DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2023 and 01/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: core network 140. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 300. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 6 step 630 recites “objected” and should be respelled as “object”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para[0002] recites “are coexistence”.
The objection can be overcome by replacing “are coexistence” with “coexist”.
Para[0003] recites “stared”.
The objection can be overcome by replacing “stared” with “started”.
Para[0003] recites “timely”.
The objection can be overcome by replacing “timely” with “in a timely manner”.
Paras[0003], [0009], [0012], [0086], [00110], and [00134] recite “objected”.
The objections can be overcome by replacing “objected” with “object”.
Para[0013] recites “nineth”.
The objection can be overcome by replacing “nineth” with “ninth”.
Para[0013] recites “functions)”.
The objection can be overcome by replacing “functions)” with “functions”.
Para[0000] recites “”.
The objection can be overcome by replacing “” with “”.
Para[0041] recites “result”.
The objection can be overcome by replacing “result” with “results”.
Para[0049] recites “If the anomaly”.
The objection can be overcome by replacing “If the anomaly” with “The anomaly”.
Para[0050] recites “RAN”.
The objection can be overcome by defining what the acronym “RAN” stands for.
Paras[0061], [0067] recite “device132”.
The objection can be overcome by replacing “device132” with “device 132”.
Para[0064] recites “network 100”.
The objection can be overcome by replacing “network 100” with “network system 100”.
Paras[0092], [00102], and [00123] recite “According to the example embodiments of the present disclosure, a mechanism for measurement reporting and anomaly detection.”
The objection can be overcome by inserting “is presented” after “detection”.
Para[00154] recites “memories 840”.
The objection can be overcome by replacing “memories 840” with “memories 820”.
Para[00158] recites “ROM 820”.
The objection can be overcome by replacing “ROM 820” with “ROM 824”.
Para[00158] recites “RAM 820”.
The objection can be overcome by replacing “RAM 820” with “RAM 822”.
Para[00165] recites “, device, or device”.
The objection can be overcome by replacing “, device, or device” with “or device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2, 3, and 10 recite “the data error”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claim 9 recites “objected”.
The objection can be overcome by replacing “objected” with “object”.
Claim 9 recites “information and the timing information”.
The objection can be overcome by replacing “information and the timing information” with “information, and the timing information”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-3, 5-6, 10, 14, and 16 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 5 recites “determine the timing information by” and “determining the timing information”. It is not clear what “determining the timing information” refers to in the
scope of determining the timing information because Claim 5 earlier already recites the step of determining the timing information. It is not clear what “determining the timing information” means for something already determined, therefore making the scope of this claim indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “the timing information for extracting the data sequence identifier format”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “timing information” in Claim 1 indicates a transmission time of the measurement data from the first device.
Claims 11 and 16 recite “to be occurred”. It is not clear what “to be occurred” entails in the scope of indicating an anomaly, and is therefore indefinite.
Claim 14 recites “the further measurement data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim because claim 13 already recites “further measurement data” in lines 5 and 12 of claim 13, so it is not clear what “the measurement data” is referring to.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. With respect to Claim 1 Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a network device. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES). The limitations determine timing information about the measurement data, the timing information indicating a transmission time of the measurement data from the first device; and This limitation is directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mathematical Concept” or “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation would fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “determine timing information”, also encompasses mathematical concepts that can be performed mentally. Para[0084] of the specification recites “The anomaly detection device 122 may correlate the measurement data with the timing information based on the data identification information”. Thus, “determine timing information” encompasses a mathematical concept. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.In particular, the claim recites the additional elements – A network device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the network device to: receive, from a first device served by the network device, measurement data of an object with data identification information; and transmit the measurement data with the data identification information and the timing information to a wireless controller of the network device for anomaly detection analysis on the object. The limitations “receive, from a first device served by the network device, measurement data of an object with data identification information;” and “transmit the measurement data with the data identification information and the timing information to a wireless controller of the network device for anomaly detection analysis on the object” are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). Further, limitations A network device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the network device to: are recited as being performed by a device with a processor and memory. These elements are recited at a high level of generality. In limitation, the network device is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving, determine, and transmit data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These elements are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims -Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. Additional elements “receive, from a first device served by the network device, measurement data of an object with data identification information;” and “transmit the measurement data with the data identification information and the timing information to a wireless controller of the network device for anomaly detection analysis on the object” were both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Regarding the additional elements, as discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, A network device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the network device to: amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). Examiner notes the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II), as evidenced by Shibata US 20180097830 A1 Bynum 20210160262 A1 Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claim fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception and does not impose a meaningful limitation describing what problem is being remedied or solved. With respect to Claim 9 Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a network device. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES). the limitations determine whether the measurement data is valid; and in accordance with a determination that the measurement data is valid, cause an anomaly detection analysis on the objected to be performed based on the measurement data, the data identification information and the timing information. This limitation is directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mathematical Concept” or “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation would fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “determine whether the measurement data is valid”, also encompasses mathematical concepts that can be performed mentally. Para[0082] of the specification recites “For example, if the data loss, data error, or the failure at the network device 110 is detected, the anomaly detection device 122 may determine that the measurement data is invalid”. Thus determining whether the measurement data is valid encompasses a mathematical concept because it correlates to data loss or data error or failure at the network device. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.In particular, the claim recites the additional elements – A wireless controller comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the wireless controller to: receive, from a network device serving a first device, measurement data of an object with data identification information and timing information about the measurement data, the measurement data measured by the first device, and the timing information determined at the network device and indicating a transmission time of the measurement data from the first device; The limitation “receive, from a network device serving a first device, measurement data of an object with data identification information and timing information about the measurement data, the measurement data measured by the first device, and the timing information determined at the network device and indicating a transmission time of the measurement data from the first device;” is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). Further, limitations A network device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the network device to: are recited as being performed by a device with a processor and memory. These elements are recited at a high level of generality. In limitation, the network device is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving, determine, and transmit data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These elements are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims -Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. Additional element receive, from a network device serving a first device, measurement data of an object with data identification information and timing information about the measurement data, the measurement data measured by the first device, and the timing information determined at the network device and indicating a transmission time of the measurement data from the first device; was both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because it was determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Regarding the additional elements, as discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, A wireless controller comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the wireless controller to: amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). Examiner notes the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II), as evidenced by Shibata US 20180097830 A1 Bynum 20210160262 A1 Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claim fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception and does not impose a meaningful limitation describing what problem is being remedied or solved. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-20 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea). Claims 2-6, 10-12, 14, 19-20 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 7, 13, 15, 16, 18 recite limitations regarding data gathering steps necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea and thus are not significantly more than the abstract idea and viewed to be well known, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the prior art shown above. Claims 8, 17 recite limitations that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-13, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata US 20180097830 A1.
With respect to Claim 1, Shibata teaches
A network device comprising (See Para[0048] “The gateway computing device”):
at least one processor (See Fig. 26 processor(s) 2602); and
at least one memory including computer program code (See Para[0174] “local memory portion of the computer-readable media 2604” and “The gateway application 502 may include one or more computer programs, computer-readable instructions, executable code”),
the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at
least one processor, cause the network device to:
receive, from a first device served by the network device, measurement data of an object with data identification information (See Para[0055] “the first managed sensor 106(1) may send a communication 214 that includes the sensor ID “A””. The first device is the managed sensor 106(1), the measurement data is the communication 214, and the data identification information is the sensor ID “A”.);
determine timing information about the measurement data, the timing information indicating a transmission time of the measurement data from the first device (See Para[0055] “the first managed sensor 106(1) may send a communication 214 that includes the sensor ID “A”, the timestamp “t2a” of when the first managed sensor 106(1) detected the signal strength of the transmission 210, and the signal strength information “SS-2a””); and
transmit the measurement data with the data identification information and the timing information to a wireless controller of the network device (See Fig. 2 the management computing device 102) for anomaly detection analysis on the object (See Para[0057] “Alternatively, the gateway computing device 104 may forward the detected SS information from communications 212 and 214 to the management computing device 102, and the management computing device 102 may perform the processing to determine the location of the second unmanaged sensor 108(2) and/or that the unmanaged sensor 108(2) appears to be acting anomalously.”).
However, Shibata is silent to the language of
anomaly detection analysis on the object.
Nevertheless, Shibata teaches
anomaly detection analysis on the object (See Para[0057] “Alternatively, the gateway computing device 104 may forward the detected SS information from communications 212 and 214 to the management computing device 102, and the management computing device 102 may perform the processing to determine the location of the second unmanaged sensor 108(2) and/or that the unmanaged sensor 108(2) appears to be acting anomalously.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shibata wherein Shibata conducts the anomaly detection analysis on the object.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Shibata because Shibata teaches a method to detect anomalous behavior of a sensor using a wireless device from the measurement data received from the sensor, which will allow for a faster and more efficient anomaly detection because the wireless device in Shibata is the main device connecting all the other devices in the system.
With respect to Claim 2, Shibata teaches
The network device of claim 1, wherein the timing information comprises at least one of the following:
first timing information for receipt of the measurement data at the network device (See Para[0055] “the first managed sensor 106(1) may send a communication 214 that includes the sensor ID “A”, the timestamp “t2a” of when the first managed sensor 106(1) detected the signal strength of the transmission 210, and the signal strength information “SS-2a””),
second timing information about at least one of a data loss or the data error in the measurement data or a failure occurred at the network device, or
third timing information indicating a retransmission time of the measurement data.
With respect to Claim 3, Shibata teaches
The network device of claim 2, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the network device to:
detect at least one of the data loss or the data error occurred in the measurement data (See Fig. 8 step 810) or the failure occurred at the network device.
With respect to Claim 4, Shibata teaches
The network device of claim 1, wherein the data identification information comprises a data signature and a data sequence identifier format of the measurement data (See Para[0047] “In some cases, the sensor ID may be an assigned ID, such as an ID that is unique or otherwise individually distinguishable within the system 100. Additionally, or alternatively, a respective IP address associated with each sensor may be used as the sensor ID.” In other words, the data signature is the signal ID and the data sequence identifier format is the IP address.).
With respect to Claim 7, Shibata teaches
The network device of claim 1, wherein the first device is one of a group of devices (see Fig. 2, the sensors other than the unmanaged sensor X), and wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the network device to:
receive, from at least one device in the group other than the first device, further measurement data of the object with the data identification information (See Para[0050] “Thus, the first managed sensor 106(1) may send a communication 204 that includes the sensor ID “A”, the timestamp “t1a” of when the first managed sensor 106(1) detected the signal strength of the transmission 202, and the signal strength information “SS-1a””);
determine fourth timing information about the further measurement data, the fourth timing information indicating a transmission time of the further measurement data from the at least one device (See Para[0050] “Thus, the first managed sensor 106(1) may send a communication 204 that includes the sensor ID “A”, the timestamp “t1a” of when the first managed sensor 106(1) detected the signal strength of the transmission 202, and the signal strength information “SS-1a””);
However, Shibata is silent to the language of
transmit the data identification information and the fourth timing information to the wireless controller for anomaly detection analysis on the object.
Nevertheless, Shibata teaches
transmit the data identification information and the fourth timing information to the wireless controller (See Para[0057] “Alternatively, the gateway computing device 104 may forward the detected SS information from communications 212 and 214 to the management computing device 102”) for anomaly detection analysis on the object (See Para[0057] “Alternatively, the gateway computing device 104 may forward the detected SS information from communications 212 and 214 to the management computing device 102, and the management computing device 102 may perform the processing to determine the location of the second unmanaged sensor 108(2) and/or that the unmanaged sensor 108(2) appears to be acting anomalously.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shibata to transmit the data identification information and the fourth timing information to the wireless controller for anomaly detection analysis on the object.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Shibata because Shibata teaches a method to detect anomalous behavior of a sensor using a wireless device from the further measurement data received from the sensor (by sending the communication 214, but would be modified to include sending communication 204 as well), which will allow for a faster and more efficient anomaly detection because the wireless device in Shibata is the main device connecting all the other devices in the system.
With respect to Claim 8, Shibata teaches
The network device of claim 1, wherein the network device comprises an access network device (See Para[0039] “Furthermore, the gateway computing device 104 may be connected for communication with the management computing device 102 through one or more networks 110. The one or more networks 110 may include any type of network, including a local area network (LAN), such as an intranet; a wide area network (WAN), such as the Internet; a wireless network, such as a cellular network, a local wireless network, such as Wi-Fi, and/or short-range wireless communications, such as BLUETOOTH®”. In other words, the management computing device 102 functions as a BLUETOOTH® device), and the first device comprises one of a field device (See Abstract “sensor”) or a terminal device.
With respect to Claim 9, Shibata teaches
A wireless controller comprising (See Fig. 2 the management computing device 102 and Para [0039] “the gateway computing device 104 may be connected for communication with the management computing device 102 through one or more networks 110. The one or more networks 110 may include any type of network, including a local area network (LAN), such as an intranet; a wide area network (WAN), such as the Internet; a wireless network, such as a cellular network”):
at least one processor (See Fig. 28 the processor(s) 2802); and
at least one memory including computer program code (See Para[0188] “The management application 2808 may include one or more computer programs, computer-readable instructions, executable code, or portions thereof that are executable to cause the processor(s) 2802 to perform various tasks, such as for receiving and processing data sent by the gateway computing device 104.” and “ In some cases, the functional components may be stored in a storage portion of the computer-readable media 2804, loaded into a local memory portion of the computer-readable media 2804”),
the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the wireless controller to:
receive, from a network device serving a first device, measurement data of an object with data identification information (See Para[0055] “the first managed sensor 106(1) may send a communication 214 that includes the sensor ID “A””. The first device is the managed sensor 106(1), the measurement data is the communication 214, and the data identification information is the sensor ID “A”.) and timing information about the measurement data, the measurement data measured by the first device, and the timing information determined at the network device and indicating a transmission time of the measurement data from the first device (See Para[0055] “the first managed sensor 106(1) may send a communication 214 that includes the sensor ID “A”, the timestamp “t2a” of when the first managed sensor 106(1) detected the signal strength of the transmission 210, and the signal strength information “SS-2a””);
determine whether the measurement data is valid (See Shibata Abstract); and
in accordance with a determination that the measurement data is valid, cause an anomaly detection analysis on the objected to be performed based on the measurement data, the data identification information and the timing information (See Para[0105], where the measurement data is the SS data, the data identification information is the sensor ID, and the timing information is the timestamp and Figure 8 the process 800).
However, Shibata is silent to the language of
cause an anomaly detection analysis on the objected to be performed.
Nevertheless, Shibata teaches
cause an anomaly detection analysis on the objected to be performed (See Para[0057] “Alternatively, the gateway computing device 104 may forward the detected SS information from communications 212 and 214 to the management computing device 102, and the management computing device 102 may perform the processing to determine the location of the second unmanaged sensor 108(2) and/or that the unmanaged sensor 108(2) appears to be acting anomalously.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shibata wherein Shibata causes an anomaly detection analysis on the objected to be performed.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Shibata because Shibata teaches a method to detect anomalous behavior of a sensor using a wireless device from the measurement data received from the sensor, which will allow for a faster and more efficient anomaly detection because the wireless device in Shibata is the main device connecting all the other devices in the system.
With respect to Claim 10, Shibata teaches
The wireless controller of claim 9, wherein the timing information comprises at least one of the following:
first timing information for receipt of the measurement data at the network device (See Para[0055] “the first managed sensor 106(1) may send a communication 214 that includes the sensor ID “A”, the timestamp “t2a” of when the first managed sensor 106(1) detected the signal strength of the transmission 210, and the signal strength information “SS-2a””),
second timing information about at least one of a data loss or the data error in the measurement data or a failure occurred at the network device, or
third timing information indicating a retransmission time of the measurement data.
With respect to Claim 11, Shibata teaches
The wireless controller of claim 9:
correlating the measurement data with the timing information based on the data identification information (See Figure 8 step 812 and Para[0091] “the signal strength information may include one or more timestamps and the ID of the managed sensor that detected the signal strength”); and
determining whether an anomaly occurred or to be occurred at the first device based on the measurement data and the timing information (see Fig. 8 step 810).
With respect to Claim 12,
The wireless controller of claim 9, wherein the data identification information comprises a measurement data signature and a data sequence identifier format of the measurement data (See Para[0047] “In some cases, the sensor ID may be an assigned ID, such as an ID that is unique or otherwise individually distinguishable within the system 100. Additionally, or alternatively, a respective IP address associated with each sensor may be used as the sensor ID.” In other words, the measurement data signature is the signal ID and the data sequence identifier format is the IP address).
With respect to Claim 13, Shibata teaches
The wireless controller of claim 9, wherein the first device is one of a group of devices (see Fig. 2, the sensors other than the unmanaged sensor X), and wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the wireless controller to:
receive further measurement data of the object with the data identification information and fourth timing information about the further measurement data, the further measurement data measured by at least one device in the group other than the first device (See Para[0050] “Thus, the first managed sensor 106(1) may send a communication 204 that includes the sensor ID “A””),
the fourth timing information determined at a network device serving the at least one device (See Para[0050] “Thus, the first managed sensor 106(1) may send a communication 204 that includes the sensor ID “A”, the timestamp “t1a” of when the first managed sensor 106(1) detected the signal strength of the transmission 202, and the signal strength information “SS-1a””); and
in accordance with a determination that the further measurement data is valid (See Fig. 8, select “NO” in step 808), correlate the measurement data, the timing information about the measurement data, with further measurement data and the fourth timing information based on a predetermined time gap (See Figure 8 step 808 “a threshold time” and Step 812 “earlier set of SS data” and “later set of SS data” and Para[0091] “the signal strength information may include one or more timestamps and the ID of the managed sensor that detected the signal strength”).
With respect to Claim 15, Shibata teaches
The wireless controller of claim 9, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the wireless controller to:
obtain a result of the anomaly detection analysis indicating an anomaly of the object (See Para[0057] “the management computing device 102 may perform the processing to determine the location of the second unmanaged sensor 108(2) and/or that the unmanaged sensor 108(2) appears to be acting anomalously.”);
However, Shibata is silent to the language of
transmit alarm information about the anomaly.
Nevertheless, Shibata teaches
transmit alarm information about the anomaly (See Fig. 28 the input/output devices 2820).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shibata wherein Shibata transmits alarm information about the anomaly.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Shibata because Shibata teaches a method to output the result of the anomalous behavior of a sensor from the measurement data received from the sensor using a wireless device, which allows for a more efficient packaging of the network system.
With respect to Claim 16,
The wireless controller of claim 15, wherein the result of the anomaly detection analysis indicates the anomaly occurred or to be occurred on the object, and the alarm information comprises at least one of an anomaly position on the object (See Para[0057] “The gateway computing device 104 may send a notification 216 or other communication to the management computing device 102 to provide a warning or other indication of a malicious, malfunctioning, or otherwise anomalous sensor. In some cases, the notification may include location information indicating the physical location of the anomalous sensor 108(2).”) or a measurement time of the first device.
With respect to Claim 17,
The wireless controller of claim 9, wherein the anomaly detection analysis is performed by the wireless controller (See Para[0057] “the management computing device 102 may perform the processing to determine the location of the second unmanaged sensor 108(2) and/or that the unmanaged sensor 108(2) appears to be acting anomalously.”).
With respect to Claim 18, Shibata teaches
The wireless controller of claim 9, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the wireless controller to cause the anomaly detection analysis to be performed by:
transmitting the measurement data with the data identification information and the timing information to a centralized control device (See Para[0057] “Alternatively, the gateway computing device 104 may forward the detected SS information from communications 212 and 214 to the management computing device 102”).
However, Shibata is silent to the language of
for performing the anomaly detection analysis.
Nevertheless, Shibata teaches
for performing the anomaly detection analysis (See Para[0057] “Alternatively, the gateway computing device 104 may forward the detected SS information from communications 212 and 214 to the management computing device 102, and the management computing device 102 may perform the processing to determine the location of the second unmanaged sensor 108(2) and/or that the unmanaged sensor 108(2) appears to be acting anomalously.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shibata wherein Shibata allows for performing the anomaly detection analysis.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Shibata because Shibata teaches a method to detect anomalous behavior of a sensor using a centralized control device from the measurement data received from the sensor, which will allow for a faster and more efficient anomaly detection because the centralized control device in Shibata is the main device connecting all the other devices in the system.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata US 20180097830 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Samaoui (“Wireless and mobile technologies and protocols and their performance evaluation”).
With respect to Claim 5, Shibata teaches
The network device of claim 4, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the network device to determine the timing information by:
determining the timing information for extracting the data sequence identifier format (See Fig. 2 the transmission 202 which contains the data identification information (in this case the sensor ID) #X, which also contains the data sequence identifier format, see Claim 4 above).
Shibata is silent to the language of
The network device of claim 4, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the network device to determine the timing information by:
in accordance with detection of the data signature, extracting the data sequence identifier format from the measurement data at a radio link control, RLC, layer of the network device;
Nevertheless, Samaoui teaches
The network device of claim 4, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the network device to determine the timing information by:
in accordance with detection of the data signature, extracting the data sequence identifier format from the measurement data at a radio link control, RLC, layer of the network device(See 3.3.3 “The RLC Layer is responsible for transfer of upper layer PDUs, concatenation, segmentation and reassembly of RLC SDUs.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shibata wherein in accordance with detection of the data signature, Shibata extracts the data sequence identifier format from the measurement data at a radio link control, RLC, layer of the network device such as that of Samaoui.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Shibata because Samaoui teaches a technology that allows for a more efficient and effective packaging of the data being transferred in the network system.
With respect to Claim 6, Shibata is silent to the language of
The network device of claim 5, wherein the measurement data is ciphered on a user plane corresponding to the first device and wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the network device to determine the timing information by:
The network device of claim 5, prior to extracting the data sequence identifier format, deciphering the measurement data at a packet data convergence protocol, PDCP, layer of the network device.
Nevertheless, Samaoui teaches
The network device of claim 5, wherein the measurement data is ciphered on a user plane corresponding to the first device (See 3.3.4 “This layer also performs additional functionalities such as ciphering and deciphering of user plane data and control plane data, and integrity protection and integrity verification of control plane data.”) and wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the network device to determine the timing information by:
prior to extracting the data sequence identifier format, deciphering the measurement data at a packet data convergence protocol, PDCP, layer of the network device (See Fig. 1.5, the PDCP layer processes the User Traffic before the RLC layer. See also 3.3.4 “This layer also performs additional functionalities such as ciphering and deciphering of user plane data and control plane data, and integrity protection and integrity verification of control plane data.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shibata wherein the measurement data is ciphered on a user plane corresponding to the first device and wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the network device to determine the timing information by: prior to extracting the data sequence identifier format, Shibata deciphers the measurement data at a packet data convergence protocol, PDCP, layer of the network device such as that of Samaoui.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Shibata because Samaoui teaches a technology that improves the efficiency of data management and transfer in the network system.
With respect to Claim 19, Shibata is silent to the language of
The wireless controller of claim 9, wherein the timing information comprises first timing information indicating a time for extracting the data sequence identifier format from the measurement data at a radio link control, RLC, layer of the network device.
Nevertheless, Samaoui teaches
The wireless controller of claim 9, wherein the timing information comprises first timing information indicating a time for extracting the data sequence identifier format from the measurement data at a radio link control, RLC, layer of the network device (See 3.3.3 “The RLC Layer is responsible for transfer of upper layer PDUs, concatenation, segmentation and reassembly of RLC SDUs.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shibata wherein the timing information comprises first timing information indicating a time for extracting the data sequence identifier format from the measurement data at a radio link control, RLC, layer of the network device such as that of Samaoui.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Shibata because Samaoui teaches a technology that allows for a more efficient and effective packaging of the data being transferred in the network system.
With respect to Claim 20, Shibata is silent to the language of
The wireless controller of claim 19, wherein the measurement data is ciphered on a user plane corresponding to the first device, and the timing information comprises first timing information indicating a time for extracting the data sequence identifier format from the measurement data at the RLC layer of the network device after the measurement data is deciphered at a packet data convergence protocol, PDCP, layer of the network device.
Nevertheless, Samaoui teaches
The wireless controller of claim 19, wherein the measurement data is ciphered on a user plane corresponding to the first device (See 3.3.4 “This layer also performs additional functionalities such as ciphering and deciphering of user plane data and control plane data, and integrity protection and integrity verification of control plane data.”), and the timing information comprises first timing information indicating a time for extracting the data sequence identifier format from the measurement data at the RLC layer of the network device after the measurement data is deciphered at a packet data convergence protocol, PDCP, layer of the network device (See Fig. 1.5, the PDCP layer processes the User Traffic before the RLC layer. See also 3.3.4 “This layer also performs additional functionalities such as ciphering and deciphering of user plane data and control plane data, and integrity protection and integrity verification of control plane data.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shibata wherein the measurement data is ciphered on a user plane corresponding to the first device, and the timing information comprises first timing information indicating a time for extracting the data sequence identifier format from the measurement data at the RLC layer of the network device after the measurement data is deciphered at a packet data convergence protocol, PDCP, layer of the network device such as that of Samaoui.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Shibata because Samaoui teaches a technology that improves the efficiency of data management and transfer in the network system.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata US 20180097830 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bynum 20210160262 A1.
With respect to Claim 14, Shibata is silent to the language of
The wireless controller of claim 13, wherein the first device is one of a group of devices, and wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the wireless controller to:
in accordance with a determination that the further measurement data is invalid, discard the further measurement data.
Nevertheless, Bynum teaches
The wireless controller of claim 13, wherein the first device is one of a group of devices, and wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the wireless controller to:
in accordance with a determination that the further measurement data is invalid, discard the further measurement data (See Bynum Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shibata wherein the first device is one of a group of devices, and wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the wireless controller to: in accordance with a determination that the further measurement data is invalid, discard the further measurement data such as that of Bynum.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Shibata because Bynum teaches a method to remove incorrect data that would otherwise reduce the accuracy of the detection method as recited in Shibata.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 a.m. - 4 p.m. ET, Friday 7:00 a.m. - 3 p.m. ET. Every other Friday off..
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (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 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.
/MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863