CTNF 18/454,902 CTNF 100646 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 The Amendment filed 04/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended. Claims 1-9 are pending in this application. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejection of claims 1 and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejection of claims 1 and 9 is withdrawn. Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 regarding the remaining rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Main Argument Applicant argues “In contrast, nowhere do the cited references disclose or suggest this feature. For example, Hess does not disclose or suggest a counter that tracks sensor values outside the data range during a first time window or within the data range during a second time window for the purpose of triggering range increases or decreases, nor does it teach that a new time window automatically begins and that such counter is reset specifically in response to a data range increase or decrease. Rather, Hess describes interrupt-based threshold adaptation in which modified upper and lower thresholds are calculated after an interrupt to ensure the interrupt-causing value lies within the updated range, along with separate mechanisms for detecting missing or invalid interrupts and periodically verifying sensor behavior. The counters of Hess are used for monitoring and interrupt management, not for window-based evaluation of sensor values tied to automatic counter reset upon data range adjustment.” Reply: The examiner respectfully disagrees. At least paragraphs [0015 and 0046] of Hess teach an error counter used to track the number of incorrect sensor behaviors. When an error is detected at the time marked “detect error”, the central control unit reads the sensor value and compares the read value with the upper and lower thresholds. At the time marked “detect error”, it is determined that the sensor value lies outside of given thresholds. Based on this sensor value being determined to be outside of the given thresholds, then a missing interrupt is detected. The sensor value being outside of the threshold values acts as an error that is then counted by the error counter. The number of counted errors within a specified time period being equal to or greater than a limit can cause the sensor to be marked as faulty. The counter can be reset for each time period, implying that the counter is restarted for the purpose of tracking values during a new time period (time window). Further, at least figures [3 and 4] and paragraphs [0032 and 0036] of Kulik teach a data range being increased or decreased based on the measurement of a sensed value. If the value is determined to be invalid (out of range), the range is then adjusted accordingly and a new pass through stage (time window) is automatically started. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the combination of Hess and Kulik reads upon applicant’s claimed limitations of “ wherein the sensor includes a counter configured to track the number of generated sensor values outside the data range during the first time window and/or within the data range during the second time window, wherein, after a data range increase or decrease is performed, the sensor is configured to :automatically begin a new time window, and reset the counter to an initial value such that the counter is restarted for tracking sensor values in the new time window. ” 07-37-13 AIA In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant is reminded that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 5, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulik et al. (US 20110257936 A1), hereinafter Kulik, in view of Hess et al. (US 20120265471 A1), hereinafter Hess . For claim 1 , Kulik teaches a sensor with a dynamic data range, wherein the sensor is configured to generate sensor values at consecutive time points, and is configured in such a way that the data range is subjected, after each time point, to a treatment corresponding to one of the following treatment options performed as a function of the generated sensor values, wherein the treatment options include ([0007, 0018, 0045], a sensor with a dynamic data range with consecutive measurements generated by sensor) : increasing the data range if n of the generated sensor values are outside the data range during a first time window ([0036, 0046, FIGs. 3 and 4], data range is adjusted based on values outside of range and the range can be changed with each cycle/pass through) , decreasing the data range if m of the generated sensor values are within the data range during a second time window ([0036, 0046, FIGs. 3 and 4], data range is adjusted based on values outside of range and the range can be changed with each cycle/pass through) , and otherwise leaving the data range unchanged ([0046], range is not changed if values are within threshold) , wherein, after a data range increase or decrease is performed, the sensor is configured to: automatically begin a new time window, ([FIGs. 3 and 4], [0032], and [0036] the range is changed for each pass through stage (time window), which implies that each time the range is changed, a new pass through stage is automatically started). Kulik does not explicitly teach, however Hess teaches wherein the sensor includes a counter configured to track the number of generated sensor values outside the data range during the first time window and/or within the data range during the second time window, ([0015] and [0046] an error counter used to track the number of incorrect sensor behaviors. When an error is detected at the time marked “detect error”, the central control unit reads the sensor value and compares the read value with the upper and lower thresholds. At the time marked “detect error”, it is determined that the sensor value lies outside of given thresholds. Based on this sensor value being determined to be outside of the given thresholds, then a missing interrupt is detected. The sensor value being outside of the threshold values acts as an error that is then counted by the error counter. The number of counted errors within a specified time period (time window) are tracked to see if the number exceeds a threshold.), reset the counter to an initial value such that the counter is restarted for tracking sensor values in the new time window ([0015] and [0046] The counter can be reset for each time period, implying that the counter is restarted for the purpose of tracking values during a new time period (time window). ). 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 method of Kulik for a sensor with a dynamic data range with the method of Hess for a new time window starting after a change in the range is performed and resetting a counter to ensure accuracy of the data, reduce noise, and keep sensor values from being erroneously tracked as invalid by the counter when they do in fact land within the new boundaries. For claims 5 and 7, Kulik and Hess teach claim 1. Kulik further teaches wherein the data range can be increased/decreased ([0045, 0046], range can be adjusted by a percentage based on measurements) . However, Kulik and Hess do not expressly teach wherein the data range can be increased/decreased by 1%–20%. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the increase/decrease of the data range be limited to 1%-20% because Applicant has not disclosed that increasing/decreasing the data range by 1%-20% provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with ([0045, 0046]) the data range being adjusted by a percentage based on the percentage that the upper or lower boundary is exceeded because adjusting the data range based on the percentage that a boundary is exceeded would reduce the number of measurements that would be found outside of the boundary threshold and would increase the accuracy of the measurements . Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice (KSR obvious to try) to modify Kulik and Hess to obtain the invention as specified in claims 5 and 7 . For claim 9, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulik and Hess, and further in view of Herz et al. (DE 102012108815 A1), hereinafter Herz . For claim 2, Kulik and Hess teach claim 1. Kulik and Hess do not explicitly teach wherein the data range has at least one dynamically variable bound, wherein the dynamically variable bound is an upper bound of the data range and/or a lower bound of the data range. However, Herz teaches wherein the data range has at least one dynamically variable bound, wherein the dynamically variable bound is an upper bound of the data range and/or a lower bound of the data range ([0014], it is advantageous to have a lower and/or upper barrier be adjustable). 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 method of Kulik and Hess for a sensor with a dynamic data range with the method of Herz for the lower and/or upper barrier being adjustable to allow for dynamic adjustments of the data range as measurements are generated by the sensor. For claim 3, Kulik and Hess and Herz teach claim 2. Kulik and Hess do not explicitly teach, however Herz further teaches wherein only the upper bound of the data range is variable and the lower bound has a constant value ([0014], it is advantageous to have a lower and/or upper barrier be adjustable. The use of “or” implies that if one bound is adjustable, the other is constant). 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 method of Kulik and Hess for a sensor with a dynamic data range with the method of Herz for the upper bound being variable and the lower bound being a constant value to allow for dynamic adjustments of the data range as measurements are generated by the sensor. For claim 4 , Kulik and Hess and Herz teach claim 2. Kulik and Hess do not explicitly teach, however Herz further teaches wherein only the lower bound of the data range is variable and the upper bound has a constant value ([0014], it is advantageous to have a lower and/or upper barrier be adjustable. The use of “or” implies that if one bound is adjustable, the other is constant.) . 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 method of Kulik and Hess for a sensor with a dynamic data range with the method of Herz for the lower bound being variable and the upper bound being a constant value to allow for dynamic adjustments of the data range as measurements are generated by the sensor. For claim 6, Kulik and Hess and Herz teach claim 2. Kulik further teaches wherein the sensor is configured in such a way that the data range is increased only by changing the upper bound of the data range ([0051], range is increased to the next available range increment) . For claim 8, Kulik and Hess and Herz teach claim 2. Kulik further teaches wherein the sensor is configured in such a way that the data range is decreased only at the upper bound of the data range ([0051], range can start at highest bound and move towards lower bound) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin T. Ranew whose telephone number is (571)272-2746. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571) 270-0422. 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. /BENJAMIN T. RANEW/Examiner, Art Unit 2465 /AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/454,902 Page 2 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/454,902 Page 3 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/454,902 Page 4 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/454,902 Page 5 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/454,902 Page 6 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/454,902 Page 7 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/454,902 Page 8 Art Unit: 2465
Prosecution Insights