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 Objections
Claims 1-16 and 24-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 7-8, the language “…is suitable and intended to…” is not concise and could be expressed better; for example, removing the above language would make the claims clearer.
Regarding claims 1-16 and 24-27, remove drawing indicators (1) and (10).
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.
Claims 12, 19, 20-21 and 24-29 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.
Regarding claims 12 and 27, the phrase ‘preferably’ is vague and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation ‘the gas composition’. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation ‘the moisture’. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation ‘the soil’ on line 4 and ‘the moisture’ on line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation ‘the gateway’. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 25-29 are rejected for depending on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 17-23 and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 17 and 31 are directed to emitting a signal from a signal source (S) of the sensor unit (SE), passing the signal into a nearby test specimen (PK, PK1, PK2), detecting a signal with a detection unit (DE) of the sensor unit (SE), and evaluating the (detected) signal.
These steps involve gathering, analyzing, and evaluation of information. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, specifically organizing human activity. The claim does not recite additional elements or steps that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims so not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, nor does it effect a transformation or particular machine. Because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without additional elements that integrate the idea into a practical application, the claim is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (See MPEP 2106.05).
Dependent claims 18-23, 28-30 and 32 contain similar limitations that do not integrate it into a practical application and are rejected for the same reasons as independent claims 17 and 31.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 17, 19-20, 24 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Balaji (US Patent No. 20180374330 A1).
In re claim 1, Balaji teaches A forest fire early detection and/or forest fire risk analysis system (10) (Abstract: “Embodiments of the present invention relate to, in general, a fire detection device and notification system configured for generating alerts based on detected environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, presence of flame or smoke or combustion gas).”), having
a sensor unit (SE) (SEE FIGS, ESPECIALLY FIG 8, SENSORS DEVICE 450)
an evaluation unit for evaluating the measured signals supplied by the sensor unit (SE) (SEE FIG 8, Data Analysis App 434 and para [0075]: “As illustrated in block 520, the system, using the data analysis application 434, next determines the presence of one or more environmental conditions determined to be hazardous or potentially hazardous to the environment or public based on the collected environmental data (e.g., a detected forest fire by detecting flames, smoke, combustion gases or conditions that may encourage a forest fire (e.g., low humidity and high temperature)). The system may determine one or more detected environmental conditions to be hazardous based on predetermined limits of the various environmental conditions.”),
characterized in that
the sensor unit (SE) has a signal source (S) for emitting a signal, which signal source is suitable and intended to pass a signal into a nearby test specimen (PK, PK1, PK2) (Para [0050]: “In some embodiments, the fire detection device 100, may further comprise additional sensor devices such as an anemometer, weather vane, an image capture device, a sound recording device, a geolocation device, a weather sensing device, a proximity sensor, a motion sensor, radio frequency sensor, pressure sensor, a pH sensor, radiation measurement and detection devices (e.g., a Geiger counter and/or the like), biological contaminant sensing devices, a photoelectric sensor, a capacitance sensor, an electric field sensor, a magnetic field sensor, a piezoresistive or piezoelectric sensor, and the like.”; Examiner notes the basic operating principle of a sensor, especially those listed above ‘pass’ signals into nearby test specimens to sense information.).
In re claim 2, Balaji teaches the forest fire early detection and/or forest fire risk analysis system (10) has a communication unit (K) (SEE FIG 8, Communication Device 440) that is independent of the sensor unit (SE), in addition to the sensor unit (SE) (Para [0068]: “The fire detection device may further comprise various components/devices in operative communication with and/or controlled by the processing device 410, such as sensor devices 450, communication device 440, a power source 420, memory device 430, and the like.”; Examiner notes FIG 8 illustrates Fire Detection Device 400 with separate Communication Device 440 and separate Sensor Devices 450 connected to Processing Device 410.).
In re claim 3, Balaji teaches the sensor unit (SE) has a gas sensor and/or a temperature sensor (Abstract: “In some embodiments, the fire detection device employs various sensor devices (e.g., temperature, humidity, flame, smoke, gas, and the like) to collect environmental data and determine whether the detected environmental conditions indicate the presence of or the increased possibility of a fire.”).
In re claim 4, Balaji teaches the sensor unit (SE) has a moisture sensor (Para [0047]: “The one or more sensors of the fire detection device 100 may comprise an integrated temperature and humidity sensor device 114. In some embodiments the temperature and humidity sensor device 114 comprises a thermocouple and a hygrometer to measure temperature and air moisture content of a surrounding environment respectively. An example of such device is a DHT22 temperature and humidity sensor sold under the brand name of Evazstyle™.”).
In re claim 7, Balaji teaches the sensor unit (SE) has a detection unit (DE), wherein the detection unit (DE) is suitable and intended to detect a return signal of the signal emitted by the sensor unit (SE) (Para [0046]: “As previously discussed, the fire detection device 100 comprises one or more sensor devices for collecting data (e.g., temperature, humidity, flame, smoke or gas presence, wind direction and speed, and the like) from the environment (e.g., a forest) surrounding the fire detection device 100. The one or more sensor devices convert the measured or detected external stimuli into one or more electronic signals which may be processed by the fire detection device 100. In some embodiments, the one or more sensor devices may further comprise data logging devices electronically coupled to the one or more sensor devices to process collected signals received from the sensor devices and transform the signals into a data format compatible with other computing devices (e.g., a user computing device) for further processing and analysis by another system, program, and/or user. In some embodiments, the fire detection device 100 may include an analog-to-digital converter 130 for transforming analog signals generated by the one or more sensors into digital signals that may be collected, processed, and/or transmitted by the fire detection device 100 and/or communication network described herein. In other embodiments, the analog-to-digital converter 130 may be integrated into another component or device (e.g. a sensor) described herein.”).
Method claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as system claims 1 and 7 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 9, Balaji teaches the forest fire early detection and/or forest fire risk analysis system (10) has a gateway network (1) (Para [0065]: “The systems and devices communicate with one another over the network 301 and perform one or more of the various steps and/or methods according to embodiments of the disclosure discussed herein. The network 301 may include a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), and/or a global area network (GAN).”) with a network server (NS) (Para [0061]: “As used herein, a “communication interface” or “communication device” generally includes a modem, server, transceiver, and/or other device for communicating with other devices on a network, and/or a user interface for communicating with one or more customers.”) and multiple terminals (ED) (SEE FIGS 7 and 8, particularly FIG 7’s System Environment 300 depicting multiple Fire Detection Devices [terminals]).
In re claim 19, Balaji teaches the gas composition and/or temperature is determined from the detected signal (Abstract: “In some embodiments, the fire detection device employs various sensor devices (e.g., temperature, humidity, flame, smoke, gas, and the like) to collect environmental data and determine whether the detected environmental conditions indicate the presence of or the increased possibility of a fire.”).
In re claim 20, Balaji teaches the moisture of the test specimen (PK1, PK2) is determined from the detected signal (Para [0047]: “The one or more sensors of the fire detection device 100 may comprise an integrated temperature and humidity sensor device 114. In some embodiments the temperature and humidity sensor device 114 comprises a thermocouple and a hygrometer to measure temperature and air moisture content of a surrounding environment respectively. An example of such device is a DHT22 temperature and humidity sensor sold under the brand name of Evazstyle™.”).
In re claim 24, Balaji teaches the method is carried out using a forest fire early detection and/or forest fire risk analysis system (10) (Abstract: “Embodiments of the present invention relate to, in general, a fire detection device and notification system configured for generating alerts based on detected environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, presence of flame or smoke or combustion gas).”),
wherein the forest fire early detection and/or forest fire risk analysis system (10) comprises a gateway network (1) (Para [0065]: “The systems and devices communicate with one another over the network 301 and perform one or more of the various steps and/or methods according to embodiments of the disclosure discussed herein. The network 301 may include a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), and/or a global area network (GAN).”) with a network server (NS) (Para [0061]: “As used herein, a “communication interface” or “communication device” generally includes a modem, server, transceiver, and/or other device for communicating with other devices on a network, and/or a user interface for communicating with one or more customers.”) and multiple terminals (ED) (SEE FIGS 7 and 8, particularly FIG 7’s System Environment 300 depicting multiple Fire Detection Devices [terminals]),
wherein the sensor unit (SE) is part of a terminal (ED) (SEE FIGS 7 and 8, particularly FIG 8’s Sensor Devices 450 as part of the Fire Detection Device 400 [ie, terminal]) and the signals and/or the evaluated signals are transmitted via the gateway (G1, G2) to the network server (NS) (Para [0061]: “As used herein, a “communication interface” or “communication device” generally includes a modem, server, transceiver, and/or other device for communicating with other devices on a network, and/or a user interface for communicating with one or more customers. The communication devices discussed herein, such as 312 and 440, are communication interfaces having one or more devices configured to communicate with one or more other devices on a network, such as a mobile device, a personal computing device, a responder dispatch system, third party systems, and/or the like. The processing device is configured to use the network communication device to transmit and/or receive data and/or commands to and/or from the other devices connected to the network.”).
In re claim 31, Balaji teaches A forest fire early detection and/or forest fire risk analysis terminal (ED) having
a signal source (S) for emitting a signal (Para [0050]: “In some embodiments, the fire detection device 100, may further comprise additional sensor devices such as an anemometer, weather vane, an image capture device, a sound recording device, a geolocation device, a weather sensing device, a proximity sensor, a motion sensor, radio frequency sensor, pressure sensor, a pH sensor, radiation measurement and detection devices (e.g., a Geiger counter and/or the like), biological contaminant sensing devices, a photoelectric sensor, a capacitance sensor, an electric field sensor, a magnetic field sensor, a piezoresistive or piezoelectric sensor, and the like.”; Examiner notes the basic operating principle of a sensor, especially those listed above ‘pass’ signals into nearby test specimens to sense information.),
a detection unit (DE) for detecting a signal (Para [0046]: “As previously discussed, the fire detection device 100 comprises one or more sensor devices for collecting data (e.g., temperature, humidity, flame, smoke or gas presence, wind direction and speed, and the like) from the environment (e.g., a forest) surrounding the fire detection device 100. The one or more sensor devices convert the measured or detected external stimuli into one or more electronic signals which may be processed by the fire detection device 100. In some embodiments, the one or more sensor devices may further comprise data logging devices electronically coupled to the one or more sensor devices to process collected signals received from the sensor devices and transform the signals into a data format compatible with other computing devices (e.g., a user computing device) for further processing and analysis by another system, program, and/or user. In some embodiments, the fire detection device 100 may include an analog-to-digital converter 130 for transforming analog signals generated by the one or more sensors into digital signals that may be collected, processed, and/or transmitted by the fire detection device 100 and/or communication network described herein. In other embodiments, the analog-to-digital converter 130 may be integrated into another component or device (e.g. a sensor) described herein.”),
a communication unit (K) (SEE FIG 8, Communication Device 440).
In re claim 32, Balaji teaches the communication unit (K) is arranged separately from the signal source (S) and the detection unit (DE) (Para [0068]: “The fire detection device may further comprise various components/devices in operative communication with and/or controlled by the processing device 410, such as sensor devices 450, communication device 440, a power source 420, memory device 430, and the like.”; Examiner notes FIG 8 illustrates Fire Detection Device 400 with separate Communication Device 440 and separate Devices connected to Processing Device 410.).
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.
Claims 5-6, 8, 18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balaji (US Patent No. 20180374330 A1), in view of Garrison (US Patent No. 20170343485 A1).
In re claim 5, Balaji teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above but fails to teach the test specimen (PK, PK1, PK2) is the soil and/or an object in contact with the soil.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Garrison teaches the test specimen (PK, PK1, PK2) is the soil and/or an object in contact with the soil (Para [0034]: “The system and method disclosed herein comprises an instrument and related data processing to extract an estimate of the volumentric soil moisture from reflections of P-band communication satellite signals.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Balajji to incorporate the teachings of Garrison to provide the test specimen (PK, PK1, PK2) is the soil and/or an object in contact with the soil with the FIRE DETECTION DEVICE AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM of Balaji. Doing so enables determining soil condition, as recognized by Garrison (Para [0003]).
In re claim 6, Balaji teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above but fails to teach the signal comprises an acoustic and/or electrical signal and/or an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength range of 1 mm to 30 cm.
However, Garrison teaches the signal comprises an acoustic and/or electrical signal and/or an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength range of 1 mm to 30 cm (Para [0054]: “Penetration depth is approximately proportional to wavelength, so lower frequencies (larger wavelengths penetrate deeper). L-band (e.g. NASA SMOS or ESA SMAP instruments, operating at 1.4 GHz) penetrates to 2-5 cm. P-band (230-270 MHz) can penetrate approximately 6-8 times deeper, or roughly 12-40 cm. Soil moisture within the “root zone” the depths of plant roots, is most important for predicting agricultural production and understanding the absorption of water by plants. This is typically considered the top meter of the soil. Reflection for P-band wavelengths (˜1 meter) will generally be approximated as specular, such that the angle of incidence 5 (indicated by θ) equal to the angle of reflection 6… Total scattered power is the combination of that in the rays from multiple depths.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Balajji to incorporate the teachings of Garrison to provide the signal comprises an acoustic and/or electrical signal and/or an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength range of 1 mm to 30 cm with the FIRE DETECTION DEVICE AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM of Balaji. Doing so enables predicting agricultural production and understanding the absorption of water by plants, as recognized by Garrison (Para [0054]).
In re claim 8, Balaji teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 stated above but fails to teach the detection unit (DE) is intended and suitable for detecting an acoustic and/or electrical signal and/or an electromagnetic wave in a wavelength range of 1 mm to 30 cm.
However, Garrison teaches the detection unit (DE) is intended and suitable for detecting an acoustic and/or electrical signal and/or an electromagnetic wave in a wavelength range of 1 mm to 30 cm (Para [0054]: “Penetration depth is approximately proportional to wavelength, so lower frequencies (larger wavelengths penetrate deeper). L-band (e.g. NASA SMOS or ESA SMAP instruments, operating at 1.4 GHz) penetrates to 2-5 cm. P-band (230-270 MHz) can penetrate approximately 6-8 times deeper, or roughly 12-40 cm. Soil moisture within the “root zone” the depths of plant roots, is most important for predicting agricultural production and understanding the absorption of water by plants. This is typically considered the top meter of the soil. Reflection for P-band wavelengths (˜1 meter) will generally be approximated as specular, such that the angle of incidence 5 (indicated by θ) equal to the angle of reflection 6… Total scattered power is the combination of that in the rays from multiple depths.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Balajji to incorporate the teachings of Garrison to provide the detection unit (DE) is intended and suitable for detecting an acoustic and/or electrical signal and/or an electromagnetic wave in a wavelength range of 1 mm to 30 cm with the FIRE DETECTION DEVICE AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM of Balaji. Doing so enables predicting agricultural production and understanding the absorption of water by plants, as recognized by Garrison (Para [0054]).
In re claim 18, Balaji teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 stated above but fails to teach the detected signal is a backscattered signal of the emitted signal.
However, Garrison teaches the detected signal is a backscattered signal of the emitted signal (Para [0054]: “The functional relationship between soil moisture and reflectivity is well established from past experimental measurements and defined in empirical models. Models also depend upon soil composition. Reflected ray paths—with intensity proportional to the reflectivity at each layer. Total scattered power is the combination of that in the rays from multiple depths. Signals from both the direct 2 and reflected ray paths 7 are received by an antenna with 2 the beams identified as “sky-view” (antenna pointed toward the satellite) and “Earthview” (antenna pointed toward soil).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Balajji to incorporate the teachings of Garrison to provide the detected signal is a backscattered signal of the emitted signal with the FIRE DETECTION DEVICE AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM of Balaji. Doing so enables
determining total scattered power through the combination of that in the rays from multiple soil depths, as recognized by Garrison (Para [0054]).
In re claim 21, Balaji teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 stated above but fails to teach the test specimen (PK, PK1, PK2) is the soil and/or an object in contact with the soil, wherein the moisture of the soil is determined.
However, Garrison teaches the test specimen (PK, PK1, PK2) is the soil and/or an object in contact with the soil, wherein the moisture of the soil is determined (Para [0034]: “The system and method disclosed herein comprises an instrument and related data processing to extract an estimate of the volumentric soil moisture from reflections of P-band communication satellite signals.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Balajji to incorporate the teachings of Garrison to provide the test specimen (PK, PK1, PK2) is the soil and/or an object in contact with the soil, wherein the moisture of the soil is determined with the FIRE DETECTION DEVICE AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM of Balaji. Doing so enables forestry and disaster preparation, in the prediction and management of drought, forest fire, or flood risk, as recognized by Garrison (Para [0034]).
In re claim 22, Balaji teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 stated above but fails to teach an acoustic and/or electrical signal and/or an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength range of 1 mm to 30 cm is emitted.
However, Garrison teaches an acoustic and/or electrical signal and/or an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength range of 1 mm to 30 cm is emitted (Para [0054]: “Penetration depth is approximately proportional to wavelength, so lower frequencies (larger wavelengths penetrate deeper). L-band (e.g. NASA SMOS or ESA SMAP instruments, operating at 1.4 GHz) penetrates to 2-5 cm. P-band (230-270 MHz) can penetrate approximately 6-8 times deeper, or roughly 12-40 cm. Soil moisture within the “root zone” the depths of plant roots, is most important for predicting agricultural production and understanding the absorption of water by plants. This is typically considered the top meter of the soil. Reflection for P-band wavelengths (˜1 meter) will generally be approximated as specular, such that the angle of incidence 5 (indicated by θ) equal to the angle of reflection 6… Total scattered power is the combination of that in the rays from multiple depths.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Balajji to incorporate the teachings of Garrison to provide an acoustic and/or electrical signal and/or an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength range of 1 mm to 30 cm is emitted with the FIRE DETECTION DEVICE AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM of Balaji. Doing so enables predicting agricultural production and understanding the absorption of water by plants, as recognized by Garrison (Para [0054]).
In re claim 23, Balaji teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 stated above but fails to teach an acoustic and/or electrical signal and/or an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength range of 1 mm to 30 cm is detected.
However, Garrison teaches an acoustic and/or electrical signal and/or an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength range of 1 mm to 30 cm is detected (Para [0033]: “A specialized receiver compares the signal observed directly from the transmitting satellite with that reflected from the soil surface through the mathematical process of cross-correlation. Cross-correlation will provide a measurement of the reflectivity of the soil surface. By re-utilizing man-made signals already transmitted, vs. using natural emission or transmission of a dedicated signal, it opens the possibility of using any frequency used for communication or navigation. In the particular case of soil moisture sensing, this allows the use of frequencies below L-band, with longer wavelengths and thus deeper penetration.” and para [0054]: “Penetration depth is approximately proportional to wavelength, so lower frequencies (larger wavelengths penetrate deeper). L-band (e.g. NASA SMOS or ESA SMAP instruments, operating at 1.4 GHz) penetrates to 2-5 cm. P-band (230-270 MHz) can penetrate approximately 6-8 times deeper, or roughly 12-40 cm. Soil moisture within the “root zone” the depths of plant roots, is most important for predicting agricultural production and understanding the absorption of water by plants. This is typically considered the top meter of the soil. Reflection for P-band wavelengths (˜1 meter) will generally be approximated as specular, such that the angle of incidence 5 (indicated by θ) equal to the angle of reflection 6… Total scattered power is the combination of that in the rays from multiple depths.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Balajji to incorporate the teachings of Garrison to provide an acoustic and/or electrical signal and/or an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength range of 1 mm to 30 cm is detected with the FIRE DETECTION DEVICE AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM of Balaji. Doing so enables using any frequency used for communication or navigation and in the particular case of soil moisture sensing, this allows the use of frequencies below L-band, with longer wavelengths and thus deeper penetration, as recognized by Garrison (Para [0033]).
Claims 10-11, 13-16, 25-26 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balaji (US Patent No. 20180374330 A1), in view of Ben-Shmuel (US Patent No. 20130321149 A1).
In re claim 10, Balaji teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 stated above but fails to teach the forest fire early detection and/or forest fire risk analysis system (10) has a mesh gateway network (1) with a first gateway (G1) and a second gateway (G2).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ben-Shmuel teaches the forest fire early detection and/or forest fire risk analysis system (10) has a mesh gateway network (1) (Para [0072]: “Upon communicating an information packet, the transfer thereof from one node to another node, including to a transmission node, constitutes a "hop". It may be appreciated that after one or more hops the packet is expected to reach a transmission node, from where it will be transferred directly or through additional transmission nodes to a control processor, or it may reach the control processor itself. It should also be appreciated that a node may transfer the information packet to more than one node at once, in which case, splitting, branching out the communication rout to more than one rout, e.g., for increasing reliability. According to the invention, the list of nodes transferring an information packet from its original source node to the control processor, i.e., to its destination, is dynamically set by an algorithm such as the algorithm presented by Zeng et al. ("Multicast Algorithms for Multi-Channel Wireless Mesh Networks") mentioned in the background of the invention.”) with a first gateway (G1) (Para [0071]: “According to certain embodiments, transmission nodes interconnected via a daisy chain, constituting a higher level communication network, while the information packets may be transferred from the one transmission node to another and so on until the information reaches a higher level transmission node or the controlling processor.”) and a second gateway (G2) (SEE FIG 1, Controlling Processor 106, para [0004]: “However, in wireless mesh networks, which are required to provide high quality service to end users as the "last-mile" of the Internet, throughput maximization conflicting with scarce bandwidth has the paramount priority.” and para [0111]: “On 906 strategy is propagated to users of the system. For example, a firefighter in the field may obtain an advise whether to take one route or another while entering the fire zone and/or while escaping therefrom. He may be advised, for example, that the high fire in front of him is only several centimeters thick, while what appears to be a low fire area occupies many tens of meters. The firefighter may decide to follow the systems's advises or not, while he may provide feedback represented by the returning arrow. Others the strategy may be propagated to are commanders of the rescue and emergency forces, citizen living in vicinity to the fire, rescue forces headquarters and any other entity who may require information.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Balajji to incorporate the teachings of Ben-Shmuel to provide the forest fire early detection and/or forest fire risk analysis system (10) has a mesh gateway network (1) with a first gateway (G1) and a second gateway (G2) with the FIRE DETECTION DEVICE AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM of Balaji. Doing so enables a node to transfer the information packet to more than one node at once, in which case splitting, branching out the communication rout to more than one rout increases reliability, as recognized by Ben-Shmuel (Para [0072]).
In re claim 11, Balaji and Ben-Shmuel teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 stated above where Ben-Shmuel further teaches the first gateway (G1) communicates directly with other gateways (G1, G2) and terminals (ED) of the mesh gateway network (1) only (Para [0071]: “According to certain embodiments, transmission nodes interconnected via a daisy chain, constituting a higher level communication network, while the information packets may be transferred from the one transmission node to another and so on until the information reaches a higher level transmission node or the controlling processor.”), and the second gateway (G2) (SEE FIG 1, Controlling Processor 106) communicates with the network server (NS) (Para [0004]: “However, in wireless mesh networks, which are required to provide high quality service to end users as the "last-mile" of the Internet, throughput maximization conflicting with scarce bandwidth has the paramount priority.” and para [0111]: “On 906 strategy is propagated to users of the system. For example, a firefighter in the field may obtain an advise whether to take one route or another while entering the fire zone and/or while escaping therefrom. He may be advised, for example, that the high fire in front of him is only several centimeters thick, while what appears to be a low fire area occupies many tens of meters. The firefighter may decide to follow the systems's advises or not, while he may provide feedback represented by the returning arrow. Others the strategy may be propagated to are commanders of the rescue and emergency forces, citizen living in vicinity to the fire, rescue forces headquarters and any other entity who may require information.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Balajji and Ben-Shmuel to further incorporate the teachings of Ben-Shmuel to provide the first gateway (G1) communicates directly with other gateways (G1, G2) and terminals (ED) of the mesh gateway network (1) only and the second gateway (G2) communicates with the network server (NS) with the FIRE DETECTION DEVICE AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM of Balaji as modified by Ben-Shmuel. Doing so enables the wireless mesh network to have throughput maximization albeit conflicting with scarce bandwidth, as recognized by Ben-Shmuel (Para [0004]).
Method claim 26 is rejected for the same reasons as system claim 11 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 13, Balaji and Ben-Shmuel teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 stated above where Ben-Shmuel further teaches the second gateway (G2) (SEE FIG 1, Controlling Processor 106) has a communication interface (K) that provides an Internet connection (IP) to the network server (NS) (Para [0004]: “However, in wireless mesh networks, which are required to provide high quality service to end users as the "last-mile" of the Internet, throughput maximization conflicting with scarce bandwidth has the paramount priority.” and para [0111]: “On 906 strategy is propagated to users of the system. For example, a firefighter in the field may obtain an advise whether to take one route or another while entering the fire zone and/or while escaping therefrom. He may be advised, for example, that the high fire in front of him is only several centimeters thick, while what appears to be a low fire area occupies many tens of meters. The firefighter may decide to follow the systems's advises or not, while he may provide feedback represented by the returning arrow. Others the strategy may be propagated to are commanders of the rescue and emergency forces, citizen living in vicinity to the fire, rescue forces headquarters and any other entity who may require information.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Balajji and Ben-Shmuel to further incorporate the teachings of Ben-Shmuel to provide the second gateway (G2) (SEE FIG 1, Controlling Processor 106) has a communication interface (K) that provides an Internet connection (IP) to the network server (NS) with the FIRE DETECTION DEVICE AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM of Balaji as modified by Ben-Shmuel. Doing so enables the wireless mesh network to have throughput maximization albeit conflicting with scarce bandwidth further enabling the strategy to be propagated to any other entity who may require information, as recognized by Ben-Shmuel (Paras [0004] and [0111]).
In re claim 14, Balaji and Ben-Shmuel teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 stated above where Balaji further teaches the terminals (ED) and/or the first gateways (G1) have a self-sufficient energy supply (E) (Para [0007]: “In yet another embodiment, the fire detection device comprises a power storage device operatively coupled to an energy collection device, wherein the power storage device stores energy collected by the energy collection device. In yet another embodiment, the energy collection device is a solar panel.”).
Method claim 28 is rejected for the same reasons as system claim 14 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 15, Balaji and Ben-Shmuel teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 stated above where Balaji further teaches the self-sufficient energy supply (E) comprises an energy store (ES) and/or an energy conversion device (EK) (Para [0007]: “In yet another embodiment, the fire detection device comprises a power storage device operatively coupled to an energy collection device, wherein the power storage device stores energy collected by the energy collection device. In yet another embodiment, the energy collection device is a solar panel.”).
Method claim 29 is rejected for the same reasons as system claim 15 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 16, Balaji and Ben-Shmuel teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 stated above where Balaji further teaches the terminals (ED) [are operated off-grid] (Para [0002]: “The present invention relates to a device for detection of a fire and a system and method for alerting appropriate responders of a detected fire in a selected area, for example in a remote, forested location.”).
The combination fails to teach and the first gateways (G1) [are operated off-grid].
However, Ben-Shmuel teaches and the first gateways (G1) [are operated off-grid] (Abstract: “A system for forest fire control comprising a plurality of forest fire control nodes… Each node is also comprised of at least one communication transceiver for sending and receiving data indicative of a sensed environmental condition, and of at least one hanging unit configured for hanging the node on a tree.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Balajji and Ben-Shmuel to further incorporate the teachings of Ben-Shmuel to provide and the first gateways (G1) [are operated off-grid] with the FIRE DETECTION DEVICE AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM of Balaji as modified by Ben-Shmuel. Doing so enables a hanging tree node to receive data indicative of a sensed environmental condition, as recognized by Ben-Shmuel (Abstract).
Method claim 30 is rejected for the same reasons as system claim 16 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 25, Balaji teaches all of the limitations of claim 24 stated above but fails to teach the forest fire early detection and/or forest fire risk analysis system (10) has a mesh gateway network (1) with a first gateway (G1) and a second gateway (G2), wherein the evaluated signals are transmitted via the first gateway (G1) and the second gateway (G2) to the network server (NS).
However, Ben-Shmuel teaches the forest fire early detection and/or forest fire risk analysis system (10) has a mesh gateway network (1) (Para [0072]: “Upon communicating an information packet, the transfer thereof from one node to another node, including to a transmission node, constitutes a "hop". It may be appreciated that after one or more hops the packet is expected to reach a transmission node, from where it will be transferred directly or through additional transmission nodes to a control processor, or it may reach the control processor itself. It should also be appreciated that a node may transfer the information packet to more than one node at once, in which case, splitting, branching out the communication rout to more than one rout, e.g., for increasing reliability. According to the invention, the list of nodes transferring an information packet from its original source node to the control processor, i.e., to its destination, is dynamically set by an algorithm such as the algorithm presented by Zeng et al. ("Multicast Algorithms for Multi-Channel Wireless Mesh Networks") mentioned in the background of the invention.”) with a first gateway (G1) (Para [0071]: “According to certain embodiments, transmission nodes interconnected via a daisy chain, constituting a higher level communication network, while the information packets may be transferred from the one transmission node to another and so on until the information reaches a higher level transmission node or the controlling processor.”) and a second gateway (G2) (SEE FIG 1, Controlling Processor 106, para [0004]: “However, in wireless mesh networks, which are required to provide high quality service to end users as the "last-mile" of the Internet, throughput maximization conflicting with scarce bandwidth has the paramount priority.” and para [0111]: “On 906 strategy is propagated to users of the system. For example, a firefighter in the field may obtain an advise whether to take one route or another while entering the fire zone and/or while escaping therefrom. He may be advised, for example, that the high fire in front of him is only several centimeters thick, while what appears to be a low fire area occupies many tens of meters. The firefighter may decide to follow the systems's advises or not, while he may provide feedback represented by the returning arrow. Others the strategy may be propagated to are commanders of the rescue and emergency forces, citizen living in vicinity to the fire, rescue forces headquarters and any other entity who may require information.”), wherein the evaluated signals are transmitted via the first gateway (G1) and the second gateway (G2) to the network server (NS) (Para [0004]: “However, in wireless mesh networks, which are required to provide high quality service to end users as the "last-mile" of the Internet, throughput maximization conflicting with scarce bandwidth has the paramount priority.” and para [0111]: “On 906 strategy is propagated to users of the system. For example, a firefighter in the field may obtain an advise whether to take one route or another while entering the fire zone and/or while escaping therefrom. He may be advised, for example, that the high fire in front of him is only several centimeters thick, while what appears to be a low fire area occupies many tens of meters. The firefighter may decide to follow the systems's advises or not, while he may provide feedback represented by the returning arrow. Others the strategy may be propagated to are commanders of the rescue and emergency forces, citizen living in vicinity to the fire, rescue forces headquarters and any other entity who may require information.”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balaji (US Patent No. 20180374330 A1), in view of Ben-Shmuel (US Patent No. 20130321149 A1) and further in view of LADEIRA (WO Patent No. 2019244094 A1).
In re claim 12, Balaji and Ben-Shmuel teach all of the limitations of claim 10 stated above but fails to teach the mesh gateway network (1) comprises an LPWAN and preferably a LoORaWAN.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ladiera teaches the mesh gateway network (1) comprises an LPWAN and preferably a LoORaWAN (Description, 1. Fire Detection System, para [0020]: “Each sensorial unit (1) is able to communicate wirelessly with the gateways (G) over distances greater than 15 Km thanks to the LPWAN radios (5) . Suitable radios (5) in the scope of the present invention are LoRa radios, Sigfox radios or NB- IOT radios such as Semtech sxl276 in case of the Lora radio, which provides long distance communication with very low power usage and small footprint.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Balajji and Ben-Shmuel to further incorporate the teachings of Ladiera to provide the mesh gateway network (1) comprises an LPWAN and preferably a LoORaWAN with the FIRE DETECTION DEVICE AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM of Balaji as modified by Ben-Shmuel. Doing so provides long distance communication with very low power usage and small footprint, as recognized by Ladiera (Description, 1. Fire Detection System, para [0020]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balaji (US Patent No. 20180374330 A1), in view of LADEIRA (WO Patent No. 2019244094 A1).
Method claim 27 is rejected for the same reasons as system claim 12 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES EDWARD MUNION whose telephone number is (571)270-0437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Curtis Kuntz can be reached at (571) 272-7499. 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.
/JAMES E MUNION/Examiner, Art Unit 2687 10/31/2025