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 .
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.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PARFITT et al. (US 2020/0302591).
Regarding claim 1, Parfitt discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1; p. [0028]; wearable device 12) comprising:
a wireless transceiver (p. [0009], [0032]; the wearable device may include
communication functionality to enable bidirectional communication, the bidirectional communication may be achieved via Bluetooth for example, thus a wireless transceiver is inherent);
a speaker (p. [0012]; the wearable device includes an output interface that may be
configured to output an audio signal, thus a speaker is inherent);
a processor (p. [0039]; i.e., data processing module 26); and
a memory including instructions (p. [0039]; i.e. storage module 28) that when executed by the processor cause the apparatus to receive status data of proximate machines via the wireless transceiver (p. [0008], p. [0009]; p. [0020], p. [0035], [0039]; the wearable device performs communication with one or more components of equipment 14 to obtain data related to the status or the operating state of the equipment 14) and emit the status data audibly via the speaker as a user of the apparatus passes within range of the proximate machines (p. [0008]; the operating status of the equipment of the equipment is output to the user, the output interface is configured to output the information in the form of a visual or audio signal – p. [0009] lines 11-end, [0018]).
Regarding claim 2, Parfitt discloses the apparatus of claim 1, comprising a display screen configured to display images and text stored in the memory (p. [0011]).
Regarding claim 3, Parfitt discloses the apparatus of claim 1, comprising a user-input device configured to: receive input (p. [0007], [0037]); and transmit the input to the processor (p. [0037], lines 7-20).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARFITT et al. in view of STAGG (US 2016/0019737).
Regarding claim 6, Parfitt discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein the apparatus is configured to determine whether the apparatus is proximate to the proximate machines based on a communication range and transmit power of the wireless transceiver.
However, Stagg teaches apparatus is configured to determine whether the apparatus is proximate to the proximate machines based on a communication range and transmit power of the wireless transceiver (abstract; p. [0005], [0014], [0015], [0016], [0024]; the system includes a machine that performs Bluetooth communications with a control unit having a second Bluetooth device, Bluetooth signals may be used to determine proximity of the machine based on signal strength (i.e., transmit power) and proximity distance thresholds). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Parfitt with the teachings of Stagg, since such a modification would provide a lower cost zone control using communication signals such as Bluetooth to determine a proximity to a machine (p. [0016]-[0017]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARFITT et al. in view of DeYOUNG et al. (US 2017/0277920).
Regarding claim 7, Parfitt discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose further including a logged in user, the logged in user having a work experience profile, the instructions when executed further limit receipt or emission of the status data based on whether the work experience profile includes an association with the proximate machines.
However, DeYoung teaches a logged in user, the logged in user having a work experience profile, the instructions when executed further limit receipt or emission of the status data based on whether the work experience profile includes an association with the proximate machines (p. [0045]-[0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Parfitt with the teachings of DeYoung, in order to implement security measures for ensuring the user of the computing device is authorized to receive the status information regarding the assets (i.e., machines).
Claims 4, 5, 8, 14, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARFITT et al. in view of ALLEN (US 2003/0102974).
Regarding claim 4, Parfitt discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a position tracking device configured to track a location of the apparatus (p. [0019]).
But, Parfitt does not particularly disclose to implement the location to determine whether the apparatus is proximate to the proximate machines.
However, Allen teaches to implement the location to determine whether the
apparatus is proximate to the proximate machines (abstract, Fig. 1; p. [0018], [0024], [0026], [0036], [0037], [0052], [0053]; the location of an object and location of a machine are determined via a GPS system (i.e., location sensor), based the location data it is determined whether the object is approaching the proximity area (i.e., within an adjacency range) of the machine). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Parfitt with the teachings of Allen, since the use of location data is an effective and accurate technique to track the location of devices and determine a relative distance to a machine.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Parfitt and Allen disclose the apparatus of claim 4, Parfitt discloses wherein the processor is configured to: monitor location data received from the position tracking device; and store the location data either locally or on a cloud computing system (p. [0019], lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 8, Parfitt discloses a system comprising:
a wireless transceiver configured to receive status data of a first machine within a predetermined adjacency range (p. [0002], [0006], [0009]; a mobile monitoring device (i.e., system) includes a mobile electronic interface configured for wireless communication with equipment (wireless transceiver is inherent), the mobile electronic interface device may enable the user to receive data concerning the equipment (i.e., status data) as soon as the user is in the vicinity (i.e., adjacency range) of the equipment);
a location sensor (p. [0019]); and
a speaker configured to emit the status data audibly via the speaker as the user of
the system passes within the predetermined adjacency range of the first machine (p. [0012], [0020]; the mobile monitoring device includes output capabilities such as audible alarms when the user moves into close proximity (i.e., adjacency range) to the equipment, thus a speaker is inherent).
But, Parfitt does not particularly disclose wherein the location sensor is configured
to output data from which a range of a user to the first machine is derivable.
However, Allen teaches wherein the location sensor is configured to output data from which a range of a user to the first machine is derivable (abstract, Fig. 1; p. [0018], [0024], [0026], [0036], [0037], [0052], [0053]; the location of an object and location of a machine are determined via a GPS system (i.e., location sensor), based the location data it is determined whether the object is approaching the proximity area (i.e., within an adjacency range) of the machine). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Parfitt with the teachings of Allen, since the use of location data is an effective and accurate technique to track the location of devices and determine a relative distance to a machine.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Parfitt and Allen disclose the system of claim 8, Parfitt discloses wherein the status data is received via a communicative connection to a host server or a communicative connection to the first machine directly (p. [0032], lines 8-15; the data may be received at a remote processing device (i.e., host server) via a bidirectional communication).
Regarding claim 15, Parfitt discloses a method comprising:
determining that a mobile device possessed by a user is within a predetermined adjacency range of a first machine (p. [0020], [0009]; the system determines when the user device is in close proximity/vicinity (i.e., adjacency range) of a machine);
receiving, via a wireless transceiver, status data of the first machine within the predetermined adjacency range (p. [0002], [0006], [0009]; a mobile monitoring device (i.e., system) includes a mobile electronic interface configured for wireless communication with equipment (wireless transceiver is inherent), the mobile electronic interface device may enable the user to receive data concerning the equipment (i.e., status data) as soon as the user is in the vicinity (i.e., adjacency range) of the equipment); and
emitting, via a speaker of the mobile device, the status data audibly as the user of the mobile device passes within the predetermined adjacency range of the first machine (p. [0012], [0020]; the mobile monitoring device includes output capabilities such as audible alarms when the user moves into close proximity (i.e., adjacency range) to the equipment, thus a speaker is inherent).
But, Parfitt does not particularly disclose determining the device is within adjacency range based on location data from which a range of a user to the first machine is derivable.
However, Allen teaches the device is within adjacency range based on location data from which a range of a user to the first machine is derivable (abstract, Fig. 1; p. [0018], [0026], [0036], [0037], [0052], [0053]; the location of an object and location of a machine are determined, based the location data it is determined whether the object is approaching the proximity area (i.e., within the adjacency range) of the machine). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Parfitt with the teachings of Allen, since the use of location data is an effective and accurate technique to track the location of devices and determine a relative distance to a machine.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Parfitt and Allen disclose the method of claim 15, Parfitt discloses wherein the status data is received via a communicative connection to a host server or a communicative connection to the first machine directly (p. [0032], lines 8-15; the data may be received at a remote processing device (i.e., host server) via a bidirectional communication).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARFITT et al. in views of ALLEN, and LIN et al. (US 2021/0089940).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Parfitt and Allen disclose the system of claim 8, but does not particularly disclose further comprising: a sensor suite affixed to the first machine and configured to measure operating parameters of the first machine; and a transmitter affixed to the first machine and configured to broadcast the status data.
However, Lin teaches a system comprising a sensor suite affixed to the first machine and configured to measure operating parameters of the first machine (p. [0019], [0038], [0045]; the machine is provided with a plurality of sensors for sensing machine status of the machine); and a transmitter affixed to the first machine and configured to broadcast the status data (p. [0019], [0038], [0045]; the plurality of machine status data is transmitted to a machine status data collecting unit, thus a transmitter is inherent). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Parfitt and Allen with the teachings of Lin, in order to provide status data to a processing device for analysis and generate a troubleshooting solutions based on the status data (p. [0018]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Parfitt and Allen disclose the method of claim 15, but does not particularly disclose further comprising: measuring, via a sensor suite affixed to the first machine, operating parameters of the first machine; and transmitting, by the first machine, the status data.
However, Lin teaches measuring, via a sensor suite affixed to the first machine, operating parameters of the first machine (p. [0019], [0038], [0045]; the machine is provided with a plurality of sensors for sensing machine status of the machine); and transmitting, by the first machine, the status data (p. [0019], [0038], [0045]; the plurality of machine status data is transmitted to a machine status data collecting unit). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Parfitt and Allen with the teachings of Lin, in order to provide status data to a processing device for analysis and generate a troubleshooting solutions based on the status data (p. [0018]-[0022]).
Claim 10-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARFITT et al. in views of ALLEN, and STAGG.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Parfitt and Allen disclose the system of claim 8, but does not particularly disclose wherein the predetermined adjacency range is associated with a machine-to-machine protocol broadcast distance.
However, Stagg teaches wherein a predetermined adjacency range is associated with a machine-to-machine protocol broadcast distance (abstract; p. [0005], [0014], [0015], [0016], [0024]; the system includes a machine that performs Bluetooth communications (i.e., machine-to-machine protocol) with a control unit having a second Bluetooth device, Bluetooth signals may be used to determine proximity of the machine based on signal strength and proximity distance thresholds (i.e., adjacency range)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Parfitt and Allen with the teachings of Stagg, since such a modification would provide a lower cost zone control using communication signals such as Bluetooth to determine a proximity to a machine (p. [0016]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Parfitt and Allen disclose the system of claim 8, but does not particularly disclose wherein the output data from which a range to the first machine is derivable is a pairing range of a machine-to-machine protocol broadcast distance.
However, Stagg teaches wherein the output data from which a range to the first machine is derivable is a pairing range of a machine-to-machine protocol broadcast distance (abstract; p. [0005], [0014], [0015], [0016], [0024]; the system includes a machine that performs Bluetooth communications (i.e., machine-to-machine protocol) with a control unit having a second Bluetooth device, Bluetooth signals may be used to determine proximity of the machine based on signal strength and proximity distance thresholds; note that Bluetooth devices perform pairing process to start communications). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Parfitt and Allen with the teachings of Stagg, since such a modification would provide a lower cost zone control using communication signals such as Bluetooth to determine a proximity to a machine (p. [0016]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Parfitt and Allen disclose the method of claim 15, but does not particularly disclose wherein the predetermined adjacency range is associated with a machine-to-machine protocol broadcast distance.
However, Stagg teaches wherein a predetermined adjacency range is associated with a machine-to-machine protocol broadcast distance (abstract; p. [0005], [0014], [0015], [0016], [0024]; the system includes a machine that performs Bluetooth communications (i.e., machine-to-machine protocol) with a control unit having a second Bluetooth device, Bluetooth signals may be used to determine proximity of the machine based on signal strength and proximity distance thresholds (i.e., adjacency range)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Parfitt and Allen with the teachings of Stagg, since such a modification would provide a lower cost zone control using communication signals such as Bluetooth to determine a proximity to a machine (p. [0016]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Parfitt and Allen disclose the method of claim 15, but does not particularly disclose wherein the output data from which a range to the first machine is derivable is a pairing range of a machine-to-machine protocol broadcast distance.
However, Stagg teaches wherein the output data from which a range to the first machine is derivable is a pairing range of a machine-to-machine protocol broadcast distance (abstract; p. [0005], [0014], [0015], [0016], [0024]; the system includes a machine that performs Bluetooth communications (i.e., machine-to-machine protocol) with a control unit having a second Bluetooth device, Bluetooth signals may be used to determine proximity of the machine based on signal strength and proximity distance thresholds; note that Bluetooth devices perform pairing process to start communications). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Parfitt and Allen with the teachings of Stagg, since such a modification would provide a lower cost zone control using communication signals such as Bluetooth to determine a proximity to a machine (p. [0016]-[0017]).
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARFITT et al. in views of ALLEN and WHITE et al. (US 2024/0143139).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Parfitt and Allen disclose the system of claim 8, wherein the location sensor is a global positioning system sensor or a network strength range measurement sensor that aids in triangulation of a user location (p. [0019]), but does not particularly disclose the predetermined adjacency range is based on a geofence positioned around the first machine.
However, White teaches a predetermined adjacency range that is based on a geofence positioned around the first machine (abstract; p. [0004], [0019], [0020], [0026]; White discloses a proximity-enabled machine control system that establishes a proximity zone (i.e., geofence) around a machine and determines whether a user device is within (i.e., adjacency) a proximity zone of the machine). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Parfitt and Allen with the teachings of White, since such a modification would establish a proximity zone around the machine in order to allow communication and control the machine.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Parfitt and Allen disclose the method of claim 15, wherein the location data is generated by a global positioning system sensor or a network strength range measurement sensor that aids in triangulation of a user location (p. [0019]), but does not particularly disclose the predetermined adjacency range is based on a geofence positioned around the first machine.
However, White teaches a predetermined adjacency range that is based on a geofence positioned around the first machine (abstract; p. [0004], [0019], [0020], [0026]; White discloses a proximity-enabled machine control system that establishes a proximity zone (i.e., geofence) around a machine and determines whether a user device is within (i.e., adjacency) a proximity zone of the machine). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Parfitt and Allen with the teachings of White, since such a modification would establish a proximity zone around the machine in order to allow communication and control the machine.
Claim 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARFITT et al. in views of ALLEN, and DeYOUNG et al.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Parfitt and Allen disclose the system of claim 8, but does not particularly disclose further comprising: a user profile including an associated machines profile; and wherein receipt of the status data only occurs where the first machine is present on the associate machines profile.
However, DeYoung teaches a user profile including an associated machines profile; and wherein receipt of the status data only occurs where the first machine is present on the associate machines profile (p. [0045]-[0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Parfitt with the teachings of DeYoung, in order to implement security measures for ensuring the user of the computing device is authorized to receive the status information regarding the assets (i.e., machines).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Parfitt and Allen disclose the method of claim 15, but does not particularly disclose further comprising: logging into the mobile device with a user profile including an associated machines profile; and wherein receipt of the status data only occurs where the first machine is present on the associated machines profile.
However, DeYoung teaches logging into the mobile device with a user profile including an associated machines profile; and wherein receipt of the status data only occurs where the first machine is present on the associated machines profile (p. [0045]-[0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Parfitt with the teachings of DeYoung, in order to implement security measures for ensuring the user of the computing device is authorized to receive the status information regarding the assets (i.e., machines).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISOL FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-7840. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Jinsong Hu can be reached at 571-272-3965. 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.
/MARISOL FIGUEROA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights