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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/9/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/9/26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Bravo (US 20220189646) in view of Shen (US 2025/0330784, hereinafter Shen) OR Rodriguez Bravo (US 20220189646) in view of Graefe et al. (US 2019/0132709, hereinafter Graefe).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 13. Rodriguez Bravo teaches a communication control apparatus, method, and computer-readable medium (par. 7) comprising:
a sensing capability recognizer (par. 29, sensor area network (SAN) manager; figure 1, item 152), configured to cause a mobile communication network to recognize sensing capabilities of a plurality of sensors that can communicate in the mobile communication network (par. 32, SAN manager 152 determines whether or not to add the identified IoT device to the existing sensor area network within the geofenced area…In an example embodiment, security actions to determine the addition…device features and capabilities based on sensors of the device; par. 34 and figure 3, Referring to step S340, in an example embodiment, in response to determining to add IoT device 120 to the sensor area network, SAN manager 152 updates the sensor area network with information of IoT device 120. Thus, the SAN manager recognizes sensing capabilities of the devices in the geofence area.); and
a sensing area setter (par. 29, sensor area network (SAN) manager; figure 1, item 152), configured to:
set a sensing area (par. 11, geofence dynamically generated; par. 12, IoT device/sensors can spread across a geofenced area and essentially create a sensor area network with different sensors being used for different purposes and having different capabilities; par. 13, embodiments of the present invention are based on IoT device location. Embodiments of the present invention propose the creation of a sensor area network using geofencing techniques applied to a given set of IoT devices to identify the members of the sensor area network and then enable the sharing of information or resources (sensors, power, etc) between the geofenced IoT member devices.);
extract, from the plurality of sensors, sensors capable of sensing the set sensing area, (par. 15, In embodiments of the present invention, when an IoT device enters a geofenced area (i.e. sensing area), thereby causing a geofence trigger event, a validation technique may be implemented to determine the addition of the entering IoT device to the sensor area network… (i.e. the device is in the sensing area (geofence) and the SAN manger determines to add to the sensing network….thus reading on “extracted” sensor in the sensing area, i.e. geofence area). The implemented validation technique may include a plurality of executable security actions. In embodiments of the present invention, security actions to determine the addition of the entering IoT device to the sensor area network include…device features and capabilities based on sensors of the device. Thus, the system “extracts” a sensor capable of sensing the set sensing area. All of the sensors within the geofence area would inherently go through a similar process to be included in the sensor area network.)
obtain the sensing capabilities of the extracted sensors (par. 15, In embodiments of the present invention, security actions to determine the addition of the entering IoT device to the sensor area network include…device features and capabilities based on sensors of the device. Thus, the sensing capabilities have been obtained from the extracted sensors. i.e. all sensors added to the geofence.); and
manage, in the mobile communication network, the obtained sensing capabilities of the extracted sensors as a sensing capability group for the set sensing area (par. 31, Additionally, in embodiments of the invention, SAN manager 152 may perform a context evaluation to identify which IoT devices/sensors are creating a sensor area network. The context evaluation may at least include a determination by SAN manager 152 of the type and/or capability of each IoT device/sensor creating the sensor area; par. 34, In embodiments of the invention, SAN manager 152 may maintain a present member ID list. The present member ID list could also contain attributes/capabilities associated with each listed member IoT device and reflect whether or not listed member devices are present within a sensor area network.)
However, although it appears clear that in Rodriguez Bravo, the sensors would have ranges that include the sensing area (i.e. the geofenced area) in order for them to perform sensing in the geofenced area, Rodriguez Bravo does not specifically state the idea that the extracted sensors have sensing ranges that include the set sensing area.
Shen teaches a sensing system and method for sensing capabilities, and thus is analogous to Rodriguez Bravo. Shen specifically discloses extracted sensors have sensing ranges that include the set sensing area (par. 104, the sensing range may be the range of the coverage area, thus it is clear that the sensing range is the entire range of the set area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of (effective) filing to incorporate the specifics of the sensing range including the sensing area as in Shen, into the method and system of Rodriguez Bravo. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the sensors can sense the entire chosen area.
OR
Graefe teaches a sensing system and method for sensing capabilities, and thus is analogous to Rodriguez Bravo. Graefe specifically discloses extracted sensors have sensing ranges that include the set sensing area (par. 40, the coverage area for tracking is bounded by the observable or sensing range of the individual sensors; par. 56, As alluded to previously, what constitutes the coverage area 63 may be application dependent, limited by the sensing capabilities of the sensors; par. 59, The one or more sensors 262 include devices that are configured to measure and/or detect state changes or motions in the coverage area 63. Thus it is clear from Graefe, that the “extracted” or chosen sensors would have sensing ranges that includes the set sensing area (i.e. coverage area)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of (effective) filing to incorporate the specifics of the sensing range including the sensing area as in Graefe, into the method and system of Rodriguez Bravo. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the sensors can sense the entire chosen area. Further, this would ensure the ability to provide reliable data (Graefe par. 18).
Claim(s) 2,5-7,10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Bravo in view of Shen OR Graefe, in further view of Ojala (US 2017/0284839, hereinafter Ojala).
Regarding claim 2. Rodriguez Bravo in view of Shen OR Graefe teach the limitations of the previous claim.
However, they do not specifically disclose a sensing information outputter, configured to output sensing information based on the sensing capability group for the set sensing area.
Ojala teaches a system and method for a sensor network, and thus is analogous. Ojala specifically teaches a sensing information outputter, configured to output sensing information based on the sensing capability group in the sensing area (par. 59, the network node manager may transmit information to other sensor node network managers controlling other sensor nodes near enough to be contextually related, further par. 136 and 139, the sensor node network manager assigns sensing tasks to sensing nodes, thus outputting sensing information based on the sensing capability of the group in the sensing area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of (effective) filing to incorporate the specifics sending the sensor information as in Ojala, into the method and system of Rodriguez Bravo and Shen OR Graefe. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for optimally allocated sensing tasks (Ojala par. 7).
Regarding claim 5. Ojala further teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sensing capability includes a location of each of the sensors (see Table 1, sensor node location). The motivation for combining can be found in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 6. Ojala further teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sensing capability includes a use case in which the sensing information of each of the sensors is useable (Table 1, node sensor sensing task). The motivation for combining can be found in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 7. Ojala further teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sensing capability includes a sensing item of each of the sensors (Table 1, sensor node sensor modalities). The motivation for combining can be found in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 10. Ojala further teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sensing capability recognizer is configured to cause each of the sensors to notify the mobile communication network of information concerning the sensing capability set in each of the sensors (par. 54 and 141, the sensor node network manager receives a sensor capability report identifying the capabilities and limitations of each sensor node). The motivation for combining can be found in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 11. Ojala further teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sensing capability recognizer is configured to cause the mobile communication network to set the sensing capability in each of the sensors (par. 139, the sensor node network manager may then allocate sensing tasks). The motivation for combining can be found in the rejection of claim 2.
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Bravo in view of Shen OR Graefe, in further view of North et al. (US 20180354647, hereinafter North).
Regarding claim 3. Rodriguez Bravo in view of Shen OR Graefe teach the limitations of the previous claim 1. Rodriguez Bravo further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of sensors is provided in a communication station that can communicate in the mobile communication network (par. 2, smartphones).
However, Rodriguez Bravo does not specifically disclose the sensing capability includes a type of the communication station.
North teaches a method and system for monitoring sensing devices (abstract), and thus is analogous. North teaches the idea of capability information including a type of the communication station. (par. 45. North discloses non limiting examples of characteristics of the sensor device can include model and sensing element type).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of (effective) filing to incorporate the specifics of the sensing capability including the characteristic information indicating a type of communication station (i.e. model and type of element) of North into the method and system of Rodriguez Bravo in view of Shen OR Graefe. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for a system that better adjusts sensing capabilities (North par. 45).
Regarding claim 4. Rodriguez Bravo in view of Shen OR Graefe, in further view of North teach the limitations of claim 3. Rodriguez Bravo further teaches wherein the communication station includes at least one of: a base station constituting the mobile communication network; and a communication station that can communicate with the base station (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 8. Rodriguez Bravo in view of Shen OR Graefe teach the limitations of the previous claim 1.
However, they do not specifically disclose wherein the sensing capability includes sensing accuracy of each of the sensors.
North teaches a method and system for monitoring sensing devices (abstract), and thus is in a analogous. North teaches the idea of capability information including the sensing accuracy of each of the sensors. (par. 45, sensing accuracy)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of (effective) filing to incorporate the specifics of the sensing capability including the characteristic information indicating sensor accuracy of North into the method and system of Rodriguez Bravo in view of Shen OR Graefe. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for a system that better adjusts sensing capabilities based on their accuracy (North par. 45).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez Bravo in view of Shen OR Graefe, in further view of Pogorelik et al. (US 20170094716, hereinafter Pogorelik).
Regarding claim 14. Rodriguez Bravo in view of Shen OR Graefe teach the limitations of the previous claim 1.
However, they do not specifically disclose wherein the sensing capability includes a providing manner of the sensing information of each of the sensors.
Pogorelik, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a sensor system with sensing capabilities (par. 3), wherein the sensing capability includes a providing manner of the sensing information of each of the sensors. (Pogorelik teaches in par. 45, the sensors provide the data anonymously, thus reading on the broadly recited “providing manner”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of (effective) filing to incorporate the specifics of the anonymous sensing as in Pogorelik with the method and system of Rodriguez Bravo in view of Shen OR Graefe. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve security of the system (Pogorelik par. 45).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Thier whose telephone number is (571)272-2832. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM, Fri 7:00 AM-10:00 AM.
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.
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.
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Michael Thier
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights