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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
‘time receiving unit that receives broadcast time information’ in claim 1
For this limitation ‘unit’ is interpreted as the generic placeholder term in place of ‘means’, and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure in the stated functions. Support of the sufficient structure cannot be found in the disclosure, please see the 112(b) rejection below.
‘operation unit that transmits related time information’ in claim 1
For this limitation ‘unit’ is interpreted as the generic placeholder term in place of ‘means’, and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure in the stated functions. Support of the sufficient structure cannot be found in the disclosure, please see the 112(b) rejection below.
‘data collection unit’ in claim 1
For this limitation ‘unit’ is interpreted as the generic placeholder term in place of ‘means’, and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure in the stated functions [unit for data collection]. Support of the sufficient structure cannot be found in the disclosure, please see the 112(b) rejection below.
‘a data collection unit’ in claim 4
Per MPEP 2181(I)(A), as this limitation is stated in the preamble, it is unclear if 112(f) is intended to be invoked. Given that this limitation is interpreted as invoking 112(f) in claims 1 and 6, it will be interpreted as intending to invoke 112(f) in claim 4. For this limitation ‘unit’ is interpreted as the generic placeholder term in place of ‘means’, and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure in the stated functions [unit for data collection]. Support of the sufficient structure cannot be found in the disclosure, please see the 112(b) rejection below.
‘an information receiving unit that receives’ in claim 4
For this limitation ‘unit’ is interpreted as the generic placeholder term in place of ‘means’, and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure in the stated functions. Support of the sufficient structure cannot be found in the disclosure, please see the 112(b) rejection below.
‘data processing unit that organizes the related time information’ in claim 4
For this limitation ‘unit’ is interpreted as the generic placeholder term in place of ‘means’, and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure in the stated functions. Support of the sufficient structure cannot be found in the disclosure, please see the 112(b) rejection below.
‘a data collection unit receiving the set’ in claim 6
For this limitation ‘unit’ is interpreted as the generic placeholder term in place of ‘means’, and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure in the stated functions [unit for data collection]. Support of the sufficient structure cannot be found in the disclosure, please see the 112(b) rejection below.
Note claims 4 and 7 call directly to claim 1, while claim 8 calls directly to claim 4 and thereby inherit any noted interpretations.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 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.
Claim limitations:
‘time receiving unit that receives broadcast time information’, ‘operation unit that transmits related time information’, ‘data collection unit’ in claim 1
‘a data collection unit’, ‘an information receiving unit that receives’, ‘data processing unit that organizes the related time information’ in claim 4
‘a data collection unit receiving the set’ in claim 6
Note claims 4 and 7 call directly to claim 1, while claim 8 calls directly to claim 4 and thereby inherit any noted interpretations.
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The above noted claim limitations recite a generic structural placeholder term in ‘unit’, without sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. In turning to the disclosure to find this support, there are only ‘black box’ implementations of the various units, shown in Figures 7-9, with nothing else from the disclosure seen to support or disclose the scope of the specific structure or associated computer and algorithm to perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As noted, the following claim limitations invoke a 112(f) interpretation and have further been given a 112(b) rejection for indefiniteness.
Claim limitations:
‘time receiving unit that receives broadcast time information’, ‘operation unit that transmits related time information’, ‘data collection unit’ in claim 1
‘a data collection unit’, ‘an information receiving unit that receives’, ‘data processing unit that organizes the related time information’ in claim 4
‘a data collection unit receiving the set’ in claim 6
Note claims 4 and 7 call directly to claim 1, while claim 8 calls directly to claim 4 and thereby inherit any noted interpretations.
Per MPEP 2163.03(IV) “Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See also MPEP § 2181.”. As such the limitations interpreted under 112(f) and found to be indefinite under 112(b) also fail to meet the written description requirement, as further supported in MPEP 2181(IV) “Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.”.
Please note that for each of the 112(f) interpreted limitations the merits for enablement are interpreted as met in light the disclosure provided and further considerations of the Wands factors to support the ability of one of skill in the art to perform the claimed designs without undue experimentation. Note MPEP 2181(IV).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Etkin (US Pub 20110216658, see IDS).
Re claim 1, Etkin discloses a sensor terminal (Fig 3 el 300) comprising:
a time receiving unit that receives broadcast time information (Fig 3 el 310/330, Par 11-13, 19, 25-30 – synchronization module to global clock/GPS); and
an operation unit that transmits related time information related to the time information (Fig 3 el 330/370, Par 11-13, 24-27 -secondary clock with TSF correction or single clock with synchronization module adjustment) and sensing data (Fig 3 el 350, Par 13, 25-27) as a set to a data collection unit (Par 27-30, 37).
Re claim 2, Etkin discloses the sensor terminal according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the related time information is the time information and a time required for transmission processing (Par 13, 25-26, 30 – timing corrections are sent with processing timestamps for later correction processing) or information obtained by adding the time required for the transmission processing to the time information (Par 13, 25-26 – sampling timing/clock is adjusted, then data sampling is performed and timestamp applied).
Re claim 7, Etkin discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Par 29, el 360/340) having computer-executable instructions (Par 29, el 360/340) that, upon execution of the instructions by a processor of a computer (Par 29, el 360/340), cause the computer to function as the sensor terminal according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
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.
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.
Claims 3, 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etkin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (US Pub 20180082206).
Re claim 3, Etkin discloses the sensor terminal according to claim 1, but fails however to explicitly disclose (1) wherein the operation unit includes, in the set, information of a location metadata source received in an arbitrary area.
Regarding item (1) above, this design is however disclosed by Yang. Yang discloses wherein the operation unit includes, in the set (Par 18, 19, 23, 28), information of a location metadata source received in an arbitrary area (Par 18, 19, 23, 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Etkin in order to incorporate the incorporation of location metadata of Yang based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs, in this instance the inclusion of location or geographical metadata would serve to improve any processing and assessing of sensor data to find more accurate and higher quality results and processing incorporating such results.
Re claim 4, Etkin discloses a data collection unit (Par 29-30) comprising: an information receiving unit (Par 29-30 – elsewhere for storage and/or processing-sent to a data collection center for processing) that receives the set transmitted from the sensor terminal (Par 29-30 – elsewhere for storage and/or processing-sent to a data collection center for processing) according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above); but fail however to explicitly disclose the design further comprising (1) a data processing unit that organizes the related time information and the sensing data included in the set in a database on the basis of information for identifying the sensor terminal.
Regarding item (1) above, this design is however disclosed by Yang. Yang discloses a data processing unit that organizes the related time information (Par 19-22, 24) and the sensing data included in the set in a database (Par 19-22, 24) on the basis of information for identifying the sensor terminal (Par 19-22, 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Etkin in order to incorporate the information storage and organization of Yang based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs, in this instance by providing the sensor data with associated metadata would allow for improved dynamic consideration of environmental conditions and events as the sensor data can be stored to be used in models and organized to support the observation and analysis of the metadata in a more effective and efficient way reducing computational delays and improving the resultant quality.
Re claim 8, the combined disclosure of Etkin and Yang as a whole disclose the data collection unit of claim 4, Yang further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Par 36-40) having computer-executable instructions that (Par 36-40), upon execution of the instructions by a processor of a computer (Par 36-40), cause the computer to function as the data collection unit according to claim 4 (see the rejection of claim 4 above).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etkin (US Pub 20110216658, see IDS) in view of Yang (US Pub 20180082206).
Re claim 6, Etkin discloses a data collection method comprising:
a sensor terminal (Fig 3 el 300/350, Par 13, 25-27) receiving broadcast time information (Fig 3 el 310/330, Par 11-13, 19, 25-30 – synchronization module to global clock/GPS);
the sensor terminal transmitting related time information related to the time information (Fig 3 el 330/370, Par 11-13, 24-27 -secondary clock with TSF correction or single clock with synchronization module adjustment) and sensing data (Fig 3 el 300/350, Par 13, 25-27) as a set (Par 27-30, 37);
a data collection unit receiving the set (Par 29-30 – elsewhere for storage and/or processing-sent to a data collection center for processing); but fails however to explicitly disclose (1) wherein the design comprises the data collection unit organizing the related time information and the sensing data included in the set in a database on the basis of information for identifying the sensor terminal.
Regarding item (1) above, this design is however disclosed by Yang. Yang discloses wherein the design comprises the data collection unit (Par 19-22, 24) organizing the related time information (Par 19-22, 24) and the sensing data included in the set in a database (Par 19-22, 24) on the basis of information for identifying the sensor terminal (Par 19-22, 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Etkin in order to incorporate the information storage and organization of Yang based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs, in this instance by providing the sensor data with associated metadata would allow for improved dynamic consideration of environmental conditions and events as the sensor data can be stored to be used in models and organized to support the observation and analysis of the metadata in a more effective and efficient way reducing computational delays and improving the resultant quality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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 R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631