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 .
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.
Claims 1 - 13 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.
As to claim 1, at line 7, the phrase “optionally” does not make the intention of the invention clear. It is unclear if it is a positive limitation.
As to claim 5, at line 3, the phrase “preferably” does not make the intention of the invention clear. It is unclear if it is a positive limitation.
As to claim 6, at line 3, the phrase “preferably” does not make the intention of the invention clear. It is unclear if it is a positive limitation.
Claims 2 - 13 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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) 1 – 4 and 6 - 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVerse (9,470,563).
As to claim 1, DeVerse discloses methods and systems for detecting fluidic levels and flow rate and fluidic equipment malfunction discloses an apparatus (114; 600) to measure the consumption of water, gas or electricity as registered respectively by an existing water, gas or electricity meter (Col. 1, lines 53 – 63; Col. 9, lines 43 – 58; Fig. 6A-9), the apparatus comprising a sensor unit (602, Col. 22, lines 61 - 62) including a first magnetic sensor (651, 652, 653) having a first sensing axis (Col. 23, lines 14 - 18), a second magnetic sensor (651, 652, 653) having a second sensing axis (Col. 23, lines 14 - 18), a data acquisition unit operationally connected to the sensor unit (Col. 23, lines 37 – 41; Col. 24, lines 41 - 60) and configured to acquire data from the first magnetic sensor and from the second magnetic sensor (Col. 23, lines 37 – 41; Col. 24, lines 41 - 60), and optionally a power supply (Col. 12, lines 52 - 55), (Fig. 6B; Col. 23, lines 14 - 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DeVerse fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first sensing axis forms a first angle comprised between 30° and 60° with the second sensing axis. However, it would have been a matter of choice that the first angle is comprised between 30° and 60° which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious because it provides the reduced need for precise placement of sensors, and is absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed first angle was significant (Please Note MPEP 2144 IV. B). Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of DeVerse wherein the first sensing axis forms a first angle comprised between 30° and 60° with the second sensing axis would result in the compact geometry of the device.
As to claim 2, DeVerse fails to explicitly disclose the first angle (a) is comprised between 40° and 50°. However, it would have been a matter of choice that the first angle is comprised between 40° and 50° which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious because it provides the reduced need for precise placement of sensors, and is absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed first angle was significant (Please Note MPEP 2144 IV. B). Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of DeVerse wherein the first angle (a) is comprised between 40° and 50° with the second sensing axis would result in the compact geometry of the device.
As to claim 3, DeVerse fails to explicitly disclose the first angle (a) is an angle of 42°. However, it would have been a matter of choice that the first angle is 42° which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed first angle was significant (Please Note MPEP 2144 IV. B). Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of DeVerse wherein the first angle (a) is an angle of 42° resulting in the compact geometry of the device.
As to claim 4, DeVerse discloses that the first sensing axis and the second sensing axis are in a same plane (Fig. 6B).
As to claim 6, DeVerse discloses that the first magnetic sensor (651) and the second magnetic sensor (653) are spaced apart by a first distance. DeVerse fails to explicitly disclose that the first magnetic sensor and the second magnetic sensor are spaced apart by a first distance comprised between 1 mm and 10 mm, preferably 4 mm (Fig. 6B). However, it would have been a matter of choice that the first magnetic sensor and the second magnetic sensor are spaced apart by a first distance comprised between 1 mm and 10 mm, preferably 4 mm which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed first angle was significant (Please Note MPEP 2144 IV. B). Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of DeVerse wherein that the first magnetic sensor and the second magnetic sensor are spaced apart by a first distance comprised between 1 mm and 10 mm, preferably 4 mm would result in the compact geometry of the device.
As to claim 7, DeVerse discloses that the first magnetic sensor is a 3D magnetic sensor and wherein the second magnetic sensor is a 3D magnetic sensor (Col. 22, lines 62 - 65).
As to claim 8, DeVerse discloses that the first magnetic sensor and the second magnetic sensor are Hall sensors (Fig. 6B, Col. 23, lines 8 – 12).
As to claim 9, DeVerse discloses a data processing unit operationally connected to the data acquisition unit and configured to process the data provided by the first and second magnetic sensors (Col. 24, lines 42 – 43: data processed by the sensor 600 itself).
As to claim 10, DeVerse discloses the data processing unit (Col. 20, lines 27 – 39; Col. Col. 24, line 41 – Col. 25, line 4). DeVerse fails to explicitly disclose a first pre-trained AI model. However, AI models are well known and usual processing method for analysing data using. Using a pre-learned AI in data processing is merely using an already trained machine learning algorithm for its intended purpose. Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of DeVerse wherein the data processing unit includes a first pre-trained AI model would result in faster and accurate data processing.
As to claim 11, DeVerse discloses a data communication unit operationally connected to the data processing unit and configured to transmit the data processed by the data processing unit (Col. 24, lines 1 - 7).
As to claim 12, DeVerse discloses a server communicably connected to the data communication unit of the apparatus and configured to process data received from the data communication unit (Col. 24, lines 1 – 8; Col. 7, lines 1 – 15).
As to claim 13, DeVerse discloses the server (Col. 7, lines 1 – 15; Col. 24, lines 1 - 8). DeVerse fails to explicitly disclose a second pre-trained AI model. However, AI models are well known and usual processing method for analysing data using. Using a pre-learned AI in data processing is merely using an already trained machine learning algorithm for its intended purpose. Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of DeVerse wherein the data processing unit includes a first pre-trained AI model would result in faster and accurate data processing.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVerse (9,470,563) in view of Wright et al. (10,965,488).
As to claim 5, DeVerse discloses that the sensor unit comprises a structure onto which the first magnetic sensor (651) and the second magnetic sensor (653) are mounted, the structure presenting a front surface (Fig. 6B). DeVerse fails to explicitly disclose that the structure presenting a front surface, preferably a plane front surface; wherein the first sensing axis and a normal to the front surface form one half of the first angle, and wherein the second sensing axis and the normal to the front surface form the other half of the first angle. Wright et al. (hereinafter Wright) discloses of a system and method for monitoring a property wherein the structure presenting a front surface (204, Fig. 9), preferably a plane front surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
764
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, it would have been a matter of choice wherein the first sensing axis and a normal to the front surface form one half of the first angle, and wherein the second sensing axis and the normal to the front surface form the other half of the first angle which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed first angle was significant (Please Note MPEP 2144 IV. B). Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of DeVerse in view of the teachings of Wright such that the first sensing axis and a normal to the front surface form one half of the first angle, and wherein the second sensing axis and the normal to the front surface form the other half of the first angle would result in the claimed geometry of the structure for precise mounting.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant s disclosure.
Zigovszki et al. (2016/0084632) is cited for its disclosure of tamper detection through magnetic sensing.
Lee et al. (10,690,519) is cited for its disclosure of a meter reading sensor using TMR and Hall effect sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REENA AURORA whose telephone number is (571)272-2263. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 5712705628. 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.
/REENA AURORA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights