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 .
Claims 1 and 3-17 are pending for examination.
This Office Action is FINAL.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munagala et al. (US 20250130957 A1, hereinafter Munagala) in view of CHAKRABORTY et al. (US 20210360071 A1, hereinafter “CHAKRABORTY”), in further view of Martynov et al. (US 20200042398 A1, hereinafter “Martynov”).
Regarding Claim 1, Munagala discloses a computer-implemented method of triggering a data protection operation for a data protection system (Fig. 5; [0056]: potential damage condition detection and automatic data backup, performed by (and for) electronic device 102), comprising:
receiving sensor data from one or more environmental sensors deployed in the system to detect environmental events affecting physical characteristics of the data protection system to trigger the data protection operation (Fig. 5, block 502; [0056]: detect potential damage condition, similar to flow diagram of Fig. 4. Processor may poll sensor data from one or more sensors. Fig. 4, block 406; [0055]: processor receives sensor data from sensors 302, including temperature sensor data exceeding a threshold temperature level for a predetermined period of time. Fig. 3; [0052]: exceeding for a predetermined period of time determined by polling sensed temperature data);
receiving the sensor data in a sensor gateway (Fig. 3; [0055]-[0056]: processor 304 receives sensor data. Processor 304 interpreted as sensor gateway. Instant Spec: [0037]: “…sensor gateway 302 collects sensor data as sensor readings from various devices or interfaces…”)…
storing at least a subset of trigger logic in the sensor gateway (Fig. 5, block 502; [0056]: detect potential damage condition similar to Fig. 4. Fig. 4, block 406; [0055]: processor 304 interprets sensor data and, when exceeds threshold level, initiates backup procedure. Processor 304 effectively contains logic for initiating/triggering a backup procedure);
aggregating the sensor data in the sensor gateway to form aggregated sensor data processed by the trigger logic ([0052]: potential temperature or fire damage condition detected by detection of a temperature exceeding a threshold level for a predetermined time based on sensed temperature data form a temperature sensor of sensors 302… In some aspects, temperature sensors of sensors 302 may have clock frequencies in the MHz range, allowing for polling of sensed temperature data by processor [304] and detection of increases in temperature beyond a threshold level within a few microseconds of the temperature of the device exceeding the threshold level. Repetitive polling when determine increases beyond a threshold level within a few microseconds encompasses combining/aggregating the polled sensor data to calculate the increase)…
first determining whether the aggregated sensor data exceeds a pre-defined threshold value for a physical characteristic measured by the one or more environmental sensors (Fig. 5, block 502; [0056]: detect potential damage condition, similar to Fig. 4. Fig. 4, block 406; [0055]: detect potential damage condition when a thermal sensor of sensors 302 generates a temperature of the electronic device exceeding a threshold value. [0052]: potential temperature or fire damage condition also detected by exceeding a threshold level for a predetermined time. Polls sensed temp data and detects increases in temperature beyond threshold level within a few microseconds);
applying, if the aggregated sensor data exceeds the pre-defined threshold, a user-defined rule to trigger the data protection operation (Fig. 5, block 506; [0057]: determine policies governing a backup operation following detection of a potential damage condition. Such policies may be configurable by a user of the electronic device. Certain policies may be configured for certain types of damage conditions. For example, if potential thermal or water exposure damage condition is detected, a policy for backing up all data, or as much data as possible, to a remote server may be determined. [0052]: potential temperature or fire damage condition also detected by exceeding a threshold level for a predetermined time. Polls sensed temp data and detects increases in temperature beyond threshold level within a few microseconds of the temperature of the device exceeding the threshold level. Therefore, if temperature increases beyond a threshold level within a few microseconds of the device exceeding the threshold level, a user-configurable policy is applied to back up all data, or as much data as possible);
second determining if all conditions of the rule are satisfied ([0057]: if potential thermal or water exposure damage condition is detected, a policy for backing up all data, or as much data as possible, to a remote server may be determined. “If potential thermal or water exposure damage condition is detected” is a condition of the user-configured policy); and
triggering, if all conditions of the rule are satisfied, a data protection server to perform the data protection operation ([0057]: if potential thermal or water exposure damage condition is detected, a policy for backing up all data, or as much data as possible, to a remote server may be determined).
Munagala does not teach:
…having a configuration store assigning device interfaces to corresponding environmental sensors
…wherein the aggregating comprises averaging values obtained from the one or more environmental sensors
However, CHAKRABORTY teaches:
…a sensor gateway having a configuration store assigning device interfaces to corresponding environmental sensors ([0116]: processor receives sensor definition data from the user interface connected to the sensor management device and stores the received sensor definition data in the sensor definition data store of the sensor definition layer. [0027]: sensor definition used by SAL 120 to configure and interact with the sensors via sensor interfaces 122-128. For instance, SAL 120 may use the received sensor definition data to prepare the end device 104 for sensor operation, provide configuration parameters to sensors 130-136, to send commands to sensors 130-136, and to retrieve raw sensor data from the sensors 130-136… based on the sensor data being received… Such operations may be performed by providing instructions or commands to the sensor interfaces 122-128 specific to the sensors 130-136 with which the SAL 120 is interacting)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Munagala and CHAKRABORTY by implementing the sensor definition store taught by CHAKRABORTY. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to configure and operate any sensor-end device combination without changing the actual firmware of the end device via the SAL on each end device as well as reducing time, effort, and maintenance costs (CHAKRABORTY: [0018]).
Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY does not teach:
…wherein the aggregating comprises averaging values obtained from the one or more environmental sensors
However, Martynov teaches:
wherein the aggregating comprises averaging values obtained from the one or more environmental sensors ([0043]: data loss module 114 analyzes a temperature feature surrounding the computing device 101 and determines that the temperature has risen above an average value observed previously to modify or generate backup plan 202. [0038]: features 104 include average temperature or fluctuations of temperature of the facility itself. Obvious that temperature is obtained from a temperature sensor)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Munagala, CHAKRABORTY, and Martynov by implementing the temperature average and comparison taught by Martynov. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to determine whether data may be at risk and perform a backup accordingly (Martynov: [0042]-[0043]).
Regarding Claim 3, Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in further view of Martynov teaches the method of claim 1, as referenced above, wherein the one or more environmental sensors are implemented as either standalone devices or as components built-in to one or more network equipment devices or computers in the system (Munagala: Fig. 3; [0050]: electronic device 102 includes one or more sensos 302. [0048]: electronic device 102 may be a smartphone, laptop, a wearable, a camera, or another electronic device).
Regarding Claim 5, Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in further view of Martynov teaches the method of claim 1, as referenced above, wherein the data protection operation is selected from data protection operations comprising at least one of a backup operation (Munagala: [0056]-[0057]: backup), a restore operation, a data migration operation, or a data tiering operation.
Regarding Claim 6, Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in further view of Martynov teaches the method of claim 1, as referenced above, wherein the data protection operation is triggered on an ad-hoc basis to supplement a normally scheduled data protection operation performed in accordance with a defined policy that dictates routine backup schedules, data sources, and storage targets (Munagala: Fig. 5, block 502-506; [0056]-[0057]: initiate data backup process based on detection of the potential damage condition, wherein policies governing a backup operation may be determined and applied (e.g., if potential thermal or water exposure damage condition is detected, backup all data, or as much data, as possible to a remote server). Consistent with [0004] of the instant spec, where “present methods of providing automatic backups are based off of regular time schedules, and do not accommodate protecting data in the event of environmental or physical events [without manual and human intervention.” Here, Munagala teaches the backup process is triggered on an ad-hoc basis/in response to environmental or physical events rather than a timed schedule).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in view of Martynov, in further view of Beliles (US 20070283005 A1, as previously cited, hereinafter “Beliles”).
Regarding Claim 4, Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in further view of Martynov teaches the method of claim 3, as referenced above, …and wherein the one or more environmental sensors comprise at least one of: fire detectors (Munagala: [0052]: temperature sensor to detect potential temperature or fire damage condition), smoke detectors, intrusion sensors, or seismic sensors.
Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in further view of Martynov does not teach:
wherein the network devices comprise at least one of managed switches, routers, or firewall devices deployed as an edge device…
However, Beliles teaches:
wherein the network devices comprise at least one of managed switches, routers, or firewall devices deployed as an edge device (Fig. 1; [0029]: other conventional network devices 153 (e.g., switches, bridges, servers, personal computers, etc.) may also be connected to network cloud 110. Shown as an edge device (unlike router 152, which is an intermediate device))…
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Mungala, CHAKRABORTY, Martynov, and Beliles by implementing the network devices taught by Beliles. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide a means for storing/transmitting data and information (Beliles: [0029]) as well as dynamically respond to non-network event notifications generated by sensed data (Beliles: [0036]).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in view of Martynov, in further view of Chandaria (US 11283879 B2, as previously cited).
Regarding Claim 7, Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in further view of Martynov teaches the method of claim 1, as referenced above, wherein the user-defined rule specifies a sensor type (Munagala: [0057]: backup policies may be configurable by a user of the electronic device. For example, if a potential thermal or water exposure damage condition is detected, a policy for backing up all data, or as much data as possible, to a remote server may be determined. [0055]: thermal sensor detects temperature. Policy for thermal damage effectively specifies the thermal sensor)… and threshold condition (Munagala: [0057]: if a potential thermal or water exposure damage condition is detected, backup all data or as much data as possible to remote server. Specific detected condition interpreted as threshold condition)
Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in further view of Martynov:
…sensor name, sensor configuration…
However, Chandaria teaches:
wherein the user-defined rule specifies… sensor name (Fig. 6B: “MYTEMPSENSOR”), sensor configuration (Fig. 6B: e.g., what should happen when sensor rule is triggered, sensor threshold condition)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Munagala, CHAKRABORTY, Martynov, and Chandaria by implementing the sensor-rule GUI taught by Chandaria. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to enable the user to configure a rule and select what should happen when the rule is triggered (Chandaria: Col 13, lines 50-52).
Regarding Claim 8, Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in view of Martynov, in further view of Chandaria teaches the method of claim 7, as referenced above, wherein the sensor type comprises one of a Boolean sensor outputting a binary on or off signal or a variable sensor outputting a range of values within a total range (Munagala: [0055]: thermal sensor generates sensor data indicating a temperature exceeding a threshold value. [0052]: may output value exceeding 60 degrees Celsius or 50 degrees Celsius).
Regarding Claim 9, Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in view of Martynov, in further view of Chandari teaches the method of claim 8, as referenced above, wherein the user-defined rule comprises threshold criteria for each of a plurality of sensors of the one or more sensors, and wherein each threshold criteria must be met or exceeded to cause the triggering of the data protection server (Munagala: [0057]: backup policies may be configurable by a user of the electronic device. For example, if a potential thermal or water exposure damage condition is detected, a policy for backing up all data, or as much data as possible, to a remote server may be determined. [0052]; [0055]: thermal damage detected by thermal/temperature sensor of sensors 302. Threshold criteria interpreted as detection of thermal damage)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in view of Martynov, in view of Chandaria, in further view of Triantafillos et al. (US 20120210398 A1, hereinafter “Triantafillos”).
Regarding Claim 10, Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in view of Martynov, in further view of Chandari teaches the method of claim 9, as referenced above, further comprising:
storing sensor information in a first configuration store provided in the sensor gateway (Munagala: Fig. 5, block 502; [0056]: detects potential damage condition similar to Fig. 4. Fig. 4, blocks 406-408; [0055]: processor 304 receives sensor data and interprets the data to detect a potential damage condition. The received sensor data is effectively stored on processor 304 in order for processor 304 to process said data to detect a potential damage condition); and
Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in view of Martynov, in further view of Chandaria does not teach:
storing credentials of a user providing the user-defined rule in a second configuration store provided in the trigger logic
However, Triantafillos teaches:
storing credentials of a user providing the user-defined rule in a second configuration store provided in the trigger logic (Fig. 4A; [0040]: administration tab leads to information regarding who has access to backup and retention policy configuration files and what access credentials (e.g., username, password) may be used. [0003]: backup and retention policies are generally set by configuration files that map server names with the appropriate backup and retention policies (e.g., when to backup, how long backup images should be kept). [0004]; [0026]: users make configuration changes to retention and backup policies).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Munagala, CHAKRABORTY, Martynov, Chandaria, and Triantafillos by implementing the admin information taught by Triantafillos. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to prevent unauthorized changes to backup and retention policies (Triantafillos: [0006]).
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in view of Martynov, in view of Triantafillos.
Regarding Claim 11, Munagala discloses an apparatus triggering a data protection operation for a data protection system (Fig. 3, 5; [0056]: Fig. 5 performed by electronic device 102 of Fig. 3), comprising:
a sensor gateway producing sensor data from one or more environmental sensors deployed in the system to detect environmental events affecting physical characteristics of the data protection system to trigger the data protection operation (Fig. 3; [0052]; [0055]-[0056]: sensor gateway interpreted as sensors 302 + processor 304. Sensors 320 includes a temperature/thermal sensor to detect potential temperature or fire damage condition);
an aggregator aggregating the sensor data in the sensor gateway to form aggregated sensor data processed by trigger logic… ([0052]: potential temperature or fire damage condition detected by detection of a temperature exceeding a threshold level for a predetermined time based on sensed temperature data form a temperature sensor of sensors 302… In some aspects, temperature sensors of sensors 302 may have clock frequencies in the MHz range, allowing for polling of sensed temperature data by processor [304] and detection of increases in temperature beyond a threshold level within a few microseconds of the temperature of the device exceeding the threshold level. Repetitive polling by processor 304 when determining increases beyond a threshold level within a few microseconds encompasses combining/aggregating the polled sensor data to calculate the increase);
a trigger component coupled to the sensor gateway containing the trigger logic first determining whether the sensor data exceeds a pre-defined threshold value for a characteristic measured by the one or more environmental sensors ([0052]: polling of sensed temperature data by processor [304] and detection of increases in temperature beyond a threshold level within a few microseconds of the temperature of the device exceeding the threshold level. Processor 304 effectively contains logic for determining whether polled sensed data exceeds a threshold level for temperature measured from a temperature sensor); and
…wherein the trigger logic applies the rule to trigger the data protection operation by a data protection server when one or more conditions set by the rule are satisfied by sensor readings of the one or more environmental sensors ([0056]-[0057]: processor applies user-configured policy governing a backup operation when a potential damage condition is detected. Policies may be configured for certain types of damage conditions. For example, if a potential thermal or water exposure damage is detected, a policy for backing up all data, or as much data as possible, to a remote server may be determined. [0052]; [0055]: potential thermal damage detected when sensed data of sensors 302 exceeds threshold level. Therefore, processor applies the policy to trigger a backup by a remote server when potential thermal damage is detected/satisfied according to sensors 302).
Munagala does not disclose:
a first configuration store in the sensor gateway storing configuration information of the environmental sensors;
… wherein the aggregating comprises averaging values obtained from the one or more environmental sensors
a second configuration store in the trigger component containing credentials of a user defining a rule
However, CHAKRABORTY teaches:
a first configuration store in the sensor gateway storing configuration information of the environmental sensors ([0116]: processor receives sensor definition data from the user interface connected to the sensor management device and stores the received sensor definition data in the sensor definition data store of the sensor definition layer. [0027]: sensor definition used by SAL 120 to configure and interact with the sensors via sensor interfaces 122-128. For instance, SAL 120 may use the received sensor definition data to prepare the end device 104 for sensor operation, provide configuration parameters to sensors 130-136, to send commands to sensors 130-136, and to retrieve raw sensor data from the sensors 130-136… based on the sensor data being received… Such operations may be performed by providing instructions or commands to the sensor interfaces 122-128 specific to the sensors 130-136 with which the SAL 120 is interacting. [0029]: sensors 130-136 collect temperature data, humidity data, CO-2 data, or the like);
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Munagala and CHAKRABORTY by implementing the sensor definition store taught by CHAKRABORTY. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to configure and operate any sensor-end device combination without changing the actual firmware of the end device via the SAL on each end device as well as reducing time, effort, and maintenance costs (CHAKRABORTY: [0018]).
Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY does not teach:
… wherein the aggregating comprises averaging values obtained from the one or more environmental sensors
However, Martynov teaches:
… wherein the aggregating comprises averaging values obtained from the one or more environmental sensors ([0043]: data loss module 114 analyzes a temperature feature surrounding the computing device 101 and determines that the temperature has risen above an average value observed previously to modify or generate backup plan 202. [0038]: features 104 include average temperature or fluctuations of temperature of the facility itself. Obvious that temperature is obtained from a temperature sensor)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Munagala, CHAKRABORTY, and Martynov by implementing the temperature average and comparison taught by Martynov. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to determine whether data may be at risk and perform a backup accordingly (Martynov: [0042]-[0043]).
Munagala in view of CHARKRABORTY, in further view of Martynov does not teach:
a second configuration store in the trigger component containing credentials of a user defining a rule
However, Triantafillos teaches:
a second configuration store in the trigger component containing credentials of a user defining a rule (Fig. 4A; [0040]: administration tab leads to information regarding who has access to backup and retention policy configuration files and what access credentials (e.g., username, password) may be used. [0003]: backup and retention policies are generally set by configuration files that map server names with the appropriate backup and retention policies (e.g., when to backup, how long backup images should be kept). [0004]; [0026]: users make configuration changes to retention and backup policies).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Munagala, CHAKRABORTY, Martynov, and Triantafillos by implementing the admin information taught by Triantafillos. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to prevent unauthorized changes to backup and retention policies (Triantafillos: [0006]).
Regarding Claim 12, Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in view of Martynov, in further view of Triantafillos teaches the apparatus of claim 11, as referenced above, wherein the one or more environmental sensors are implemented as either standalone devices or as components built-in to one or more network equipment devices or computers in the system (Munagala: Fig.3; [0050]: electronic device 102 includes one or more sensos 302. [0048]: electronic device 102 may be a smartphone, laptop, a wearable, a camera, or another electronic device).
Regarding Claim 14, Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in view of Martynov, in further view of Triantafillos teaches the apparatus of claim 11, as referenced above, wherein the data protection operation is selected from data protection operations comprising at least one of a backup operation, a restore operation, a data migration operation, or a data tiering operation, and wherein the data protection operation is triggered on an ad-hoc basis to supplement a normally scheduled data protection operation performed in accordance with a defined policy that dictates routine backup schedules, data sources, and storage targets (Munagala: Fig. 5, block 502-506; [0056]-[0057]: initiate data backup process based on detection of the potential damage condition, wherein policies governing a backup operation may be determined and applied (e.g., if potential thermal or water exposure damage condition is detected, backup all data, or as much data, as possible to a remote server). Consistent with [0004] of the instant spec, where “present methods of providing automatic backups are based off of regular time schedules, and do not accommodate protecting data in the event of environmental or physical events [without manual and human intervention.” Here, Munagala teaches the backup process is triggered on an ad-hoc basis/in response to environmental or physical events rather than a timed schedule).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in view of Martynov, in view of Triantafillos in further view of Beliles.
Regarding Claim 13, Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in view of Martynov, in view of Triantafillos teaches the apparatus of claim 12, as referenced above, … and wherein the one or more environmental sensors comprise at least one of: fire detectors (Munagala: [0052]: temperature sensor to detect potential temperature or fire damage condition), smoke detectors, intrusion sensors, or seismic sensors.
Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY in view of Martynov, in view of Triantafillos does not teach:
wherein the network devices comprise at least one of managed switches, routers, or firewall devices deployed as an edge device…
However, Beliles teaches:
wherein the network devices comprise at least one of managed switches, routers, or firewall devices deployed as an edge device (Fig. 1; [0029]: other conventional network devices 153 (e.g., switches, bridges, servers, personal computers, etc.) may also be connected to network cloud 110. Shown as an edge device (unlike router 152, which is an intermediate device))…
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Mungala, CHAKRABORTY, Martynov, Triantafillos, and Beliles by implementing the network devices taught by Beliles. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide a means for storing/transmitting data and information (Beliles: [0029]) as well as dynamically respond to non-network event notifications generated by sensed data (Beliles: [0036]).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in view of Martynov, in view of Triantafillos, in further view of Chandaria.
Regarding Claim 15, Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in view of Martynov, in view of Triantafillos teaches the apparatus of claim 11, as referenced above, wherein the user-defined rule specifies a sensor type (Munagala: [0057]: backup policies may be configurable by a user of the electronic device. For example, if a potential thermal or water exposure damage condition is detected, a policy for backing up all data, or as much data as possible, to a remote server may be determined. [0055]: thermal sensor detects temperature. Policy for thermal damage effectively specifies the thermal sensor)… and threshold condition (Munagala: [0057]: if a potential thermal or water exposure damage condition is detected, backup all data or as much data as possible to remote server. Specific detected condition interpreted as threshold condition).
Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in view of Martynov, in view of Triantafillos does not teach:
…sensor name, sensor configuration…
However, Chandaria teaches:
sensor name (Fig. 6B: “MYTEMPSENSOR”), sensor configuration (Fig. 6B: e.g., what should happen when sensor rule is triggered, sensor threshold condition)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Munagala, CHAKRABORTY, Martynov, Triantafillos, and Chandaria by implementing the sensor-rule GUI taught by Chandaria. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to enable the user to configure a rule and select what should happen when the rule is triggered (Chandaria: Col 13, lines 50-52).
Regarding Claim 16, Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in view of Martynov, in view of Triantafillos, in further view of Chandaria teaches the apparatus of claim 15, as referenced above, wherein the sensor type comprises one of a Boolean sensor outputting a binary on or off signal or a variable sensor outputting a range of values within a total range (Munagala: [0055]: thermal sensor generates sensor data indicating a temperature exceeding a threshold value. [0052]: may output value exceeding 60 degrees Celsius or 50 degrees Celsius).
Regarding Claim 17, Munagala in view of CHAKRABORTY, in view of Martynov, in view of Triantafillos, in further view of Chandaria teaches the apparatus of claim 16 wherein the user-defined rule comprises threshold criteria for each of a plurality of sensors of the one or more sensors, and wherein each threshold criteria must be met or exceeded to cause the triggering of the data protection server (Munagala: [0057]: backup policies may be configurable by a user of the electronic device. For example, if a potential thermal or water exposure damage condition is detected, a policy for backing up all data, or as much data as possible, to a remote server may be determined. [0052]; [0055]: thermal damage detected by thermal/temperature sensor of sensors 302. Threshold criteria interpreted as detection of thermal damage).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102/103, claim(s) 1 and 3-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang (US 20220345526 A1) -- Fig. 1; [0031]: user terminal 110 generates connection configuration information according to user input and transmits connection configuration information to processor 121. Processor 121 executes the sensor configuration method to establish a connection a connection between the target port 122 of the currently physically connected main control chip 120 and communication port 131 of the target sensor 130. [0004]: sensors such as monocular cameras, ultrasonic radars, laser radars, and the like may be installed on an automobile to sense an obstacle around the automobile body
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE MARIE NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, ASHISH THOMAS can be reached at (571) 272-0631. 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.
/C.M.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/ASHISH THOMAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights