DETAILED ACTION
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “communication module” and “first and second execution environment” in Claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “execution environment” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the topside module" in line 3, the claim 13 recites the limitation “the application package,” in line 2, the claim 14 recites the limitation “the computing device,” in line 2, claim 18 recites the limitation “the control” and “the control application” in line 2, claim 19 recites the limitation “the operational status” in line 2, the claim 20 recites the limitation “the data generation status” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
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.
Claims 12-14 and 18-20 are 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 12 recites “The system according to claim 15, further comprising: a computing device independent of the topside module and configured to communicate with the topside module; wherein the topside module is configured to receive an application package from the computing device,” but claim 15 is a method claim.
Claim 13 recites “The system according to claim 16, wherein the application package comprises a runtime library and processing code configured to use the runtime library,” but claim 16 does not recite any “application package”. The Claim 14 recites “The system according to claim 16, wherein the computing device comprises, when in use, a software development kit configured to support creation of an application for execution in the second execution environment of the subsea measurement apparatus,” but claim 16 does not recite any computing device.” Claim 18 recites “the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the control of the user-defined application by the control application is in response to an operational status of the first execution environment,” but claim 11 does not recite any control of the user-defined application by the control application. Claim 19 recites the apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the operational status of the first execution environment is a data generation status,” but the claim 12 does not recite any “operational status.” Claim 20 recites “the apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the data generation status is an availability of a data file or a data packet,” but claim 13 does not recite any data generation status. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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, 2, 7, 9-10, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ranjan et al., US-PGPUB 2018/0115530 (hereinafter Ranjan) (cited by the Applicant)
Regarding Claim 1. Ranjan discloses a subsea measurement apparatus configured to be immersed, when in use, in water (subsea measurement apparatus limitation is not given any patentable weight, as it only appears in the preamble), comprising:
a sensor, a communications module (Paragraph [0019]);
a processing resource operably coupled to the sensor and the communications
module, the sensor being configured to measure a property of a medium (Paragraph [0019], sensor measuring) wherein the processing resource is configured to provide a first execution environment and a second execution environment independent from the first execution environment (Fig. 1; TEE 20 and REE 22, sensor 4);
the first execution environment is configured to execute device firmware that
cooperates with the sensor to generate, when in use, measurement data, and the second execution environment is configured to receive and execute a user-defined application (Paragraphs [0007], firmware; [0025]; [0040], [0042]-[0043], [0053], TEE and REE connected with sensor, Apps)
Regarding Claim 2. Ranjan discloses user-defined application of the second execution environment is configured to acquire the measurement data having a first information value and to process the measurement data to produce processed output data having a second information value (Paragraph [0023]-[0028], encryption; [0112]; [0140])
Regarding Claim 7. Ranjan disclose the second execution environment is configured to permit replacement of the user-defined application with another user-defined application (Fig. 6, Paragraphs [0097]-[0136])
Regarding Claim 9. Ranjan discloses a command interface for receiving an operational command; wherein the second execution environment is configured to provide access to the command interface (Paragraph [0057], authorizations; Figs. 4-5)
Regarding Claim 10. Ranjan discloses second execution environment is configured to receive the user-defined application via a communications link and to execute the user-defined application in the second execution environment (Fig. 1, executions of the apps)
Regarding Claim 15. Ranjan discloses compressing measurement data (note: compressing measurement data is not given any patentable weight, as it only appears in the preamble), comprising:
providing a processing resource to support a first execution environment and a
second execution environment (Fig. 1, TEE and REE);
executing firmware in the first execution environment (Paragraphs [0007], firmware; [0025]; [0040], [0042]-[0043], [0053];
obtaining a sensor measurement in respect of a medium (Paragraph [0019]);
pre-processing the sensor measurement using the firmware to produce
measurement data having first information value (Paragraph [0061], encrypting sensor data, etc); executing a user-defined application in the second execution environment to obtain the measurement data and processing the measurement data in accordance with a predetermined processing algorithm, thereby producing processed measurement data having second information value (Fig. 4)
Regarding Claim 17. Ranjan discloses the first execution environment is configured to support a control application, and the control application is configured to control execution of the user-defined application (Paragraph [0065]; [0137]; Figs. 2, 4, trusted federator app)
Regarding Claim 18. Ranjan discloses the control of the user-defined application by the control application is in response to an operational status of the first execution environment (Paragraph [0065]; [0137]; Figs. 2, 4, trusted federator app)
Regarding Claim 19. Ranjan discloses the operational status of the first execution environment is a data generation status (Fig. 4)
Regarding Claim 20. Ranjan discloses the data generation status is an availability of a data file or a data packet (Fig. 4)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranjan, US-PGPUB 2018/0115530 in view of Yang et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0183715 (hereinafter Yang)
Regarding Claim 3. Ranjan discloses the user-defined application and user interface for communication with the user (Paragraph [0020]-[0021], secure user interface and Federator app)
The modified Ranjan does not explicitly disclose the user-defined application is a command interpreter configured to receive a first command in accordance with a first command protocol and to translate the first command to a second command in accordance with a second command protocol
Yang discloses the user-defined application is a command interpreter configured to receive a first command in accordance with a first command protocol and to translate the first command to a second command in accordance with a second command protocol (Fig. 1C, 2s, 3A, 4; Claim 21; Paragraphs [0033]; Paragraphs [0033]-[0074], detailed description involving commands; Paragraphs [0021], [0084]-[0085], firmware)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Yang in Ranjan and have the user-defined application as a command interpreter configured to receive a first command in accordance with a first command protocol and to translate the first command to a second command in accordance with a second command protocol, and thereby enabling execution of the applications within a controlled environment.
Regarding Claim 4. Ranjan discloses applications running in a TEE and REE (Paragraphs [0043]-[0053])
The modified Ranjan does not explicitly disclose the user-defined application is configured to generate a command to control operation of the first execution environment and to communicate the command to the first execution environment in order to modify operational behavior of the first execution environment.
Yang discloses user-defined application is configured to generate a command to control operation of the first execution environment and to communicate the command to the first execution environment in order to modify operational behavior of the first execution environment (Fig. 1C, 2s, 3A, 4; Claim 21; Paragraphs [0033]; Paragraphs [0033]-[0074], detailed description involving commands; Paragraphs [0021], [0084]-[0085], firmware; Fig. 6)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Yang in Ranjan and configured the user-defined application to generate a command to control operation of the first execution environment and to communicate the command to the first execution environment in order to modify operational behavior of the first execution environment, and thereby enabling execution of the applications within a controlled environment.
Regarding Claim 5. Ranjan does not disclose the user-defined application is configured to perform, when in use, a predetermined functionality, the user-defined application being further configured to receive a command associated with the predetermined functionality and the user-defined application is configured to modify the predetermined functionality in response to and in accordance with the received command.
Yang discloses the user-defined application is configured to perform, when in use, a predetermined functionality, the user-defined application being further configured to receive a command associated with the predetermined functionality and the user-defined application is configured to modify the predetermined functionality in response to and in accordance with the received command (Paragraph [0045], [0053], modifiers, [0033]; Paragraphs [0033]-[0074], detailed description involving commands; Fig. 6)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Yang in Ranjan and configure the user-defined application to perform, when in use, a predetermined functionality, the user-defined application being further configured to receive a command associated with the predetermined functionality and the user-defined application is configured to modify the predetermined functionality in response to and in accordance with the received command, and thereby enabling execution of the applications within a controlled environment.
13. Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranjan, US-PGPUB 2018/0115530 in view of Newborough, 2017/0019187 (hereinafter Newborough)
Regarding Claim 6. Ranjan does not disclose an acoustic communications transceiver operably coupled to the communications module.
Newborough discloses an acoustic communications transceiver operably coupled to the communications module (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0043]; Paragraphs [0001]-[0005]))
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Newborough in Ranjan and have an acoustic communications transceiver operably coupled to the communications module, so as to perform communication under the water with synchronization.
Regarding Claim 11. Ranjan does not disclose a topside module configured to communicate with the subsea measurement apparatus.
Newborough discloses a topside module configured to communicate with the subsea measurement apparatus (Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0040]-[0043], [0053])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Newborough in Ranjan and have a topside module configured to communicate with the subsea measurement apparatus, so as to perform communication under the water with synchronization.
14. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranjan, US-PGPUB 2018/0115530 in views of Parsons, US-PGPUB 2018/0348078 (hereinafter Parsons) and Yang, US-PGPUB 2020/0183715.
Regarding Claim 16. Ranjan discloses providing inter-compatibility with a measurement apparatus, comprising:
providing a processing resource in the measurement apparatus to support a first execution environment and a second execution environment (Fig. 1, TEE and REE);
executing firmware in the first execution environment (Paragraphs [0007], firmware; [0025]; [0040], [0042]-[0043], [0053])
obtaining a sensor measurement in respect of a medium (Paragraph [0019]);
pre-processing the sensor measurement using the firmware to produce measurement data having first information value (Paragraph [0061], encrypting sensor data, etc);
Ranjan does not discloses providing a processing resource in the underwater
and executing a user-defined application in the second execution environment to
provide a command interpreter configured to receive a first command in accordance
with a first command protocol and to translate the first command to a second command
in accordance with a second command protocol, the firmware being configured to
operate in accordance with the second command protocol.
Parsons discloses a processing resource in the subsea measurement apparatus (Abstract; Figs. 1-6; Paragraphs [0001]-[0002]);
Yang discloses executing a user-defined application in the second execution environment to provide a command interpreter configured to receive a first command in accordance with a first command protocol and to translate the first command to a second command in accordance with a second command protocol, the firmware being configured to operate in accordance with the second command protocol (Fig. 1C, 2s, 3A, 4; Claim 21; Paragraphs [0033]; Paragraphs [0033]-[0074], detailed description involving commands; Paragraphs [0021], [0084]-[0085], firmware).
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Parsons and Yang and provide a processing resource in the underwater and execute a user-defined application in the second execution environment to provide a command interpreter configured to receive a first command in accordance with a first command protocol and to translate the first command to a second command in accordance with a second command protocol, the firmware being configured to operate in accordance with the second command protocol, and thereby enabling execution of the applications within a controlled environment.
15. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranjan, US-PGPUB 2018/0115530 in view of Kaminosono et al., US-PGPUB 2016/0283056 (hereinafter Kaminosono)
Regarding Claim 8. Ranjan discloses execution of user-defined application (Fig. 6; Paragraphs [0097]-[0136]).
Ranjan does not explicitly disclose the second execution environment is configured to execute the user-defined application in accordance with a predetermined execution frequency.
Kaminosono discloses executing the user-defined application in accordance with a predetermined execution frequency (Paragraphs [0301], [0003]-[0005])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Kaminosono and have the second execution environment configured to execute the user-defined application in accordance with a predetermined execution frequency, so as to change the terminal, in accordance with the content viewed in the terminal.
16. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranjan, US-PGPUB 2018/0115530 in view of Pearce, US-PGPUB 2012/0327741 (hereinafter Pearce)
Regarding Claim 12. Ranjan discloses receiving an application package from the computing device and being installed on the user device (Paragraph [0099])
Ranjan does not disclose a computing device independent of the topside module and configured to communicate with the topside module, wherein the topside module is configured to receive an application package from the computing device.
Pearce discloses a computing device independent of the topside module and configured to communicate with the topside module (Figs. 1-2; Paragraph [0057]-[0058]; Abstract; Paragraph [0001]
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Pearce in Ranjan and have a computing device independent of the topside module and configured to communicate with the topside module, wherein the topside module is configured to receive an application package from the computing device, so as to use the application for subsea surveying.
17. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranjan, US-PGPUB 2018/0115530 in view of Laurila et al., US-PGPUB 2009/0133014 (hereinafter Laurila) and Huang et al., US-PGPUB 2017/0060605 (hereinafter Huang)
Regarding Claim 13. Ranjan does not disclose an application package comprises a runtime library and processing code configured to use the runtime library.
Laurila discloses application package and libraries, runtimes and code configured to use the runtime library (Paragraph [0025]). Huang discloses application package comprising a runtime library (Paragraph [0017]).
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Laurila and Huang in Ranjan and have an application package comprises a runtime library and processing code configured to use the runtime library, so as to ensure the application works on the user’s device.
18. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranjan, US-PGPUB 2018/0115530 in view of Pearce, US-PGPUB 2012/0327741 and Chuppala et al, US-PGPUB 2020/0026578 (hereinafter Chuppala)
Regarding Claim 14. Ranjan does not disclose the computing device comprises, when in use, a software development kit configured to support creation of an application for execution in the second execution environment of the subsea measurement apparatus.
Pearce discloses a subsea measurement apparatus (Figs. 1-2)
Chuppala disclose software development kit configured to support creation of an application for execution in the execution environment (Paragraph [0042])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Pearce and Chuppala in Ranjan and when in use, configure a software development kit to support creation of an application for execution in the second execution environment of the subsea measurement apparatus, so as to properly execute and use the application in the subsea measurements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Parsons, US-PGPUB 2018/0348078
Goodridge et al., US-PGPUB 2019/0163458
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights