Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claims 1 and 8, the applicant amended the claim with a limitation that recites that the vanishing sensor is determined based on information indication a type of sensor. The applicant argues that Muller et al. (US-8,982,784) does not teach the new limitation, and that Muller only teaches that if a sensor fails, then adjacent sensors are used to estimate a measured value of the failed sensor [see applicant’s arguments pg. 9 L. 1-19].
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Muller et al. (US-8,982,784), as argued by the applicant, teaches that if a sensor fails, then adjacent sensors are used to estimate a measured value of the failed sensor. However, the applicant failed to realize that it is inherent that the system, taught by Muller, must use information or data to determine that the sensor has failed and to classify the sensor as a failed/vanishing sensor. In other words, Muller’s system uses information indicating that the sensor has failed (information indicating a type of sensor) in order to classify the sensor as a failed/vanishing sensor. Therefore, Muller teaches that the failed/vanishing sensor is determined based on information indicating that the sensor has failed (a type of sensor). As shown above, the prior art teaches the argued limitations, and the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 4-5 and 11-12 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muller et al. (US-8,982,784).
In regards to claim 1, Muller teaches a method for operating a device managing a sensor in a machine-to-machine (M2M) system [fig. 2, col. 1 L. 18-19]. Muller teaches that measurement data can be received from a sensor that can fail (vanish) in the future [fig. 1, fig. 2 element 100, col. 6 L. 28-35, col. 7 L. 4-7, col. 8 L. 1-3, col. 10 L. 33-34]. This teaching means that the method comprises receiving a first measurement of a vanishing sensor. Also, Muller teaches that the method comprises receiving a second measurement of another (reference) sensor [fig. 2 element 100, col. 8 L. 3-6]. Furthermore, Muller teaches when the vanishing sensor has failed/vanished, the second measurement received from the another sensor can be used to estimate the measurements from the vanishing sensor which can be stored [col. 8 L. 1-8, col. 9 L. 50-54]. This teaching means that the method comprises determining whether or not the vanishing sensor has failed/vanished; generating an estimated measurement (third measurement) based on the second measurement in case the vanishing sensor is determined to have failed/vanished; and storing the third measurement as a measurement of the vanishing sensor that has vanished. Muller teaches when the vanishing sensor has failed/vanished, the second measurement received from the another sensor can be used to estimate the measurements from the vanishing sensor [col. 8 L. 1-8, col. 9 L. 50-54]. It is inherent that the system must use information or data to determine that the sensor has failed and to classify the sensor as a failed/vanishing sensor. In other words, Muller’s system uses information indicating that the sensor has failed (information indicating a type of sensor) in order to classify the sensor as a failed/vanishing sensor. Therefore, Muller teaches that the failed/vanishing sensor is determined based on information indicating that the sensor has failed (a type of sensor).
In regards to claim 4, Muller, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches when the vanishing sensor has failed/vanished, the second measurement received from the another sensor can be used to estimate the measurements from the vanishing sensor [col. 8 L. 1-8, col. 9 L. 50-54]. It is inherent that the system must acquire information or data to determine that the sensor has failed and to classify the sensor as a failed/vanishing sensor. In other words, the method comprises acquiring information on the sensor. The aforementioned teachings also means that the system determines that sensor is a failed/vanishing sensor or not (vanishing sensor type). In other words, the method comprises determining whether or not the type of the sensor is a vanishing sensor type. Furthermore, the aforementioned teachings means that the system must generate and store the status of the failed sensor and information indicating which reference sensor to use as a replacement (handling method of the sensor that has vanished) after the sensor has failed/vanished. In other words, the method comprises generating a resource including information related to processing (status of the sensor and which reference sensor to use as a replacement) after vanishing of the vanishing sensor and storing the resource.
In regards to claim 5, Muller, as applied in the rejection of claim 4 above, further teaches when the vanishing sensor has failed/vanished, the second measurement received from the another sensor can be used to estimate the measurements from the vanishing sensor [col. 8 L. 1-8, col. 9 L. 50-54]. These teachings means that the system must generate and store the status of the failed sensor and information indicating which reference sensor to use as a replacement (handling method of the sensor that has vanished) after the sensor has failed/vanished. In other words, the resource includes first information indicating whether or not the sensor is the failed/vanishing sensor, second information indicating whether or not the failed/vanishing sensor has failed/vanished and third information indicating information on the reference sensor.
In regards to claim 8, Muller, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 teaches claimed functions of the claimed processor. Furthermore, Muller teaches that the claimed functions can be implemented on a device comprising a transceiver [fig. 2 element 201 and 202, col. 2 L. 15-17, col. 6 L. 65-67, col. 7 L. 1-7]. This teaching means that Muller teaches the claimed device comprising a transceiver and a processor coupled with the transceiver and configured to perform the method.
In regards to claim 11, Muller, as shown in the rejection of claim 4 teaches claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 12, Muller, as shown in the rejection of claim 5 teaches claimed limitations.
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) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. (US-8,982,784) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and in view of Rolf et al. (US-10,591,641).
In regards to claim 2, Muller, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that at least one of the first measurement or the second measurement is received periodically.
On the other hand, Rolf teaches that sensors in a system can be configured to transmit measurements periodically [col. 18 L. 11-14].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Rolf’s teachings of transmitting measurements periodically in the method taught by Muller because it will permit the system to received desired measured parameters at a desired frequency.
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Muller and Rolf, as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. (US-8,982,784) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and in view of Hoseinnezhad (US-2008/0039957).
In regards to claim 3, Muller, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that whether or not the vanishing sensor has vanished is determined based on whether or not a measurement of the vanishing sensor is received.
On the other hand, Hoseinnezhad teaches that a sensor can be determined as malfunctioning (vanished) when a measurement of the sensor is missing (not received) [par. 0067 L. 7-10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Hoseinnezhad’s teachings of determining a faulty sensor by monitoring missing measurements in the method taught by Muller because it will permit the system to determine that the sensor has failed/vanished in a simple manner.
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Muller and Hoseinnezhad, as shown in the rejection of claim 3 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6-7 and 13-14 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.
In regards to claims 6 and 13, the prior art cited in this office action does not teach either by anticipation or combination the following limitations: wherein the fourth information includes information on a uniform resource identifier (URI) of the reference sensor.
In regards to claims 7 and 14, the prior art cited in this office action does not teach either by anticipation or combination the following limitations: wherein the sixth information includes at least one of a cycle or the a number of times the vanishing sensor generates a measurement.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688