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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 16, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim recites the limitation “the strength” in line 2. This is the first appearance of the limitation and should be amended to “a strength”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim recites the limitation “the measured magnetic strength” in line 3. This limitation appears to refer back to the limitations found in line 2 and should be amended to contain all limitation language used, thus the limitation of line 3 should be amended to “the measured magnetic field strength”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim recites the limitation “a significant movement” in line 5. This limitation appears to refer back to the limitation found in line 2 of claim 4 and should be amended to “the significant movement”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim recites the limitation “the frequency” in line 1. This is the first appearance of the limitation and should be amended to “a frequency”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim recites the limitation “a pit lid”, “a pit” and “an apparatus” in lines 1-2. These limitations appear to refer back to the limitations found in claim 1 line 1 (claim 15 is considered a dependent claim of claim 1 since it incorporates the limitations of claim 1) and should be amended to “the pit lid”, “the pit” and “the apparatus”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim appears to have a typographical error in line 4 at the end of “the pit lid” it appears to be a period and should be amended to a semicolon. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim recites the limitation “the strength” in line 2. This is the first appearance of the limitation and should be amended to “a strength”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim recites the limitation “the measured magnetic strength” in line 3. This limitation appears to refer back to the limitations found in line 2 and should be amended to contain all limitation language used, thus the limitation of line 3 should be amended to “the measured magnetic field strength”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim recites the limitation “A method” in line 1. This claim is a dependent claim of claim 18 and referring back to the limitation recited in line 1 of claim 18, thus the limitation of line one of claim 19 should be amended to “The method”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim recites the limitation “the vicinity” in line 2. This is the first appearance of the limitation and should be amended to “a vicinity”. 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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation “plurality of magnetics” in lines 1 and 3. The specification does not describe what the structure “magnetics” is and is only mentioned in the claims. These limitations appear to be referring to magnets as described in the specification (see Fig. 1; magnets 302 and paragraphs [21 and 22]). It is believed that the “magnetics” as claimed should be amended to “magnets” (based on a review of the specification and cited paragraphs above) and the examiner will interpret magnetics as claimed to be the magnets as described in the specification for this Office Action.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
Independent claim 20 recite(s) a method (a process).
(Step 2A: Prong 1)
The limitations of claim 20 of performing the steps of training, performing and executing, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “training” step encompasses a user to mentally (or with aid of pen and paper) to use lab and field data from a pit lid. The “performing” step encompasses the user to mentally (or with aid of pen and paper) to perform feature generation and aggregation based on deviation from an initial state of the pit lid. The “executing” step encompasses the user to mentally (or with aid of pen and paper) to determine and track probabilities of trip hazard over time. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 20 recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2A: Prong 2)
This judicial exception, of claim 20, is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of “using lab and field data obtained from the pit lid” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element of using lab and field data obtained from the pit lid are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering lab and field data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Claim(s) 20 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above (see Step 2A), claim 20 recites the additional element of using lab and field data obtained from the pit lid and is recited at a high level of generality. Thus, the additional element is used in a well-understood, routine, and convention function, recognized by one skilled in the art, when claimed in a generic manner. Accordingly, the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 20 is not patent eligible.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8-11 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ying et al. CN210766889U (called Ying hereinafter, applicant disclosed art and the examiner has provided an English machine translation).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ying teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1 and 2; housing 13) for monitoring a pit lid (Fig. 1; cover body 10) of a pit (Fig. 1; cover edge structure 20), including:
a magnetic sensor (Fig. 1; magnetic sensor 33) for measuring the strength of a magnetic field (para [0016]), wherein when the apparatus is installed on the pit lid (Fig. 2), the measured magnetic strength indicates whether the apparatus is in proximity to a magnet disposed in the pit (Fig. 1; para [0037-0038]; magnetic mechanism 23);
wherein the apparatus is configured to determine, based at least partially on the magnetic strength measured by the magnetic sensor (para [0037-0038]), a status of the pit lid (para [0045]), the status indicating whether the pit lid is closed (para [0045]).
Regarding claim 2, Ying teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches further including: a motion sensing module including a motion sensor for continuously monitoring the pit lid to detect movements of the pit lid (para [0021]; vibration and/or pressure sensor is further included with the magnetic sensing system to monitor the manhole cover).
Regarding claim 8, Ying teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein a plurality of magnetics are disposed in the pit (Fig. 1; plurality of magnetic mechanism 23), and the apparatus is adapted to be installed on the pit lid (Figs. 1 and 2; housing 13 on cover body 10) in the vicinity of at least one of the plurality of magnetics disposed in the pit (Fig. 1; magnetic mechanism 23 are on cover edge structure 20).
Regarding claim 9, Ying teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches further including a data communication module (Fig. 2; wireless communication module 35), for sending a signal to a remote server (para [0007 and 0043-0045]) based on the determined status of the pit lid (para [0007 and 0043-0045]).
Regarding claim 10, Ying teaches the apparatus of claim 9, and further teaches wherein the data communication module is further configured to periodically send parameter data to the remote server (para [0007 and 0043-0045]), the parameter data including data that represents working condition of the apparatus or environmental information (para [0040]; sensing water around the manhole cover device).
Regarding claim 11, Ying teaches the apparatus of claim 10, and further teaches wherein the frequency of periodically sending the parameter data to the remote server is determined or adjusted based on the level of activity near the pit (para [0007, 0042-0045]; data is sent to the server would vary depending on sensors sensing movement of the manhole cover).
Regarding claim 15, Ying teaches a system (Figs. 1 and 2) for monitoring a pit lid (Fig. 1; cover body 10) of a pit (Fig. 1; cover edge structure 20), including an apparatus as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Ying teaches the system of claim 15, and further teaches further including the magnet disposed in the pit (Fig. 1; para [0037-0038]; magnetic mechanism 23).
Regarding claim 17, Ying teaches the system of claim 15, and further teaches further including: a remote server (para [0007, 0043-0045]), configured to be in wireless communication with the apparatus (Fig. 2; wireless communication module 35); wherein the apparatus is configured to send a signal to the remote server based on the determined status of the pit lid (para [0007, 0043-0045]). wherein the remote server is further configured to trigger or control actions in response to the signal sent from the apparatus (para [0007, 0040, 0043-0045]; the server would indicate that a manhole cover is not seated correctly and that the manhole cover or sensing apparatus needs to be corrected).
Regarding claim 18, Ying teaches a method (para [0002]) for monitoring a pit lid (Fig. 1; cover body 10) of a pit (Fig. 1; cover edge structure 20), including:
measuring, by using a magnetic sensor (Fig. 1; magnetic sensor 33), the strength of a magnetic field in the vicinity of a monitoring apparatus (Fig. 2; housing 13 with components 31, 35 and 37; para [0016]) installed on the pit lid, the measured magnetic strength indicating whether the monitoring apparatus is in proximity to a magnet disposed in the pit (Fig. 1; para [0037-0038]; magnetic mechanism 23); and
determining, based at least partially on the magnetic strength measured by the magnetic sensor (para [0037-0038]), a status of the pit lid (para [0045]), the status indicating whether the pit lid is closed (para [0045]).
Regarding claim 19, Ying teaches a method as claimed in claim 18, including monitoring, by classifying activity telemetry data from the apparatus (para [0045]; arranging manhole cover coverage angles), an activity level in the vicinity of the pit lid (para [0045]; activity level determined based on the manhole cover posture).
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) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying in view of Drake et al. US2008/0165001 (called Drake hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, Ying teaches the apparatus of claim 2, but fails to teach wherein the measurement by the magnetic sensor is triggered at least partially based on the output of the motion sensing module.
Drake teaches wherein the measurement by the magnetic sensor (Fig. 2; para [0045]; first sensor 260) is triggered at least partially based on the output of the motion sensing module (Fig. 2; para [0041 and 0047]; second sensor 220).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Ying with a multiple sensor configuration as described by Drake for the purpose of using a second sensor to confirm an opening of a manhole cover after receiving readings from a first sensor (para [0041-0042]).
Regarding claim 4, Ying teaches the apparatus of claim 2, but fails to teach wherein the motion sensing module is configured to identify, from the detected movements of the pit lid, a significant movement of the pit lid; and wherein the measurement by the magnetic sensor is triggered at least partially by the identification of a significant movement of the pit lid.
Drake teaches wherein the motion sensing module is configured to identify, from the detected movements of the pit lid, a significant movement of the pit lid (Fig. 2; para [0045-0046]; first sensor 260); and wherein the measurement by the magnetic sensor is triggered at least partially by the identification of a significant movement of the pit lid (Fig. 2; para [0041 and 0046-0048]; second sensor 220).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Ying with a multiple sensor configuration as described by Drake for the purpose of using a second sensor to confirm an opening of a manhole cover after receiving readings from a first sensor (para [0041-0042]).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying, in view of Drake and further in view of Shah et al. US2019/0318165 (called Shah hereinafter and applicant disclosed art).
Regarding claim 5, Ying and Drake teach the apparatus of claim 4, but fail to teach wherein the identification of the significant movement of the pit lid is performed by executing a machine learning process.
Shah teaches wherein the identification of the significant movement of a hazard is performed by executing a machine learning process (para [0030-0031]; using an AI model with sensor data to recognize hazards).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Ying and Drake with an AI model as described by Shah for the purpose of determining potential hazards in an area near the sensing device through the use of a trained AI model.
Ying, Drake and Shah fail to teach wherein the identification of the significant movement of the pit lid is performed by executing a machine learning process.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the identification of the significant movement of the pit lid is performed by executing a machine learning process. Shah teaches that objects can be identified as potential tripping hazards by using sensor data from a device along with using a trained AI model (see para [0026 and 0030]). Thus, one skilled in the art could use the teaching of Shah to identify pit lids that have been moved out of proper position as a potential hazard for the purpose of preventing a person from tripping or falling when encountering the hazard.
Regarding claim 6, Ying and Drake teach the apparatus of claim 4, but fails to teach wherein the motion sensing module further includes machine learning logic, the machine learning logic being configured to perform: the identification of the significant movement of the pit lid; and the determination of the status of the pit lid.
Shah teaches wherein the motion sensing module further includes machine learning logic (para [0030-0031]; using an AI model with sensor data to recognize hazards), the machine learning logic being configured to perform: the identification of the significant movement of a hazard (para [0030-0031]); and the determination of the status of the hazard (para [0030-0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Ying and Drake with an AI model as described by Shah for the purpose of determining potential hazards in an area near the sensing device through the use of a trained AI model.
Ying, Drake and Shah fail to teach the machine learning logic being configured to perform: the identification of the significant movement of the pit lid; and the determination of the status of the pit lid.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the machine learning logic being configured to perform: the identification of the significant movement of the pit lid; and the determination of the status of the pit lid. Shah teaches that objects can be identified as potential tripping hazards by using sensor data from a device along with using a trained AI model (see para [0026 and 0030]). Thus, one skilled in the art could use the teaching of Shah to identify pit lids that have been moved out of proper position as a potential hazard for the purpose of preventing a person from tripping or falling when encountering the hazard.
Regarding claim 7, Ying, Drake and Shah teach the apparatus of claim 6, Shah further teaches wherein the machine learning logic further performs identification of activity in the vicinity of the pit lid (para [0030]; recognized hazards are scored which give an identification of activity in the vicinity of the pit lid).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying in view of Bandakka et al. US2013/0125107 (called Bandakka hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, Ying teaches the apparatus of claim 9, but fails to teach wherein the data communication module is configured to further receive incoming data from the remote server, including data related to one or more of the following: configuration updates, firmware updates, and reboot.
Bandakka teaches wherein the data communication module is configured to further receive incoming data from the remote server (Figs. 1 and 3; server 112; para [0064]), including data related to one or more of the following: configuration updates, firmware updates, and reboot (para [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Ying with updating a client wirelessly as described by Bandakka for the purpose of keeping a device up to date to correct any potential that have occurred or might occur and manage updating large number of clients while efficiently (para [0002]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying in view of Simpson et al. US2010/0198032 (called Simpson hereinafter).
Regarding claim 14, Ying teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to teach further including an NFC controller to establish a wireless NFC communication channel for field activation, bootstrapping, and debugging of the apparatus.
Simpson teaches including an NFC controller (para [0027]; NFC system for wireless communication as part of a mezzanine circuit board 22 add-on to the main circuit board 20) to establish a wireless NFC communication channel for field activation, bootstrapping, and debugging of the apparatus (para [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Ying with using a NFC system to interact with a device as described by Simpson for the purpose of boot-up, bootstrapping and debugging a device through wireless communication to reduce potential time required to interact with a device when performing operations.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying in view of Shah.
Regarding independent claim 20, Ying teaches a method (para [0002]) for detecting a trip hazard (para [0045]; if the cover is not flat then it is a potential tripping hazard) associated with a pit lid (Fig. 1; cover body 10), including:
using lab and field data obtained from the pit lid (para [0045]); and
determine and track probabilities of trip hazard over time (para [0040, 0042 and 0045]).
Ying fails to teach training a machine learning module using lab and field data obtained from the pit lid; performing feature generation and aggregation based on deviation from an initial state of the pit lid; and executing the machine learning module to determine and track probabilities of trip hazard over time.
Shah teaches training a machine learning module using lab and field data obtained from a hazard (para [0030-0031 and 0057]; using an AI model with sensor data and training images to recognize hazards); performing feature generation and aggregation based on deviation from an initial state of the hazard (para [0029-0031]; initial state being the guidelines used for a starting point for identifying hazards); and executing the machine learning module to determine and track probabilities of trip hazard over time (para [0030]; scoring scale used to measure hazards detected).
Ying and Shah fail to teach the machine learning module used with a pit lid.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have training a machine learning module using lab and field data obtained from the pit lid; performing feature generation and aggregation based on deviation from an initial state of the pit lid; and executing the machine learning module to determine and track probabilities of trip hazard over time. Shah teaches that objects can be identified as potential tripping hazards by using sensor data from a device along with using a trained AI model (see para [0026 and 0030]). Thus, one skilled in the art could use the teaching of Shah to identify pit lids that have been moved out of proper position as a potential hazard for the purpose of preventing a person from tripping or falling when encountering the hazard.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 12, the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest:
“further including a motion sensor for continuously monitoring the pit lid to detect movements of the pit lid, wherein the apparatus is configured to detect activity associated with the pit lid and increment a counter in the motion sensor without turning on a microcontroller of the apparatus.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Crane et al. discloses “Monitoring system and method” (see 7002481)
Albahri discloses “Anti security system for manhole covers” (see 2009/0303043)
Lucero et al. discloses “method for locating and removing manhole covers” (see 3764223)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID B FREDERIKSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/DAVID B FREDERIKSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858