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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 11/5/2024, 10/20/2025 are considered.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stubbs et al (Stubbs), US 2021/0133607.
Stubbs is cited by the applicant in the IDS.
As per claim 1, Stubbs teaches the claimed invention including a method comprising:
Storing a representation of a trigger condition at an edge device comprising processing circuitry and memory (pp. 0099: far-edge devices);
Accessing streaming sensor data at the edge device (pp. 0103);
Determining, based on the streaming sensor data and using the processing circuitry of the edge device, that the trigger condition is met (pp. 0103: detect anomaly in the data); and
Transmitting the streaming sensor data from the edge device to a computing device in response to determining that the trigger condition is met (pp. 0102-0103).
As per claim 2, Stubbs teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Stubbs further teaches wherein the trigger condition comprises a value determined based on the streaming sensor data passing a predefined threshold (pp. 0011, 0071, 0074-0075, 0102).
As per claim 3, Stubbs teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Stubbs further teaches wherein the trigger condition is based on a change in a value determined based on the streaming sensor data (pp. 0075, 0098).
As per claim 4, Stubbs teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Stubbs further teaches wherein the trigger condition is based on a value determined based on the streaming sensor data being in an anomaly range, wherein the anomaly range is identified by a thin machine learning engine executing at the edge device (pp. 0009, 0012, 0102; above threshold falls in anomaly range).
As per claim 5, Stubbs teaches the invention as claimed in claim 4. Stubbs further teaches to comprise:
Receiving, from the computing device, a representation of the anomaly range (pp. 0075, 0102).
As per claim 6, Stubbs teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Stubbs further teaches wherein the trigger condition is based on a classifier result determined based on the streaming sensor data, wherein the classifier result is determined by a thin classification engine executing at the edge device (pp. 0012, 0070, 0075, 0102-0103: machine-learning classifier to classify anomaly).
As per claim 13, Stubbs teaches the claimed invention including a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions operable to cause an edge device to perform operations comprising:
Storing a representation of a trigger condition at the edge device comprising processing circuitry and memory (pp. 0099: far-edge devices);
Accessing streaming sensor data at the edge device (pp. 0103);
Determining, based on the streaming sensor data and using the processing circuitry of the edge device, that the trigger condition is met (pp. 0103: detect anomaly in the data); and
Transmitting the streaming sensor data from the edge device to a computing device in response to determining that the trigger condition is met (pp. 0102-0103).
As per claim 14, Stubbs teaches the invention as claimed in claim 13. Stubbs further teaches wherein the trigger condition comprises a value determined based on the streaming sensor data passing a predefined threshold (pp. 0011, 0071, 0074-0075, 0102).
As per claim 15, Stubbs teaches the invention as claimed in claim 13. Stubbs further teaches wherein the trigger condition is based on a change in a value determined based on the streaming sensor data (pp. 0075, 0098).
As per claim 16, Stubbs teaches the invention as claimed in claim 13. Stubbs further teaches wherein the trigger condition is based on a value determined based on the streaming sensor data being in an anomaly range, wherein the anomaly range is identified by a thin machine learning engine executing at the edge device (pp. 0009, 0012, 0102; above threshold falls in anomaly range).
As per claim 17, Stubbs teaches the invention as claimed in claim 16. Stubbs further teaches the operations to comprise:
Receiving, from the computing device, a representation of the anomaly range (pp. 0075, 0102).
As per claim 18, Stubbs teaches the claimed invention including an edge device comprising:
Memory storing instructions (pp. 0053); and
Processing circuitry configured to execute the instructions (pp. 0053) to perform operations comprising:
Storing a representation of a trigger condition at the edge device comprising processing circuitry and memory (pp. 0099: far-edge devices);
Accessing streaming sensor data at the edge device (pp. 0103);
Determining, based on the streaming sensor data and using the processing circuitry of the edge device, that the trigger condition is met (pp. 0103: detect anomaly in the data); and
Transmitting the streaming sensor data from the edge device to a computing device in response to determining that the trigger condition is met (pp. 0102-0103).
As per claim 19, Stubbs teaches the invention as claimed in claim 18. Stubbs further teaches wherein the trigger condition comprises a value determined based on the streaming sensor data passing a predefined threshold (pp. 0011, 0071, 0074-0075, 0102).
As per claim 20, Stubbs teaches the invention as claimed in claim 18. Stubbs further teaches wherein the trigger condition is based on a change in a value determined based on the streaming sensor data (pp. 0075, 0098).
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(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stubbs et al (Stubbs), US 2021/0133607, in view of obviousness.
As per claim 7, Stubbs teaches the invention as claimed in claim 6. Stubbs does not further teach to comprise:
Receiving, from the computing device, a representation of a set of classifier results associated with the trigger condition.
However, Stubbs suggests the computing device to determine if it could classify the anomaly when the edge device is unable to (pp. 0133). It would then have been obvious for the computing device to transmit the classifier results associated with the anomaly to the edge device to train the classifier at the edge device of the anomaly as a trigger condition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teaching of Stubbs and further utilize classifier results from classifiers of remote devices to improve the classification to determine anomaly that are determined as trigger conditions when the classifier at the edge device is unable to classify.
As per claim 8, Stubbs teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Stubbs does not teach wherein the trigger condition is based on an average, a root mean square, or a moving average of values in the streaming sensor data received during a predetermined period of time preceding a current time. However, the concept of using average, root mean square or moving average of a value in sensor data of a predetermined period as a trigger condition is well known and expected in the art. For example, sensor data such as temperature over or below an average threshold for a few hours may trigger extreme weather warning such as high heat or freeze warning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Stubbs and further set the trigger condition to be based on an average of a value over a set period of time to ensure the average is above a threshold and reduce false positives.
As per claim 9, Stubbs teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Stubbs does not teach to further comprise:
Storing a termination trigger condition at the edge device;
Terminating transmission of the streaming sensor data in response to determining that the termination trigger condition is met.
However, setting a termination trigger and performing such termination when triggered is well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teaching of Stubbs and further implement the device with a termination trigger to terminate transmission based on the set condition.
As per claim 10, Stubbs teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Stubbs does not teach wherein the streaming sensor data is transmitted for a predetermined time period. However, it is obvious to transmit sensor data for predetermined time period to ensure sufficient data sample is transmitted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teaching of Stubbs and further transmit streaming sensor data for a set period to ensure sufficient data is collected for analyzing and processing.
As per claim 11, Stubbs teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Stubbs does not teach wherein a memory capacity of the memory of the edge device is below a threshold memory capacity. However, it is a common practice to ensure the memory capacity is below a threshold for the device to sufficient memory for processing and prevent system processing or storage error. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teaching of Stubbs and further ensure the memory capacity is sufficient for processing storing in order to prevent information lost.
As per claim 12, Stubbs teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Stubbs does not teach wherein a processing capacity of the processing circuitry of the edge device is below a threshold processing capacity. However, it is a common practice to ensure the processing capacity is below a threshold for the device to sufficient processing resources and power for processing tasks and prevent system overload. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teaching of Stubbs and further ensure the processing capacity is sufficient for handle all processing tasks and prevent processing overload.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mostafavi et al, US 2025/0113067
Ghosh et al, US 2023/0098555
Kempel et al, US 2022/0132290
A shortened statutory period for reply to this Office action is set to expire Three MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY S LIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3968.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. 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).
KENNY S. LIN
Examiner
Art Unit 2416
/Kenny S Lin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
June 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights