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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regards to all independent claims, the limitations “analyzing a frequency property based on the threshold number of samples” that includes “finding a frequency domain representation for the threshold number of samples” are not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without determining a variance, which is/are critical to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
In order to “determining that a variance of the threshold number of samples exceeds a threshold”, the variance has to be calculated first according to the disclosure [0085]. This necessary subject matter is missing from the above claims.
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 1-19 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.
With regards to all independent claims, the limitation “determining that a variance of the threshold number of samples exceeds a threshold” is indefinite because it is unclear how such a threshold (a number of samples) is used to determine a variance. In fact, according to the Specification, the variance is determined based on the sampled quantity (sample is denoted as “x” [0129]; the variance of “x” [0130]) but not based on the threshold number of samples as claimed.
The Examiner additionally suggests that if the Applicants satisfactorily explain “the variance of threshold number of samples”, to introduce another/secondary threshold term related to the sampled data as explained above and, correspondingly, use first and second thresholds clearly defined/claimed or change the language similar to the Examiner’s interpretation below.
For the purpose of a compact prosecution, the Examiner interpreted the feature “determining that a variance of sampled data from the threshold number of samples exceeds a threshold”.
With regards to all independent claims, the limitation “analyzing a frequency property based on the threshold number of samples” that includes “finding a frequency domain representation for the threshold number of samples” is indefinite as it is unclear how the “number of samples” may affect frequency domain/analysis of a peak frequency (see, for example, [0076], where no number of samples affects “the frequency of vibration as observed by an accelerometer”). The Specification is silent with regards to this claimed feature (please see the rejection under the 35 USC § 112(a) above).
For the purpose of a compact prosecution, the Examiner interpreted these features as “analyzing a frequency property for the threshold number of samples in corresponding frequency domain”.
With regards to all independent claims, the limitation “finding that the transportation asset is loaded when the peak frequency is less than a second threshold; and finding that the transportation asset is unloaded when the peak frequency is less than a third threshold” is indefinite as it is unclear how the peak frequency that indicates the loading status could be below a (second) threshold while the unloaded status corresponds to a peak frequency that is also below another (third) threshold. The Specification is silent with regards to this limitation and only discusses the thresholds associated with energy ratios [0102].
For the purpose of a compact prosecution, the Examiner interpreted this limitation as peaks frequency positions in relation to arbitrary thresholds where the “loading” peak is below certain (second) threshold and the “unloading” peak is below another (third) threshold.
With regards to Claim 19, the limitations “taking a threshold number of samples of a displacement-related value of the motor vehicle over time” and “finding that the transportation asset is loaded” are indefinite as it is unclear what is the structural relation of the sensor apparatus introduced earlier in the claim to the italicized terms and whether there is a different/separate patentable meaning of these features.
For the purpose of a compact prosecution, the Examiner interpreted these features as representing the same motor vehicle (same patentable meaning) with the sensor affixed to it as discussed in Claims 1 and 10.
With regards to Claims 9 and 18, the limitation “the threshold is provisioned to the sensor apparatus prior to detecting the trigger” as it is unclear what the “threshold” refers to as three thresholds are discussed in Claim 1 (10).
For the purpose of a compact prosecution, the Examiner interpreted the threshold as related to all thresholds in Claim 1.
Claims 1-19 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 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite as it is unclear the trigger event is detected before the (moving) variance is calculated and determined to exceed a threshold as shown, for example, in flow diagram in Fig.7.
Still, in Fig.6, the determination of the trigger condition is shown prior to determining whether the (moving) variance exceed the threshold.
Therefore, it is unclear what the boundaries of the invention are or whether two different thresholds or two different variances are used.
For the purpose of a compact prosecution, the Examiner did not consider a (moving) variance to identify a trigger event following the disclosure (“the present disclosure is not limited to any particular trigger event” [0087]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A method at a sensor apparatus affixed to a chassis of a motor vehicle, the motor vehicle comprising a cargo area, the method comprising:
detecting a trigger condition at the sensor apparatus;
taking a threshold number of samples of a displacement-related value of the motor vehicle over time;
determining that a variance of the threshold number of samples exceeds a threshold;
analyzing a frequency property based on the threshold number of samples, wherein the analyzing the frequency property comprises:
finding a frequency domain representation for the threshold number of samples; and
determining a peak frequency value within the frequency domain;
finding that the transportation asset is loaded when the peak frequency is less than a second threshold; and
finding that the transportation asset is unloaded when the peak frequency is less than a third threshold.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that covers mental processes — concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. This process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
The abstract idea of the claim also falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). These limitations are further underlined such as “determining …a variance of the threshold number of samples”.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 10 and 19.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a sensor apparatus affixed to a chassis of a motor vehicle, the motor vehicle comprising a cargo area, taking a ... samples of a displacement-related value of the transportation asset over time;
In Claim 10: A sensor apparatus affixed to a transportation asset, the transportation asset comprising a cargo area, the sensor apparatus comprising: a processor; and a communications subsystem, wherein the sensor apparatus is configured to: ... take ... samples of a displacement- related value of the transportation asset over time;
In Claim 19: A non transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon executable code for execution by a processor of a sensor apparatus, taking … samples of displacement related value of the motor vehicle over time.
The additional elements in the preambles such as a “transportation asset, the transportation asset comprising a cargo area” and sensor apparatus attached/affixed to it are not qualified for a meaningful limitation because they only generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The displacement-related value sensors represent a mere data gathering activity step and only add an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Taking samples of a displacement-related value of the transportation asset over time using the sensors represents mere data gathering step and it is not meaningful as generically recited. All uses of the judicial exception require collecting such data. A generically-recited communication subsystem, computer readable medium, and a processor (generic processor) are generally recited and are not meaningful and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record (Watanabe, Shoess, Savaresi).
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-9 and 11-18 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims and, therefore, these claims are not eligible lacking a practical application and/or significantly more additional elements.
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 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 1-5, 7-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yutaka Watanabe (US 2016/0265960), hereinafter ‘Watanabe’ in view of ICHIBA HISAYUKI et al. (JP 2004138553), hereinafter ‘Hisayuki’, Jeffrey Schoess et al. (US 2003/0040885), hereinafter ‘Schoess’, in further view of Sergio Matteo Savaresi et al. (US 2016/0114809), hereinafter ‘Savaresi’.
With regrds to Claim 1, Watanabe discloses
A method at a sensor apparatus affixed to a chassis of a motor vehicle, the motor vehicle comprising a cargo area (A loading weight detection device, Abstract; an acceleration sensor 21 and an A/D converter 22, being installed in a location where the oscillation of the cargo bed 11 of the cargo vehicle 10 in an up-down direction can be detected [0030]; The present invention relates to a loading weight detection device that detects the weight of mobile bodies [0001]; Fig.1),
the method comprising:
detecting a trigger at the sensor apparatus (being interlocked with the start of an engine of the cargo vehicle 10, the power for the loading weight detection device is turned on [0084]; “Start”, Fig.4);
taking a threshold number of samples of a displacement-related value of the motor vehicle over time (the sampling interval was 0.005 sec [0103], where the sampling interval is interpreted as inherently defining “a threshold number of samples”, emphasis added by examiner; Figs. 11A, 11C, 12A, 12C; the oscillation data in the up-down direction of the cargo bed 11 that is detected by the acceleration sensor 21 in the vibration detection part 20a [0060]; The vibration detection part 20 includes an acceleration sensor 21 … being installed in a location where the oscillation of the cargo bed 11 of the cargo vehicle 10 in an up-down direction can be detected [0030]);
analyzing a frequency property, finding a frequency domain representation, and determining a peak frequency value within the frequency domain (the frequency with a maximum amplitude was identified as the vertical oscillation center-of-gravity-specific natural vibration frequency V.sub.z0, and a value of 2.83203 Hz was obtained for the vertical oscillation center-of-gravity-specific natural vibration frequency V.sub.z0. [0098]; the frequency with a maximum amplitude was identified as the vertical oscillation center-of-gravity-specific natural vibration frequency V.sub.z0, and a value of 3.1250 Hz was obtained for the vertical oscillation center-of-gravity-specific natural vibration frequency V.sub.z.[0099]; Figs. 11B, 11D, 12B, 12D) based on the threshold number of samples (inherent, as only threshold number of samples are collected, emphasis added by Examiner); and
finding the transportation asset load by analyzing vertical oscillation natural vibration frequency (during traveling of the cargo vehicle 10 that is loaded with the cargo 1 having an unknown cargo weight of m.sub.b, the arithmetic part 31 determines the vertical oscillation center-of-gravity-specific natural vibration frequency V.sub.z, [0049]; Fig. 9).
However, Watanabe does not specifically disclose determining that a variance of the threshold number of samples exceeds a threshold, finding that the transportation asset is loaded when the peak frequency is less than a second threshold; finding that the transportation asset is unloaded when the peak frequency is less than a third threshold.
