DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is response to communication: response to amendments/arguments filed on 12/15/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
No new IDS has been filed for this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et Al. US Patent Application Publication 2018/0357542 (Wu), in view of Bhatt US Patent No. 11,582,240 (Bhatt), and further in view of Blandin et al. US Patent No. 9,286,797 (Blandin)
As per claim 1, Wu teaches a data providing system comprising: at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: acquire sensing data by performing optical fiber sensing (abstract, paragraph 69, and throughout with gathering data from optical fiber sensors); generate processed data by performing processing on the sensing data (paragraph 69 with generating dataset; also see paragraph 71 with 73 with further processing the data); and classifying the data (paragraph 73 with classifying the processed data).
Although Wu teaches classifying the data, Wu does not teach imparting an access level according to a processing stage to each piece of data being included in the sensing data and the processed data; and providing a piece of data from among the pieces of data included in the sensing data to a customer based on an access level of the customer, from among the plurality of levels. However, this would have been obvious. For example, see Bhatt (col. 5 line 30-45 with classifying dataset; see col. 3 line 55-65 with classifying with level of sensitivy; see col. 4 line 5-12 wherein data can then be communicated to target; further see col. 7 line 65 to col. 8 line 60 with classifying data with multiple levels and providing only the data that pertains to that access level ).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wu with Bhatt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to more easily manage sensitive data (col. 1 lines 12-20.
Although the Wu combination teaches providing data according to classification levels, the combination does not explicitly teach classifying data via processing levels. However, this would have been obvious. For example, see Blandin (col. 5lines 62 to col. 6 line 18, wherein data may be classified based on processing levels, such as raw and processed; different users have different access to data based on processing levels).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Blandin with the Wu combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide more granularity in access control by providing different users with varying levels of access to data (col. 5 lines 62-65).
As per claim 2, Wu as modified teaches wherein the processing comprises first-stage processing and second-stage processing, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate first processed data by performing the first-stage processing on the sensing data, and to generate second processed data by performing the second-stage processing on the first processed data, and wherein the processed data comprises the first processed data and the second processed data (see Wu paragraph 69 with generating signal dataset (first-stage processing; see paragraphs 71-74 with generating the event signal feature sets).
As per claim 3, it would have been obvious over the Wu combination wherein the at least one memory further stores the sensing data, the firs tprocessed data, and the second processed data (see throughout Wu in paragraphs 69-74 wherein data is processed; data must be stored to be processed; also see throughout Bhatt, such as col. 3 lines 25-40, wherein storing data).
As per claim 4, it would have been obvious over the Wu combination wherein the at least one memory stores the sensing data, the first processed data, and the second processed data in a state where the plurality of processing levels are imparted (obvious over Bhatt; see col. 2 lines 45-55 wherein data is stored based on privacy polices that dictate how sensitive data is stored, processed, and transmitted; see also col. 6 lines 25-35 wherein data classification can govern how sensitive data is stored;)
As per claim 5, it would have been obvious over the Wu combination wherein the at least one memory comprises a first memory configured to store the sensing data; a second memory configured to store the first processed data; and a third memory configured to store the second processed data (obvious over Wu combination; see Bhatt col. 5 lines 57-67 with different data stores storing information)
As per claim 6, it would have been obvious over the Wu combination wherein the first memory stores the sensing data in a state where the plurality of processing levels are imparted, wherein the second memory stores the first processed data in a state where the plurality of processing levels are imparted, and the third memory stores the second processed data in a state where plurality of processing levels are imparted (obvious over Wu combination; see Bhatt col. 5 lines 57-67 with different data stores storing information; see col. 2 lines 45-55 wherein data is stored based on privacy polices that dictate how sensitive data is stored, processed, and transmitted; see also col. 6 lines 25-35 wherein data classification can govern how sensitive data is stored).
Claim 8 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above.
Claim 9 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 2 above.
Claim 10 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 3 above.
Claim 11 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 4 above.
Claim 12 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 5 above.
Claim 13 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 6 above.
Claim 15 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 1 above.
Claim 16 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 2 above.
Claim 17 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 3 above.
Claim 18 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 4 above.
Claim 19 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 5 above.
Claim 20 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Wu combination as applied above, and further in view of Bunter US Patent Application Publication 2012/0278901 (Bunter)
As per claim 7, the Wu combination does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the insructions to, when a plurality of the access levels are assigned to the customer, generate, for each of a plurality of the access levels, a menu indicating among pieces of the data related to the corresponding access level, and present the plurality of menus to the customser, and provide the customer with data lreated to the menu selected by the customer from among the plurality of menus. However, having multiple roles and generating an interface to allow a user to choose an access level and receiving access would is well known in the art. For example, see Bunter (paragraph 26 , and throughout with user can select roles and the appropriate access rights are appointed accordingly).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bunter with the Wu combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such an addition to provide better management of data and to optimally match the user’s requirements (Paragarph 26 of Bunter).
Claim 14 is rejected using the same basis of arguments used to reject claim 7 above.
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 JASON KAI YIN GEE whose telephone number is (571)272-6431. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 PST Pacific.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on (571) 272-3739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JASON K GEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495