DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the amendment filed on January 21st 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/16/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6, filed 1/21/26, with respect to the 112 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection of claim 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-10, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 and 16-19 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hackett US 2011/0111700 A1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-12, 16-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson US 2013/0090853 A1 in view of Hackett US 2011/0111700 A1 (cited in IDS filed 12/16/25).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses a telemetry communication system for an industrial plant (Fig. 1, paragraph 2) comprising:
an external plant device (central server is remote from industrial plant – see Fig. 1, paragraphs 2-3);
and an outstation comprising a primary communication system and a secondary communication system separate from the primary communication system, the primary communication system configured for executing a primary communication method comprising at least one of a low power communication methodology and a low bandwidth communication methodology for communicating with the external plant device, the secondary communication system configured for executing a secondary communication method comprising at least one of a high power communication methodology and a high bandwidth communication methodology for communicating with the external plant device (system transmits in a low-power or low-bandwidth mode during normal operation, which is equivalent to the claimed primary communication system, but is capable of switching to transmitting high resolution data upon occurrence of an event, this is equivalent to the secondary communication system – see abstract, Fig. 3, paragraphs 2-3, 10, 44-45; also paragraphs 13-14 and Fig. 1 which show multiple communication interfaces).
Anderson does not explicitly disclose the secondary communication system remains in a sleep mode or powered off until the outstation determines the secondary communication system is required for a communication task. But this is taught by Hackett (transceiver sleep state – paragraph 119; sleep when communication is not required – paragraph 151; transceiver put in sleep mode when not in use – paragraph 180).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson with the sleep mode or power off taught by Hackett for the purpose of conserving power. It is a well-known problem in the art that power must be managed because it is a limited resource. Hackett explicitly teaches that power conservation is important and sleep mode provides power management to reduce power consumption (see paragraphs 180 and 260).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson discloses the external plan device comprises a master outstation (central server – Fig. 1, paragraph 12; central is equivalent to “master” under broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson discloses the external plant device comprises a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system (SCADA – paragraphs 2, 95).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson discloses the external plant device comprises an additional outstation of the industrial plant (the external plant device / central server is an “outstation” from the industrial plant because it is remote – see Fig. 1, paragraphs 2-3).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson discloses wherein the outstation, upon an event, is configured to determine whether to use the primary communication system or secondary communication system to communication with the external plant device (critical/triggering event changes system transmission method - abstract, Fig. 3, paragraphs 2-3, 10, 25, 44-45).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson discloses wherein the event comprises the outstation receiving an input from the external plant device, the input being indicative of requiring the primary communication method or secondary communication method (the triggering event of Fig. 3, may be activated by remote command – see paragraph 56; and Anderson explicitly teaches receiving commands “from the central server” – paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson discloses the event comprises a schedule indicative of a first predetermined time allotted for the primary communication method and a second predetermined time allotted for the secondary communication method (schedule of transmissions upon event trigger – paragraphs 62-94 and Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson discloses the primary communication system comprises a land-based data radio (radio – see Fig. 1, paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 9, Anderson discloses the secondary communication system comprises a cell modem (cellular network – paragraph 95, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson discloses the primary communication method comprises one of terrestrial radio broadcasting and LTE-M (radio – paragraph 14, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson does not explicitly disclose Long Term Evolution (LTE), but this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date based on Anderson disclosing the use of cellular networks (paragraph 95). LTE is merely a standard (4G) that is very well-known in the art. Thus, this is merely the combination of a well-known technique according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 12, it is a device claim that corresponds to the system of claim 1. Anderson explicitly discloses remote telemetry devices (Fig. 1, paragraph 2). Thus, the corresponding limitations are rejected for the same reasons. Anderson also discloses determine whether to … communicate with the external plant device based on a schedule indicative of a first predetermined time allotted for the primary communication and a second predetermined time allowed for the secondary communication system (communication schedule with times – see paragraphs 63-72, Figs. 3-4).
Anderson does not explicitly disclose determining whether to use the primary or secondary system based on a schedule but this is taught by Hackett (data transmitted based on schedule using one type of communication system, and another type in response to a request/command – paragraph 109; also see paragraph 132 which teaches alternating communication modes based on schedule). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson with the scheduling taught by Hackett for the purpose of improving efficiency. Hackett teaches using different transmission systems with a schedule of times allows for power conservation and more efficient communication (paragraph 151).
Regarding claim 16, it is a method claim that corresponds to the system of claim 1 but is broader in scope because it does not define the primary or secondary communication systems. The corresponding limitations are rejected for the same reasons. The motivation to combine is the same. Anderson also discloses receiving an input indicative of requiring a primary or secondary communication method (receive event which controls transmission method – abstract, paragraphs 3, 10, 25 and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Anderson discloses sending data from the external plant device/central server and receiving commands from the central server (paragraphs 3, 56, Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 18, Anderson discloses the input comprises a schedule indicative of a first predetermined time allotted for the primary communication method and a second predetermined time allotted for the secondary communication method (schedule of transmissions upon event trigger – paragraphs 62-94 and Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 19, Anderson discloses the primary communication method requires less power than the secondary communication method (primary method transmits nominally minimum volumes of data compared to secondary method which is activated upon event - abstract, Fig. 3, paragraphs 2-3, 10, 25, 44-45).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Anderson and Hackett does not explicitly disclose the predetermined times corresponds to normal operating hours for the industrial plant, and non-operating hours for the industrial plant. However, these time frames cover all time scenarios (i.e. the plant is either operating, or it is not). Since the combination of Anderson and Hackett clearly teaches using time/scheduling to control transmission (e.g. see Fig. 3 of Anderson and paragraphs 75-93 which teach communicating data over a period covering 6am – 1am), they necessarily read on transmitting during operating hours as well as non-operating hours.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson and Hackett in view of Gulbay et al. US 2020/0100269 A1.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Anderson and Hackett does not explicitly disclose the first predetermined time corresponds to a time when the device is not connected to a power source, and the second predetermined time corresponds to a time when the device is connected to a power source. But this is taught by Gulbay as determining whether the device is connected to a power source and taking different communication actions depending on result of the power source determination (see paragraphs 54, 65, 85 and Figs. 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Anderson and Hackett to determine whether a power source was connected as taught by Gulbay for the purpose of deciding which communication system to use. The art teaches using low power and higher power communication. The art further teaches that power conservation is important. Thus, it would have been obvious to select a communication system based on determining that a power source is connected to enhance power conservation when necessary. Gulbay specifically teaches this by disclosing that when power source is connected, power saving measures are not as critical (paragraph 54).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuwahara et al. US 11,330,425 B2 discloses a communication system having a first and second communication, and determining to switch to second communication upon determining there is a power failure to the first communication device (abstract, claim 1).
Stepanik et al. US 2004/0075566 A1 discloses an industrial plant with sensors and SCADA (paragraphs 3-6, Fig. 1) wherein multiple modes of communication can be configured and the system automatically selects an appropriate communication mode to transmit data (abstract).
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 JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 9-5.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights