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 .
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “storage processing section configured to…”; “transmission processing section configured to…”, “reception processing section configured to…in claims 1-4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austen (US 20200248965), in view of Tanji (US 20140297791).
For Claim 1, Austen discloses:
A data communication system for transmitting data to an accumulation database via a wireless section, comprising:
a storage processing section configured to acquire accumulation target data and transmit the data (par. 0033: Oven profiling system 200 receives temperature data from sensors 206 of multi-zone oven; par. 0034 & 0035: data analysis unit sends output of analyzed sensor data to local database 210 (i.e., temporary storage database); par. 0024 & 0030: Sensor data received via wired communication link 118 measurement data from temperature sensors of multi-zone oven) to a temporary storage database via a wired section to temporarily store the data (par. 0036: “…The database synchronization module 212 may additionally be configured to control periodic deletion of data from the local database 210…via a wired section to temporarily store the data.”);
a transmission processing section configured to extract the data from the temporary storage database and transmit the data via the wireless section (par. 0036: Local database 210 synchronizes/sends data to an external database 214; par. 0030: external communication links contemplated as wired or wireless); and
a reception processing section configured to receive the data transmitted via the wireless section and accumulate the data in the accumulation database (Fig 2, external database 214 (i.e., the accumulation database); par. 0036: “the data synchronization module 212 may be configured to update the external database 214 (e.g., send data or copies of data from the local database 214 to the external database 214”).
Austen fails to explicitly disclose “using TCP” to transfer data and “using UDP” to transfer data.
However, in a related field, Tanji discloses use of both TCP and UDP protocols for data transmission (par. 0006 and 0007). The motivation to introduce Tanji’s UDP-based protocol in lieu of TCP alongside Austen is to achieve speed of UDP transmissions while retaining data receipt acknowledgement attribute of TCP (Tanji, par. 0016).
For Claim 2, Austen discloses:
The data communication system according to Claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose
“wherein the transmission processing section is configured to attach order information indicating a transmission order to a series of accumulation target data and transmit the series of data subsequently using UDP, and
the reception processing section is configured to determine missing data in the received data based on the order information and request the transmission processing section to retransmit the data when it is determined that there is missing data.”
However, in a related field, Tanji discloses
“wherein the transmission processing section is configured to attach order information indicating a transmission order to a series of accumulation target data and transmit the series of data subsequently using UDP (par. 0019 and 0060: sequence numbers attached to packets sent via UDP), and
the reception processing section is configured to determine missing data in the received data based on the order information and request the transmission processing section to retransmit the data when it is determined that there is missing data (par. 0061: sending communication apparatus examines reply to determine whether receiving communication apparatus acknowledges receipt of packet or request retransmission of sequence number of packet that was not received).”
The motivation to introduce Tanji’s UDP-based protocol use in lieu of TCP alongside Austen’s teachings is to achieve speed of UDP transmissions while retaining data receipt acknowledgement attribute of TCP (Tanji, par. 0089).
For Claim 4, Austen-Tanji discloses:
The data communication system according to Claim 1,
wherein the storage processing section is configured such that the storage database is set as a connection destination database during initial setting (par. 0035: “The data analysis/control unit 208 may be connected to a local database 210 and may be configured to send an output of the product-temperature prediction calculation to the local database 210 for storage.”), and
the reception processing section is configured such that the accumulation database is set as a connection destination database during initial setting (par. 0036: “…the data synchronization module 212 may be configured to update the external database 214 when the local database 210 is updated to store a threshold amount of new data…”).
For Claim 5, Austen discloses:
A data communication method of transmitting data to an accumulation database via a wireless section, comprising:
(a) a step of acquiring accumulation target data and transmitting the data (par. 0033: Oven profiling system 200 receives temperature data from sensors 206 of multi-zone oven; par. 0034 & 0035: data analysis unit sends output of analyzed sensor data to local database 210 (i.e., temporary storage database); par. 0024 & 0030: Sensor data received via wired communication link 118 measurement data from temperature sensors of multi-zone oven) to a temporary storage database via a wired section to temporarily store the data (par. 0036: “…The database synchronization module 212 may additionally be configured to control periodic deletion of data from the local database 210…via a wired section to temporarily store the data.”);
(b) a step of extracting the data from the temporary storage database and transmitting the data via the wireless section (par. 0036: Local database 210 synchronizes/sends data to an external database 214; par. 0030: external communication links contemplated as wired or wireless); and
(c) a step of receiving the data transmitted via the wireless section and accumulating the data in the accumulation database (Fig 2, external database 214 (i.e., the accumulation database); par. 0036: “the data synchronization module 212 may be configured to update the external database 214 (e.g., send data or copies of data from the local database 214 to the external database 214”).
Austen fails to explicitly disclose 1) “using TCP” to transfer data and 2) “using UDP” to transfer data.
However, in a related field, Tanji discloses use of both TCP and UDP protocols for data transmission (par. 0006 and 0007). The motivation to introduce Tanji’s UDP-based protocol in lieu of TCP alongside Austen is to achieve speed of UDP transmissions while retaining data receipt acknowledgement attribute of TCP (Tanji, par. 0016).
For Claim 6, Austen discloses:
A data communication method of transmitting data to an accumulation database via a wireless section, comprising:
(a) a step of acquiring accumulation target data and transmitting the data (par. 0033: Oven profiling system 200 receives temperature data from sensors 206 of multi-zone oven; par. 0034 & 0035: data analysis unit sends output of analyzed sensor data to local database 210 (i.e., temporary storage database); par. 0024 & 0030: Sensor data received via wired communication link 118 measurement data from temperature sensors of multi-zone oven) to a temporary storage database via a wired section using a first protocol to temporarily store the data (par. 0036: “…The database synchronization module 212 may additionally be configured to control periodic deletion of data from the local database 210…via a wired section to temporarily store the data.”);
(b) a step of extracting the data from the temporary storage database and transmitting the data via the wireless (par. 0036: Local database 210 synchronizes/sends data to an external database 214; par. 0030: external communication links contemplated as wired or wireless); and
(c) a step of receiving the data transmitted via the wireless section and accumulating the data in the accumulation database (Fig 2, external database 214 (i.e., the accumulation database); par. 0036: “the data synchronization module 212 may be configured to update the external database 214 (e.g., send data or copies of data from the local database 214 to the external database 214”).
Austen fails to explicitly disclose “using a second protocol, which is less reliable than the first protocol, but offers a shorter transmission time”.
However, in a related field, Tanji discloses use of both TCP (a reliable, receipt acknowledgement based protocol) and UDP (a less reliable protocol) protocols for data transmission (par. 0006 and 0007). The motivation to introduce Tanji’s UDP-based protocol in lieu of TCP alongside Austen is to achieve speed of UDP transmissions while retaining data receipt acknowledgement attribute of TCP (Tanji, par. 0016).
For Claim 7, Austen discloses:
A data communication method of transmitting data to an accumulation database via a wireless section, comprising:
(a) a step of acquiring accumulation target data and transmitting the data (par. 0033: Oven profiling system 200 receives temperature data from sensors 206 of multi-zone oven; par. 0034 & 0035: data analysis unit sends output of analyzed sensor data to local database 210 (i.e., temporary storage database); par. 0024 & 0030: Sensor data received via wired communication link 118 measurement data from temperature sensors of multi-zone oven) to a temporary storage database via a wired section to temporarily store the data (par. 0036: “…The database synchronization module 212 may additionally be configured to control periodic deletion of data from the local database 210…via a wired section to temporarily store the data.”);
(b) a step of extracting the data from the temporary storage database and transmitting the data via the wireless section (par. 0036: Local database 210 synchronizes/sends data to an external database 214; par. 0030: external communication links contemplated as wired or wireless); and
(c) a step of receiving the data transmitted via the wireless section and accumulating the data in the accumulation database (Fig 2, external database 214 (i.e., the accumulation database); par. 0036: “the data synchronization module 212 may be configured to update the external database 214 (e.g., send data or copies of data from the local database 214 to the external database 214”).
Austen fails to explicitly disclose 1) “using a protocol that requires a reception confirmation” and 2) “using a protocol that does not require a reception confirmation” to transfer data.
However, in a related field, Tanji discloses use of both TCP (a reliable, reception confirmation-based protocol) and UDP (a less reliable, non-confirmation receipt protocol) protocols for data transmission (par. 0006 and 0007). The motivation to introduce Tanji’s UDP-based protocol in lieu of TCP alongside Austen is to achieve speed of UDP transmissions while retaining data receipt acknowledgement attribute of TCP (Tanji, par. 0016).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austen (US 20200248965), in view of Tanji (US 20140297791), in view of Egyed (USP 8662398).
For Claim 3, Austen-Tanji discloses:
The data communication system according to Claim 2, but fails to explicitly disclose:
“wherein the transmission processing section is configured to attach final information indicating finality to final data among the series of data and transmit the final data using UDP, and
the reception processing section is configured to determine whether the series of data has been received successfully up to the end based on the final information, transmit a message indicating that the series of data has been received successfully to the transmission processing section when it is determined that the series of data has been received successfully, and request the transmission processing section to retransmit the data when it is determined that the series of data has not been received successfully.”
However, in a related field, Egyed discloses:
“wherein the transmission processing section is configured to attach final information indicating finality to final data among the series of data and transmit the final data using UDP (col. 7, ll 59 – col 8, ll 5: a first sending device generates a datum indicating it has finished transmitting all sequenced/pattern data to receiving second device), and
the reception processing section is configured to determine whether the series of data has been received successfully up to the end based on the final information, transmit a message indicating that the series of data has been received successfully to the transmission processing section when it is determined that the series of data has been received successfully (), and request the transmission processing section to retransmit the data when it is determined that the series of data has not been received successfully (col. 8, ll 34-44: the receiving device can verify it has not missed a pattern by comparing sequence numbers of received patterns/images. If one or more patterns is missed, a request/acknowledgement for retransmission made).”
It would have been obvious to incorporate teachings of Egyed alongside Austen-Tanji. The motivation to introduce Egyed’s sequence finality teachings alongside Austen-Tanji would have been to verify successful transmission and receipt of data of devices on non-wired network (Egyed, col 7, ll 63-67).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON R WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-3801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571-272-3889. 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.
/CLAYTON R WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443