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 .
Response to Amendment / Arguments
Regarding the title:
Applicant’s amendment is considered to have fulfilled the requirement for a new title that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Regarding 112(f):
Applicant has rewritten the language of the claims such that claims other than 5 and 12 are no longer interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Regarding claims rejected under 35 USC 101:
Since Applicant has canceled claim 20, the corresponding rejections are moot and have been withdrawn.
Regarding claims rejected under 35 USC 112(b):
Applicant’s amendment is considered to have overcome the applied rejections. As such, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1, 3, and 6-9 of copending Application No. 18/398,093 in view of Skaaksrud (US 2020/0098241 A1). The copending claims are considered to disclose the instant claims as per the table below. The copending claims do not specify: he sensor to further detect whether the measured environment information includes an abnormal value, the statistical information further to contain a detection result of the abnormal value; authentication further being based on the statistical information containing the detection result of the abnormal value. However, the copending claims in view of at least the abstract, FIG. 3, FIG. 66, and [0507] of Skaaksrud are considered to disclose these limitations. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the copending claims to further further support smart sensors and associated anomaly data (e.g., the ID nodes of Skaaksrud) because design incentives or market forces provided a reason to make an adaptation (i.e., integration with smarter sensors and their sensor data), and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner (i.e., validating sensor data of a given format).
Instant independent claims 17 and 19 are substantially similar to instant claim 1, and are therefore likewise rejected. Instant independent claim 18 is substantially similar to claims 1 and 7, and is therefore likewise rejected. Instant claims 9-10 are substantially similar to instant claim 2, and are therefore likewise rejected.
Instant Application
18/398,093
1. (Currently Amended) An authentication apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and a communication interface, wherein [[a]] the communication interface unit which receives statistical information for a target transmitted from [[a]] at least one sensor, the sensor being configured to measure having a measuring unit which measures environment information regarding surrounding environment of the target existing in a space, detect whether the measured environment information includes an abnormal value, and a statistics generation unit which generates generate, based on the measured environment information, the statistical information regarding the surrounding environment of the target, to contain a detection result of the abnormal value; and the one or more processors an authentication unit which authenticates authenticate, based on the statistical information containing the detection result of the abnormal value, that the statistical information is information regarding the surrounding environment of the target.
1. An information processing apparatus comprising: a communication unit which receives statistical information transmitted from a sensor, the sensor having a measuring unit which measures environment information regarding environment in a target space and a statistics generation unit which generates, based on the environment information, the statistical information regarding the environment of the target space…
and an authentication unit which authenticates, based on the statistical information, that the statistical information is information regarding the target space.
2. (Currently Amended) The authentication apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an issuing unit which, wherein when the statistical information has been authenticated by the authentication unit, the one or more processors issue issues an electronic certificate certifying that the statistical information authenticated is the statistical information for the target.
8. The information processing apparatus according to claim 7, further comprising an issuing unit which, when the statistical information has been authenticated by the authentication unit, issues an electronic certificate certifying that the comfort information represents the comfort level of the target space.
3. The authentication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the environment information represents at least one of a gas concentration, a dust amount, a temperature, a humidity, an atmospheric pressure, a noise, an illuminance, a vibration, an electromagnetic wave, a sound wave, an X-ray dose, a radiation dose, an ozone concentration, an airflow, a number of living organisms, postures of the living organisms, or positions of the living organisms to be measured in the space.
3. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the environment information represents at least one of a gas concentration, a dust amount, a temperature, a humidity, an atmospheric pressure, a noise, an illuminance, a vibration, an electromagnetic wave, a sound wave, an X-ray dose, a radiation dose, a flow velocity, an airflow, an ozone concentration, or a number, postures, or positions of living organisms to be measured in the target space.
4. The authentication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the statistical information includes at least one of an average value, a maximum value, a minimum value, a variance, a moment, or a histogram of measured values which are the environment information.
6. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the statistical information includes at least one of an average value, a maximum value, a minimum value, a variance, a moment or a histogram of measured values which are the environment information.
5. (Currently Amended) The authentication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the communication interface communication unit receives, from the sensor and along with the statistical information, sensor identification information that is for uniquely identifying the sensor, andthe authentication unit authenticates, based on the statistical information and the sensor identification information, that the statistical information is information regarding the surrounding environment of the target.
7. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the communication unit receives, from the sensor and along with the statistical information, sensor identification information that is for uniquely identifying the sensor, and the authentication unit authenticates, based on the statistical information and the sensor identification information, that the statistical information is information regarding the target space.
6. The authentication apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the sensor is installed at a predetermined position of the space, the sensor has a detection unit which detects whether the sensor is installed at the predetermined position, and a storage unit which stores installation information representing whether the sensor is installed at the predetermined position, the communication unit receives the installation information along with the statistical information from the sensor, and the authentication unit authenticates, based further on the installation information, that the statistical information is information regarding the surrounding environment of the target.
9. The information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the sensor is installed at a predetermined position of the target space, the sensor has a detection unit which detects whether the sensor is installed at the predetermined position, and a storage unit which stores installation information representing whether the sensor is installed at the predetermined position, the communication unit receives the installation information along with the statistical information from the sensor, and the authentication unit authenticates, based further on the installation information, that the statistical information is information regarding the target space.
7. (Currently Amended) An authentication apparatus comprising :one or more processors; and a communication interface, wherein the communication interface receives, transmitted from each of a plurality of sensors, a plurality of pieces of statistical information for each target and a plurality of pieces of position identifying information that is for identifying a position of each of the plurality of sensors, each of the plurality of sensors being arranged in a target region and configured to measure environment information regarding surrounding environment of the corresponding target existing in a space and generate, based on the measured environment information, the statistical information regarding the surrounding environment of the corresponding target; and the one or more processors: authenticate, based on the plurality of pieces of statistical information, that the corresponding statistical information is information regarding the surrounding environment of the corresponding target, and The authentication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sensor includes a plurality of sensors, each being identical to the sensor and arranged in a target region, and the communication unit receives, from each of the plurality of sensors, the statistical information and position identifying information that is for identifying a position of each of the plurality of sensors, and the authentication apparatus further comprises: a distribution generation unit which generates generate distribution information regarding environment of the target region, based on [[a]] the plurality of pieces of statistical information, each being identical to the statistical information, and on [[a]] the plurality of pieces of position identifying information, each being identical to the position identifying information.
1. An information processing apparatus comprising: a communication unit which receives statistical information transmitted from a sensor, the sensor having a measuring unit which measures environment information regarding environment in a target space and a statistics generation unit which generates, based on the environment information, the statistical information regarding the environment of the target space…
and an authentication unit which authenticates, based on the statistical information, that the statistical information is information regarding the target space.
2. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sensor includes a plurality of sensors, each being identical to the sensor and provided in the target space, and the communication unit receives the statistical information from each of the plurality of sensors, and the derivation unit derives, based on the statistical information from each of the plurality of sensors, the comfort index according to the predetermined derivation method.
9. The information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the sensor is installed at a predetermined position of the target space, the sensor has a detection unit which detects whether the sensor is installed at the predetermined position, and a storage unit which stores installation information representing whether the sensor is installed at the predetermined position, the communication unit receives the installation information along with the statistical information from the sensor, and the authentication unit authenticates, based further on the installation information, that the statistical information is information regarding the target space.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1 and 7 be found allowable, claims 17 and 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the authentication unit” and “the derivation unit” in claims 5 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For instance, FIG. 2 and [0012] of the instant specification concerning the sensor units; FIG. 3 and [0029] of the instant specification concerning the authentication apparatus units. The “units” are elements of a computer as in FIG. 6 and [0057]-[0058] of the instant specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-18 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. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Independent claim 1 is drawn to “[a]n authentication apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and a communication interface.” However, the claim language is written as method steps rather than an apparatus configured to perform a given method. For instance, “the communication interface receives statistical information…the one or more processors authenticate, based on the statistical information” are method steps such that it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates an apparatus that allows use of the method, or whether infringement occurs when one actually uses the apparatus to perform the method. Independent claim 7 likewise concerns an “authentication apparatus” comprising “one or more processors” and “a communication interface;” and it likewise recites the apparatus using method steps. As such, claim 7 is likewise rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
The dependent claims do not rectify this issue and are therefore likewise rejected.
Claims 1-16 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. Independent claim 1 recites “at least one sensor, the sensor being configured to measure…to contain a detection result of the abnormal value.” However, claim 1 is drawn to an “authentication apparatus” that does not actually include the sensor (e.g., claim 17 for explicitly including the sensor as part of an “authentication system”). As such, how the “sensor being configured…” affects the scope of the claim is unclear because the sensor itself is not part of the claimed apparatus. It is therefore not clear what constitutes infringement of the claim with respect to the statistical information and detection result received and authenticated by the authentication apparatus.
Independent claim 7 is substantially similar in its issues, but concerns “a plurality of sensors” which are not actually part of the claim scope (e.g., claim 18). As such, claim 7 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-16 do not rectify the above-mentioned issues, and are therefore likewise rejected with their respective parent claims.
For the purpose of applying prior art, the claims have been interpreted as being drawn to “an authentication apparatus” and the sensor/sensors together.
Claims 5 and 12 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. Claims 5 and 12 recite “the authentication unit” and “the derivation unit.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
Claims 7-10, 14, and 18 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 7 recites “transmitted from each of a plurality of sensors, a plurality of pieces of statistical information for each target and a plurality of pieces of position identifying information that is for identifying a position of each of the plurality of sensors,” which renders the claim indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “each target;” and further because it is not clear whether “a plurality of pieces of position identifying information that is for identifying a position of each of the plurality of sensors” should be interpreted as the plurality of sensors each sending position information for “identifying a position of each of the plurality of sensors” or that each sensor only sends its own position information identifying a position of itself.
Claim 7 further recites “the corresponding target” and “each of the plurality of sensors being arranged in a target region and configured to measure environment information regarding surrounding environment of the corresponding target,” which renders the claim indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the corresponding target;” and further because it is not clear whether “corresponding target” is the same as, and/or maps 1-to-1 to, “each target.” Additionally, it is not clear whether to interpret “a space” in “surrounding environment of the corresponding target existing in a space” as being the same space for all of the corresponding targets or an individual space of each corresponding target.
Since it is not clear how to interpret this claim (i.e., what position information is actually being sent, which targets are at issue, and how “a space” relates to the collective targets), it has not been examined with respect to applying prior art.
The dependent claims do not rectify the above-identified issues, and are therefore likewise rejected. They have likewise not been examiner with respect to applying prior art because it is not clear how to interpret the claims.
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites “issue an electronic certificate certifying that the statistical information authenticated is the statistical information for the target” and “issue the electronic certificate certifying that the position and the leakage amount of the gas estimated are the position and the leakage amount of the gas leaking from the target,” both in response to “when the statistical information has been authenticated.” This renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this is the same issuance step for the same certificate, or if it is being issued two times responsive to the statistical information having been authenticated; or whether there are two certificates being issued.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders (US 2012/0105199 A1) in view of Skaaksrud (US 2020/0098241 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sanders discloses: An authentication apparatus (validators such as in [0032] of Sanders—e.g., the router, sensor-coordinating entity, “any suitable computing platforms”) comprising:
one or more processors (e.g., FIG. 10 of Sanders);
a communication interface (e.g., FIG. 10 of Sanders), wherein
the communication interface (e.g., 1010 in FIG. 10 of Sanders) receives statistical information (interpreted as being any statistical data, such as numerical measurements or categorical labels and classifications; “sensor data” in Sanders) for a target transmitted from at least one sensor (e.g., sensors in FIG. 1 and 3 of Sanders; [0032] of Sanders with respect to receiving the sensor data), the sensor being configured to measure environment information regarding surrounding environment of the target existing in a space (e.g., [0021] of Sanders concerning monitoring spaces, such as a vehicle, dwelling, and a neighborhood) and generate, based on the measured environment information, the statistical information regarding the surrounding environment of the target; and
Refer to at least [0017] of Sanders stating that “a sensor includes one or more devices that measure or otherwise sense one or more physical quantities and convert the sensed physical quantities into or generate based on the sensed physical quantities one or more signals… sensor data are one or more signals (or representations of such signals) that one or more sensors have converted one or more sensed physical quantities into or generated based on one or more sensed physical quantities.”
the one or more processors authenticate, based on the statistical information, that the statistical information is information regarding the surrounding environment of the target.
Refer to at least [0020], [0028], [0032], and [0039] of Sanders with respect to the receiving entity validating the sensor data (e.g., validating “the property where the sensor is located in [0020] of Sanders).
Sanders does not specify: the sensor to further detect whether the measured environment information includes an abnormal value, the statistical information further to contain a detection result of the abnormal value; authentication further being based on the statistical information containing the detection result of the abnormal value. However, Sanders in view of Skaaksrud discloses: the sensor to further detect whether the measured environment information includes an abnormal value, the statistical information further to contain a detection result of the abnormal value;
Refer to at least the abstract and FIG. 3 of Skaaksrud with respect to an ID node sensors generating sensor data related to an environmental condition adjacent the sensor and indicative of an environmental anomaly and broadcasting the sensor data generated.
authentication further being based on the statistical information containing the detection result of the abnormal value.
Refer to at least FIG. 66 and [0507] of Skaaksrud with respect to a command node validating ID node sensor data concerning an environmental anomaly.
The teachings of Sanders and Skaaksrud both concern sensors and validating sensor data, and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Sanders to further support smart sensors and associated anomaly data (e.g., the ID nodes of Skaaksrud) because design incentives or market forces provided a reason to make an adaptation (i.e., integration with smarter sensors and their sensor data), and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner (i.e., validating sensor data of a given format).
Regarding claim 2, Sanders-Skaaksrud discloses: The authentication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when the statistical information has been authenticated, the one or more processors issue an electronic certificate certifying that the statistical information authenticated is the statistical information for the target.
Refer to at least [0038] of Sanders with respect to strengthening the validity of sensor data (before sending it upstream) by providing a certificate.
Regarding claim 3, Sanders-Skaaksrud discloses: The authentication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the environment information represents at least one of a gas concentration, a dust amount, a temperature, a humidity, an atmospheric pressure, a noise, an illuminance, a vibration, an electromagnetic wave, a sound wave, an X-ray dose, a radiation dose, an ozone concentration, an airflow, a number of living organisms, postures of the living organisms, or positions of the living organisms to be measured in the space.
Refer to at least [0017] and [0023] of Sanders with respect to example sensor embodiments (e.g., temperature, sound, chemical concentration, vibration, and gas).
Regarding claim 5, Sanders-Skaaksrud discloses: The authentication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the communication interface receives, from the sensor and along with the statistical information, sensor identification information that is for uniquely identifying the sensor, and the authentication unit authenticates, based on the statistical information and the sensor identification information, that the statistical information is information regarding the surrounding environment of the target.
Refer to at least [0031] of Sanders with respect to sensor data validation in relation to a sensor ID.
Regarding claim 6, Sanders-Skaaksrud discloses: The authentication apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the sensor is installed at a predetermined position of the space, the sensor has a is further configured to detect whether the sensor is installed at the predetermined position, and store therein installation information representing whether the sensor is installed at the predetermined position, the communication interface receives the installation information along with the statistical information from the sensor, and the one or more processors authenticate, based further on the installation information, that the statistical information is information regarding the surrounding environment of the target.
Refer to at least [0029]-[0031] and [0034] of Sanders with respect to sensors at a property-level of a user, where the property level is validated as part of validating the sensor data. For instance, “us[ing] a sensor information model (which may, as an example and not by way of limitation, be stored in one or more local or remote, unitary or distributed databases or other data stores associated with a community sensor-coordinating entity) that includes associations between users and sensors with specific characteristics. Components of the sensor information model may be used at distributed points in the sensor network to help determine whether data being received at the property, community, or sensor-application-service level is valid.” Further see at least [0043]-[0044] and FIG. 6 of Sanders with respect to PropertyID.
Regarding independent claim 17, it is substantially similar to independent claim 1 above, and is therefore likewise rejected. With respect to “at least one of sensors, each being identical to the sensor,” this has been interpreted as referring to using more than one of a given sensor (e.g., 4 encroachment sensors in FIG.1 of Sanders).
Regarding independent claim 19, it is substantially similar to independent claim 1 above, and is therefore likewise rejected.
Regarding independent claim 20, it is substantially similar to independent claim 1 above, and is therefore likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders-Skaaksrud as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 17, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Miller (US 7,827,006 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Sanders-Skaaksrud does not specify: wherein the statistical information includes at least one of an average value, a maximum value, a minimum value, a variance, a moment, or a histogram of measured values which are the environment information. However, Sanders-Skaaksrud in view of Miller discloses: wherein the statistical information includes at least one of an average value, a maximum value, a minimum value, a variance, a moment, or a histogram of measured values which are the environment information.
Refer to at least FIG. 3, the abstract, Col. 4, LL. 46-55, and Col. 11, Ll. 4-15 of Miller with respect to statistical process monitoring blocks transforming raw data (e.g., input data to Min, Max, Range, Mean, RMS, STDEV) in field devices (e.g., sensors as in Col. 1, Ll. 19-30 of Miller).
The teachings of Miller likewise concern sensors and sensor data, and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Sanders-Skaaksrud to include use of sensors with SPMs because the substitution of one known element (output sensor data—e.g., raw data versus transformed data) for another would have yielded predictable results (a sensor being configured to output a specific type of sensor data) to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders-Skaaksrud as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 17, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Kempema (US 2023/0304430 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sanders-Skaaksrud discloses gas sensors and measuring chemical concentration (e.g., [0017] of Sanders), but does not disclose: wherein the sensor is further configured to: measure, as the environment information, a gas concentration and a gas flow velocity of a gas passing through the target, and generate, as the statistical information, statistical values of the gas concentration and the gas flow velocity, and the one or more processors: derive, based on the statistical values of the gas concentration and the gas flow velocity represented by the statistical information, a total amount of the gas passing through the target. However, Sanders-Skaaksrud in view of Kempema discloses: wherein the sensor is further configured to: measure, as the environment information, a gas concentration and a gas flow velocity of a gas passing through the target, and generate, as the statistical information, statistical values of the gas concentration and the gas flow velocity,
Refer to at least [0030] of Kempema with respect to measuring a gas flow rate and concentration.
and the one or more processors: derive, based on the statistical values of the gas concentration and the gas flow velocity represented by the statistical information, a total amount of the gas passing through the target.
Refer to at least [0035] of Kempema with respect to determining exhaust gas mass from exhaust gas concentration and flow rate.
The teachings of Kempema likewise concern sensors and sensor data, and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Sanders-Skaaksrud to include support for specific gas sensors such as engine exhaust sensors because design incentives or market forces (e.g., fleet-scale emissions monitoring as in [0002] of Kempema) provided a reason to make an adaptation (emissions sensors as part of sensor communities), and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner (using another gas sensor).
Regarding claim 12, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 2 and 11 above (i.e., [0038] of Sanders concerning certificates validating sensor data; [0030]-[0035] of Kempema concerning specific gas sensor data).
Regarding claim 13, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 11 above (i.e., car exhaust comprising greenhouse gases—e.g., nitrous oxide; carbon monoxide indirectly).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders-Skaaksrud as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 17, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Edwards (US 2019/0186951 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Sanders-Skaaksrud discloses: The authentication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of sensors are arranged at a plurality of positions of the target, the one or more processors receive the statistical information from each of the plurality of sensors,
Refer to at least FIG. 1, FIG. 3, and [0017] of Sanders with respect to a plurality of sensors arranged within sensor communities and communicating with, e.g., a router.
Sanders-Skaaksrud discloses leak sensors (e.g., [0017 of Sanders), but does not specify: estimate a position and a leakage amount of a gas leaking from the target, based on the plurality of pieces of statistical information. However, Sanders-Skaaksrud in view of Edwards discloses: estimate a position and a leakage amount of a gas leaking from the target, based on the plurality of pieces of statistical information.
Refer to at least [0005] and [0046] of Edwards with respect to estimating the approximate location of a gas leak based on sensor data from different locations on, e.g., a monitored gas line.
The teachings of Edwards likewise concern sensors and sensor data, and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Sanders-Skaaksrud to include support for gas leak sensors and determining the location of a gas leak because design incentives or market forces (e.g., [0002] of Edwards concerning the need for sensors at resource providers) provided a reason to make an adaptation (resource providers as part of sensor communities), and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner (a specific gas sensor configuration and type of sensor data).
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 2 and 11 above (i.e., [0038] of Sanders concerning certificates validating sensor data; [0046] of Edwards concerning specific gas sensor data).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 VADIM SAVENKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-5751. The examiner can normally be reached 12PM-8PM.
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/Jeffrey Nickerson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2432
/V.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights