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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 04/02/2024.
Claims 1-17 have been amended.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement filed on 04/02/2024 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Amendments to the Claims
Applicant has mistakenly indicated in the claim 12, where the claim 12 has not been added and should indicate “Currently Amended”. Applicant must make appropriate correction and an update to the status identifiers of the claims.
Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, including the deletion of an existing claim, or submission of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented (including previously canceled and non-entered claims) in the application. After each claim number, the status identifier of the claim must be presented in a parenthetical expression, and the text of each claim under examination as well as all withdrawn claims (each with markings if any, to show current changes) must be presented. The listing will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims in the application.
Status Identifiers: The current status of all of the claims in the application, including any previously canceled or withdrawn claims, must be given. Status is indicated in a parenthetical expression following the claim number by one of the following status identifiers: (original), (currently amended), (previously presented), (canceled), (withdrawn), (new), or (not entered). The status identifier (withdrawn– currently amended) is also acceptable for a withdrawn claim that is being currently amended. See paragraph (E) below for acceptable alternative status identifiers.
claims added by a preliminary amendment must have the status identifier (new) instead of (original), even when the preliminary amendment is present on the filing date of the application and such claim is treated as part of the original disclosure. If applicant files a subsequent amendment, applicant must use the status identifier (previously presented) if the claims are not being amended, or (currently amended) if the claims are being amended, in the subsequent amendment. Claims that are canceled by a preliminary amendment that is present on the filing date of the application are required to be listed and must have the status identifier (canceled) in the preliminary amendment and in any subsequent amendment.
See MPEP 714 Amendments, Applicant’s Action, C. Amendments to the Claims.
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 generic placeholder claim limitations, and coupled functional language, are:
1) Claim 10:
Claim 10 recite “by means” for the following function of “repeatedly carrying out a sensing step in which the physical and/or environmental conditions to which the products of the respective associated subset of products are assumed to be exposed, are sensed by the aid of the sensor of the respective first device … status data indicative of a transmission status of the respective sensing data”. Further, the “means” is not modified by sufficient structure that is tied to the performance of the claimed function. Accordingly, the means invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The claimed “means” corresponds to Fig. 2 with no sufficient structure disclosed in this application. A review for the specification shows that the claimed subject matter does not have a corresponding structure described in the specification. The specification discloses that the means is included in the server with no further description to clarify that disclosure. For prosecution purposes, under the 35 U.S.C. 112(f): The claimed subject matter will be interpreted as (computer system to collect information and analyze it). See the112 (a) and (b) rejection below.
2) Claim 16:
Claim 16 recite “by means” for the following function of “receiving via the first communication network one or more of the transmissions conducted by respective ones of the first devices via the first communication network … for each of the one or more sensing data: the respective associated time data”. Further, the “means” is not modified by sufficient structure that is tied to the performance of the claimed function. Accordingly, the means invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The claimed “means” corresponds to Fig. 2 with no sufficient structure disclosed in this application. A review for the specification shows that the claimed subject matter does not have a corresponding structure described in the specification. The specification discloses that the means is included in the server with no further description to clarify that disclosure. For prosecution purposes, under the 35 U.S.C. 112(f): The claimed subject matter will be interpreted as (computer system to collect information and analyze it). See the112 (a) and (b) rejection below.
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
1) 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.
Claim 10-17 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.
1) Claim 10 recites “means” without having adequate support for corresponding structure(s) in the specification as these claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see Claim Interpretation above as set forth in this Office action). Thus, the claim 10 cannot rely on the specification to ascertain corresponding structure(s) that provide the underlying claimed functions of “means” As such, claim 10 recite functions that have no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Claims 11-17 are rejected for depending on the rejected claim 10.
2) Claim 16 recites “means” without having adequate support for corresponding structure(s) in the specification as these claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see Claim Interpretation above as set forth in this Office action). Thus, the claim 16 cannot rely on the specification to ascertain corresponding structure(s) that provide the underlying claimed functions of “means” As such, claim 16 recite functions that have no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Claim 17 are rejected for depending on the rejected claim 16.
2) 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 9-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
1) The independent claim 10 is indefinite, because each of the claim limitations of “by means … repeatedly carrying out a sensing step in which the physical and/or environmental conditions to which the products of the respective associated subset of products are assumed to be exposed, are sensed by the aid of the sensor of the respective first device … status data indicative of a transmission status of the respective sensing data” it is unclear what the corresponding structure(s) are for the claim limitations “means” (see Claim Interpretation). A review for the specification shows that it fails to disclose corresponding structure, material, or acts for forming the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the entire claimed function. That is, the Applicant fails to provide corresponding structure or acts that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine its structural or functional equivalence.
Accordingly, because this term is not defined in Applicant’s Specification, the examiner does not understand the scope of the claimed invention. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
2) The independent claim 16 is indefinite, because each of the claim limitations of “by means … receiving via the first communication network one or more of the transmissions conducted by respective ones of the first devices via the first communication network … for each of the one or more sensing data: the respective associated time data” it is unclear what the corresponding structure(s) are for the claim limitations “means” (see Claim Interpretation). A review for the specification shows that it fails to disclose corresponding structure, material, or acts for forming the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the entire claimed function. That is, the Applicant fails to provide corresponding structure or acts that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine its structural or functional equivalence.
Accordingly, because this term is not defined in Applicant’s Specification, the examiner does not understand the scope of the claimed invention. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
3) Claim 9 is indefinite, because of the claim limitations of “ “A system for monitoring a set of products, the system comprising:- one or more first devices according to claim 1”, claim 9 recites a system that include claim 1 limitations as a part of the system. The claim is rendered as indefinite as the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements.
For prosecution purposes, the examiner will considered claim 9 to recite:
Claim 9. “The one or more first devices according to claim 1, for monitoring a set of products, wherein each of the first devices being associated with a respective subset of the products; and
- one or more second devices;
each of the second devices comprising:
one or more second functional units, the second functional units comprising;
a second communication unit for communicating via the first communication network and, in addition, for communicating via a second communication network;
wherein each of the second devices is configured:
- to receive via the first communication network one or more of the transmissions conducted by respective ones of the first devices via the first communication network;
- to derive from the each of the so-received first data sets a respective second data set comprising;
- the transmission ID data;
- the first ID data;
- the one or more sensing data; and
- for each of the one or more sensing data: the respective associated time data;
from the so-received first data set;
- to transmit each of the second data sets via the second communication network to the internet;
- to receive via the second communication network from the internet one or more third data sets, each of the third data sets comprising
- transmission ID data; and
- first ID data identifying one of the first devices;
- derived from a second data set transmitted, by one of the second devices, via the second communication network to the internet; and
- to derive from the each of the so-received third data sets a respective acknowledgement data set comprising:
- the transmission ID data; and
- the first ID data;
from the respective so-received third data set;
- to transmit each of the so-derived acknowledgement data sets via the first communication network to that respective one of the first devices which is identified by the first ID data comprised in the respective acknowledgement data sets.
3) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recites “a first device for monitoring one or more products”, claim 9 recites “a system for monitoring a set of products, the system comprising: - one or more first devices according to claim 1”. Claim 9 does not further narrow claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For prosecution purposes, the examiner will considered claim 9 to recite:
Claim 9. “The one or more first devices according to claim 1, for monitoring a set of products, wherein each of the first devices being associated with a respective subset of the products; and
- one or more second devices;
each of the second devices comprising:
one or more second functional units, the second functional units comprising;
a second communication unit for communicating via the first communication network and, in addition, for communicating via a second communication network;
wherein each of the second devices is configured:
- to receive via the first communication network one or more of the transmissions conducted by respective ones of the first devices via the first communication network;
- to derive from the each of the so-received first data sets a respective second data set comprising;
- the transmission ID data;
- the first ID data;
- the one or more sensing data; and
- for each of the one or more sensing data: the respective associated time data;
from the so-received first data set;
- to transmit each of the second data sets via the second communication network to the internet;
- to receive via the second communication network from the internet one or more third data sets, each of the third data sets comprising
- transmission ID data; and
- first ID data identifying one of the first devices;
- derived from a second data set transmitted, by one of the second devices, via the second communication network to the internet; and
- to derive from the each of the so-received third data sets a respective acknowledgement data set comprising:
- the transmission ID data; and
- the first ID data;
from the respective so-received third data set;
- to transmit each of the so-derived acknowledgement data sets via the first communication network to that respective one of the first devices which is identified by the first ID data comprised in the respective acknowledgement data sets.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-9 recite a device, which is directed to a machine.
Claims 10-17 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 1 and 10 recite the abstract idea of monitoring products, see specification page 1-line 15. This idea is described by the steps of
sensing physical and/or environmental conditions to which the one or more products are assumed to be exposed;
data storage; and
- to repeatedly carry out a sensing step in which said physical and/or environmental conditions are sensed; and
- for each of the sensing steps, to store in;
- sensing data indicative of a result of the respective sensing;
- time data indicative of a sensing time associated with the respective sensing data; and
- status data indicative of a transmission status of the sensing data;
repeatedly, prepare and subsequently conduct a transmission,
wherein in each of the transmissions, a first data set is transmitted, each of the first data sets comprising
- transmission ID data identifying the respective transmission;
- first ID data identifying;
- one or more of the sensing data; and
- for each of the one or more sensing data: the respective associated time data;
for each of the transmissions and upon conducting the respective transmission, the transmission ID data associated with the respective transmission, and to link the stored transmission ID data to each of the respective sensing data comprised in the first data set transmitted in the respective transmission;
- to receive acknowledgement data sets, each of the acknowledgement data sets comprising transmission ID data identifying one of the transmissions conducted;
- to set the transmission status of sensing
- to set the transmission status of sensing data to "acknowledged" upon receiving an acknowledgement data set which comprises transmission ID data linked to the respective sensing data.
These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite to a certain method of organizing human activity as the above abstract idea limitations are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The examiner finds the claims to simply recites steps of following rules or instructions to collect information, associate the data, transmit the data and the associated data, identify other information, receive and transmit acknowledged. The Examiner additionally finds the claims to be similar to an example the courts have identified as being a certain method of organizing human activity:
considering historical usage information while inputting data, BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
The data collection, recognition, and storage concept described in the claim is similar to the data collection and management concepts that were held to be abstract ideas in Content Extraction, TLI Communications, and Electric Power Group. Although the claim enumerates the type of information (i.e., sensed data) that is acquired, stored and analyzed, the Federal Circuit has explained in Electric Power Group and Digitech that the mere selection and manipulation of particular information by itself does not make an abstract concept any less abstract. Further, the claim is not made any less abstract by the invocation of a programmed computer.
The claims recite a mental process. Before computers one could mentally or a human using paper and pen to monitor products. The claims are merely directed to a method of sensing data, analyzing the data such as associate the data, identifying information, displaying acknowledgment. The Examiner find the recited claims to be similar to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which the courts have also found to recite a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: first device, first functional units, a first sensing unit comprising a sensor, a first storage unit, a first communication unit for communicating via a first communication network,
Claim 10: one or more first devices, first functional units, a first sensing unit comprising a sensor, a first storage unit, by means of each of the first devices, a first communication network,
The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-17 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1 and 10 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2-9 and 11-17 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1 and 10 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claim 2: first device, first storage unit,
Claims 3, 4: first device, first communication network,
Claim 5: first device, first storage unit,
Claims 6, 7, 8: first device,
Claim 9: a system comprising: one or more first devices, one or more second devices comprising: one or more second functional units, the second functional units comprising; a second communication unit for communicating via the first communication network, internet,
Claim 12: first device, first communication network,
Claim 13: first device, first communication network, first storage unit,
Claims 14, 15: first device,
Claim 16: means of each of the second devices, the first communication network, the first devices, a second communication network to the internet,
Claim 17: carried out by a server system which is connected to the internet and on which a server application running, by the server system, via a second communication network, the internet by the second devices,
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of monitoring products, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1-17, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 4-5, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180139568 to Nakamura et al. (“Nakamura”) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20170098374 to Sullivan et al. (“Sullivan”).
Regarding claims 1 and 10. Nakamura discloses a first device for monitoring one or more products, comprising; first functional units, the first functional units comprising;
a first sensing unit comprising a sensor for sensing physical and/or environmental conditions to which the one or more products are assumed to be exposed;
a first storage unit for data storage; and
a first communication unit for communicating via a first communication network; (Nakamura, Fig. 2, [0029-0031]; “FIG. 2, the node 20 includes a storage unit 201, a communication unit 202, and a control unit 203 … storage unit 201 stores various programs to be executed by the control unit 203 … The communication unit 202 is implemented by a network interface card (a communicator), for example, that performs wireless communication in accordance with a standard such as Wi-fi (registered trademark) and Bluetooth (registered trademark)”)
wherein the first device is configured:
- to repeatedly carry out a sensing step in which said physical and/or environmental conditions are sensed using the sensor; and (Nakamura, Fig. 3, [0036-0039]; “the determination unit 203 a generates sensor information indicating the state of the machine tool after the change, and controls the communication unit 202 so as to transmit the generated sensor information toward the GW 30 (Step S102) … In a case where the ACK has not been received even after a lapse of a predetermined time … transmission of the sensor information toward the GW 30”)
- for each of the sensing steps, to store in the first storage unit
- sensing data indicative of a result of the respective sensing;
- time data indicative of a sensing time associated with the respective sensing data; and
- status data indicative of a transmission status (Nakamura, [0013]; “The sensor information is information indicating any of a state in which the machine tool is normally operating (normal state) and a state in which the operation of the machine tool is abnormal (abnormal state)”) of the sensing data; (Nakamura, Fig. 3, [0036-0039]; “the determination unit 203 a controls the communication unit 202 so as to transmit the sensor information again. In this case, the determination unit 203 a starts the above-described measurement of the time period using the timer again”)
wherein the first device is furthermore configured to, repeatedly, prepare and subsequently conduct a transmission via the first communication network, wherein in each of the transmissions, a first data set is transmitted via the first communication network, each of the first data sets comprising
- one or more of the sensing data; and
- for each of the one or more sensing data: the respective associated time data; (Nakamura, [0025-0026]; “The GW 30 can wirelessly communicate with the server 40 and the node 20. The GW 30 receives the sensor information transmitted from the node 20 and transmits the received sensor information to the server 40. That is, the GW 30 relays the sensor information … Upon receiving the sensor information transmitted from the GW 30, the server 40 displays the state of the machine tool indicated by the received sensor information on the display apparatus 50”)
wherein the first device is furthermore configured to store in the first storage unit, for each of the transmissions and upon conducting the respective transmission, the transmission ID data associated with the respective transmission, and to link the stored transmission ID data to each of the respective sensing data comprised in the first data set transmitted in the respective transmission;
wherein the first device is furthermore configured
- to receive acknowledgement data sets via the first communication network, each of the acknowledgement data sets comprising transmission ID data identifying one of the transmissions conducted by the first device;
wherein the first device is furthermore configured
- to set the transmission status of sensing
- to set the transmission status of sensing data to "acknowledged" upon receiving an acknowledgement data set via the first communication network which comprises transmission ID data linked to the respective sensing data. (Nakamura, Fig. 3, [0037-0040]; “the determination unit 203 a starts measurement of the time period from the transmission of the sensor information to the reception of the ACK transmitted from the GW 30 (Step S103) using a software timer … determined that the ACK has been received (Step S104: Yes), the determination unit 203 a finishes the measurement of the time period using the timer (Step S105) … The ACK is an example of reception information indicating that the GW 30 has received the sensor information”)
Nakamura substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Nakamura fails to explicitly disclose the “transmission ID data identifying the respective transmission; first ID data identifying the first device”. However, Sullivan teaches
- transmission ID data identifying the respective transmission; - first ID data identifying the first device; (Sullivan, [0032]; “each parking sensor may send heartbeats with parking sensor information to the gateway. This heartbeat information may comprise a unique sensor ID, sensor status (e.g., information noting that the sensor is operational/functional) and the parking spot status (e.g., information noting that the spot is occupied or unoccupied)”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nakamura to include transmission ID data identifying the respective transmission; first ID data identifying the first device, as taught by Sullivan, where this would be performed in order to maximize revenue. See Sullivan [0005].
Regarding claim 4. The combination of Nakamura in view of Sullivan disclose the first device according to claim 1, wherein the first device is furthermore configured:
- to set the transmission status of sensing data to “sent” upon conducting a transmission via the first communication network comprising a first data set comprising the respective sensing data. (Nakamura, [0036-0039]; “In a case where it is determined that the state of the machine tool has changed (Step S101: Yes), the determination unit 203 a generates sensor information indicating the state of the machine tool after the change, and controls the communication unit 202 so as to transmit the generated sensor information toward the GW 30 (Step S102) … In a case where the ACK has not been received even after retransmission of the sensor information by a predetermined number of times, the determination unit 203 a discards the sensor information, and thereafter, returns to the above-described Step S101”)
Regarding claims 5 and 13. The combination of Nakamura in view of Sullivan disclose the first device according to claim 4, wherein the first device is furthermore configured - to prepare and subsequently conduct a further transmission upon detecting that there are sensing data stored in the first storage unit which have a transmission status which is set to "sent" for a duration exceeding a preset waiting time. (Nakamura, [0039]; “In a case where the ACK has not been received even after a lapse of a predetermined time period since transmission of the sensor information toward the GW 30, the determination unit 203 a controls the communication unit 202 so as to transmit the sensor information again. In this case, the determination unit 203 a starts the above-described measurement of the time period using the timer again”)
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Sullivan further in view of European Publication no. EP2975587B1 to ARAKAWA MASAO (“ARAKAWA”).
Regarding claims 2 and 11. The combination of Nakamura in view of Sullivan disclose the first device according to claim 1, wherein for each of the transmissions applies, that, at the time of preparing the respective transmission:
- each of the one or more sensing data to be comprised in the first data set to be transmitted in the respective transmission has a transmission status which is set to a value different from "acknowledged"; and - all of the one or more sensing data comprised in the first data set to be transmitted in the respective transmission constitute a series of sensing data, the series comprising: (see claim 1 rejection supra)
- sensing data referred to as first sensing data, which are sensing data associated with a sensing time which is referred to as first sensing time, which is earliest of all the sensing times which are associated with any one of the sensing data stored in the first storage unit and which have a transmission status which is set to a value different from "acknowledged"; (Nakamura, [0014-0015]; “The sensor 10 is connected to the node 20 and attached to the machine tool. The sensor 10 detects the state of the machine tool at a predetermined time interval (for example, five seconds), and notifies the node 20 of the detected state … the sensor 10 a is connected to the node 20 a and notifies the node 20 a of the state of the machine tool at predetermined time intervals”)
The combination of Nakamura in view of Sullivan substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination of Nakamura in view of Sullivan fail to explicitly disclose the “sensing data referred to as last sensing data, which are sensing data associated with a sensing time which is referred to as last sensing time (It), which is latest of all the sensing times associated with any one of the sensing data of the series; and any sensing data stored in the first storage unit, which are associated with a sensing time which is identical to or later than the first sensing time and which is identical to or earlier than the last sensing time”. However, ARAKAWA teaches
- sensing data referred to as last sensing data, which are sensing data associated with a sensing time which is referred to as last sensing time (It), which is latest of all the sensing times associated with any one of the sensing data of the series; and
- any sensing data stored in the first storage unit, which are associated with a sensing time which is identical to or later than the first sensing time and which is identical to or earlier than the last sensing time. (ARAKAWA, [0051-0052]; “collects sensing data sent from sensor terminals 21-2n through relay devices 31-3m. As described above, the same information of the same sensor terminal 2 is sent from a plurality of relay devices 3 to monitoring center device 5 … monitoring center device 5 extracts each radio field intensity of transmission signal of the same information content of the same sensor terminal 2 sent from relay devices 31-3m, and calculates and holds a position of each sensor terminal 2 in monitored area 1 with the extracted radio field intensity and the preliminarily stored positional information of relay devices 31-3m in monitored area 1”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nakamura to include sensing data referred to as last sensing data, which are sensing data associated with a sensing time which is referred to as last sensing time (It), which is latest of all the sensing times associated with any one of the sensing data of the series; and any sensing data stored in the first storage unit, which are associated with a sensing time which is identical to or later than the first sensing time and which is identical to or earlier than the last sensing time, as taught by ARAKAWA, where this would be performed in order to provide system of sensors that can work effectively in multiple environmental conditions. See ARAKAWA [0011].
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Sullivan further in view of ARAKAWA furthermore in view of International Publication No. WO2001037507A2 to NOKIA CORPORATION (“NOKIA”).
Regarding claims 3 and 12. The combination of Nakamura in view of Sullivan further in view of ARAKAWA disclose the first device according to claim 2, wherein
The combination of Nakamura in view of Sullivan further in view of ARAKAWA substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination of Nakamura in view of Sullivan further in view of ARAKAWA fail to explicitly disclose the “a maximum transmission size is defined in a protocol of the first communication network, and wherein the first device is furthermore configured to select, for each of the transmissions, the last sensing data such that the respective series of sensing data comprises as many sensing data as possible, so that a size of the respective transmission is identical to or smaller than the maximum transmission size”. However, NOKIA teaches
a maximum transmission size is defined in a protocol of the first communication network, and wherein the first device is furthermore configured to select, for each of the transmissions, the last sensing data such that the respective series of sensing data comprises as many sensing data as possible, so that a size of the respective transmission is identical to or smaller than the maximum transmission size.
(NOKIA, page 4, line 32, page 5, line 16; “If any of the messages have a length which exceeds the maximum transfer unit (MTU) size of the bearer services, that is the maximum size of a single packet as The packets are transmitted individually or in groups, and then re-assembled once they have been received. This process is referred to as segmentation and re-assembly (SAR). SAR assigns consecutive sequence numbers to segmented data packets so that their order can be re-created on re-assembly … When the data packets are received and the message is re-assembled by the WTP, the re-assembled message is then passed on to a WTP user, that is the WSP or an application directly above the WTP. However, since the WTP only provides the re-assembled message to the upper level once all of the segmented data packets have arrived, this means that the sender and the receiver have to use data buffers equal to the maximum size of the message”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nakamura to include a maximum transmission size is defined in a protocol of the first communication network, and wherein the first device is furthermore configured to select, for each of the transmissions, the last sensing data such that the respective series of sensing data comprises as many sensing data as possible, so that a size of the respective transmission is identical to or smaller than the maximum transmission size, as taught by NOKIA, where this would be performed in order to provide fast, secure connection. See NOKIA, page 2-line 29 to page 3-line 6.
Distinguished Over Prior Art
Claims 6-9 and 14-17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached on (571)270-3324. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627