DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the Application filed on June 5, 2024, in which claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement, filed on June 5, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuma SATO (International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2024/042710 A1), hereinafter “SATO” in view of GEDLICZKA et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0286797 A1), hereinafter “GEDLICZKA”.
Regarding claim 1, SATO discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that (wherein when communication control section 52, control processing section 53, and control processing section 62 of terminal 3 (See FIG. 4) are realized by a control circuit 100 (See FIG. 8), a program for realizing the operation of the terminal 3 stored in the memory 102 is executed by the processor 101. The program may be provided by a recording medium or a communication medium) (SATO, FIGS. 4 and 8, paragraph [0071]), when executed by one or more processors (again, processor 101) (SATO, FIGS. 4 and 8, paragraph [0071]), configure a computing device to perform actions comprising: receiving a command to transfer a first data file (wherein terminal 3, which is a smart meter, will receive an instrument control message from aggregation device 2. In particular, the aggregation device 2 transmits an instrument control message for each destination terminal 3 (i.e. meter) (See steps S4, S10, of FIG. 6). That is, the control processing unit 23 of aggregation device 2 instructs the communication control unit 22 to transmit the instrument control message (an encrypted instrument control message) to the destination terminal 3, and the communication control unit 22 uses the route information to send the instrument control message (encrypted instrument control message) to the destination terminal 3. A communication header and the like are added to the instrument control message, and the instrument control message with the communication header added is transmitted to the destination terminal 3 via the first transmitter/receiver 21. The terminal 3 then receives the instrument control message, and the communication unit 5 of the terminal 3 that receives the instrument control message decodes the instrument control message (See also steps S5, S11 of FIG. 6). Examiner further notes that the control processing section 62 performs processing according to the instrument control message received from the transmitting/receiving section 63. For example, if the meter control message is an instruction requesting voltage transmission, the control processing section 62 outputs the voltage measured by the meter 61 to the transmitting/receiving section 63 as a result (response data). In addition, the length of the COSEM message #1 varies depending on the contents of the instruction, and the contents of the instruction can specify only an operation such as voltage collection, or can specify an operation by specifying a period or cycle) (SATO, FIG. 6, paragraphs [0048], [0050], [0058] and [0059]). SATO does not explicitly disclose determining if at least two processes exist or do not exist from among processes comprising: a first data-transfer process of the first data file; a second data-transfer process of a second data file; and a third process, not related to the first data-transfer process or the second data-transfer process; and selecting an action from among a plurality of actions, wherein the selecting is based at least in part on which processes were found to exist, from among processes comprising: the first data-transfer process; the second data-transfer process, and the third process; wherein the plurality of actions comprises: resuming the first data-transfer process; canceling the second data-transfer process and starting a new data-transfer process to transfer the first data file; rejecting the command; allowing the third process to conclude and then starting the new data-transfer process to transfer the first data file; and starting the new data-transfer process to transfer the first data file. However in an analogous art, GEDLICZKA discloses determining if at least two processes exist or do not exist from among processes comprising: a first data-transfer process of the first data file (at least impliedly, system knows (i.e., can readily determine) that a file upload process is taking place, based on contents of the buffer 220) (GEDLICZKA, FIGS. 1 and 2, paragraphs [0031] and [0033]); a second data-transfer process of a second data file; and a third process, not related to the first data-transfer process or the second data-transfer process; (wherein the system determines that a transformation results in duplication of contents of the buffer 220. That is, a transformation notification signal is generated upon transformation unit 218 determining that one of a predefined transformations match the contents of the buffer 220 (See FIG. 2) with one or more first portions, i.e., a data portion being positioned at the beginning of the received data set, of already existing data sets 214 stored on the storage system 208 which is attached or part of the server 206. The first portion may comprise, e.g., the first 1000 records of the large data set 212. More particularly, while the uploading via the connection 210 continues, and if a match has been determined between the transformed content of the buffer 220 and one of the already existing data sets 214 on the server, a transformation notification signal or message is generated, e.g., by the transformation unit 218. This transformation notification signal can be transmitted to the client workstation 202 and a user may decide that for the continued transmission of the large data set 212 from storage system 204 is no longer necessary (or the transmission may be halted automatically). Instead, a copy of the large data set 212 may be generated on the server out of one of the data sets 214 by applying the determined transformation. Examiner notes that while GEDLICZKA does not use the exact language of “determining whether a first transmission of a first data file exists,” nevertheless this is implied, since the [second] determination, (of whether the transformation will result in a match between contents of the buffer and the already existing data sets 214), will never occur without the first/initial transmission/upload, and this is determined based on the buffer receiving the first portion of the file/records 213 (See again, FIG. 2, particularly 213 denoted by the dotted line)) (GEDLICZKA, FIGS. 1 and 2, paragraphs [0032], [0033] and [0035]) and selecting an action from among a plurality of actions, wherein the selecting is based at least in part on which processes were found to exist, from among processes comprising: the first data-transfer process; the second data-transfer process, and the third process (again, based on the received contents to the buffer and the result of the transformation) (GEDLICZKA, FIGS. 1 and 2, paragraphs [0032], [0033] and [0035]); wherein the plurality of actions comprises: resuming the first data-transfer process (wherein the transmission/upload process continues unhalted if the transformation does not result in a match) (GEDLICZKA, FIGS. 1 and 2, paragraphs [0032], [0033], [0035] and [0036]); canceling the second data-transfer process and starting a new data-transfer process to transfer the first data file; rejecting the command (wherein the upload is halted/canceled, again depending on the transformation results) (GEDLICZKA, FIGS. 1 and 2, paragraphs [0032], [0033], [0035] and [0036]); allowing the third process to conclude and then starting the new data-transfer process to transfer the first data file; and starting the new data-transfer process to transfer the first data file. Examiner further notes that the claim fails to enumerate each of the contingencies in any meaningful detail, and so the unmapped limitations are meaningless. That is, the claim fails to indicate which actions occur or do not occur, based on which processes were or were not found to exist, or otherwise fails to specify how/why the “canceling the second data-transfer process and starting a new data-transfer process to transfer the first data file;” occurs, how/why the “allowing the third process to conclude and then starting the new data-transfer process to transfer the first data file;” occurs and how/why the “starting the new data-transfer process to transfer the first data file” occurs. The claim merely recites that the aforementioned actions are “comprised” in the universe of possibilities. SATO is analogous art because SATO is from the same problem solving area, namely, automatic meter reading using smart meters (See SATO, paragraph [0003]), while GEDLICZKA is analogous art because GEDLICZKA is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, as GEDLICZKA is directed to conserving resources by preventing unnecessary uploads, and more specifically, to controlling an upload of a data set upon detection of a modification of that data set (See GEDLICZKA, paragraph [0001]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of SATO and GEDLICZKA before him or her, to modify the smart meter system of SATO to include the additional limitations of determining if at least two processes exist or do not exist from among processes comprising: a first data-transfer process of the first data file; a second data-transfer process of a second data file; and a third process, not related to the first data-transfer process or the second data-transfer process; and selecting an action from among a plurality of actions, wherein the selecting is based at least in part on which processes were found to exist, from among processes comprising: the first data-transfer process; the second data-transfer process, and the third process; wherein the plurality of actions comprises: resuming the first data-transfer process; canceling the second data-transfer process and starting a new data-transfer process to transfer the first data file; rejecting the command; allowing the third process to conclude and then starting the new data-transfer process to transfer the first data file; and starting the new data-transfer process to transfer the first data file, as disclosed in GEDLICZKA, with reasonable expectation that this would result in a smart meter reading system having the added benefit of conserving resources such as network bandwidth, storage and unnecessary wait times for completions of unnecessary uploads (See GEDLICZKA, paragraph [0018]). This method of improving the smart meter system of SATO was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of GEDLICZKA. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of SATO with GEDLICZKA to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Claim 8 is directed to a computing device (wherein SATO discloses a terminal 3, as a smart meter) (SATO, FIG. 4), comprising: a processor (wherein as discussed and shown above with respect to claim 1, communication control section 52, control processing section 53, and control processing section 62 of terminal 3 (See again, FIG. 4) are realized by a control circuit 100 (See FIG. 8)) (SATO, FIGS. 4 and 8, paragraph [0071]); one or more memory devices in communication with the processor (wherein memory 102 includes a program for realizing the operation of the terminal 3 and the program is executed by the processor 101) (SATO, FIGS. 4 and 8, paragraph [0071]); and statements, defined in the one or more memory devices (wherein again, the program for realizing the operation of the terminal 3 is stored in the memory 102 and is executed by the processor 101. The program may be provided by a recording medium or a communication medium) (SATO, FIGS. 4 and 8, paragraph [0071]), which when executed by the processor to perform actions substantially as recited in “non-transitory computer-readable media claim 1,” and does not appear to contain any additional features with regard to novelty and/or nonobviousness; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
In addition, claim 15 includes a “method for operating a computing device” that performs limitations substantially as recited in “non-transitory computer-readable media” claim 1, and does not appear to contain any additional features with regard to novelty and/or nonobviousness; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale. In addition, the broadest reasonable interpretation (the “BRI”) of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. See MPEP 2111.04 II In the instant case, if each and every “process” of the enumerated “processes” occur, none of the recited actions will occur, as the claim does not provide for that given contingency, and Examiner notes that dependent claim 18 fails to provide for such a scenario as well; therefore, dependent claim 18 is likewise rejected under the same rationale. For instance, while dependent claim 18 specifies actions to occur responsive to each independent existence of process 1 through 3, as well as an action to occur responsive to the existence of none of processes 1 through 3, claim 18 is silent as to which action occurs responsive to the existence of all three processes (in which case none of the other limitations would be required (i.e., if “only A” then “X”; if “only B” then “Y”; if neither “A” or “B” then “Z” - if both “A” and “B” are present, neither of “X,” “Y,” or “Z” occur)). In addition, the limitations of dependent claim 17 potentially never occur, particularly if the third process is not determined to exist. That is, the limitations of dependent claim 17 are not required, as independent claim 15 provides for the case where the invention may be practiced without dependent claim 17, merely by determining that the third process does not in fact exist (i.e., if the third process does not exist, claim 17 does not occur). This is contrasted with the limitations of dependent claims 16, 19 and 20 which require the limitations to be present regardless of which processes are found to exist (i.e., the limitations of dependent claims 16, 19 and 20 are not contingent on any processes being found or not found to exist).
As to claim 3, SATO-GEDLICZKA discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media as recited in claim 1, the actions additionally comprising: determining if the third process will conclude within a threshold period of time (wherein in one embodiment, the computer-implemented method includes terminating the receiving mode automatically in response to a determination that a stop message was not received within a time period and that applying the one of a predefined transformation to a predetermined percentage of a second portion of the existing file continues to result in a set of data that corresponds to a porting of the existing file) (GEDLICZKA, paragraph [0073]); and responsive to finding that the third process will conclude within the threshold period of time, allowing the third process to conclude and starting the new data-transfer process to transfer the first data file (at least impliedly, as receiving mode is only automatically terminated if the threshold amount of time without receiving the stop message is exceeded) (GEDLICZKA, paragraph [0073]). As discussed and shown above, SATO is analogous art because SATO is from the same problem solving area, namely, automatic meter reading using smart meters (See SATO, paragraph [0003]), while GEDLICZKA is analogous art because GEDLICZKA is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, as GEDLICZKA is directed to conserving resources by preventing unnecessary uploads, and more specifically, to controlling an upload of a data set upon detection of a modification of that data set (See GEDLICZKA, paragraph [0001]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of SATO and GEDLICZKA before him or her, to modify the smart meter system of SATO to include the additional limitations of determining if the third process will conclude within a threshold period of time; and responsive to finding that the third process will conclude within the threshold period of time, allowing the third process to conclude and starting the new data-transfer process to transfer the first data file, as disclosed in GEDLICZKA, with reasonable expectation that this would result in a smart meter reading system having the added benefit of reducing unnecessary wait times for completions of unnecessary uploads (See GEDLICZKA, paragraph [0018]). This method of improving the smart meter system of SATO was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of GEDLICZKA. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of SATO with GEDLICZKA to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, SATO-GEDLICZKA discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media as recited in claim 1, wherein determining if the first data-transfer process exists comprises: comparing information included with the command to information on data transfers in operation in the computing device (wherein again, the transformed contents of the buffer 220 are compared with the already existing data sets 214) (GEDLICZKA, paragraphs [0033] and [0035]). Again, SATO is analogous art because SATO is from the same problem solving area, namely, automatic meter reading using smart meters (See SATO, paragraph [0003]), while GEDLICZKA is analogous art because GEDLICZKA is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, as GEDLICZKA is directed to conserving resources by preventing unnecessary uploads, and more specifically, to controlling an upload of a data set upon detection of a modification of that data set (See GEDLICZKA, paragraph [0001]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of SATO and GEDLICZKA before him or her, to modify the smart meter system of SATO to include the additional limitation of comparing information included with the command to information on data transfers in operation in the computing device, as disclosed in GEDLICZKA, with reasonable expectation that this would result in a smart meter reading system having the added benefit of being able to determine as to whether or not continuous upload of a given file was indeed superfluous (i.e., whether contents of the file have already been received) (See GEDLICZKA, paragraphs [0025], [0026], [0033] and [0035]). This method of improving the smart meter system of SATO was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of GEDLICZKA. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of SATO with GEDLICZKA to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, SATO-GEDLICZKA discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media as recited in claim 1, wherein determining if the first data-transfer process of the first data file exists comprises comparing values comprising: values of parameters passed in a Device Language Message Specification (DLMS)/Companion Specification for Energy Metering (COSEM) methods of execution (wherein an instrument control message, for example, a message (hereinafter referred to as COSEM message) that complies with DLMS (Device Language Message Specification)/COSEM (COmpanion Specification for Energy Metering)) (SATO, paragraph [0015]); and values of parameters in attributes of DLMS/COSEM object(s) that hold information on data-file transfers in the computing device (wherein the length of each COSEM message is variable, and the length of each COSEM message is specified by the COSEM message length. The length of the COSEM message #1 varies depending on the contents of the instruction, and the contents of the instruction can specify only an operation such as voltage collection, or can specify an operation by specifying a period or cycle. The communication header includes identification information of the communication unit 5 of the destination terminal 3, and when the communication control unit 52 of each terminal 3 receives an instrument control message from the aggregation device 2 or another terminal 3, it refers to the communication header. It is determined whether the message is addressed to the device itself, and if it is not addressed to the device itself, the instrument control message is transferred according to the route information) (SATO, paragraph [0047]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, SATO-GEDLICZKA discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media as recited in claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions of the non-transitory computer-readable media are configured to operate the computing device within a Device Language Message Specification (DLMS)/Companion Specification for Energy Metering (COSEM) environment (again, operating in a DLMS (Device Language Message Specification)/COSEM (COmpanion Specification for Energy Metering) environment) (SATO, paragraph [0015]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 7.
Claims 10 and 12-14 are directed to “computing device” claims that perform limitations substantially as recited in “non-transitory computer-readable media” claims 3 and 5-7, respectively, and do not appear to contain any additional features with regard to novelty and/or nonobviousness; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
In addition, claims 19 and 20 include “method” claims that perform limitations substantially as recited in “non-transitory computer-readable media” claims 5 and 6, respectively, and do not appear to contain any additional features with regard to novelty and/or nonobviousness; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 2, 4, 9, 11 and 16 are 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
10. Further references of interest are cited on Form PTO-892, which is an attachment to this Office Action. For instance, TEBOULLE (USPGPUB 2021/0014111) discloses a method for transmitting data from a management entity to smart electricity meter. A communication system comprises at least one data concentrator device to which smart electricity meters are attached via a first powerline communication network, each data concentrator device being connected to the management entity via a second communication network. The smart electricity meter receives, coming from the management entity, via the first powerline communication network, a message indicating that a transfer of data is pending with the management entity. The smart electricity meter comprises a wireless communication interface adapted to communicate via a third wireless local communication network with a residential gateway connected to the management entity via a fourth communication network, and the smart electricity meter obtains the data from the management entity via the third wireless local communication network (See Abstract). Chen (USPGPUB 2015/0149991) discloses a system and method for firmware upgrade in an advanced metering infrastructure (AMI). A remote server provides a firmware image file. After receiving the firmware image file and verifying the remote server, a data concentrator transmits at least one encoding symbol generated from the firmware image file to at least one meter through broadcasting and a retransmission mechanism of minimum retransmission contents. Upon receiving a predetermined number of encoding symbols, each meter recovers the original firmware image file from the received encoding symbols. Thereafter, each meter receives and verifies an activation code generated by the remote server before carrying out the firmware upgrade (See Abstract). ROTER (FR 3045181) discloses a method for transferring a new version of software to at least one electric counter via a communication network. In particular, a new version of software is decomposed into successive blocks to be transferred by a block-by-block concentrator device in two phases: a first phase during which the concentrator device performs the transfer according to an independent sequencing because each block has been correctly received, and a second phase during which the concentrator device performs the transfer of each block that has not been correctly received. The new version of the software is thus transferred to electricity meters via a communication network, with each electricity meter storing in a non-volatile memory, a context including an indication of each block of the new version of the software that has not been correctly received, and when the transfer of the new version of the software to at least one electricity meter is interrupted, the subsequent resumption of the transfer of the new version of the software to the one or more electricity meters is carried out according to the second phase using their respective contexts (See Abstract). CYRAN (USPGPUB 2016/0085920) discloses a system and method for transferring a group of related files as one logical unit. The method of transferring files includes receiving a download request for a group of files, determining whether the group of files is locked, and upon determining that the group of files is not locked, allowing the download request, by creating a transfer object corresponding to the group of files and the download request, the transfer object including information on the group of files and the download request. Download operations are performed on the files in the group of files, and when all files in the group of files have been downloaded, the transfer object is deleted (See Abstract).
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOSTAS J. KATSIKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, Brian J. Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/KOSTAS J KATSIKIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441