DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action for 18/251,265, filed 11/28/2023, which is a divisional application of 17/643,920, filed 12/13/2021, which claims priority to provisional applications 63/130,331, filed 12/23/2020, and 63/124,791, filed 12/12/2020.
Claims 1-16 are pending, and are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments filed 9/19/2025, the claim objections and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are presented herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0067282 A1
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0280351 A1
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0225128 A1
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0176578 A1
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 1-16 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 1 recites “wherein the power available is based on a solar power generation of an integrated solar panel of the solar powered tape node” in lines 5-6. The metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear, because the relationship between the available power and the power generated by the solar panel is unclear. Merely reciting that “A” is “based on” “B” does not sufficiently describe the relationship between “A” and “B.” Is the available power equal to the power generated by the solar panel, proportional to the power generated by the solar panel, inversely proportional to the power generated by the solar panel, or another relationship?
Claim 1 further recites “at least one task assigned to the solar powered tape node with an associated power requirement” in lines 7-8. The metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear, because the relationship between the power requirement and the task is unclear. Is the power requirement equal to the power required to perform the task, or another value?
Claim 1 further recites “another wireless node” in line 10. This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear whether this limitation requires that the tape node is also wireless, or merely requires that the request is transmitted to another node of the environment, wherein the node receiving the request is wireless.
Claim 1 further recites “a first node” in line 12. This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear whether this “first node” is the same node as the previously-recited “another wireless node,” or a separate node.
Claim 1 further recites “ceasing, by the solar powered tape node, the performance of the at least one task” in line 14. This limitation is indefinite, because the tape node is not the node that is executing the at least one task, per the other limitations of Claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear how the solar powered tape node can “cease” the performance of the task, since it is not performing the task.
Claims 2-9 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “the solar powered threshold” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite, because there is no prior recitation of “a solar powered threshold.” Therefore, the metes and bounds of Claim 3 are unclear.
Claim 4 recites “at a later time” in line 2. The metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite, because it is unclear what time is encompassed by “a later time.”
Claim 4 recites “resuming the performance of the at least one task of the solar powered tape node” in lines 5-6. This limitation is unclear, because there is no prior recitation that “the at least one task” was ever performed by the solar powered tape node. Therefore, it is unclear how the at least one task can be “resumed.”
Claim 5 recites “at a later time” in line 2. The metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite, because it is unclear what time is encompassed by “a later time.”
Claim 5 recites “reactivating.. tape node” in lines 5-6. This limitation is unclear, because there is no prior recitation that “the at least one task” was ever performed by the solar powered tape node. Therefore, it is unclear how the at least one task can be “reactivated.”
Claim 6 recites “intelligent software” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite, because the metes and bounds of “intelligent software” are unclear.
Claim 6 recites “resuming …the performance of the at least one task” in lines 7-8. This limitation is unclear, because there is no prior recitation that “the at least one task” was ever performed by the solar powered tape node. Therefore, it is unclear how the at least one task can be “resumed.”
Claims 7-9 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 6.
Claim 9 recites “the second node.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, because there is no prior recitation of “a second node” in Claims 1 or 6.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the power available is based on a solar power generation of an integrated solar panel of the solar powered tape node and an amount of energy stored on a battery of the first solar powered tape node” in lines 2-4. The metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear, because the relationship between the available power, the power generated by the solar panel, and the power in the battery is unclear. Merely reciting that “A” is “based on” “B” does not sufficiently describe the relationship between “A” and “B.” Is the available power equal to the power generated by the solar panel and the battery, proportional to the power generated by the solar panel and the battery, inversely proportional to the power generated by the solar panel and the battery, or another relationship?
Claims 11-16 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 10.
Claim 11 is indefinite, because it depends on itself.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skaaksrud, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0156747 A1).
It is noted that all pending claims are indefinite, as described above. The following rejections represent the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
In reference to Claim 1, Skaaksrud teaches a method (Fig. 53, paragraphs [1123]-[1136]) comprising using an ID node (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0150]-[0162]) in a wireless communication environment.
The ID node of Skaaksrud is a solar powered node (i.e. ID node 120a, shown in Fig. 3, described as being solar powered in paragraph [0154]).
Skaaksrud does not teach that the ID node is necessarily a tape node.
However, he teaches that one of several suitable configurations for the ID node is a node adhered to an object by an adhesive tape (paragraph [0656]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the ID node of Skaaksrud to be a tape node (i.e. a node comprising adhesive tape), because Skaaksrud teaches that this is one of several configurations suitable for use in forming the ID node of his invention.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the node is a “solar-powered tape node.”
Skaaksrud teaches that the method of his invention comprises determining that power available to the solar-powered tape node is below a first threshold (paragraph [1125]).
Skaaksrud teaches that the power available is based on a solar power generation of an integrated solar panel of the solar powered tape node (paragraph [0154]).
Skaaksrud teaches that the nodes of his invention manage the power used when performing tasks, and determine which node should perform a specific task (paragraph [0197]). Skaaksrud further teaches that the system may make a determination of which node should accomplish a particular task based upon profile data including the power required by the node, collected over a period of time (paragraph [0197]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the method comprises identifying, by the solar powered tape node, at least one task assigned to the solar powered tape node with an associated power requirement above or equal to the first threshold.
This disclosure teaches and/or renders obvious the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the method comprises transmitting, by the solar powered tape node, a request to another wireless node of a tracking system to delegate the at least one task using wireless communication (paragraphs [0197] and [1125]).
This disclosure teaches and/or renders obvious the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the method comprises receiving, by the solar powered tape node, a confirmation that a first node will perform the at least one task using wireless communication; and ceasing, by the solar powered tape node, the performance of the at least one task.
This disclosure teaches and/or renders obvious the limitations of Claim 3, wherein the method further comprises determining, by the solar powered threshold, that the power available is below a second threshold, the second threshold lower than the first threshold; ceasing at least one a second function of the solar-powered tape node that has a minimum power requirement above a above or equal to the second threshold.
This disclosure teaches and/or renders obvious teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein the method further comprises determining, by the solar powered tape node at a later time, that power available to the solar-powered tape node is above or equal to the first threshold and resuming the performance of the at least one task the at least one function of the solar-powered tape node.
This disclosure teaches and/or renders obvious the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the method further comprises determining, by the solar powered tape node at a later time that power available to the solar-powered tape node has changed and is now above a third threshold, greater than the first threshold; reactivating, by the solar powered tape node, the at least one task of the solar-powered tape node; and in response to the power available now being above the third threshold, performing, by the solar powered tape node, one or more additional tasks.
In reference to Claim 2, Skaaksrud teaches that the step of determining further comprises determining a power level of a battery of the solar-powered tape node; determining an output power level of a solar panel of the solar-powered tape node; and adding the power level of the battery and the output power of the solar panel to form the power available to the solar-powered tape node (paragraphs [0154] and [0197]).
In reference to Claim 6, Skaaksrud teaches that the nodes of his invention manage the power used when performing tasks, and determine which node should perform a specific task (paragraph [0197]).
Skaaksrud further teaches that the nodes of his invention predict the point at which their power will be depleted, prioritize their respective functions based on this prediction, and send an alert to other nodes notifying other nodes about a low-power situation (paragraphs [1120]-[1122]).
This disclosure teaches and/or renders obvious the limitations of Claim 6, wherein the method further comprises receiving, by the solar powered tape node from a distributed intelligent software of the network communications environment (i.e. from the software of the node), a prediction of an amount of power available to the solar-powered tape node over a subsequent period (i.e. its predicted depletion); and in response to the predicted amount of power available being above the first threshold, resuming, by the solar powered tape node the performance of the at least one task; and transmitting, by the solar powered tape node, a notification to a wireless node of the network communications environment that the solar powered tape node has resumed the at least one task, wherein the first node ceases performing the at least one task in response to receiving the notification.
This disclosure teaches and/or renders obvious the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the method further comprises, in response to the predicted amount of power available being below a second threshold, the second threshold higher than the first threshold, ceasing at least one function of the solar- powered tape node that has a minimum power requirement above or equal to the second threshold.
This disclosure teaches and/or renders obvious the limitations of Claim 8, wherein the prediction is based on an expected amount of solar energy that the solar powered tape node is expected to receive during the subsequent period (i.e. the predicted power depletion).
In reference to Claim 9, Skaaksrud teaches that one of several suitable modes for performing the method of his invention involves communication between proximate nodes (paragraph [0287]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have performed the method of Skaaksrud using communication between proximate nodes, because he teaches that this is one of several suitable configurations for the nodes in his invention.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 9, wherein the second node is installed proximate the solar-powered tape node.
In reference to Claim 10, Skaaksrud teaches a method (Fig. 53, paragraphs [1123]-[1136]) comprising using an ID node (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0150]-[0162]) in a wireless communication environment.
The ID node of Skaaksrud is a solar powered node (i.e. ID node 120a, shown in Fig. 3, described as being solar powered in paragraph [0154]).
Skaaksrud does not teach that the ID node is necessarily a tape node.
However, he teaches that one of several suitable configurations for the ID node is a node adhered to an object by an adhesive tape (paragraph [0656]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the ID node of Skaaksrud to be a tape node (i.e. a node comprising adhesive tape), because Skaaksrud teaches that this is one of several configurations suitable for use in forming the ID node of his invention.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the node is a “solar-powered tape node.”
Skaaksrud teaches that the method of his invention comprises determining the power available to the solar-powered tape node (paragraph [1125]).
Skaaksrud teaches that the power available is based on a solar power generation of an integrated solar panel of the solar powered tape node and an associated battery (paragraph [0154]).
Therefore, Skaaksrud teaches that the method of his invention comprises determining, by a first solar powered tape node, a power available to a first solar powered tape node based on a solar power generation of the first solar powered tape node and an amount of energy stored on a battery of the first solar powered tape node.
Skaaksrud teaches that the nodes of his invention manage the power used when performing tasks, and determine which node should perform a specific task (paragraph [0197]). Skaaksrud further teaches that the system may make a determination of which node should accomplish a particular task based upon profile data including the power required by the node, collected over a period of time (paragraph [0197]).
This disclosure teaches and/or renders obvious the limitations of Claim 10, wherein, in response to the power available being above a first threshold, resuming, by the first solar powered tape node, performance of at least one task that was canceled at a previous time, wherein an associated power requirement of the at least one task is equal to the first threshold.
Skaaksrud further teaches that the nodes of his invention predict the point at which their power will be depleted, prioritize their respective functions based on this prediction, and send an alert to other nodes notifying other nodes about a low-power situation (paragraphs [1120]-[1122]).
This disclosure teaches and/or renders obvious the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the method includes transmitting, by the first solar powered tape node, a notification that the first solar powered tape node has resumed performance of the at least one task to a wireless node of a tracking system associated with the solar powered tape node. This is further described in Fig. 53, paragraphs [1129]-[1130].
This disclosure teaches and/or renders obvious the limitations of Claim 11, wherein the at least one task was canceled in response to the power available being below the first threshold at the previous time.
This disclosure teaches and/or renders obvious the limitations of Claim 12, wherein a second solar powered tape node ceases performance of the at least one task in response to receiving the notification.
This disclosure teaches and/or renders obvious the limitations of Claim 14, wherein the at least one task comprises determining a location of the solar powered tape node (Fig. 53).
In reference to Claim 13, Fig. 1 and paragraph [0135] teach that notifications are communicated from ID nodes to a server via a master node.
Paragraph [0135] teaches that the master node and the server communicate through a cellular communication system.
In reference to Claim 15, Skaaksrud teaches that the determining the location comprises activating GPS-based communication system of the first solar powered tape node (paragraph [0158]).
In reference to Claim 16, Skaaksrud teaches that the at least one task performed by the ID node includes activating a GPS sensor (paragraph [0158]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 16, wherein the at least one task comprises activating long-range communications of the first solar powered tape node.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections presented in the prior office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made, as described herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6am-2:30pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke, can be reached on 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721