DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to the communication filed on 3/18/2026. Claims 1-13 are pending in this application.
Examiner Note
The examiner is here to serve, to assist, and to help applicant to the very best of his ability. The Primary Patent Examiner position is a position of serving and it is an honor to externally serve the applicant and attorney and to internally serve junior examiners and supervisors. The goal of the examiner is to work with and assist applicant to move cases along as efficiently as possible.
Applicant is encouraged to call examiner to schedule an interview if applicant has any questions about this action, wants to discuss any possible paths forward, has proposed amendments to the claims to run by the examiner, or for any other issues that applicant would like to discuss.
Examiner can normally be reached at (571) 270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov, Monday-Friday, from about 6 AM - 10 PM EST and if your call is missed examiner will try to return call quickly, thank you.
Priority
This application claims priority of DE102022213422.2, filed 12/12/2022. The assignee of record is Aktiebolaget SKF. The listed inventor(s) is/are: GRAF, Jens; POULAILLEAU, Clément; HUBERT, Simon.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Response to Amendment
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Semtech (Migrating an Internet of Things (IoT) Sensor Design to LoRaWAN (Long Range Wide Area Network), Semtech White Paper, 5/2018; hereinafter NPL1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20230268665 A1, filed 2/19/2022; hereinafter Lee), and further in view of Barnum et al. (US 20200257179 A1, published 8/13/2020; hereinafter Bar).
For Claim 1, NPL1 teaches a method for connecting at least one wireless sensor to a first gateway of a plurality of gateways, the method comprising (Please see screenshot of NPL1 Figs. 7 & 8 below, thank you:
PNG
media_image1.png
384
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
354
720
media_image2.png
Greyscale
):
a) an emission of a first signal comprising a non-connectable frame by the sensor (NPL1 Pg 8-9 sensors wake-up periodically to send uplink messaging),
b) for each gateway, a determination of a signal reception quality… of the first signal to quantify the quality of the reception of the first signal by the said gateway (NPL1 Pg 4 determination is made if total sum of all the gains and losses in dB from the transmitter through the propagation channel to the targeted receiver is less than what is needed to meet the SNR at the receiver.
Please also see screenshot of NPL1 Table 1 below, thank you:
PNG
media_image3.png
368
710
media_image3.png
Greyscale
),
c) a choice of a selected gateway from the plurality of gateways, the selected gateway having the highest signal reception quality (NPL1 Pg. 8-9 LoRaWAN NS selects optimum gateway).
NPL1 does not use the term signal reception quality score, does not explicitly teach a signal to each of the plurality of gateways and a choice from the plurality of gateways for processing signals from the sensor.
However, Lee teaches signal reception quality score (Lee ¶ 0112 signal reception quality score).
Lee and NPL1 are analogous art because they are both related to networking and IoT devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the quality score threshold techniques of Lee with the system of NPL1 because of optimization (Lee ¶ 0112).
NPL1-Lee does not explicitly teach does not explicitly teach a signal to each of the plurality of gateways and a choice from the plurality of gateways for processing signals from the sensor.
However, Bar teaches does not explicitly teach a signal to each of the plurality of gateways and a choice from the plurality of gateways for processing signals from the sensor (Bar ¶ 0083 Responsive to gateway 106a receiving a signal (e.g., from interior sensor 206, tint selector 120, keypad, HVAC system, security system, building management, etc.) that is for multiple gateways 106, the gateway 106a may transmit the signal to the cloud computing system 110 (e.g., to a broker module 222 executing on a server device of the cloud computing system 110, to perform keypad bridging). The cloud computing system 110 (e.g., via cloud computing module 224) may determine that the signal is associated with additional gateways 106 (e.g., gateway 106b) and may transmit the signal to the additional gateways 106 (e.g., via the broker module 222). Upon receiving the signal from the cloud computing system 110 (e.g., via the broker module 222), the gateway 106b may cause the drivers 104b to control the EC windows 130b based on the signal.).
Bar and NPL1-Lee are analogous art because they are both related to networking and IoT devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the signal transmission techniques of Bar with the system of NPL1-Lee because the cloud computing system 110 (e.g., via cloud computing module 224) may determine that the signal is associated with additional gateways 106 (e.g., gateway 106b) and may transmit the signal to the additional gateways 106 (Bar ¶ 0083).
For Claim 2, NPL1-Lee-Bar teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the sensor is in a sleep mode, the method comprises:
d) a first start of the sensor before emitting the first signal (NPL1 Pg 8-9 sensors wake periodically to wake),
e) a first switch of the sensor in the sleep mode after sending the first signal (NPL1 Pg 8-9 return to sleep mode),
f) a second start of the sensor when a first predetermined duration has elapsed, the selected gateway being chosen during the first predetermined duration (NPL1 Pg 8-9 DL opens later for server to respond),
g) an emission of a second signal by the sensor, the second signal comprising a connectable frame, the second signal being processed by the selected gateway to establish a communication between the sensor and the selected gateway (NPL1 Pg 8-9 RX slots allow directed response),
h) an emission of a third signal by the sensor, the third signal comprising data extracted from measurements taken by the said sensor, the third signal being processed by the selected gateway (NPL1 Pg 8-9 original uplink contains sensor data), and
i) a second switch of the sensor is the sleep mode after sending the third signal (NPL1 Pg 8-9 after DL received return to sleep).
For Claim 3, NPL1-Lee-Bar teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein steps a) to i) are repeated after a predetermined duration (NPL1 Pg 9).
