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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.12,231,260 (Pat. 260’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims recite: A system, comprising:
a plurality of sensor systems, each sensor system comprising: a housing, at least one sensor disposed in the housing, at least one processor disposed in the housing, and a network interface, wherein the plurality of sensor systems are configured to operate as a mesh network using the network interface and the at least one processor of each sensor system.
Pat.260’, however, additionally recites wherein the at least one processor of each sensor system is configured to perform ambient computing operations.
In removing this feature (limitation) from instant claims 1, the scope of the claim is merely broadened by eliminating elements and their functions. It has been held that omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 365 (Bd. App. 1969) (omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to not recite the additional limitation in the instant.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al (US 20180324696) in view of Nagel et al (20190257143) and further in view of Jurisch et al (US 20150254484).
As to claim 1 Subramanian discloses a system, comprising: a plurality of sensor systems, wherein the plurality of sensor systems are configured to operate as a mesh network using the network interface and the at least one processor of each sensor system (Subramanian ¶0047- 1st and 2nd sentences- Conventional wireless sensor networks make use of a variety of communication and power supply schemes. In one communication scheme, a mesh network is used, where sensor nodes within the wireless sensor networks act as routers.; Subramanian ¶0073, Fig.7).
Subramanian, however, does not explicitly recite where the system includes a network interface. However in an analogous art Nagel remedies this deficiency: Nagel ¶0027- 1st sentence- the command and communication device 106 has a wireless interface 128, a wired interface 130, a control system 118, a rules engine 132, a network interface 134) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Subramanian with that of Nagel for the purpose of network connection (Nagel ¶0027- 2nd sentence).
Both Subramanian and Nagel are silent wherein each sensor system comprising: a housing, at least one sensor disposed in the housing, and at least one processor disposed in the housing. However, in an analogous art Jurisch remedies this deficiency: Jurisch ¶0014- In this way, the sensor assembly can be designed as particularly small and light, since it has no battery requiring substantial installation space. As a result, the sensor assembly can be disposed in a very simple manner at a suitable point, for example on a housing of the measurement object, without disturbing a function of the measurement object or affecting the vibrations of the measurement object. For this purpose, the RFID transponder and the acceleration sensor are preferably designed as a common structural unit and can appropriately be disposed in a common housing, by means of which they can be attached to the measurement object. ¶0048- last sentence- the sensor assembly 3 is designed as particularly small and light, so that it can be disposed in a very simply manner at a suitable point, for example on a housing of the measurement object 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Subramanian and Nagel with that of Jurisch for the purpose of creating a mesh network utilizing network interfaces and processors from a sensor system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DERRICK V ROSE whose telephone number is (571)270-7460. The examiner can normally be reached 9am- 6pm.
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, YEMANE MESFIN can be reached at 571-272-3927. 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.
/DERRICK V ROSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
