Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Objection to the Specification
2. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Art Rejection
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karenos, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2012/0030344, in view of Warshawsky, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2006/0106851 and Armstrong, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2008/0284591.
Per claim 1, Karenos discloses a computer implemented method for data provisioning in a communication network, comprising a hierarchical chain of data brokers having a first data broker (16a) connected to a client (subscriber 14a), a second data broker (16c) connected to a data source (publisher 12e), and at least one intermediate data broker (network 18) present between the first data broker and second data broker (see par 0038-0039, fig. 1), comprising the steps of:
a) receiving, from the client, at the first data broker, a request for data from the data source, i.e., subscribing to a topic from a broker (see par 0006);
b) operating the second data broker in accordance with a configurable sampling interval/period and the publishing interval to provide the data to the client (see par 0079-0081); and
c) operating the at least one intermediate data broker (e.g., overlay link) independent of the sampling interval and the publishing interval to provide the data to the client (see par 0007).
Karenos does not explicitly teach that the request comprises a sampling interval for acquiring the data and a publishing interval for transmitting the acquired data to the client. However, many publish/subscribe data delivery systems are known to allow clients/subscribers to set sampling intervals and/or publishing/reporting intervals. For instance, Warshawsky discloses a data monitoring and delivery system that allows clients/subscribers to specify the sampling intervals (see Warshawsky, par 0026-0028). In addition, Armstrong also discloses a publish/subscribe model in which the publishing or reporting intervals can be set by clients (see Armstrong, par 0018-0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karenos with such prior art teachings because it would have allowed client/subscribe to set their desired sampling intervals and/or publishing/ reporting intervals to meet their needs.
Per claim 2, Karenos teaches sampling at the second data broker data from the data source at specified sampling interval (see par 0079-0080), and publishing the sampled data from the second broker to an upstream broker at the specified publishing interval (see par 0081), the upstream broker being from among the intermediate data broker, i.e., resides within communication network 18 (see par 0040).
Per claim 3, Karenos teaches receiving published data at an intermediate (country specific) data broker and transmitting the received data to the first (continent) broker, wherein the first data broker is positioned upstream to the intermediate data broker in a hierarchical chain in the communication network (see par 0086).
Per claim 4, Karenos teaches determining an intermediate client at one intermediate data broker to have subscribed to specific data/topic which could also be requested by another client, e.g., the client of the first data broker, and branching/forwarding the specific data/topic to the intermediate client in response to the determination (see par 0006, 0043).
Per claim 5, Karenos teaches simultaneously forwarding the data/topic to the intermediate client and the client of the first data broker which is positioned up the hierarchical chain of the data brokers (see par 0042-0043).
Per claim 6, Warshawsky teaches accessing via a configuration client, e.g., user interface, configuration settings of the data broker, and defining in the configuration settings, a sampling interval for the data broker correspond to the sampling intervals specified in the request received from the client (see par 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karenos with Warshawsky teaching because it would have enabled client to specify sampling interval and/or publishing interval.
Per claim 7-8, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that the sampling and publishing/reporting intervals set and operated at the broker must have been equal or less than the sampling and publishing/reporting intervals desired by the client (see Karenos, par 0079-0082). This is because it would have ensured proper generation of data for the client.
Per claim 9, Karenos teaches that the communication network is any type of network (see par 0109). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to practice Karenos invention with any known conventional networks including OPC UA network.
Claims 10-13 and 15 are similar in scope as that of claims 1-9.
Per claim 14, Karenos teaches performing, on the data, one of data analytics, aggregation, or data filtering (see par 0093-0095).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 16-20 are allowed over prior art of record.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Viet Vu whose telephone number is 571-272-3977. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:00am to 6:00pm. The Group general information number is 571-272-2400. The Group fax number is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Emmanuel Moise, can be reached at 571-272-3865.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Viet D Vu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
2/5/26