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 .
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 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.
In addressing the rejection ground, each claim may not have been separately discussed to the extent the claimed features are the same as or similar to the previously-discussed features; the previous discussion is construed to apply for the other claims in the same or similar way.
In the office action, “/” should be read as and/or as generally understood. For example, “A/B” means A and B, or A or B.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 and 21-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim1 recites “sensor; or determining”. It should be recited as --sensor; and determining--.
Claims 2-15 and 21-24 are objected to based on the dependency from claim 1.
Claim 25 recites “sensor; or determining”. It should be recited as --sensor; and determining--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Agarwal et al. (US 2018/0306609).
Regarding claim 1, Agarwal discloses a method [see at least figs. 1-2/3-4; and figs. 5, 16] of controlling an actuator in a sensor and actuator network [e.g. figs. 1, 5] comprising a first physical sensor [e.g. one of 110s] at a first node [ 112 fig. 1 or 3/121 fig. 5; the sensor group 110s; or the node between 110s and 112] and an actuator [see at least para. 0069. 116 fig. 1, 122 fig. 3] at a second node [112, 116/118 fig. 1; 112, 120, 122/124 fig. 3; 122; 112/120s/122/124; or the node connected to 118/124/120;], comprising: associating at least the first physical sensor to a sensor group [e.g. 102]; defining the first physical sensor as a publisher for publishing a first state of the first physical sensor in the sensor group, said first state being based on data sensed by the first physical sensor [see at least para. 0034], said publishing comprising transmitting said first state from said first node to at least said second node; and at least one of: creating a virtual sensor [e.g. 118/124/120, also see para. 0035] having a state at the second node, associating the virtual sensor to the sensor group, and defining the virtual sensor as a subscriber for receiving the first state as the state of the virtual sensor [see at least para. 0045], and controlling the actuator based on the state of the virtual sensor; or determining a group state of the sensor group at least based on the first state, and controlling the actuator based on the group state [see at least paras. 0045, 0047, 0056].
Regarding claim 2, Agarwal discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the sensor and actuator network further comprises a second physical sensor, and wherein the method further comprising: associating the second physical sensor to the sensor group; defining the second physical sensor as a publisher for publishing a second state of the second physical sensor in the sensor group, said second state being based on data sensed by the second physical sensor; and determining the group state of the sensor group based on the first state and the second state [see at least paras. 0034, 0056, 0117-0122; for example, different virtual sensors 118 (i.e. virtual sensors 118 utilizing different subsets of sensors 110 or having different parameters and/or weights assigned to the event) may be implemented to detect the same event in different locations, different environments, or even over different time periods in the same location].
Regarding claim 3, Agarwal discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first node, the second node, and any other node with a physical sensor and/or virtual sensor and/or actuator associated to the sensor group stores information related to the sensor group, said information comprising the group state.
Regarding claim 4, Agarwal discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the information comprises a multi-cast address [since the node need to get the status of the sensors] linked to the first physical sensor and any other physical sensor and/or virtual sensor and/or actuator associated to the sensor group.
Regarding claim 5, Agarwal discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the information comprises an operation defining how the group state is determined based on at least the first state [see at least para. 0056].
Regarding claim 6, Agarwal discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein the operation is any one of the following or a combination thereof: a Boolean operation, an addition, a subtraction, a multiplication, a division, a maxima operation, a minima operation, a weighted operation, or a conversion operation [see at least description for 116].
Regarding claim 7, Agarwal discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the information comprises the first state and a state for any other physical sensor and/or virtual sensor associated to the sensor group [see at least fig. 6-7, paras. 0082-0083, 0119-0123].
Regarding claim 8, Agarwal discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the information comprises any one or more of the following information: a sensor group identifier, an application type defining a type of service provided by the sensor group, a quality of service defining transmission and/or congestion related information, or a publisher communication profile defining information related to the publishing by the first physical sensor and any other sensor associated to the sensor group as a publisher [see at least fig. 2, 4, 5, 7].
Regarding claim 9, Agarwal discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first physical sensor is defined at the first node by storing the following information: the first state, a sensor identifier, a sensor group identifier of the sensor group, and optionally a further sensor group identifier of a further sensor group associated to the first physical sensor [the system is configured to identified a sensor, its sensed value and its group; see at least paras. 0034, 0043, 0052, 0056, 0070-0072].
Regarding claim 10, Agarwal discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the second physical sensor is of the same type [e.g. the type can be used indoor] as the first physical sensor.
Regarding claim 11, Agarwal discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: associating the first physical sensor to a further sensor group; defining the first physical sensor as a publisher for publishing the first state in the further sensor group; and determining a further group state of the further sensor group at least based on the first state [see at least fig. 6-7, paras. 0082-0083; for example, sensors are grouped by type or the property or phenomena: sensors can be grouped by sampling timescales, grouped by various usages (A)-(L) fig.7].
Regarding claim 12, Agarwal discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein the sensor and actuator network further comprises a further actuator, and wherein the method further comprises at least one of: creating a further virtual sensor having a further state, and associating the further virtual sensor to the further sensor group, and defining the further virtual sensor as a subscriber for receiving the first state as the further state of the further virtual sensor, and controlling the further actuator based on the further state of the further virtual sensor; or controlling the further actuator based on the further group state [see at least fig. 6-7, paras. 0082-0083, 0119-0123].
Regarding claim 13, Agarwal discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the sensor and actuator network is included in a luminaire network [see at least para. 0122].
Regarding claim 14, Agarwal discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein the first node is located at a first luminaire of the luminaire network and the second node is located at a second luminaire of the luminaire network.
Regarding claim 21, Agarwal discloses a controller [see abstract; computing system] for use in a sensor and actuator network, said controller being configured: to define a sensor group associated with one or more physical and/or virtual sensors located in one or more nodes of the sensor and actuator network; to define a first physical sensor of said one or more physical and/or virtual sensors as a publisher so that a first state thereof is published in the sensor group, said publishing comprising transmitting said first state from a node where the first physical sensor is located to any other node associated to the sensor group, said first state being based on data sensed by the first physical sensor; and to determine a group state of the sensor group at least based on the first state. See rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, Agarwal discloses the controller of claim 21, wherein the controller is further configured: to create a virtual sensor having a state, associating the virtual sensor to the sensor group; to define the virtual sensor as a subscriber so that the first state is set as the state of the virtual sensor; and to control an actuator based on the state of the virtual sensor. See rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, Agarwal discloses the controller according to claim 21, wherein the controller is further configured to control an actuator based on the group state [see at least paras. 0045, 0047, 0056]. Also, see rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 24, Agarwal discloses a luminaire controller for a sensor and actuator network [see at least para. 0122] according to claim 21.
Regarding claim 25, Agarwal discloses a method of controlling an actuator in a sensor and actuator network comprising a first physical sensor at a first node and an actuator at a second node, comprising: associating at least the first physical sensor to a sensor group; defining the first physical sensor as a publisher for publishing a first state of the first physical sensor in the sensor group, said first state being based on data sensed by the first physical sensor, said publishing comprising transmitting said first state from said first node to at least said second node; and at least one of: creating a virtual sensor having a state at the second node, associating the virtual sensor to the sensor group, and defining the virtual sensor as a subscriber for receiving the first state as the state of the virtual sensor, wherein the state of the virtual sensor is processed by a processor [e.g. 122/106/Processor(s); see at least para. 0043, figs. 1, 3, 5] at the second node, and controlling the actuator based on the processed state of the virtual sensor; or determining a group state of the sensor group at least based on the first state, wherein the group state is determined by a processor [e.g. 122/106/Processor(s); see at least para. 0043] at the second node, and controlling the actuator based on the group state. Also, see rejection of claim 1.
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 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al. (US 2018/0306609) in view of Slupik (US 10,542,610).
Regarding claim 15 (as best understood), Agarwal discloses the method according to claim 1, except wherein the sensor and actuator network is a mesh network. However, Slupik discloses the advantage of a mesh network [see at least Col. 2, lines 7-24]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Agarwal in accordance with the teaching of Slupik regarding a network in order to eliminate of a single point of failure and reduce processor load [Col. 2, lines 7-24].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
‘When referring to Figure lA of Agarwal, the Office analogized the "sensor group" of
independent claim 1 to the sensor assembly 102 of Agarwal. In doing so, the Office appears to have misconstrued the feature of the "sensor group" of claim 1. Indeed, as described at Page 2, Lines 21-29 of Applicant's specification, the sensor group is a specific logical construct made to diffuse information in a publisher-subscriber manner so that information is diffused only to select nodes in the sensor and actuator network. This is also clear from the wording of claim 1, alone, which adopts the terminology linked to a publisher-subscriber system.
On the other hand, the sensor assembly 102 of Agarwal, as defined in claim 1 of
Agarwal, comprises a control circuit and one or more sensors. In other words, it is a physical assembly of a plurality of sensors controlled together by the control circuit. It is not, however, a logical construct as defined by claim 1 relative to the sensor group. Although Paragraph [0060] of Agarwal mentions that virtual sensors are subscribed to sensor feeds of correlated sensors from the sensor assembly, there is no disclosure of a sensor group as defined in claim 1 being replicated at the first and the at least second node to diffuse information to select locations.
Based on the above, the features related to the sensor group and the method steps linked to actions performed on or via the sensor group are clearly not disclosed by Agarwal; and
Agarwal, therefore, does not disclose claim 1.’
However, the specification does not clearly define “sensor group”. The “sensor group” described in lines 21-29 of page 2 can be considered the “sensor group” in applicant’s invention is a type of logical construct, one can obtain, among other things, a communication tool which is replicated at the first and at the at least second node. It does not exclude physical sensors. Under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), sensor group comprises a physical sensor assembly of a plurality of sensors. In addition, 102 can be logical constructed, e.g. logically considered/linked/grouped, as a sensor group. In addition, Agrwal discloses the state of 102 is communicated/transmitted/replicated/ at/to the first node [e.g. the node connected to the 110; e.g. 112 fig. 1 or 3/121 fig. 5] and the second node [the node connected to 118/124/120; e.g. 122]. Accordingly, Agarwal discloses the features of claim 1.
Applicant argues:
‘Secondly, claim 25 defines, among other things, that the state of the virtual sensor is processed, or that the group state of the sensor group is determined, at the second node, i.e. at the node where it is useful. This is explained in Page 3, Lines 16-17 of Applicant's specification, which describe that the processing (of the state of the virtual sensor) or the determination (of the group state) is performed at the node where the actuator is located and lessens the burden on the rest of the network.
According to Paragraph [0042] of Agarwal, the sensor assembly 102 further includes a featurization module 112 (which can be implemented with firmware executed by a microcontroller(s) or other programmable circuit(s) of the sensor assembly 102) that processes and converts raw data from the sensors 110 into various forms of processed data and extracts measurable properties or characteristics of the data, i.e. features. The featurization module 112 can output the processed raw sensor 110 data in the form of, e.g. a feature vector, to be provided to a machine learning-based classification system, a statistical classification system, and/or a clustering system that utilizes pattern recognition, machine learning techniques (e.g. classifier), logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, or the like, at the computer system 104.
However, in the context of Paragraph [0122] of Agarwal (smart cities and street lighting), Agarwal explains that a key advantage of the sensing system 100 implementing virtual sensors 118 is to do all the processing and featurization at the sensor assembly 102 itself, thereby addressing many of the privacy concerns in a smart city environment and also reducing the data that needs to be transmitted at the scale of a city.
So, Agarwal does not disclose the same location as the features of claim 1 regarding where the processing of sensor data is implemented; and Agarwal therefore does not disclose claim 25.
By processing states of virtual sensors or sensor groups at select nodes depending on the location of the actuator and need (as in Applicant's claim 25), the burden on the rest of the network is lessened.
Agarwal teaches to do otherwise by performing the processing at the sensor assembly itself for privacy concerns. Thus, Agarwal fails to disclose or suggest at least these features of claim 25. Further, Applicant has not found any of the remaining cited references to make up for
these deficiencies in Agarwal. Hence, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 25 is unanticipated by and non-obvious over the cited references.’
However, it’s unclear what applicant means that “the sensing system 100 implementing virtual sensors 118 is to do all the processing and featurization at the sensor assembly 102 itself, thereby addressing many of the privacy concerns in a smart city environment and also reducing the data that needs to be transmitted at the scale of a city.
So, Agarwal does not disclose the same location as the features of claim 1 regarding where the processing of sensor data is implemented; and Agarwal therefore does not disclose claim 25.” It’s clearly that claim 25 does not have the dependency from claim 1. Why the claim 25 must have the features of claim 1?
In addition, paragraph [0122] of Agarwal describes one of examples. Under that example, the priority is to address many of the privacy concerns in “a smart city environment”. For another example, paragraph [0022] describes a smart home, which has much less privacy concern. For a smart home, it’s not needed to do all the processing and featurization at the sensor assembly 102 itself. In addition, even under a smart city environment or other environments, Agarwal discloses the features of claim 25 at least when the first node is matched to the sensor group 110s or the node between 110s and 112, and the second node is matched to 112/120s/122/124. Thus, Agarwal discloses an actuator [see at least para. 0069] at a second node and the state of the virtual sensor is processed by a processor [e.g. 122/106/Processor(s); or see at least para. 0043, figs. 1, 3, 5] at the second node.
Conclusion
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 PATRICK C CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7207. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Flexible 8:00-16:00.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/PATRICK C CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights