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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 3/27/26, with respect to the objection to claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(I) Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, Applicant argued:
For example, a "WLAN" is a "wireless local area network." (Emphasis added).
Accordingly, the WLAN is, by definition, a local closed circuit. In the claimed "WLAN/WiFi connection", a WiFi standard is used to implement the WLAN, but since the network is "local" there is no connection to the outside world and communication is restricted from the Internet, for example.
The claimed LoRaWAN is also configured to have at least a portion of the network correspond to the local closed control or regulating circuit as defined in this application. For example, in a typical LoRaWAN, end devices (such as the power tools) communicate directly with a gateway (the network unit) using radio packets. The communication between the end devices and the gateway is a local closed control or regulating circuit that operates as a local closed circuit, because the end devices do not communicate directly with the Internet or the outside world. The gateway may also be connected to the Internet, but claim 9 recites that gateway controls or regulates the power tools using the local closed control or regulating circuit. This control is done with the radio packets and is properly considered a local closed circuit.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and cites to paragraphs [0008] and [0032] of the Instant Specification, which state:
[0008] Furthermore, it is proposed that, in at least one method step, a communication, in particular a data exchange, between the network unit and a server unit, in particular a server unit configured as a cloud server, which is arranged in particular outside the operating location of the power tools, takes place, wherein the server unit is in particular connected to the network unit by means of an internet connection, in particular a LAN and/or an LTE connection. The server unit is preferably connected by means of an LPWAN, a Sigfox, a LoRa, an NB-IoT, and/or a similar connection that appears to be useful to a person skilled in the art for communication and data exchange between a server unit and a network unit. Preferably, the server unit, in particular the cloud server, is configured from network devices. The network devices are in particular configured as firewalls, storage arrays, backup devices, servers, or the like. In particular, it should be understood that the server unit is outside of the operating location, and that the physical network devices are located outside of the operating location. Preferably, the network unit is configured as a communication interface between the power tools and the server unit. The network unit is preferably configured to provide the server unit, the power tools, and/or the terminals with data relating to the power tools at the operating location. Preferably, the server unit, in particular the cloud server, stores data transmitted from the network unit to the server unit in a method step. In a method step, the server unit preferably provides the stored data to a user. Preferably, the data is provided to a user via an internet connection. With the design of the method, streams of data between the power tools and the server unit may advantageously be kept low. Only relevant data can advantageously be stored in the server unit. (Emphasis added).
[0032] In a method step, in addition to the communication between the power tools 12 and the network unit 14, the communication, in particular the data exchange of encrypted data, takes place wirelessly and directly between the power tools 12 and the server unit 16 (FIG. 4). In a method step, the data relating to the power tools 12 is transmitted directly to the server unit 16 and stored in the server unit 16. In a method step, the data stored in the server unit 16 is read by a user by means of the terminals 18. In a method step, the user is verified when the accessing the server unit 16. In a method step, the data exchange is encrypted by means of asymmetric cryptography when the user accesses the server unit 16. (Emphasis added).
The above citations clearly contradict Applicant’s assertions that the network is "local" and that there is no connection to the outside world and communication is restricted from the Internet (i.e., …in particular a server unit configured as a cloud server, which is arranged in particular outside the operating location of the power tools, takes place, wherein the server unit is in particular connected to the network unit by means of an internet connection… Preferably, the data is provided to a user via an internet connection.) And it is quite clear from Fig. 4 and the citations above that the end devices (the claimed power tools) do indeed communicate directly with the Internet and the outside world since the server unit is configured as a cloud server (i.e., …in particular the data exchange of encrypted data, takes place wirelessly and directly between the power tools 12 and the server unit 16 (FIG. 4). In a method step, the data relating to the power tools 12 is transmitted directly to the server unit 16).
Furthermore, LoRaWAN is an open specification which provides long range, low power, wide area networking (LPWAN) and devices in a LoRaWAN connect to cloud servers and the internet. Thus the devices in a LoRaWAN cannot operate in a local closed control circuit. Therefore the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is maintained as below.
(II) Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection, Applicant argued:
Figure 1 illustrates the local closed control or regulating circuit as the double sided lines between the power tools 12 and the network unit 14. This wireless connection is free from communication outside of the network and is, therefore, a local closed control or regulating circuit. Moreover, the network unit 14 is the device that controls or regulates the power tools over the local closed control or regulating circuit. There is no corresponding disclosure in Davis of the required local closed control or regulating circuit.
Davis discloses that the gateway device 104 "generally serves as a bridge between the
power tools and the remote server." (Paragraph [0013], emphasis added). To this end, the cited paragraph of Davis discloses that the transceiver 136 of the power tool 100 enables the electronic controller 122 of the power tool 100 "to communicate with other devices, such as a cellular tower." (Davis at paragraph [0026]). A cellular tower cannot reasonably be included in a local network. Therefore, the gateway device 104 of Davis is different from the usage of the network unit in claim 1, because the gateway device 104 of Davis connects the power tools 100 to the Internet or a wide area network for control by "other devices," such as devices connected to the exemplary cellular tower. As stated by Davis, the gateway device 104 merely bridges the communication gap by consolidating messages to the remote server 108, as appropriate, to reduce bandwidth. (See Davis at paragraph [0016]).
Based on the above, the gateway device 104 of Davis does not correspond to the method of claim 1 that requires controlling or regulating the power tool using the network unit according to a local closed control or regulating circuit. This is because, in Davis, it is disclosed that power tools 100 communicate through the gateway device 104 with other devices over a wide area network. The gateway device 104 does not control the power tools 102 and is instead a bridge for the control provided by devices connected to the remote server 108. The network utilized by the power tool 100 in Davis for communication is not a "local closed control or regulating circuit," as is specifically defined in the Applicant's specification and required by claim 1.
As explained above, there is clear evidence in the Instant Specification that the wireless connection is not free from communication outside of the network and is, therefore, not a local closed control circuit. Moreover, Fig. 4 shows the power tools directly in communication with cloud servers which are outside of the local network. Thus Davis discloses the claimed invention.
Furthermore, paragraph [0015] of the Instant Specification discloses a gateway in communication with the outside network, “Furthermore, a communication system for performing a method according to the invention is proposed having power tools which each form an edge node in the communication system, having a network unit, in particular a network unit in the form of a gateway, which is arranged, in particular, at the operating location of the power tools and is connected directly to the power tools by means of a wireless connection, in particular a WLAN/WiFi connection, a Bluetooth low-energy connection, and/or a LoRaWAN connection, and having at least one terminal, in particular a computer, a smartphone, and/or a charger, which is/are provided as the user interface for the network unit. Preferably, the network unit comprises at least a storage unit, a computing unit and a communication unit…. Preferably, the communication system comprises at least one server unit, in particular a cloud server.” Thus, the gateway device of Davis functions in the same manner as that of the network unit in claim 1 and the gateway in claim 9.
In any case, Davis reads on the claimed limitations since claim 1 and similarly claim 9 recites, “controlling or regulating the power tools using the network unit according to a local closed control or regulating circuit.” Paragraph [0027] of Davis discloses, “The pack controller can be configured to regulate charging and discharging of the battery cells, and/or to communicate with the electronic controller 122.” Thus, Davis clearly discloses, “controlling or regulating the power tools using the network unit according to a local closed control or regulating circuit.”
(III) Regarding claim the rejection of claim 3, Applicant argued:
For example, claim 3 requires "performing the cognitive data processing solely by the
network unit." (Emphasis added). In rejecting claim 3, the Office Action cited paragraph [0035] of Davis, which describes the controller 140 of the gateway device 104. There is no disclosure in Davis, that the controller 140 "solely" performs processing corresponding to the claimed cognitive date processing. Instead, Davis describes the gateway device 104 as a bridge and therefore it is reasonable that any corresponding processing would be performed offsite, such as by the remote server 108 or by a device connected to the remote server 108. The anticipation rejection of claim 3 is, therefore, inaccurate for this additional reason and should be withdrawn.
Since paragraph [0035] of Davis states, “Thus, at least through execution of the instructions 150, the electronic controller 140 can be configured to control or perform the various functions of the gateway device 104 described herein, including performing one or more of the processes described herein (e.g., the process 400 of FIG. 4),” Davis teaches the limitations of claim 3.
(IV) Regarding claim the rejection of claim 4, Applicant argued:
Claim 4 requires that the network unit uses a computing power of the power tools for the cognitive data processing. (Emphasis added). Accordingly, claim 4 differs from claim 3. In claim 3, the network unit performs the processing and in claim 4 the power tools perform the processing. In rejecting claim 4, the Office Action cited paragraph [0027] of Davis, which mentions a controller of the power source 134 (i.e., the battery pack). The cited paragraph does not disclose the invention of claim 4. Moreover, there is no disclosure that the processor 124 of the power tool 100 of Davis (FIG. 2) is configured to perform processing corresponding to the claimed cognitive data processing in cooperation with the gateway device 104. The anticipation rejection of claim 4 is, therefore, inaccurate for this additional reason and should be withdrawn.
Since paragraph [0028] of Davis states, “The power source 134 can be coupled to and configured to power the various components of the power tool 102, such as the electronic controller 122, the transceiver 136, and the electronic components 120,” Davis teaches the limitations of claim 4.
(V) Regarding claim the rejection of claim 9, Applicant argued:
Claim 9 is directed to a communication system that includes a plurality of power tools, a network unit, and at least one terminal. Claim 9 requires that the network unit is configured (i) to collect and process data relating to the plurality of power tools for cognitive data processing, and (ii) to control or regulate the power tools according to a local closed control or regulating circuit. Accordingly, claim 9 requires the same control from the network unit, and the same "local closed control or regulating circuit" that is defined in the Applicant's specification and is discussed above in the discussion regarding the patentability of claim 1. As remarked above, Davis does not disclose the local closed control or regulating circuit and instead discloses that the power tools are connected to a wide area network including a cellular tower. Moreover, the gateway device 104 of Davis does not "control or regulate" the power tools as is required by the network unit of claim 9. For at least these reasons, Davis does not disclose the network unit required by the communication system of claim 9. Since Davis does not disclose each and every element of Applicant's claim 9, Davis does not anticipate claim 9 and the rejection should be withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as they are similar to those of claim 1 above which have been fully addressed.
The Examiner respectfully reminds applicant of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (See MPEP 2111), "During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.) In Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court further elaborated on the “broadest reasonable interpretation" standard and recognized that “The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction." Thus, when interpreting claims, the courts have held that Examiners should (1) interpret claim terms as broadly as their terms reasonably allows and (2) interpret claim phrases as broadly as their construction reasonably allows. In conclusion, upon taking the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the cited references teach all of the claimed limitations and the rejections are maintained as below.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
The claim recites the limitations, “the network unit connected directly to the plurality of power tools by a WLAN/WiFi connection, a Bluetooth low-energy connection, and/or a LoRaWAN connection;” And also recites, “wherein the network unit is configured… to control or regulate the power tools using according to a local closed control or regulating circuit.” As per their operating standards and definitions, WLAN/WiFi or LoRaWAN connections do not operate as local closed circuits. Therefore the claim is vague and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Davis et al. (2024/0399553).
As per claim 1, Davis et al. teaches a method for communicating in a communication system having (i) power tools, each power tool forming an edge node in the communication system [paragraphs 0013-0014], (ii) a network unit arranged at an operating location of the power tools and connected directly to the power tools by a wireless connection [paragraphs 0018-0020], and (iii) at least one terminal configured as a user interface for the network unit [paragraph 0019], the method comprising:
collecting and processing data relating to the power tools using the network unit for cognitive data processing; and
controlling or regulating the power tools [regulating charging] using the network unit according to a local closed control or regulating circuit [paragraphs 0026-0027].
As per claim 2, Davis et al. teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: communicating between the network unit and a server unit arranged outside the operating location, wherein the server unit is connected to the network unit by an internet connection [paragraph 0034].
As per claim 3, Davis et al. teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising: performing the cognitive data processing solely by the network unit [paragraph 0035].
As per claim 4, Davis et al. teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the network unit uses a computing power of the power tools for the cognitive data processing [paragraphs 0027-0028].
As per claim 5, Davis et al. teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the communication takes place in the communication system between the network unit and the server unit at preset time intervals [paragraph 0020].
As per claim 9, Davis et al. teaches a communication system, comprising: a plurality of power tools, each power tool configured to form an edge node in the communication system [paragraphs 0013-0014];
a network unit configured as a gateway and arranged at an operating location of the plurality of power tools, the network unit connected directly to the plurality of power tools by a WLAN/WiFi connection, a Bluetooth low-energy connection, and/or a LoRaWAN connection [paragraphs 0018-0020]; and
at least one terminal configured as a user interface for the network unit [paragraph 0019],
wherein the network unit is configured (i) to collect and process data relating to the plurality of power tools for cognitive data processing, and (ii) to control or regulate the power tools [regulates charging] according to a local closed control or regulating circuit [paragraphs 0026-0027].
As per claim 10, Davis et al. teaches a power tool of the communication system according to claim 9, the power tool comprising: at least one storage unit; a computing unit; and a communication unit configured for wireless transmission of data to the network unit, wherein the communication unit is configured, such that the power tool is controlled or regulated by the network unit as a function of the cognitive data processing [paragraph 0027].
As per claim 11, Davis et al. teaches the power tool according to claim 10, wherein the computing unit is configured such that the network unit accesses a computing power of the computing unit to perform the cognitive data processing [paragraph 0035].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (2024/0399553) in view of Zalewski et al. (2020/0244297).
As per claim 6, Davis et al. teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as above but fails to explicitly teach, however, Zalewski et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the communication in the communication system is encrypted by an asymmetric cryptography including a public key infrastructure [Zalewski et al., paragraphs 0132-0133].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zalewski et al. with Davis et al. in order to improve interconnectivity, security, and interoperability of internet of things (IOT) devices.
As per claim 7, Davis-Zalewski teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the communication takes place wirelessly and directly between the power tools [Davis et al., paragraph 0049].
As per claim 8, Davis-Zalewski teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein in addition to the communication between the power tools and the network unit, the communication takes place wirelessly and directly between the power tools and the server unit [Davis et al., paragraph 0039].
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights