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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/9/2026 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) 1-2, 5-7, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ojala (US 2017/0284839, hereinafter Ojala) in view of Pogorelik at al. (US 2017/0094716, hereinafter Pogorelik).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 13. Ojala teaches a communication control
apparatus, method, and computer-readable medium comprising at least one processor
(par. 7) that performs:
by a sensing capability recognizer (par. 54 and 141, sensor node network manager, figure manager 1a item 104), causing a mobile communication network to recognize sensing capabilities of a plurality of sensors that can communicate in the mobile communication network (par. 54 and 141, the sensor node network manager receives a sensor capability report identifying the capabilities and limitations of each sensor node); and
by a sensing area setter, setting a sensing area (par. 136, the sensor node network manager…create a group of at least some of the sensor nodes…deemed co located and may be assigned a location), and managing, in the mobile communication network, the sensing capabilities of the plurality of sensors whose sensing ranges are included in the sensing area, as a sensing capability group in the sensing area (par. 19, 138-139, and 156, the sensor node network manager may perform continuous measurements of the sensor nodes in the network to monitor and confirm the membership of the sensor nodes in the group (as noted previously, groups of sensor nodes are co-located)…The sensor node network manager may allocate sensing tasks in a manner that optimizes the distribution of resources. Further see par. 128 discussing sensors in a given area/range).
However, although Ojala teaches the capability table, which includes a column for Sensor Node Identifier (see Table 1), he does not specifically disclose wherein the sensing capability includes a providing manner of the sensing information of each of the sensors, the providing manner indicating whether the sensing information is anonymous of onymous. 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, the providing manner indicating whether the sensing information is anonymous of onymous (Pogorelik teaches in par. 45, the sensors provide the data anonymously, thus using the anonymous sensor data in Pogorelik, with the capabilities table (Table 1) of Ojala, which includes a sensor node identifier column, would result in a capabilities table that had no identifier in the sensor node identifier column for anonymous sensors, and an identifier for sensors that provide it (as shown in Ojala). Thus, rendering the providing manner of the sensing information of each sensor obvious in view of the combination.)
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 into the method and system of Ojala. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve security of the system (Pogorelik par. 45).
Regarding claim 2. Ojala further teaches, the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor performs, by a sensing information outputter, outputting 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).
Regarding claim 5. Ojala further teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sensing capability includes the location of each of the sensors (see Table 1, sensor node location).
Regarding claim 6. Ojala further teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sensing capability includes the use case in which the sensing information of each of the sensors can be used (Table 1, node sensor sensing task).
Regarding claim 7. Ojala further teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sensing capability includes the sensing item of each of the sensors (Table 1, sensor node sensor modalities).
Regarding claim 10. Ojala further teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sensing capability recognizer causes 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).
Regarding claim 11. Ojala further teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sensing capability recognizer causes 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).
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ojala, in view of Pogorelik, in further view of North et al. (US 20180354647, hereinafter North).
Regarding claim 3. Ojala and Pogorelik teach the limitations of the previous claim 1. Ojala further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of sensors is provided in a communication station capable of communicating in the mobile communication network (par. 7, sensor nodes include communication interfaces, thus reading on communication station capable of communicating in the mobile communications network, par. 117 notes the nodes are within a mobile network).
However, although Ojala mentions in par.141, that the sensor capability report may include any information of interest for each sensor node, he 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 in a analogous to Ojala. 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 Ojala. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for a system that better adjusts sensing capabilities (North par. 45).
Regarding claim 4. Ojala in view of North teach the limitations of claim 3. Ojala further teaches wherein the communication station includes at least one of: a base station constituting the mobile communication network; and a communication station capable of communicating with the base station (par. 7, sensor nodes include communication interfaces, thus reading on communication station capable of communicating in the mobile communications network. Further, par. 256 notes the use of a base station, UE, terminal, and WTRU. Examiner would like to note the use of alternative language (at least one of) and thus only one of the noted features in this claim need to be disclosed by the prior art).
Regarding claim 8. Ojala teaches the limitations of the previous claim 1.
However, although Ojala mentions in par.141, that the sensor capability report may include any information of interest for each sensor node, he does not specifically disclose wherein the sensing capability includes the sensing accuracy of each of the sensors.
North teaches a method and system for monitoring sensing devices (abstract), and thus is in a analogous to Ojala. 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 Ojala. 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Trivedi et al. (US 2024/0427934), Anonymous data collection for vehicle sensor data.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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