Hisayuki discloses determining that a variance of the threshold number of samples exceeds a threshold (Next, a variance of a plurality of values of the yaw rate output from the yaw gyro sensor 14 is obtained (S8), and when the variance exceeds a threshold value, it is determined that the moving body 17 is traveling (S9). ), The acceleration zero value Gsinθ is subtracted from the acceleration value αx output from the acceleration sensor 15 to obtain an acceleration α0 (for example, an acceleration of a vehicle such as an automobile) α0 of the moving body 17 (S10) [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watanabe in view of Hisayuki to evaluate a determined variance for the sampled data (“the threshold number of samples”) that requires a calculation of mean (average, Watanabe) as known in the art of statistics and then using the variance threshold exceedance in identifying a moving vehicle to be able to detect a loading status while in travel as known in art (Hisayuki).
Shoess discloses finding that the transportation asset is loaded when the peak frequency is less than a second threshold (In general, a loaded vehicle will exhibit different histogram characteristics than an unloaded vehicle. For example, a loaded vehicle is likely to have higher peak amplitudes, wider peak events, a lower distribution density, a narrower histogram envelope width, a higher frequency content (e.g. up to 150 Hz. versus less than 100 Hz.), and a slightly lower fundamental frequency (e.g. 17.5 Hz. Versus 20 Hz.) than the same car unloaded. While presently preferred embodiments currently utilize peak amplitude and peak width to determine load weight status, one or more of these other characteristics may alternatively or additionally be used [0042]).
Shoess also discloses a threshold corresponding to an unloaded condition (20 Hz as discussed above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watanabe in view of Hisayuki, and Shoess to find out whether the transportation asset is loaded or unloaded based on the fundamental peak frequency analysis as compared to a threshold such that when it is lower than the (second) threshold (20 Hz, Shoess, above), the vehicle is loaded as discussed in Shoess.
Savaresi discloses an upper limit of a frequency range corresponding to an unloaded status (Fig. 4, frequency range: 0-5Hz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watanabe in view of Hisayuki, Shoess, and further in view of Savaresi to find out that the transportation asset is unloaded based on the fundamental peak frequency analysis as compared to another threshold such that when it is lower than this (third) threshold, the vehicle is unloaded, wherein the third threshold is arbitrarily selected to correspond to a typical frequency range of unloaded asset being below the upper limit of a known range prior to loading as known in the art (Savaresi, see Figs. 2 and 4, where 5 Hz is an upper range “third” threshold, emphasis added) as determined, for example, during initial calibration to predictably ensure reliability and accuracy of frequency measurements and/or also as a matter of a design preference, since the applicant has not disclose any reasons/explanations for introducing a third threshold as claimed, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with just a second threshold that would not be satisfied and thus not indicating a loading (predictably meaning, in binary sense, an unloaded asset) as a viable alternative of a loading status as known in the art (one or more of these other characteristics may alternatively or additionally be used, Shoess [0042]).
With regards to Claims 2 and 11, Watanabe in view of Hisayuki, Shoess, and further in view of Savaresi discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1 (10).
However, Watanabe does not specifically disclose that a finding that a loading status of the transportation asset is not available when the peak frequency is between the second threshold and the third threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watanabe in view of Hisayuki, Shoess, and further in view of Savaresi that when the peak frequency is between the second threshold and the third threshold, the transportation asset status would not be reliably determined as such because this situation would definitely satisfy only one, unloaded condition and would not correspond to a loading threshold condition and/or also as a matter of a design preference, since the applicant has not disclose any reasons/explanations for such determination uncertainty (for example, both conditions need to be satisfied), and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with just confirming the unloaded condition which is satisfied.
With regards to Claims 3 and 12, Watanabe in view of Hisayuki, Shoess, and further in view of Savaresi discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1 (10).
However, Watanabe does not specifically disclose that prior to detecting the trigger: entering into a calibration mode on the sensor apparatus; operating the transportation asset in an unloaded state; operating the transportation asset in a loaded state; determining thresholds and values for the analyzing the frequency property.
Savaresi discloses: entering into a calibration mode on the sensor apparatus; operating the transportation asset in an unloaded state; operating the transportation asset in a loaded state; determining thresholds and values for the analyzing the frequency property [0034-0040]; determining thresholds and values for the analyzing the frequency property [0041-0047], Figs. 4, 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watanabe in view of Hisayuki, Shoess, and further in view of Savaresi to that prior to detecting the trigger, enter into a calibration mode on the sensor apparatus; operating the transportation asset in an unloaded state; operating the transportation asset in a loaded state; and correspondingly determine thresholds and values for the analyzing the frequency property based on true baseline conditions of the asset to accurately analyze loading state (Note that the above-described calibration criterion grants reliable results, i.e. an accurate estimation of the numeric absolute value of the load L, if load positioning during the actual use of the system corresponds to the load positioning adopted during the calibration of the system 1, Savaresi [0051]).
With regards to Claims 4 and 13, Watanabe in view of Hisayuki, Shoess, and further in view of Savaresi discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1 (10).
However, Watanabe does not specifically disclose the trigger condition is a signal from a network element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watanabe in view of Hisayuki, Shoess, and further in view of Savaresi to obtain the trigger condition as a signal from a network element to initiate frequency analysis indicating a loading status of the transportation asset in motion as, for example, a server command, when the status determination is of interest to the network (server) at any particular time/interval that would limit data accumulation and/or memory requirements.
With regards to Claim 5 and 14, Watanabe in view of Hisayuki, Shoess, and further in view of Savaresi discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1 (10).
However, Watanabe does not specifically disclose the trigger condition is a detection that the motor vehicle is in motion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watanabe in view of Hisayuki, Shoess, and further in view of Savaresi to obtain the trigger condition as a detection that the motor vehicle is in motion because the motion will generate detectable/strong signal-to-noise amplitudes of peaks to be analyzed in corresponding frequency spectra associated with a loading status detection (a third type of system determines the load and its distribution, based on the analysis of the vehicle vertical dynamics, in particular obtaining the vehicle vertical acceleration from the vertical acceleration of the wheels or from the road profile, assumed known, Savaresi [0008]).
With regards to Claims 7 and 16, Watanabe additionally discloses that the displacement-related value is obtained from one or both of an accelerometer and a strain gauge (The vibration detection part 20 includes an acceleration sensor 21 [0030].
With regards to Claims 8 and 17, Watanabe additionally discloses finding the frequency domain representation comprises performing a Fourier Transform of the threshold number of samples (the natural vibration identifying means may apply fast Fourier transformation to time series oscillation data that has been detected by the oscillation detection means to identify the vertical oscillation center-of-gravity-specific natural vibration value [0007]).
With regards to Claims 9 and 18, Watanabe in view of Hisayuki, Shoess, and further in view of Savaresi discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1 (10).
However, Watanabe does not specifically disclose the threshold is provisioned to the sensor apparatus prior to detecting the trigger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watanabe in view of Hisayuki, Shoess, and further in view of Savaresi to provide the threshold to the sensor apparatus prior to detecting the trigger in order to able to distinguish the loading status that is based on a comparison with the threshold.
With regards to Claims 10 and 19, Watanabe in view of Hisayuki, Shoess, and further in view of Savaresi disclose the claimed limitations as discussed in regards to Claim 1.
Additionally, with regards to Claim 10, Watanabe discloses a processor (an arithmetic part 31a comprised of a microprocessor [0056]) and a communications subsystem (the arithmetic part 31 causes the initial setting screen 40 shown in FIG. 5A to be displayed in the touch panel 33 [0035]; display screen, Fig. 5: reporting part 34, Fig. 2).
Additionally, with regards to Claim 19, Watanabe discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium for storing instruction code (storage part 32 [0035]: Fig. 2).
Claim 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Hisayuki, Shoess, further in view of Savaresi, and further in view of Michael L. Kirkland Brundage et al. (US 8949677), hereinafter ‘Brundage’.
With regards to Claim 6 and 15, Watanabe in view of Hisayuki, Shoess, and further in view of Savaresi discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1(10).
However, Watanabe does not specifically disclose the variance is a moving variance calculated as each sample is taken to reduce storage at the sensor apparatus.
Brundage discloses calculating moving variance for each sample (he anomaly detector 115 may compute the moving variance in the time series 130 and designate, as an anomaly 136, a change in variance above a predefined threshold, Col.7, Lines 33-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watanabe in view of Hisayuki, Shoess, and further in view of Savaresi to calculate a moving variance as known in the art to reduce memory usage/ storage at the sensor apparatus by filtering out/refraining the calculated larger variance samples (Variance anomaly, Brundage, Col.7, Lines 36-37) from a storing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. 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.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863