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 § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11-12, 14-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Douglas et al. (2018/0188284).
Regarding claim 1, Douglas et al. disclose a method comprising:
computing different time offsets (computing device 120 dividing sampling rate by number of streams; see paragraph 116) within a test time interval (sample interval; see paragraph 116) for tests by respective sensors of a plurality of sensors (plural co-located sensors; see paragraph 116), wherein a time offset (offset amount; supra) of the different time offsets indicates a point in time (associated timestamp; supra) within the test time interval with respect to which a corresponding sensor is to initiate a test (start sampling; see paragraph 116); and
performing, by a sensor of the plurality of sensors, tests (sampling by respective sensors; see paragraph 116) according to a corresponding time offset of the different time offsets (see paragraph 116).
Regarding claim 3, Douglas et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the computing of the different time offsets is performed by a management computer (120; see paragraph 116), the method further comprising:
Sending (instructions to each sensor to begin sampling at the respective time; see paragraph 116), by the management computer, the different time offsets to the respective sensors.
Regarding claim 4, Douglas et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein a first time offset within the test time interval at which a first sensor of the plurality of sensors performs a test in a computing environment is different from a second time offset within the test time interval at which a second sensor of the plurality of sensors performs a test in the computing environment (see paragraph 116).
Regarding claim 7, Douglas et al. disclose the method of claim 4, comprising:
checking, by the first sensor, whether a condition (whether a respective time window has passed; see paragraph 116) based on the first time offset is satisfied at a current time within the test time interval; and
initiating a test by the first sensor in response to the condition being satisfied (see paragraph 116).
Regarding claim 8, Douglas et al. disclose the method of claim 7, wherein the condition is based on whether a value derived from a difference between the current time and the first time offset is less than a cycle time of the first sensor (see paragraph 116), and wherein the cycle time of the first sensor is based on an aggregate of lengths of test cycles to perform tests by the first sensor (supra).
Regarding claim 9, Douglas et al. disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
performing, by the plurality of sensors, non-test actions (entering hibernation mode; see paragraphs 109 and 116) at corresponding time offsets within the test time interval.
Regarding claim 11, Douglas et al. disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the plurality of sensors from a management computer (120; see paragraph 116), information representing the test time interval computed by the management computer based on an upper test rate limit (sampling rate; see paragraph 116) at which the tests are to be performed by the plurality of sensors in a computing environment.
Regarding claim 12, Douglas et al. disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the test time interval is derived from an average test rate limit based on the upper test rate limit (see paragraph 116).
Regarding claim 14, Douglas et al. disclose an apparatus comprising:
a first sensor (110; see paragraph 116) to:
receive, from a computer system (120; see paragraph 116), information of a test time interval (instructions to begin sampling; see paragraph 116) for tests by respective sensors of a plurality of sensors (plurality of co-located sensors; see paragraph 116) in a computing environment, the plurality of sensors including the first sensor;
obtain a first time offset (a respective offset amount for a given sensor; see paragraph 116) that indicates a point in time (timestamp; supra) within the test time interval with respect to which the first sensor is to initiate a test (begin sampling; supra) in the computing environment, wherein the first time offset for the first sensor is different from a second time offset within the test time interval for a second sensor of the plurality of sensors (see paragraph 116); and
initiate tests according to the first time offset in respective cycles (sample interval) of the test time interval (see paragraph 116).
Regarding claims 15-16, see the foregoing rejection of claims 7-8.
Regarding claim 17, Douglas et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the value is derived based on computing the difference modulo a length of the test time interval (dividing by the sampling rate; see paragraph 116).
Regarding claim 19, Douglas et al. disclose a system comprising:
a plurality of sensors (plural collocated sensors; see paragraph 116) to test target components (acquiring samples of data on the object under study; see paragraph 116) within or outside a computing environment, wherein the plurality of sensors are to:
obtain different time offsets (offsets; see paragraph 116) within a test time interval (sampling interval; supra) for tests (sampling data; see paragraph 116) by respective sensors of the plurality of sensors, wherein a time offset of the different offsets indicates a point in time within the test time interval with respect to which a corresponding sensor is to initiate a test (see paragraph 116); and
initiate, by each sensor of the plurality of sensors, tests at time points (respective timestamps; see paragraph 116) in corresponding cycles of the test time interval based on a respective time offset of the different time offsets.
Regarding claim 20, Douglas et al. disclose the system of claim 19, wherein the plurality of sensors are to obtain the different time offsets by one of:
receiving the different time offsets from a management computer (120; see paragraph 116), or
computing the different time offsets (dividing the sampling rate by the number of streams; supra).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al. (2018/0188284).
Regarding claim 2, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for limitations recited therein.
Regarding claim 2, Douglas et al. do not disclose the highlighted limitations:
wherein the computing of a time offset of the different time offsets is performed by a sensor of the plurality of sensors.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Douglas et al. such that there were a computing device for each sensor, because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the invention of Douglas et al. such that the computing device corresponding to each sensor were located within the respective sensor, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
These two modifications meet the highlighted limitations:
wherein the computing of a time offset of the different time offsets is performed by a sensor of the plurality of sensors (the computing device incorporated within each sensor does the computation, therefore the sensor performs the computation).
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al. (2018/0188284) in view of Marx et al. (2021/0396845).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, see the foregoing rejections of claims 1 and 14 for limitations recited therein.
Regarding claim 10, Douglas et al. do not disclose the highlighted limitations:
wherein the different time offsets are random time offsets.
Marx et al. disclose usage of random time offsets to spread signals out in time (paragraph 94).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Douglas et al. such that the different time offsets are random time offsets, similarly to the invention of Marx et al., because such a practice is effective at dithering of detector signals, as suggested by Marx et al. (see paragraphs 28-29).
Regarding claim 18, see the foregoing rejection of claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "selecting, by the first sensor based on the first time offset, a test from a first collection of tests to perform at a first time ... in the ... interval; and selecting, by the second sensor based on the second time offset, a test from a second collection ... to perform at a second time point ... ", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 5, and claim 6 depending therefrom.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "receiving, by the ... sensors from the management computer, ... information representing an updated test time interval derived ... in response to a configuration change of the computing environment", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Isoyama et al. (JP 2005135289 A) is cited for disclosing the computation of staggered timings to be used for respective sensor modules in order to avoid signal collision.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY T EVANS whose telephone number is (571)272-2369. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/GEOFFREY T EVANS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2852 /WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852