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 .
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should be on a separate sheet and less than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet and less than 150 words, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-11 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.
In claim 1, on line 4, “and are in part for storage” is unclear. It’s consistent with what is in the spec, but the meaning is unclear. Did the applicant mean “that are in storage”? The same is true for the last line of claim 3, “and the non-actuated low-power state device nodes.” Should line 2 of claim 3 be “showing” instead of “with”? In claim 3, on lines 1 and 2, “are a volume” should be change to “provide a volume” for clarity as is consistent with what is seen in the applicant’s spec at (0091). In claim 8, “at least dual antennas” is also unclear. At least implies one and should be deleted to and changed to “a dual antenna” to make it clearer. Without that change “the dual antenna” on line 6 lacks antecedent basis. In claim 9, “the energy received” on line 1 lacks antecedent basis. Line 3 of claim 10 is also unclear for the same reasons as the last line of claim 1 stated above. Should it state that the non-actuated nodes remain in the low power state?
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tole et al 2018/0034321 A1 (cited by applicant).
Consider claim 12. Tole et al teaches a computer program product including a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (104) having executable code, the code when executed by a processor to be adapted to cause a node device (PH100, PH100a-PH100z) to: receive relay energy for storage (106b); store (0021) the received relay energy; receive a communication signal to direct (0050) the device node to relay the stored relay energy to a low power state device node; and transmit (328 in fig 3B) the stored relay energy to the low power state device node to transition the low power state device node into a higher power state.
Regarding 14, Tole et al teaches an intelligence engine to cause transmission of the communication signal (see determining step 326 in fig 3B of Tole et al which reads on the claimed intelligence engine)
Regarding claim 15. Tole et al wherein the device node (PH100) is a neighboring device node (304 in fig 3A) of the low power state device node.
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.
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.
8. Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tole et al 2018/0034321 A1 (cited by applicant) in view of Nilsson et al US9137749.
Consider claim 8. Tole et al teaches a system for wireless relaying energy to other device nodes, the system comprising: a device node (PH100, PH100a-PH100z) having: a processor (109); to receive and transmit energy (0018); and a storage device (106b, (0021)) to store energy received, wherein the device node is to receive a communication signal (320, 324 (0050) directing the device node to relay the stored energy to a target low power state device node to actuate the target low power state device node into a higher power state, wherein the processor is to cause the antenna to transmit the stored energy (328, (0050)) to the target low power state device node. Although Tole teaches wireless transmission of power with an antenna, he fails to teach a “dual” antenna that is claimed. However, Nilsson (col 3, lines13-14 and fig 4b) teaches such. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Nilsson in Tole to allow for more efficient energy transfer.
Regarding claim 11, Tole et al teaches an intelligence engine to cause transmission of the communication signal (see determining step 326 in fig 3B of Tole et al which reads on the claimed intelligence engine)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tole et al in view of Lu et al. US 9030161 B2.
Consider claim 13, Tole et al fails to teach using a reflected energy device for wireless power transfer (although list many examples in his background of the invention). However, this is notoriously well known in the art as taught by Lu et al (See figure 1 and abstract). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the teaches of Lu et al in Tole et al as a more efficient way to power the remote node in a contained space.
Claims 9 and 10 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tole et al in view of Nilsson et al US9137749 further in view of Lu et al. US 9030161 B2.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the combination of Tole in view Nilsson fail to teach using a reflected energy device to reflect energy to the lower powered node. However, this is notoriously well known in the art as taught by Lu et al (See figure 1 and abstract). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the teaches of Lu et al in Tole et al as a more efficient way to power the remote node in a contained space.
Claims 1, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raphaeli et al. US2008186136 in view of Tole US 2018/034321.
Consider claim 1, Raphaeli et al teaches a method of relaying signal to device nodes (303a to 303b), the method comprising: transmitting signals into an aggregated node group (303a and 303c) having a plurality of device nodes, wherein the transmitted signals are to actuate the plurality of device nodes into a higher power state (reads on wake up state when 303b is obstructed by the obstacle in Fig 6); and transmitting a communication signal to the neighboring higher power (awake) state device nodes (303a, 303c), wherein the communication signal is to direct the neighboring higher power state device nodes to relay the (signal) to the target low power state device node (303b)to actuate the target low power state device node into a higher power state (awake). Raphaeli et al, relays signals via neighbor nodes, but doesn’t relay (capture and forward) power to the plurality of device nodes in that manner. However, Tole teaches wirelessly relaying power to neighboring nodes that in turn relay power to remote nodes (see abstract, figs 3b and 4a). It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to use the teaches of Tole in the system set up in Raphali thus allowing more detailed communication of the assets that are tracked.
Consider claim 4, Tole et al teaches an intelligence engine to cause transmission of the communication signal (see determining step 326 in fig 3B of Tole et al which reads on the claimed intelligence engine
Consider claim 7, Tole et al teaches a mesh network (0005) which determines neighboring higher power state device nodes is by determining which device nodes were friend device nodes of the target low power state device node when a mesh network was established.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raphaeli et al. US2008186136 in view of Tole US 2018/034321 further in view of Lu et al. US 9030161 B2.
Consider claim 2, the combination of Raphaeli et al and Tole fail to teach using a reflective energy device for delivering the energy. However, this is notoriously well known in the art as taught by Lu et al (See figure 1 and abstract). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the teaches of Lu et al in Raphael et al and Tole et al as a more efficient way to power the remote node in a contained space.
Claim objections – allowable subject matter
Claims 3, 5 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record fails to teach where the energy streams provide a volume depicting a 3D image of the aggregated node group with the device nodes actuated into the higher power state and the non-actuated low power state device nodes as called for in claim 3. Dependent claims 5 and 6 are objected to as allowable as they depend upon claim 3.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matthews US 10027187 B2 teaches an energy distribution system is provided with a plurality of energy harvesting devices and a plurality of power draining devices in a wireless mesh energy network. One or more of the energy harvesting devices wirelessly transmits electrical energy to one or more of the power draining devices to power the power draining devices. Kolavennu US 9024480 B2 teaches a wireless energy transfer system and controller including a plurality of nodes configured to transmit energy to the second node. The first node is magnetically coupled with the second node. The plurality of nodes includes at least one controllable node having a performance parameter and including at least one sensor. The at least one sensor is configured to generate a signal corresponding to energy received by the sensor. The controller has an output coupled to the at least one controllable node. The output is determined based on the signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th from 5:30am to 2:30pm and Fri from 5:30am-10am
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646