Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a non-Final office action in merits. Claims 1-42, as originally filed, are presently pending and have been elected and considered below.
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 35-42 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 35 is an apparatus claim. However it recites “the method comprising …” in which “the method” is lack of antecedent basis and contradicts an apparatus claim structure.
Claims 36-42 depend from claim 35. They are rejected with the same reason as claim 35.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-16, 18-22, 24-25, 27-30, 32-33, 35-38, 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by US 2021/0116392 A1, Fitzgerald et al. (hereinafter Fitzgerald).
As to claim 1, Fitzgerald discloses a computer-implemented method of training a neural network for detection of a status of an electronic device (Fig 25), the method comprising:
collecting a training set of digital images of at least one electronic device from a data set (pars 0010-0013, 0105, 0150, capture images of a mobile device as training data), the digital images comprising images having at least one visible electronic indicator of the at least one electronic device (Figs 17, 20; pars 0012, 0061, 0075, 0140, 0205, image comprising a visible indicator); and
training the neural network using the collected training set of digital images of the at least one electronic device (Figs 18, 25, neural network being trained using training data from device images; pars 0058, 0105), such that the trained neural network is operable to evaluate one or more additional digital images of the at least one electronic device via the at least one visible electronic indicator to determine the status of the at least one electronic device (Figs 10-13, 25; pars 0010, 0015, 0070, 0073, 0105, 0115, 0150, 0158-0165).
As to claim 2, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more additional digital images comprise an associated data record indicating a current state of the at least one visible electronic indicator of the at least one electronic device (Figs 10-13; pars 0121-0123, 0126, various light indicators).
As to claim 3, Fitzgerald discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the neural network comprises a convolutional neural network (pars 0158-0160, CNN neural network).
As to claim 5, Fitzgerald discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the at least one visible electronic indicator comprises at least one of the following: a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) image (pars 0113, 0124, 0126, 0139); an Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) display image; an electronic display image (pars 0009-0013); or any combination thereof.
As to claim 6, Fitzgerald discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the at least one visible electronic indicator comprises at least one of the following: a Light-Emitting Diode (LED) color (par 0121, LED color); an on/off state; a blinking state; or any combination thereof.
As to claim 7, Fitzgerald discloses a computer-implemented method of electronically determining a status of a device on a communications network using one or more artificial intelligence processes (Figs 18, 25), the method comprising: electronically capturing one or more images of the device via an imaging sensor of a camera (Figs 8-9, 14, 17-18, 25; pars 0009-0013, 0015); selectively storing the one or more captured images of the device in memory for processing (pars 0075-0077, 0089, 0103, 0105-0106, 0108, 0111); evaluating, using the one or more artificial intelligence processes trained on a data set comprising the one or more captured images of the device ( see rejection in claim 1), the one or more captured images of the device for one or more visible electronic indicators of a state thereof to determine the status of the device (see rejection in claim 1); and communicating the status of the device to one or more electronic devices via the communications network (Figs 1, 8, 25; pars 0013, 0016, 0061, 0076, 0081-0082).
As to claims 8-9, they are rejected with the same reason as set forth in claims 5-6, respectively.
As to claim 10, Fitzgerald discloses the method of claim 9, wherein electronically capturing the one or more images of the device comprises electronically capturing a plurality of images and/or a video sequence of images (Figs 2, 16-18; pars 0010-0013, capture and analyze images of device) and the one or more visible electronic indicators of the state comprises a blinking state of one or more LEDs determined by evaluating the plurality of images and/or the video sequence of images (Figs 9, 15; pars 0073, 0121, 0162).
As to claims 11-12, they are rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
As to claim 14, Fitzgerald discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the determined status comprises at least one of the following: an operational status (pars 0004, 0105, 0152, operational state); an error (Fig 25; pars 0012, 0070, 0140); an error condition (Fig 25); a configuration; an expired element; a to-be-expired element; or any combination thereof.
As to claim 15, Fitzgerald discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the communications network comprises a wireless cellular communications network (pars 0081-0082, 0095-0096).
As to claim 16, Fitzgerald discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the wireless cellular communications network comprises one or more of enhanced machine-type communication (eMTC), eMTC category M1 (Cat-M1), NB-IoT, LTE, and/or 5G (pars 0003, 0095-0096, IoT, Zeigbee, Bluetooth).
As to claim 18, Fitzgerald discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the one or more images comprise a video sequence (pars 0009, 0070, 0072, 0084, 0098).
As to claim 19, it recites essentially equivalent functions and features of claim 7 except the monitoring a state of a device being performed remotely via a remote server. Rejection of claim 7 in incorporated herein and as cited in claim 7, Fitzgerald discloses remote server via wireless communication for remotely analyzing, monitoring, and evaluating the device status (Figs 2, 8, 8A, 16; pars 0010-0011, 0013, 0016-0017, 0067-0068, 0072).
As to claims 20-21, they are is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claims 9-10, respectively.
As to claim 22, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
As to claim 24, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 14.
As to claim 25, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 16.
As to claim 27, Fitzgerald discloses an apparatus comprising a computerized device for monitoring a status of a remote device using an artificial intelligence process, comprising: at least one computing device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one computing device operable to execute computer instructions fetched from the at least one memory on the at least one processor and to store results of executing the computer instructions in the at least one memory, the executed computer instructions operable to cause the at least one computing device to (Figs 18, 25): capture one or more images of the remote device being remotely monitored with a camera process (Figs 9, 14-15, 17, remote camara capturing images of mobile device); store the one or more images of the remote device in the at least one memory (pars 0009, 0076-0077, 0089, images can be transmitted, downloaded/uploaded and stored in local or remote memory); evaluate, using the artificial intelligence process trained on a data set comprising the one or more images of the remote device, the one or more images of the device for one or more visible electronic indicators of a state of the one or more visible electronic indicators to determine the status of the device (see rejection in claim 19); and communicate the determined status of the remote device to one or more additional computing devices (Fig 8, also see rejection in claim 19).
As to claims 28-29, they are is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claims 9-10, respectively.
As to claim 30, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 11.
As to claims 32-33, they are rejected with the same reason as set forth in claims 14 and 16, respectively.
As to claim 35, it recites an apparatus with essentially similar functions as claim 27. See citations and rejection in claim 27.
As to claims 36-37, they are is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claims 9-10, respectively.
As to claim 38, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
As to claim 40, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 14.
As to claim 41, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 16.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 4, 13, 17, 23, 26, 31, 34, 39, 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzgerald in view of US 2018/0116537 A1, Sullivan et al. (hereinafter Sullivan).
As to claim 4, Fitzgerald discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose, wherein the one electronic device comprises an Automated External Defibrillator (AED). Sullivan, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches an Automated External Defibrillator as one type of electronic devices would be benefit from Fitzgerald’s method (pars 0011, 0025, 0050). Therefore, consider Fitzgerald and Sullivan’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to incorporate Sullivan’s teachings in Fitzgerald’s computer-implemented method and achieve predictable performance and results.
As to claim 17, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
As to claim 26, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
As to claim 34, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
As to claim 42, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
As to claim 14, Fitzgerald discloses the method of claim 7 but does not expressly disclose, capturing one or more images is triggered in part by at least one of the following: a period of time passing; a user-initiated trigger; a calendar-based trigger; or any combination thereof. Sullivan, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches capturing one or more images is triggered in part by at least one of the following: a period of time passing; a user-initiated trigger; a calendar-based trigger; or any combination thereof (pars 0019, 0097, 0100, event triggered with set period or user initiated). Therefore, consider Fitzgerald and Sullivan’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to incorporate Sullivan’s teachings in Fitzgerald’s computer-implemented method to capture up-today images for further process.
As to claim 23, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 13.
As to claim 31, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 13.
As to claim 39, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 13.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular column, line number, paragraphs and/or figure(s) in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of 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 from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the reference(s) 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7927. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5:50 PT.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on 571-272-3382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUN SHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662