to claims 9-10.
Claims 5, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of Publication and further in view of Teboulle et al (US 20210234722).
As to claim 5, Phillips/Pub discloses the data transmission method according to claim 4, but does not disclose the limitations in claim 5 (instead discloses said attributes and said methods of DLMS/OSEM model are able to implement communications with an asynchronous serial port). In the same field of art (peripheral configuration), Teboulle discloses a communication system for the automatic management of electricity meter readings comprising at least one item of equipment (par. 15, fig. 1). In one embodiment, Teboulle further discloses a DLMS server (meter ring center 160) connects to an electronic device (device 170B) via an asynchronous serial port defined according to a so-called RS-422 communication standard or a so-called RS-485 communication standard (par. 56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Phillips/Pub and Teboulle, by configuring said attributes and said methods to implement communications with an asynchronous serial port defined according to a so-called RS-422 communication standard or a so-called RS-485 communication standard. The motivation is to improve the flexibility of the system (par. 10).
As to claim 11, Phillips/Pub discloses the electronic device according to claim 8, but does not disclose the limitations in claim 11 (instead discloses said attributes and said methods of DLMS/OSEM model are able to implement communications with an asynchronous serial port). In the same field of art (peripheral configuration), Teboulle discloses a communication system for the automatic management of electricity meter readings comprising at least one item of equipment (par. 15, fig. 1). In one embodiment, Teboulle further discloses a DLMS server (meter ring center 160) connects to an electronic device (device 170B) via an asynchronous serial port defined according to a so-called RS-422 communication standard or a so-called RS-485 communication standard (par. 56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Phillips/Pub and Teboulle, by configuring said attributes and said methods to implement communications with an asynchronous serial port defined according to a so-called RS-422 communication standard or a so-called RS-485 communication standard. The motivation is to improve the flexibility of the system (par. 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEAN PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1002. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Henry Tsai can be reached at 571-272-4176. 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.
/D.P/Examiner, Art Unit 2184
/HENRY TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2184