For Claim 4, NPL1 teaches a network comprising: at least one wireless sensor comprising emitting means configured to emit a first signal comprising a non-connectable frame, a plurality of gateways, and a network supervisor, the network supervisor comprising (Please see screenshot of NPL1 Figs. 7 & 8 below, thank you:
PNG
media_image1.png
384
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
354
720
media_image2.png
Greyscale
):
determining means configured to determine for each gateway a signal reception quality… of the first signal to quantify the quality of the reception of the first signal by the said gateway (NPL1 Pg 4 determination is made if total sum of all the gains and losses in dB from the transmitter through the propagation channel to the targeted receiver is less than what is needed to meet the SNR at the receiver.
Please also see screenshot of NPL1 Table 1 below, thank you:
PNG
media_image3.png
368
710
media_image3.png
Greyscale
), and
choosing means configured to choose a selected gateway from the plurality of gateways, the selected gateway having the highest signal reception quality... (NPL1 Pg. 8-9 LoRaWAN NS selects optimum gateway).
NPL1 does not use the term signal reception quality score.
However, Lee teaches signal reception quality score (Lee ¶ 0112 signal reception quality score).
Lee and NPL1 are analogous art because they are both related to networking and IoT devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the quality score threshold techniques of Lee with the system of NPL1 because of optimization (Lee ¶ 0112).
NPL1-Lee does not explicitly teach does not explicitly teach a signal to each of the plurality of gateways and a choice from the plurality of gateways for processing signals from the sensor.
However, Bar teaches does not explicitly teach a signal to each of the plurality of gateways and a choice from the plurality of gateways for processing signals from the sensor (Bar ¶ 0083 Responsive to gateway 106a receiving a signal (e.g., from interior sensor 206, tint selector 120, keypad, HVAC system, security system, building management, etc.) that is for multiple gateways 106, the gateway 106a may transmit the signal to the cloud computing system 110 (e.g., to a broker module 222 executing on a server device of the cloud computing system 110, to perform keypad bridging). The cloud computing system 110 (e.g., via cloud computing module 224) may determine that the signal is associated with additional gateways 106 (e.g., gateway 106b) and may transmit the signal to the additional gateways 106 (e.g., via the broker module 222). Upon receiving the signal from the cloud computing system 110 (e.g., via the broker module 222), the gateway 106b may cause the drivers 104b to control the EC windows 130b based on the signal.).
Bar and NPL1-Lee are analogous art because they are both related to networking and IoT devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the signal transmission techniques of Bar with the system of NPL1-Lee because the cloud computing system 110 (e.g., via cloud computing module 224) may determine that the signal is associated with additional gateways 106 (e.g., gateway 106b) and may transmit the signal to the additional gateways 106 (Bar ¶ 0083).
For Claim 5, NPL1-Lee-Bar teaches the network according to claim 4, wherein the wireless sensor comprises a battery (NPL1 Pg 13 power supply- battery. Please see throughout NPL1, thank you).
For Claim 6, NPL1-Lee-Bar teaches the network according to claim 4, wherein the wireless sensor further comprises control means configured to:
start the sensor before emitting the first signal and after a first predetermined duration has elapsed, the first predetermined duration being chosen so that the network supervisor has chosen the selected gateway during the said duration (NPL1 Pg 8-9), and
switch the sensor in a sleep mode after sending the first signal and after sending a third signal, the emitting means being further configured to:
emit a second signal comprising a connectable frame to establish a communication between the sensor and the selected gateway (NPL1 Pg 8-9), and
emit the third signal comprising data extracted from measurements taken by the said sensor (NPL1 Pg 8-9).
For Claim 7, NPL1-Lee-Bar teaches the network according to claim 6, wherein the network supervisor comprises extraction means configured to reconstitute the measurements from the third signal (NPL1 Pg 89 network extracts sensor data from uplink payload).
For Claim 8, NPL1-Lee-Bar teaches the network according to claim 6, wherein the control means are further configured to start the sensor before emitting the first signal each time a predetermined duration has elapsed since the switch of the sensor in a sleep mode after emitting the third signal (NPL1 Pg 8-9 sensor periodically awakes governed by device configuration).
For Claim 9, NPL1-Lee-Bar teaches the network according to claim 4, wherein the wireless sensor comprises measuring means configured to measure a temperature and/or an acceleration (NPL1 Pg 11 temperature sensor).
For Claim 10, NPL1-Lee-Bar teaches the network according to claim 5, wherein the wireless sensor further comprises control means configured to:
start the sensor before emitting the first signal and after a first predetermined duration has elapsed, the first predetermined duration being chosen so that the network supervisor has chosen the selected gateway during the said duration (NPL1 Pg 8-9), and
switch the sensor in a sleep mode after sending the first signal and after sending a third signal, the emitting means being further configured to:
emit a second signal comprising a connectable frame to establish a communication between the sensor and the selected gateway (NPL1 Pg 8-9), and
emit the third signal comprising data extracted from measurements taken by the said sensor (NPL1 Pg 8-9).
For Claim 11, NPL1-Lee-Bar teaches the network according to claim 10, wherein the network supervisor comprises extraction means configured to reconstitute the measurements from the third signal (NPL1 Pg 8-9).
For Claim 12, NPL1-Lee-Bar teaches the network according to claim 11, wherein the control means are further configured to start the sensor before emitting the first signal each time a predetermined duration has elapsed since the switch of the sensor in a sleep mode after emitting the third signal (NPL1 Pg 8-9)
For Claim 13, NPL1-Lee-Bar teaches the network according to claim 12, wherein the wireless sensor comprises measuring means configured to measure a temperature and/or an acceleration (NPL1 Pg 11).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Keller at (571)270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Moo Jeong can be reached at 571-272-9617.
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.
/MICHAEL A KELLER/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights