DETAILED ACTION
The amendment to Application Ser. No. 18/937,422 filed on August 3, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-11 and 17 are cancelled. Claims 12-16 and 18-20 are currently amended. New Claims 21-25 are added. Claims 12-16 and 18-25 are pending and are examined.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
The arguments with respect to the claim interpretation of Claims 12-14 and 16 have been fully considered by the Examiner but are not persuasive.
Specifically, on page 8 of the response filed August 3, 2026, Applicant argues “The PTO interprets claim 12 as requiring only one of the two actions because only one condition can be met. Applicant respectfully clarifies that the amendment to claim 12-reciting ‘corresponding to a determination that’-overcomes any potential narrow interpretation.
Amended claim 12 does not merely describe what happens ‘in a case that’ a condition occurs. Rather, it requires that the first load balancing device is configured to: (1) make a determination as to whether the data volume of the communication flow is less than, or greater than/equal to, the first threshold value; and (2) correspondingly control the communication status based on that determination.
Thus, the amended claim 12 covers the entire determination-responsive mechanism of the first load balancing device, not merely one of the two possible outcomes. A competitor that implements a load balancing device capable of making such a determination and operating in either mode would infringe the claim, regardless of which mode is actually used at any given time.” Applicant provides similar arguments with regard to claim interpretation of Claims 13 and 16 on pages 9-11 of the response.
Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims but disagrees that the amended claim language no longer contains steps that are contingent on conditions that may not be met as explained under the Claim Interpretation heading infra.
The amendment to Claims 12 and 20 and cancellation of Claim 6 has addressed the minor informalities set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 4, 2026. As new informalities are introduced by the amendment, the objection to the claims for minor informalities is maintained.
The arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered by the Examiner but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), necessitated by the amendment, set forth in this Office Action.
The arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered by the Examiner but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), necessitated by the amendment, set forth in this Office Action.
The cancellation of Claims 1-11 has rendered moot the rejection of Claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 4, 2026, and the amendment to Claim 12 has overcome the rejection of Claims 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Non-Final Office Action, respectively. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, necessitated by the amendment, are set forth in this Office Action.
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 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: “a data acquisition layer”, “a data storage layer”, “a data management layer”, “a first communication device”, and “a first load balancing device”, “an analyzing unit”, “a second comparison unit” and “a writing unit” recited in Claim 12; “the first load balancing device”, “an information acquisition unit”, “a packet capture unit”, “a first comparison unit” and “a control unit” recited in Claim 13; “the first load balancing device”, “an information acquisition unit”, “a packet capture unit”, “a first comparison unit” and “a control unit” recited in Claim 14; “the first load balancing device” recited in Claim 15; “the data management layer”, “a second communication device” and “a second load balancing device” recited in Claim 16; “the writing unit” recited in Claims 18 and 19, “the writing unit” recited in Claim 19; and “the data acquisition layer” recited in Claim 21, respectively.
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.
“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” See MPEP § 2111.04 II.
Method Claims 12-14 and 16 recite contingent limitations that are not required to be performed as they are subject to conditions that may not be met.
Regarding method Claim 12, the following limitations recite steps that are performed only upon certain conditions being met:
“the first load balancing device controlling the communication status of the first communication device, so that each access device communicates with the first communication device through the first communication link corresponding to a determination that a data volume of a communication flow of the first communication device is less than a first threshold value, and so that each access device communicates with the first communication device through both the first communication link and the second communication link corresponding to a determination that the data volume of the communication flow of the first communication device is greater than or equal to the first threshold value (emphasis added).”
Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim 12 requires only one of the actions “controlling the communication status of the first communication device, so that each access device communicates with the first communication device through the first communication link” and “controlling the communication status of the first communication device... so that each access device communicates with the first communication device through both the first communication link and the second communication link”, to be performed as only one of the conditions, i.e., the data volume of the communication flow of the first communication device “is less than the first threshold value”, and the data volume of the communication flow of the first communication device “is greater than or equal to the first threshold value”, can be met.
Regarding method Claim 13, the following limitations recite steps that are performed only upon certain conditions being met:
“corresponding to a determination the first real-time network data packet is greater than or equal to the first threshold value for a preset number of consecutive times, the control unit controlling the second communication link to start, and controlling the first communication link and the second communication link to be used for communication together (emphasis added).”
Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim 13 does not require the action “controlling the second communication link to start...” to be performed as it is subject to a condition, i.e., the first real-time network data packet is greater than or equal to the first threshold value for a preset number of consecutive times, that is not required by the claim to occur.
Regarding method Claim 14, the following limitations recite steps that are performed only upon certain conditions being met:
“corresponding to a determination that the sum of the first real-time network data packet and the second real-time network data packet is less than the first threshold value for a preset number of consecutive times, the control unit controlling the second communication link to be cut off, and switching the first communication device to be in communication with each access device through the first communication link alone (emphasis added).”
Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim 14 does not require the action “controlling the second communication link to be cut off...” to be performed as it is subject to a condition, i.e., the sum of the first real-time network data packet and the second real-time network data packet is less than the first threshold value for a preset number of consecutive times, that is not required by the claim to occur.
Regarding method Claim 16, the following limitations recite steps that are performed only upon certain conditions being met:
“the second load balancing device controlling a working status of the second communication device; controlling each access device to communicate through the third communication link corresponding to a determination that a data volume of a communication flow of the second communication device is less than a second threshold value; and controlling the third communication link and the fourth communication link to be used for communication together when the communication flow of the second communication device is greater than or equal to the second threshold value (emphasis added).”
Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim 16 requires only one of the actions “controlling each access device to communicate through the third communication link” and “controlling the third communication link and the fourth communication link to be used for communication together”, to be performed as only one of the conditions, i.e., the communication flow of the second communication device “is less than a second threshold value”, and the communication flow of the second communication device “is greater than or equal to the second threshold value”, can be met.
14. While the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 12-14 and 16 does not require the performance of steps which are contingent upon conditions that are not required to be met, for the purposes of compact prosecution, insofar as the recited limitations are definite, prior art has been applied to each limitation in this Office Action as if each step is required to be performed.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
regarding Claim 16, the clause “when the communication flow of the second communication device is greater than or equal to the second threshold value” recited in lines 14-15 should be “when the data volume of the communication flow of the second communication device”;
regarding Claim 24, the term “the method” recited in line 3 should be “the energy management method”; and
regarding Claim 25, the term “the method” recited in line 3 should be “the energy management method”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 12-16 and 17-25 are 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the first load balancing device controlling the communication status of the first communication device, so that each access device communicates with the first communication device through the first communication link corresponding to a determination that a data volume of a communication flow of the first communication device is less than a first threshold value, and so that each access device communicates with the first communication device through both the first communication link and the second communication link corresponding to a determination that the data volume of the communication flow of the first communication device is greater than or equal to the first threshold value” in lines 24-32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the communication status of the first communication device” in the claim.
Dependent Claims 13-16 and 18-25 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 12 in view of their dependence thereon.
For examination purposes, the term “the communication status of the first communication device” is interpreted as “a communication status of the first communication device”.
Additionally, Claim 21 recites the term “The energy management system of claim 18” in the preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “The energy management system of claim 18” in the claims.
Dependent Claims 22 and 23 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 21 in view of their dependence thereon.
For Examination purposes, the term “The energy management system of claim 18” recited in Claim 21 is interpreted as “The energy management method of claim 18” and the term “The energy management system of claim 21” recited in Dependent Claims 22 and 23 is interpreted as “The energy management method of claim 21”, respectively.
Additionally, regarding Claim 12, the claim limitations “the data acquisition layer obtaining and analyzing...”, “the analyzing unit analyzing...”, “the second comparison unit comparing...”, “the writing unit writing...”, “the data storage layer storing...”, “the data management layer sending...”, “the first communication device establishing...” and “the first load balancing device controlling...” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. While “Data Acquisition Layer 100”, “Data Storage Layer 200” and “Data Management Layer 300” are illustrated in Figure 1 and disclosed in paragraphs [0085]-[0088] of the specification as performing the functions obtaining and analyzing original data of one or more access devices to obtain analyzed data, storing the analyzed data, and sending the analyzed data, respectively, “Analyzing Unit 121”, “Second Comparison Unit 122” and “Writing Unit 123” are illustrated in Figure 4 and disclosed in paragraphs [0115]-[0122] of the specification as performing the functions analyzing the original data, comparing the analyzed data with previous analyzed data, writing the analyzed data obtained each time to the first storage area and writing the analyzed data which have changed to the second storage area, respectively, and “First Communication Device 110” and “First Load Balancing Device 130” are illustrated in Figure 2 and disclosed in paragraphs [0089]-[0091] of the specification as performing the functions establishing a first communication link and second communication link between the first communication device and each access device, and controlling the communication status of the first communication device, respectively, the specification fails to disclose the hardware or structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) corresponding to data acquisition layer, the data storage layer, the data management layer, the analyzing unit, the second comparison unit, the writing unit, the first communication device and the first load balancing device that perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Dependent Claims 13-16 and 18-25 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 12 in view of their dependence thereon.
Additionally, regarding Claim 13, the claim limitations “the information acquisition unit obtaining...”, “the packet capture unit capturing...”, “the first comparison unit comparing...”, and “the control unit controlling...” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. While “Information Acquisition Unit 131”, “Packet Capture Unit 132”, “First Comparison Unit 133” and “Control Unit 134” are illustrated in Figure 3 and disclosed in paragraphs [0094]-[0099] of the specification as performing the functions obtaining first configuration information, capturing a data packet, comparing the first real-time network data packet, and controlling the second communication link to start, respectively, the specification fails to disclose the hardware or structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) corresponding to the information acquisition unit, the packet capture unit, the first comparison unit, and the control unit that perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Dependent Claim 20 is rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 13 in view of its dependence thereon.
Additionally, regarding Claim 14, the claim limitations “the information acquisition unit acquiring...”, “the packet capture unit capturing...”, “the first comparison unit comparing...”, and “the control unit controlling...” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. While “Information Acquisition Unit 131”, “Packet Capture Unit 132”, “First Comparison Unit 133” and “Control Unit 134” are illustrated in Figure 3 and disclosed in paragraphs [0104]-[0108] of the specification as performing the functions acquiring first configuration information, capturing a data packet, comparing the sum of the first real-time network data packet and the second real-time network data packet, and controlling the second communication link to be cut off, respectively, the specification fails to disclose the hardware or structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) corresponding to the information acquisition unit, the packet capture unit, the first comparison unit, and the control unit that perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Additionally, regarding Claim 15, the claim limitation “the first load balancing device controlling...”, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While “First Load Balancing Device 130” is illustrated in Figure 2 and disclosed in paragraph [0113] of the specification as performing the function controlling the first communication device to communicate through the first communication link and the second communication link during a set time period, the specification fails to disclose the hardware or structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) corresponding to the first load balancing device that performs the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Additionally, regarding Claim 16, the claim limitations “a second communication device establishing...” and “a second load balancing device controlling...”, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. While “Second Communication Device 331” and “Second Load Balancing Device” are illustrated in Figure 8 and disclosed in paragraphs [0147]–[0149] of the specification as performing the functions establishing a third communication link and a fourth communication link, controlling a working status of the second communication device, controlling each access device to communicate through the third communication link, and controlling the third communication link and the fourth communication link to be used for communication together, respectively, the specification fails to disclose the hardware or structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) corresponding to the second communication device and the second load balancing device that perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Additionally, regarding Claim 18, the claim limitations “writing the analyzed data whose working status data... have changed...” and “writing the analyzed data whose analog data...have changed...” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. While “Writing Unit 123” is illustrated in Figure 4 and disclosed in paragraphs [0123]–[0128] of the specification as performing the functions writing the analyzed data whose working status data... have changed to the changed-status-data storage area and writing the analyzed data whose analog data...have changed to the changed-analog-data storage area, respectively, the specification fails to disclose the hardware or structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) corresponding to the writing unit that performs the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Dependent Claims 21-23 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 18 in view of their dependence thereon.
Additionally, regarding Claim 19, the claim limitation “the writing unit writing the analyzed data to the first storage area or to the second storage area...” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. While “Writing Unit 123” is illustrated in Figure 4 and disclosed in paragraphs [0118]–[0128] of the specification as performing the function writing the analyzed data to the first storage area or to the second storage area, the specification fails to disclose the hardware or structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) corresponding to the writing unit that performs the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Additionally, regarding Claim 21, the claim limitation “the data acquisition layer determines...and writes...”, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While “Data Acquisition Layer 110” is illustrated in Figure 1 and disclosed in paragraphs [0129]-[0130] of the specification as performing the function determines each sub-storage area corresponding to each access device and writes the analyzed data to each sub-storage area corresponding to each access device, the specification fails to disclose the hardware or structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) corresponding to the data acquisition layer that performs the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Dependent Claims 22 and 23 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 21 in view of their dependence thereon.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 12-16 and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-16 and 18-25 are rejected as failing to have adequate written description for the claim elements invoking interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) set forth in the rejection of Claims 12-16, 18, 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in this Office Action.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner has noted significant issues supra as to the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Presently, the pending claims do not adequately reflect what the disclosed invention is. In light of the precedence set forth in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) and In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970), the Examiner applies cited art in accordance with a position as best understood in the context of the claims and the invention as a whole to expedite compact prosecution. Such interpretations of the claims versus the cited art cannot be used as a basis for overcoming the objections or rejections set forth supra. Any claim not objected to or rejected in view of art does not ascribe allowable subject matter, but remains pending and rejected under their respective titles supra.
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 12, 16, 24 and 25, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flammer III, et al., Pub. No. US 2010/0074176 A1, hereby “Flammer”, in view of Kishida et al., Pub. No. US 2023/0269804 A1, hereby “Kishida”, in further view of Nyerges et al., Pub. No. US 2016/0234087 A1, hereby “Nyerges”.
Regarding Claim 12, Flammer discloses “An energy management method (Flammer fig. 6 and paragraphs 15 and 51: a method using the utility network), applied to an energy management system (Flammer fig. 3 and paragraph 29: a utility network), wherein the energy management system comprises a data acquisition layer (Flammer figs. 3-4 and 6 and paragraphs 5-6, 30, 45 and 51: access points 18), a data storage layer (Flammer paragraph 35: access points 18), a data management layer (Flammer figs. 3-4 and 6 and paragraphs 5-6, 33-34, 37 and 53: access points 18)... the data acquisition layer comprises a first communication device (Flammer figs. 3-4 and 6 and paragraphs 30 and 51: each access point 18 comprises Subnetwork Interface (SNI) 42 that may communicate wirelessly with each of the utility meters)... the energy management method comprises:
the data acquisition layer obtaining and analyzing original data of one or more access devices to obtain analyzed data... each access device being a device of an energy storage system (Flammer figs. 3-4 and 6 and paragraphs 5-6, 30, 45 and 51: access points 18 collect data, e.g., amount of power consumed, from a plurality of utility meters, i.e., one or more access devices, and may generate metrics based on the collected data);
the data storage layer storing the analyzed data (Flammer paragraph 35: access points 18 comprise suitable processing and storage devices to facilitate the communication of data between and among the SNI and BNI); and
the data management layer sending the stored analyzed data to a client server or a third-party server according to sending request or configuration information (Flammer figs. 3-4 and 6 and paragraphs 5-6, 33-34, 37 and 53: access points 18 forward the collected data, e.g., to a back office server at utility 14 – while not explicitly stated, configuration information directing the access points to forward the collected data to the utility is necessarily present)”.
However, while Flammer suggests that each access point may communicate with each of the utility meters using a mix of low power radio or mobile communication technology (Flammer paragraphs 7 and 30), Flammer does not explicitly disclose “the data acquisition layer comprises a first communication device, and a first load balancing device (emphasis added);” and
“wherein, the data acquisition layer obtaining and analyzing the original data of one or more access devices to obtain the analyzed data comprises:
the first communication device establishing a first communication link and a second communication link between the first communication device and each access device (emphasis added); and
the first load balancing device controlling the communication status of the first communication device, so that each access device communicates with the first communication device through the first communication link corresponding to a determination that a data volume of a communication flow of the first communication device is less than a first threshold value, and so that each access device communicates with the first communication device through both the first communication link and the second communication link corresponding to a determination that the data volume of the communication flow of the first communication device is greater than or equal to the first threshold value.”
In a related field of endeavor, Kishida discloses “the data acquisition layer comprises a first communication device, and a first load balancing device (Kishida figs. 1, 3 and 4 and paragraphs 39-40, 52 and 54-57: base station 10 comprises wireless communication module 14, i.e., a first communication device, and link management unit 120 implemented by data processing unit 110, i.e., a first load balancing device); and
“the first communication device establishing a first communication link and a second communication link between the first communication device and each access device (Kishida figs. 1, 3, 4 and 8 and paragraphs 39-40, 52, 54-57 and 83-85: wireless communication module 14 of base station 10 establishes multiple wireless links with terminal apparatus 20);
the first load balancing device controlling the communication status of the first communication device, so that each access device communicates with the first communication device through the first communication link corresponding to a determination that a data volume of a communication flow of the first communication device is less than a first threshold value (Kishida figs. 4, 13 and 14 and paragraphs 115-128: link management unit 120 of base station 10 configures transmission of data using only a primary link when the amount of data to be transmitted is less than a predetermined threshold value), and so that each access device communicates with the first communication device through both the first communication link and the second communication link corresponding to a determination that the data volume of the communication flow of the first communication device is greater than or equal to the first threshold value (Kishida figs. 4, 13 and 14 and paragraphs 115-128: link management unit 120 of base station 10 configures transmission of data using both the primary link and a secondary link when the amount of data to be transmitted exceeds the predetermined threshold value).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Flammer to utilize multiple wireless connections for communication with the utility meters when an amount of data to be transmitted exceeds a threshold as taught by Kishida. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine utilizing multiple wireless connections for communication with the utility meters when an amount of data to be transmitted exceeds a threshold to improve communication speed and prevent stagnation of data to be transmitted (Kishida paragraphs 140-146).
However, while Flammer discloses that each access point obtains data from a plurality of utility meters via the subnetwork interface (Flammer paragraphs 29-30), the combination of Flammer and Kishida does not explicitly disclose “wherein the energy management system comprises a data acquisition layer, a data storage layer, a data management layer, and a data analyzing device (emphasis added);” and
“the data analyzing device comprises an analyzing unit, a second comparison unit, and a writing unit;” and
“the data storage layer comprises a first storage area and a second storage area;” and
the data acquisition layer obtaining and analyzing original data of one or more access devices to obtain analyzed data, including: the analyzing unit analyzing the original data to obtain the analyzed data; the second comparison unit comparing the analyzed data with previous analyzed data obtained through analyzing last time to determine whether the analyzed data have changed or not; and the writing unit writing the analyzed data obtained each time to the first storage area; and writing the analyzed data which, compared with the previous analyzed data, have changed, to the second storage area, and each access device being a device of an energy storage system (emphasis added)”.
In a related field of endeavor, Nyerges discloses “a data analyzing device” (Nyerges fig. 2 and paragraphs 25-26: real-time aggregation module 225);
the data analyzing device comprising an analyzing unit, a second comparison unit, and a writing unit (Nyerges fig. 2 and paragraphs 7, 10, 25-26 and 50);
the data storage layer comprises a first storage area and a second storage area (Nyerges figs. 2 and 8 paragraphs 7, 10, 26 and 50-53: table 800 stored on a storage device, table 800 comprising key-value pairs storing collected measurements and change states, calculated by comparing a current measurement against a last measurement – under broadest reasonable interpretation, each key-value pair of table 800 is interpreted as being a storage area);
the data acquisition layer obtaining and analyzing original data of one or more access devices to obtain analyzed data (Nyerges fig. 2 and paragraphs 25-26: SDCDN 105, i.e., a data acquisition layer, receives and analyzes telemetry data collected from client devices 131 and 136), including: the analyzing unit analyzing the original data to obtain the analyzed data (Nyerges fig. 2 and paragraphs 25-26: real-time aggregation module 225 that monitors and analyzes the telemetry data received from the client devices); the second comparison unit comparing the analyzed data with previous analyzed data obtained through analyzing last time to determine whether the analyzed data have changed or not (Nyerges fig. 2 and paragraphs 7, 10, 26-27 and 50: SDCDN 105 compares a current measurement against a recorded measurement to determine a delta or a changed state, i.e., determines whether the analyzed measurement has changed or not); and the writing unit writing the analyzed data obtained each time to the first storage area; and writing the analyzed data which, compared with the previous analyzed data, have changed, to the second storage area... (Nyerges figs. 2 and 8 paragraphs 7, 10, 26 and 50-53: SDCDN 105 stores the deltas, i.e., the changed data, along with the entire log of telemetry data collected from the client devices as key-value pairs in table 800 on a storage device)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Flammer, as modified by Kishida, to identify measurements that have changed and record the entire log of measurements as well as the deltas in a table as taught by Nyerges. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine identifying measurements that have changed and recording the entire log of measurements as well as the deltas in a table to support efficient real-time data collection using minimal storage space (Nyerges paragraph 9).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Flammer, Kishida and Nyerges discloses all of the limitations of Claim 12.
Additionally, Flammer discloses “wherein the data management layer comprises a forwarding device (Flammer figs. 3-4 and 6 and paragraphs 33-35 and 53: access point 18 forwards data received from the plurality of utility meters to back office server at utility 14), the forwarding device comprises a second communication device and a load-balancing device (Flammer figs. 3-4 and 6 and paragraphs 32-39: each access point 18 comprises a plurality Backhaul Network Interface (BNI) 22 and a CPU, which, while not explicitly stated, is inferred as directing the plurality of BNI to selectively establish communication links), the data management layer sending the stored analyzed data to the client server or the third-party server according to the sending request or the configuration information comprises:
the second communication device establishing a third communication link and a fourth communication link between a second communication device and the client server or the third-party server (Flammer figs. 3-4 and 6 and paragraphs 33-35, 37-38 and 45: using BNI 22, access point 18 may establish multiple communication links with the back office server at utility 14 for forwarding the data received from the plurality of utility meters); the second load balancing device controlling a working status of the second communication device; controlling each access device to communicate through the third communication link... and controlling the third communication link and the fourth communication link to be used for communication together... (Flammer figs. 3-4 and 6 and paragraphs 10, 37-42 and 45: access point 18 decides whether to utilize one or more of the communication links established with the back office server of utility 14 to forward the data collected from the plurality of utility meters based on metrics that pertain to various criteria which may be measured by the access point).”
However, while Flammer discloses that the metrics considered by the access point when deciding to utilize one or more of the communication links may include the traffic load through the access point (Flammer paragraph 42), and further suggests that the decision may be made to react to changing traffic conditions (Flammer paragraphs 41 and 45), Flammer does not explicitly disclose “the second load balancing device controlling a working status of the second communication device; controlling each access device to communicate through the third communication link corresponding to a determination that a data volume of a communication flow of the second communication device is less than a second threshold value; and controlling the third communication link and the fourth communication link to be used for communication together when the communication flow of the second communication device is greater than or equal to the second threshold value (emphasis added).”
In a related field of endeavor, Kishida discloses configuring transmission of data using only a primary link when the amount of data to be transmitted is less than a predetermined threshold value and using both the primary link and a secondary link when the amount of data to be transmitted exceeds the predetermined threshold value (Kishida figs. 4, 13 and 14 and paragraphs 115-128: link management unit 120 of base station 10 configures transmission of data using only a primary link when the amount of data to be transmitted is less than a predetermined threshold value, and configures transmission of data using both the primary link and a secondary link when the amount of data to be transmitted exceeds the predetermined threshold value).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Flammer to utilize multiple wireless connections for communication with the back office server when an amount of data to be transmitted exceeds a threshold as taught by Kishida. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine utilizing multiple wireless connections for communication with the back office server when an amount of data to be transmitted exceeds a threshold to improve communication speed and prevent stagnation of data to be transmitted (Kishida paragraphs 140-146).
Regarding Claim 24 the combination of Flammer, Kishida and Nyerges discloses all of the limitations of Claim 12.
Additionally, Flammer discloses “An electronic device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein a computer program is stored in the memory, and the processor, when executing the computer program, implements the method of claim 12 (Flammer figs. 3-4 and paragraphs 29-31 and 35: access point 18 comprising a CPU and memory)”.
Regarding Claim 25 the combination of Flammer, Kishida and Nyerges discloses all of the limitations of Claim 12.
Additionally, Flammer discloses “An electronic device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein a computer program is stored in the memory, and the processor, when executing the computer program, implements the method of claim 12 (Flammer figs. 3-4 and paragraphs 29-31 and 35: memory comprising program instructions executable by CPU to control operation of access point 18)”.
Claims 13-14, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable the combination of Flammer, Kishida and Nyerges in view of Abdel Shahid et al., Pub. No. US 2022/0086689 A1, hereby “Abdel Shahid”.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Flammer, Kishida and Nyerges discloses all of the limitations of Claim 12.
Additionally, Kishida discloses “wherein the first load balancing device comprises an information acquisition unit, a packet capture unit, a first comparison unit, and a control unit (Kishida fig. 4 and paragraphs 56 and 115-117: link management unit 120 comprises functionality to establish and manage the communication links based on whether the amount of data to be transmitted exceeds the predetermined threshold value); and each access device communicates through the first communication link alone (Kishida fig. 13 and paragraph 121: when only the primary link is active), the first load balancing device controlling the communication status of the first communication device comprises:” and
“the first comparison unit comparing... with the first threshold value (Kishida fig. 13 and paragraph 121: link management unit 120 checks whether the date buffer amount exceeds a predetermined threshold value); and
corresponding to a determination that... is greater than or equal to the first threshold value for a preset number of consecutive times, the control unit controlling the second communication link to start, and controlling the first communication link and the second communication link to be used for communication together (Kishida fig. 13and paragraph 122: when the data buffer amount exceeds the predetermined threshold value, link management unit 120 wakes the secondary link and causes the data to be transmitted using both the primary link and the secondary link).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Flammer to utilize multiple wireless connections for communication with the utility meters when an amount of data to be transmitted exceeds a threshold as taught by Kishida for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
However, while Kishida discloses that the link management unit causes data to be transmitted using both the primary link and the secondary link when the amount of data to be transmitted exceeds the predetermined threshold value (Kishida paragraph 122), the combination of Flammer and Kishida does not explicitly disclose “the information acquisition unit obtaining first configuration information of the first communication link;
the packet capture unit capturing a data packet comprising the first configuration information within a preset time period to obtain a first real-time network data packet representing the data volume of the communication flow of the first communication device;
the first comparison unit comparing the first real-time network data packet with the first threshold value (emphasis added); and
corresponding to a determination that the first real-time network data packet is greater than or equal to the first threshold value for a preset number of consecutive times, the control unit controlling the second communication link to start, and controlling the first communication link and the second communication link to be used for communication together (emphasis added).”
In a related field of endeavor, Abdel Shahid discloses “each access device communicates through the first communication link alone (Abdel Shahid figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 68-69: when dual connectivity is not established, i.e., when data is transmitted to UE 102 using LTE connection 118 only):
the information acquisition unit obtaining first configuration information of the first communication link (Abdel Shahid figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 41, 43 and 69: dual connectivity controller component 122 identifies the amount of data that can be transmitted to UE 102 in the next transmission time interval (TTI) using LTE connection 118);
the packet capture unit capturing a data packet comprising the first configuration information within a preset time period to obtain a first real-time network data packet representing the data volume of the communication flow of the first communication device (Abdel Shahid figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 40 and 67: dual connectivity controller component 122 identifies an amount of data to be transmitted to UE 102 using LTE connection 118 in the next TTI);
the first comparison unit comparing the first real-time network data packet with the first threshold value (Abdel Shahid paragraphs 39-40 and 66-68: dual connectivity controller component 122 determines whether the amount of data to be transmitted in the next TTI is greater than the threshold); and
corresponding to a determination the first real-time network data packet is greater than or equal to the first threshold value for a preset number of consecutive times, the control unit controlling the second communication link to start, and controlling the first communication link and the second communication link to be used for communication together (Abdel Shahid figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 35, 39-40, 69 and 72: dual connectivity controller component 122 controls device 200 to transmit the data using both LTE connection 118 and NR connection 120 when the amount of data to be transmitted in the next TTI is determined to be greater than the threshold for a number of TTIs).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Flammer, as modified by Kishida and Nyerges, to configure transmission of data from the utility meters to the access point using the primary and secondary links when an amount of data to be transmitted exceeds the predetermined threshold value for a number of transmission time intervals as taught by Abdel Shahid. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine configuring transmission of data from the utility meters to the access point using the primary and secondary links when an amount of data to be transmitted exceeds the predetermined threshold value for a number of transmission time intervals because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (controlling transmission of data using a plurality of links when an amount data to be transmitted is above a threshold for a number of TTIs) to known devices and/or methods (an access point in a utility network) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (activation of the secondary link when the amount of data to be transmitted to the access point exceeds the predetermined threshold value for a number of TTIs). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Flammer, Kishida and Nyerges discloses all of the limitations of Claim 12.
Additionally, Kishida discloses “wherein the first load balancing device comprises an information acquisition unit, a packet capture unit, a first comparison unit and a control unit (Kishida fig. 4 and paragraphs 56 and 115-117: link management unit 120 comprises functionality to establish and manage the communication links based on whether the amount of data to be transmitted exceeds the predetermined threshold value); and the first communication link and the second communication link are used for communication together (Kishida fig. 14 and paragraph 125: when a plurality of links are active, i.e., when data is transmitted using the primary link and the secondary link), and the first load balancing device controlling the communication status of the first communication device comprises:”
“the first comparison unit comparing... with the first threshold value (Kishida fig. 14 and paragraph 126: link management unit 120 checks whether the date buffer amount is less than a predetermined threshold value); and
corresponding to a determination that... is less than the first threshold value..., the control unit controlling the second communication link to be cut off, and switching the first communication device to be in communication with each access device through the first communication link alone (Kishida fig. 14 and paragraph 127: when the data buffer amount is less than the predetermined threshold value, link management unit 120 sets the secondary link in the pause mode and causes the data to be transmitted using only the primary link).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Flammer to utilize multiple wireless connections for communication with the back office server when an amount of data to be transmitted exceeds a threshold as taught by Kishida for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
However, while Kishida discloses that the link management unit causes data to be transmitted using only the primary link when the amount of data to be transmitted is less than the predetermined threshold value (Kishida paragraph 127), the combination of Flammer, Kishida and Nyerges does not explicitly disclose “the information acquisition unit acquiring first configuration information of the first communication link and second configuration information of the second communication link;
the packet capture unit capturing a data packet comprising the first configuration information within a preset time period, and a data packet comprising the second configuration information within the preset time period, to obtain a first real-time network data packet and a second real-time network data packet, a sum of the first real-time network data packet and the second real-time network data packet representing the data volume of the communication flow of the first communication device;
the first comparison unit comparing the sum of the first real-time network data packet and the second real-time network data packet with the first threshold value (emphasis added); and
corresponding to a determination that the sum of the first real-time network data packet and the second real-time network data packet is less than the first threshold value for a preset number of consecutive times, the control unit controlling the second communication link to be cut off, and switching the first communication device to be in communication with each access device through the first communication link alone (emphasis added).”
In a related field of endeavor, Abdel Shahid discloses “the first communication link and the second communication link are used for communication together (Abdel Shahid figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 68-69: when dual connectivity is established, i.e., when data is transmitted to UE 102 using both LTE connection 118 and NR connection 120):
the information acquisition unit acquiring first configuration information of the first communication link and second configuration information of the second communication link (Abdel Shahid figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 41, 43 and 71: dual connectivity controller component 122 identifies the amount of data that can be transmitted to UE 102 in the next transmission time interval (TTI) using LTE connection 118 and the NR connection 120);
the packet capture unit capturing a data packet comprising the first configuration information within a preset time period, and a data packet comprising the second configuration information within the preset time period, to obtain a first real-time network data packet and a second real-time network data packet, a sum of the first real-time network data packet and the second real-time network data packet representing the data volume of the communication flow of the first communication device (Abdel Shahid figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 40 and 70: dual connectivity controller component 122 identifies an amount of data to be transmitted to UE 102 using LTE connection 118 and LTE connection 120 in the next TTI);
the first comparison unit comparing the sum of the first real-time network data packet and the second real-time network data packet with the first threshold value (Abdel Shahid paragraphs 35, 39-40 and 70: dual connectivity controller component 122 determines whether the aggregated amount of data to be transmitted in the next TTI is greater than the threshold); and
corresponding to a determination that the sum of the first real-time network data packet and the second real-time network data packet is less than the first threshold value for a preset number of consecutive times, the control unit controlling the second communication link to be cut off, and switching the first communication device to be in communication with each access device through the first communication link alone (Abdel Shahid figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 32, 39-40 and 70-73: dual connectivity controller component 122 controls device 200 to transmit the data using only LTE connection 118 when the aggregated amount of data to be transmitted is determined to be less than the threshold for a number of TTIs).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Flammer, as modified by Kishida and Nyerges, to configure transmission of data from the utility meters to the access point only the primary link when an amount of data to be transmitted is less than the predetermined threshold value for a number of transmission time intervals as taught by Abdel Shahid. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine configuring transmission of data from the utility meters to the access point only the primary link when an amount of data to be transmitted is less than the predetermined threshold value for a number of transmission time intervals because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (controlling transmission of data using a single link when an amount data to be transmitted is less than a threshold for a number of TTIs) to known devices and/or methods (an access point in a utility network) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (deactivation of the secondary link when the amount of data to be transmitted to the access point is less than the predetermined threshold value for a number of TTIs). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claim 15, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable the combination of Flammer, Kishida and Nyerges in view of Meier et al., Pub. No. US 2010/0061244 A1, hereby “Meier”.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Flammer, Kishida and Nyerges discloses all of the limitations of Claim 12.
However, while Kishida discloses that link management unit configures transmission using both the primary link and the secondary link when the amount of data to be transmitted exceeds a predetermined threshold value (Kishida paragraph 117 and 122), the combination of Flammer, Kishida and Nyerges does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first load balancing device controlling the communication status of the first communication device comprises controlling the first communication device to communicate through the first communication link and the second communication link during a set time period, wherein the set time period is a peak communication time period.”
In the same field of endeavor, Meier discloses a system and method for managing congestion on heterogeneous network communication links wherein a second communication link can be configured to transmit data during peak usage periods (Meier fig. 1 and paragraphs 8, 11 and 21: second communication link 27 is configured to relay traffic from subscriber 24 to IP router 18 during a peak usage period when first communication link 25 requires extra capacity).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Flammer, as modified by Kishida and Nyerges, to configure transmission of data using both the primary link and the secondary link during periods of peak usage as taught by Meier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine configuring transmission of data using both the primary link and the secondary link during a peak usage period to minimize link congestion and communication signal degradation or loss during periods when the capacity of the primary link is exceeded (Meier paragraphs 8 and 11).
Claim 20, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable the combination of Flammer, Kishida, Nyerges and Abdel Shahid in view of Wang et al., Pub. No. US 2023/0354438 A1, hereby “Wang”.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Flammer, Kishida, Nyerges and Abdel Shahid discloses all of the limitations of Claim 13.
However, while Abdel Shahid discloses identifying an amount of data to be transmitted in the next transmission time interval (TTI) (Abdel Shahid paragraphs 40 and 67), the combination of Flammer, Kishida, Nyerges and Abdel Shahid does not explicitly disclose “wherein the preset time period is 2 seconds, 3 seconds, or 5 seconds.”
In the same field of endeavor, Wang discloses “wherein the preset time period is 2 seconds, 3 seconds, or 5 seconds (Wang paragraphs 109 and 111: an uplink transmission time interval (TTI) for uploading data from internet of things devices, e.g., an electric meter, is greater than 4 seconds).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Flammer, as modified by Kishida, Nyerges and Abdel Shahid, to utilize a transmission time interval (TTI) of greater than 4 seconds as taught by Wang because do so constitutes applying a known technique (utilizing a transmission time interval of greater than 4 seconds) to known devices and/or methods (an access point in a utility network) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (determining an amount of data to be transmitted from the utility meter to the access point during the next TTI). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Anwar et al., Pub. No. US 2016/0094401 A1, discloses a system and method for providing dynamic metering adjustment for service management of a computing platform wherein each new data sample of a given metric is compared to a last stored sample of the given metric and the new data sample is stored in the metering database only if the value of the new sample is different from the value of the last stored sample.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C MCBETH whose telephone number is (571)270-0495. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00AM - 4:30PM ET.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/WILLIAM C MCBETH/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
