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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 03/11/2024, 07/18/2024, 08/20/2024, 11/13/2024,12/09/2024, 01/31/2025,3/19/2025 and 05/23/2025, 08/21/2025 and 10/29/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert; Ortal et al. US 20210091603 (hereinafter Alpert) in view of Hayner; David A. US 20160124521 (hereinafter Hayner).
As per claim 1, Alpert teaches: A system, comprising: a non-transitory memory storing instructions (Alpert: fig. 3, Memory 2002); and
one or more processors in communication with the non-transitory memory (Alpert: fig. 3, CPU 2001); wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to cause the system to:
receive at least one first parameter associated with at least one sensor (“The transmitter control unit is configured to collect data from various sensors” Alpert: para. 45 and fig. 3, sensors 100x, variety of sensors);
associate the at least one first parameter with a pre-identified first digital signature in a signature database (“ [0155] (a) (a) store data relevant to the operation of the system, from a plurality of sensors adapted to obtain the data, at least one of the sensors being associated with at least one of the receivers, [0156] (b) compare at least a portion of the data from the plurality of sensors with at least one previously known signature, the signature being a associated with a non-critical event…” Alpert: para. 155-156);
receive at least one second parameter from the at least one sensor (“Data from the sensors may be collected continuously (a second or a third parameter), at predetermined time intervals, or may be initiated by the system upon detecting one or more relationships between the data and one or more signatures. Data collection on an ongoing basis and as initiated by the system itself allows for autonomous flexible management of the system.” Alpert: para. 46);
Alpert does not teach, however; Hayner discloses: train a machine learning system based on the at least one first parameter and the pre-identified digital signature (“If the device is in learning mode, that is, if the device is collecting data regarding a type of event for analysis, the data is transmitted to a remote server (325). As discussed above, the transmitted data can be the raw digitized event data, or can be signature data generated from the event. A determination can then be made as to whether additional event data is needed (330). Data collection for analysis can be performed as part of an initial setup procedure for an application executing on the device. Part of this procedure can include requiring a specified number of repetitions of the event. Determination event 330 can evaluate whether a requisite number of repetitions has been performed. If additional events are needed, then the device can prompt for a repeat of the event "Hayner: para. 34);
determine that the at least one second parameter is independent of a digital signature in the signature database (“Sensor module 115 can include a variety of input event sensors .Hayner: para. 15) Also, (“Sensor module 115 is coupled to device processor 120, which is in turn coupled to a device memory 125. Device processor 120 is configured to receive signals generated by sensor module 115 and to analyze those signals to determine whether those signals are associated with a known event whose characteristics are stored in device memory 125” Hayner: para. 16);
identify, using the machine learning system, a second digital signature for the at least one second parameter (“device 110 can be placed in a learning mode in order to receive and store a set of sample event data from which new signatures can be generated.” Hayner: para. 18); and
save, using the machine learning system, the second digital signature in the signature database (“sensor module 115 can include a dedicated processor configured to analyze information generated by the sensor module and can also include a signature memory for storing some or all signatures.” Hayner: para. 27).
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 Alpert with the teachings of Hayner to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to perform actions in response to different event types (Hayner: para:36).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Alpert teaches: wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to cause the system to operate in a reactive stance in response to detection of a new digital signature (Alpert: Abs).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Alpert does not, however, Hayner disclose: the one or more processors execute the instructions to cause the system to operate in a proactive stance such that the machine learning system generates new digital signatures not found in the signature database (Hayner: para. 18).
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 Alpert with the teachings of Hayner to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to order to determine an appropriate set of characteristics from which to generate a signature.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Alpert teaches: each signature in the signature database includes specific patterns or characteristics of sensor data (different types of sensors gather different types of signatures. Alpert: fig. 3, Sensors 100x).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Alpert teaches: a signature in the signature database is flagged as a threat (Alpert: para. 200).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Alpert teaches:
the receipt of the at least one first parameter is received from the at least one sensor (Alpert: para. 45).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Alpert teaches:
the receipt of the at least one first parameter is received from another sensor or control node associated with the at least one sensor (Alpert: para. 200).
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Alpert does not teach, however; Hayner discloses: the machine learning system is part of a sensor as a service platform (Device 110 including sensor module in learning mode receives and stores set of samples. Hayner: para. 18).
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 Alpert with the teachings of Hayner to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to perform actions in response to different event types (Hayner: para:36).
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Alpert does not teach, however; Hayner discloses: the machine learning system operates in the cloud and is physically separate from the at least one sensor (Hayner: para. 14).
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 Alpert with the teachings of Hayner to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied or analysis of data generated by many devices and by many providers of network services, enabling the costs of the server's computing resources to be distributed over many entities. (Hayner: para:20).
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Alpert teaches:
the machine learning system is configured to further monitor the at least one sensor, including reporting of anomalies based on sensor data from the at least one sensor, or facilitate issue resolution for the at least one sensor (“Upon detecting one or more of such “signatures” the system may react by performing one or more automatic actions typically intended to improve the situation. The duration of each action may vary from temporary to permanent, depending on the current situation of the system.” Alpert: para. 77).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert in view of Hayner and further in view of Klicpera; Michael Edward US 9749792 (hereinafter Klicpera).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Alpert does not teach; however, Hayner discloses: the training of the machine learning system is unsupervised(col. 33, line 45-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Alpert and Hayner with the teaching of Klicpera to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to generate automatic response to unwanted situations.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert in view of Hayner and further in view of Arini; Nick Salvatore et al US 20160050456 (hereinafter Arini).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Alpert and Hayner does not teach, however; Arini discloses: the one or more processors execute the instructions to cause the system to determine an accuracy score of the second digital signature, wherein the accuracy includes a confidence based on comparing the second digital signature to known signatures in the signature database (“In yet still other implementations, the method includes calculating a confidence score proportional to an amount of matching between the first signature and the second signature.” Arini: para. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Alpert and Hayner with the teaching of Arini to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to achieve a confidence level.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert in view of Hayner and further in view of Timmons; Brian P. US 20170108469 (hereinafter Timmons).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Alpert and Hayner does not teach, however; Timmons discloses: the at least one sensor includes an array of sensors (“In another operational example, magnetic sensors 301-310 have adjustable positions within sensor array 300 such that sensor spacing distances 321, 322, 323, 324, 325 are adjusted to optimize measurement of magnetic fields having different field strengths for different standoff distances 312.” Timmons: para.42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Alpert and Hayner with the teaching of Timmons to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in order to optimize measurement.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert in view of Hayner and further in view of ZHANG, Jia-hong et al. CN 110080744 (hereinafter Zhang).
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Alpert and Hayner does not teach, however; Zhang discloses: the at least one sensor is formed from a three-dimensional (3D) monolithic carbonaceous growth (Zhang. Abs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Alpert and Hayner with the teaching of Zhang to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to improve the result of the method.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert in view of Hayner, in view of Zhang and further in view of REITSMA GEORGE PIETER WO 2016126989 (hereinafter Reitsma).
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. The combination of Alpert, Hayner and Zhang does not teach; however, Reitsma discloses: a resonant frequency of the 3D monolithic carbonaceous growth is based at least in part on either or both of a permittivity and a permeability of a material associated with the at least one sensor (Reitsma: Abs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Alpert, Hayner and Zhang with the teaching of Reitsma to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to achieve the result based on permutability factor.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert in view of Hayner and further in view of XU JINQUAN WO 2015157381 (hereinafter XU).
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Alpert and Hayner does not teach, however; XU discloses: the at least one sensor is a split-ring resonator (SRR) on or embedded in a material, wherein the SRR includes a resonance portion, wherein the resonance portion is configured to resonate at a first frequency in response to an electromagnetic ping when a state of the material exceeds a threshold, and is configured to resonate at a second frequency in response to the electromagnetic ping when the state of the material is beneath the threshold (Xu: page: 4, lines 3-20).
Claims 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert in view of Hayner and further in view of Fitzgerald, Sanford G. et al. US 20040144635 (hereinafter Fitzgerald).
As per claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Alpert and Hayner does not teach, however; Fitzgerald discloses: the at least one sensor is integrated within a label configured to be removably printed onto a surface of a package or container, and the label comprises one or more carbon-based inks (“a pressure-sensing mat of the sort discussed herein is a sealed "sandwich" composed of three layers: two outer layers and an inner (central) layer positioned between the two outer layers. The outer layers are usually made of some sort of plastic and are impermeable to fluids and electrically non-conductive on their outer faces, where "outer" is determined with respect to the middle layer. The inner surface of each of the outer layers--which inner surfaces are oriented to face each other from opposite sides of the central layer--is made to be electrically conductive, usually by printing a conductive (e.g., carbon-based) ink on that surface. The compressible middle "central spacer" is made of a non-conductive material and serves to help keep the two conductive faces apart when a patient is not present on the sensor.”. Fitzgerald: Para. 9)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Alpert and Hayner with the teaching of Fitzgerald to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied place a removeable sensor on surface of an object (Fitzgerald: fig. 1 sensing mat 100).
As per claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Alpert and Hayner does not teach, however; Fitzgerald discloses: the at least one sensor is a three-dimensional (3D) carbon-based structure configured to guide a migration of electrically charged electrophoretic ink particles dispersed throughout the 3D carbon-based structure, the electrically charged electrophoretic ink particles responsive to application of a voltage to the 3D carbon-based structure (“The inner surface of each of the outer layers--which inner surfaces are oriented to face each other from opposite sides of the central layer --is made to be electrically conductive, usually by printing a conductive (e.g., carbon-based) ink on that surface. The compressible middle "central spacer" is made of a non-conductive material and serves to help keep the two conductive faces apart when a patient is not present on the sensor. The central spacer is discontinuous, which makes it possible for the two conductive inner surfaces to be forced into contact through the one or more discontinuities when weight is applied to the switch. By attaching a separate electrical lead to each of the conductive inner faces, it can readily be determined via a simple continuity (or low voltage) check whether a weight is present on the sensor (e.g., a patient is seated thereon). ”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Alpert and Hayner with the teaching of Fitzgerald to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to utilize the electric potential difference to activate a sensor.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert in view of Hayner and further in view of Shahrjerdi Davood et al. WO 2019027975 (hereinafter Shahrjerdi).
As per claim 18, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Alpert and Hayner does not teach, however; Shahrjerdi discloses: the at least one sensor is carbon-based and is functionalized with a material configured to react with each analyte of a first group of analytes (“the method may include providing a carbon-based sensor comprising an electrode composed of multilayer graphene containing engineered sp type defect sites. The density of these defects changes the sensitivity of the electrodes. A targeted analyte is then brought into contact with the carbon-based sensor, and thereafter, a signal generated by an electrochemical reaction of the targeted analyte at the electrode surface is detected.” Shahrjerdi: para. 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Alpert and Hayner with the teaching of Shahrjerdi to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied place a removeable sensor on surface of an object (Fitzgerald: fig. 1 sensing mat 100).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHODRAT JAMSHIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1956. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 5712723862. 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.
/GHODRAT JAMSHIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493