DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to the communication filed on 03/07/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 6, the limitation “the number of parameter values” is recommended to read as “the number of expected parameter values.”
In Claim 10, line 4, the limitation “the at least one parameter vale” will read as “the at least one parameter value.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 health monitor unit configured to compare/output/generate” in claims 1, 5 and 9 respectively, “a broker … configured to receive” in claim 6, “a monitoring unit configured to receive” in claim 14, and “a message broker configured to receive … generate” in claim 15. The instant specification discloses that “FIG. 6 illustrates a system 600 that may be used to implement embodiments of the disclosure. System 600 may include a computer 602 that comprises a processor 604 and memory 606. In some examples, computer 602 may include computer 110 of FIG. 1 [0043].” The claim limitations “a health monitor unit,” “a broker,” “a monitoring unit,” and “a message broker” are interpreted as a computer respectively under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-10 and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250007799 A1 (hereinafter Johnson), in view of US 20160026192 A1 (hereinafter Phillips).
For Claim 1, Johnson teaches a system including a number of mobile … units (Johnson teaches autonomous vehicles; para. [0020] “… Vehicles, e.g., AVs, can have sophisticated networked systems onboard. A networked system for a vehicle may include many edge devices or components (referred herein as edge devices) onboard the AV, such as sensors, network devices, microcontrollers, boards, operating systems, etc. …”), comprising:
a mobile … unit (Johnson exemplifies the AV 102 in FIG. 1)comprising:
a number of devices (Johnson teaches edge devices that may include sensors such as cameras, etc.; FIG. 1; para. [0026] “… AV 102 may include one or more edge devices 130. An edge device is a device or component that performs one or more functions at the edge of a networked computing system. An edge device may be communicably coupled to one or more main processing units of a compute system. One or more edge devices 130 may include sensors of AV 102, such as a plurality of cameras, a plurality of light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensors, a plurality of radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensors, a plurality of ultrasonics sensors, a plurality of time-of-flight (TOF) sensors, a board having processing units of a compute system mounted thereon, an operating system of the compute system, a non-transient computer-readable storage device, a network device, an audio system, cabin entertainment system, impact sensor system, etc. …”);
a number of configuration files, each configuration file including a number of expected parameter values associated with one or more of the number of devices (Johnson teaches configuration data files to define edge devices associated monitors that includes thresholds and measurement configuration, the thresholds and measurement configuration corresponds to a number of expected parameter values; FIG. 1, FIG. 2; para. [0024] “… To make it easier to implement and deploy the edge devices diagnostics system, configuration data files can be used to configure thresholds for monitors, and branded edge device diagnostics configuration files can be used to standardize and simplify configuration of monitors for various edge devices …”; para. [0033] “… a monitor may monitor data about edge device 130, and check the data against a (configured) threshold. The threshold may be defined in a configuration information for the monitor …”; para. [0035] “… Monitors 210 may have corresponding configurations (e.g., defined by configuration data files). A configuration for a monitor may include a name of the monitor, the rate/frequency at which the monitor operates or reports payloads, the data about the edge device being monitored, (optionally) measurement configuration of the monitor … Exemplary identifications of health status information may include, e.g., processor utilization, amount of time the processor utilization is above a certain threshold, occurrence count of processor utilization crossing a threshold, etc. The measurement configuration of the monitor may include one or more thresholds …”; para. [0067] “… Configurations of monitors may be defined in various configuration data files corresponding to the different monitors (e.g., a file with configuration values in a human-readable data serialization language). Edge devices diagnostics software developers may utilize a template/schema to write the various configuration data files for different monitors of the edge device …”); and
a health monitor unit configured to compare at least one parameter value of the number of expected parameter values for at least one device of the number of devices to at least one sensed parameter value of the at least one device (Johnson teaches that the monitors perform the comparison of monitored data against the configured threshold; FIG. 1, FIG. 2; para. [0033] “… Monitors 210 can determine health status information of edge device 130 and report the health status information as payloads. In some embodiments, a monitor may monitor data about edge device 130, and check the data against a (configured) threshold …”; para. [0035] “… Exemplary identifications of health status information may include, e.g., processor utilization, amount of time the processor utilization is above a certain threshold, occurrence count of processor utilization crossing a threshold, etc. …”);
wherein the mobile … unit is configured to generate at least one of a report or an alert responsive to the comparison (Johnson teaches generating reports or alerts based on the threshold comparison; FIG. 1, FIG. 2; para. [0021] “… The health status information may be generated at an edge device and transmitted to a compute system over a network. The compute system can collect and process the health status information to assess and diagnose whether certain flags or alerts should be raised, and whether the vehicle should enter a degraded state of operation …”; para. [0033] “… Monitors 210 can determine health status information of edge device 130 and report the health status information as payloads. In some embodiments, a monitor may monitor data about edge device 130, and check the data against a (configured) threshold …”).
Johnson does not explicitly teach, but Phillips teaches the mobile unit acts as a mobile surveillance unit (Phillips, FIGS 1 and 3-6; para. [0018] “… the control system 12 of this embodiment includes a plurality of mobile surveillance units 11 ( or ‘MSUs,’ described below with reference to FIGS. 3-6) …”; para. [0061] “… FIGS. 3 through 6 show an example of the mobile surveillance unit 11. In some embodiments, the mobile surveillance unit 11 may act as a remote video camera integrated into the command-center server 14 …”).
Phillips and Johnson are analogous art because they are both related to mobile unites providing monitoring functionality.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the providing mobile surveillance structure techniques of Phillips with the system of Johnson to provide a cost effective, function efficient surveillance system for remote sites (Phillips, para. [0007]).
For Claim 4, Johnson-Phillips teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a cloud server communicatively coupled to the mobile surveillance unit (Johnson teaches a data center communicatively coupled to the AV; FIG. 13; para. [0097] “… Data center 1350 may be a private cloud (e.g., an enterprise network, a co-location provider network, etc.), a public cloud (e.g., an IaaS network, a PaaS network, a SaaS network, or other CSP network), a hybrid cloud, a multi-cloud, and so forth. Data center 1350 may include one or more computing devices remote to the compute system 110 for managing a fleet of AVs and AV-related services …”; para. [0098] “… Data center 1350 may send and receive various signals to and from the AV 102 …”).
For Claim 5, Johnson-Phillips teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the health monitor unit is configured to output data based on the comparison (Johnson teaches generating edge device health status information based on comparison of monitored data against the configured threshold, and outputting measurements/alerts based on the generated health status information; FIG. 1, FIG. 2; para. [0021] “… The health status information may be generated at an edge device and transmitted to a compute system over a network. The compute system can collect and process the health status information to assess and diagnose whether certain flags or alerts should be raised, and whether the vehicle should enter a degraded state of operation …”; para. [0033] “… Monitors 210 may output (or publish) payloads having edge device health status. Monitors 210 can determine health status information of edge device 130 and report the health status information as payloads. In some embodiments, a monitor may monitor data about edge device 130, and check the data against a (configured) threshold. The threshold may be defined in a configuration information for the monitor …”; para. [0040] “… Diagnostics driver 220 may publish or output health status information received in the data traffic as measurements to topics 240 …”).
For Claim 6, Johnson-Phillips teaches the system of claim 5, further comprising a broker coupled to the health monitor unit and configured to receive the data and generate at least one of a report or an alert based on the data (Johnson teaches a compute system 110 comprising the publish-subscribe topics with watchdog subscriber functions as a broker to receive data and generate an alert; FIG. 2; para. [0040] “… Diagnostics driver 220 may publish or output health status information received in the data traffic as measurements to topics 240 …”; para. [0042] “… Watchdog 230 may be one of the subscribers to topics 240. Based on the information in topics 240, watchdog 230 may determine whether the AV is in a degraded state or should enter a degraded state. Watchdog 230 may review conditions defined in a manifest to determine whether the information reported in topics 240 meets a condition that would trigger the AV to enter a specific degraded state …”).
For Claim 9, Johnson-Phillips teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the health monitor unit is configured to:
generate a report responsive to the at least one sensed parameter value substantially matching an associated expected parameter value of the number of expected parameter values (Johnson teaches generating reports or alerts based on the threshold comparison, the report is generated if the monitored parameter value does not cross a threshold; FIG. 1, FIG. 2; para. [0021] “… The health status information may be generated at an edge device and transmitted to a compute system over a network. The compute system can collect and process the health status information to assess and diagnose whether certain flags or alerts should be raised, and whether the vehicle should enter a degraded state of operation …”; para. [0033] “… Monitors 210 can determine health status information of edge device 130 and report the health status information as payloads. In some embodiments, a monitor may monitor data about edge device 130, and check the data against a (configured) threshold …”; para. [0035] “… The data about the edge device being monitored may include an identification of health status information derived from the data being monitored. Exemplary identifications of health status information may include, e.g., processor utilization, amount of time the processor utilization is above a certain threshold, occurrence count of processor utilization crossing a threshold, etc. The measurement configuration of the monitor may include one or more thresholds …”; para. [0039] “… Webserver 208 may report overall edge device diagnostics status and/or edge device diagnostics status information (e.g., status of one or more of the monitors 210 and aggregator 206) …”); and
generate an alert responsive to the at least one sensed parameter value not substantially matching the associated expected parameter value of the number of expected parameter values (Johnson teaches generating reports or alerts based on the threshold comparison, the alert is generated if the monitored parameter value crosses a threshold; FIG. 1, FIG. 2; para. [0021] “… The health status information may be generated at an edge device and transmitted to a compute system over a network. The compute system can collect and process the health status information to assess and diagnose whether certain flags or alerts should be raised, and whether the vehicle should enter a degraded state of operation …”; para. [0033] “… Monitors 210 can determine health status information of edge device 130 and report the health status information as payloads. In some embodiments, a monitor may monitor data about edge device 130, and check the data against a (configured) threshold …”; para. [0035] “… The data about the edge device being monitored may include an identification of health status information derived from the data being monitored. Exemplary identifications of health status information may include, e.g., processor utilization, amount of time the processor utilization is above a certain threshold, occurrence count of processor utilization crossing a threshold, etc. The measurement configuration of the monitor may include one or more thresholds …”).
For Claim 10, Johnson teaches a method of operating a mobile … unit (Johnson teaches autonomous vehicles; para. [0020] “… Vehicles, e.g., AVs, can have sophisticated networked systems onboard. A networked system for a vehicle may include many edge devices or components (referred herein as edge devices) onboard the AV, such as sensors, network devices, microcontrollers, boards, operating systems, etc. …”), comprising:
sensing at least one parameter value associated with at least one device of a mobile … unit (Johnson teaches monitoring the data by a monitor associated with an edge device of the AV, the monitor is configured to include a name, a threshold and measurement configuration; FIG. 1, FIG. 2; para. [0033] “… a monitor may monitor data about edge device 130, and check the data against a (configured) threshold. The threshold may be defined in a configuration information for the monitor …”; para. [0035] “… Monitors 210 may have corresponding configurations (e.g., defined by configuration data files). A configuration for a monitor may include a name of the monitor, the rate/frequency at which the monitor operates or reports payloads, the data about the edge device being monitored, (optionally) measurement configuration of the monitor …”);
comparing, at the mobile … unit, the at least one parameter value to at least one expected parameter value stored in a configuration file at the mobile … unit (Johnson teaches configuration data files to define edge devices associated monitors that includes thresholds and measurement configuration, the thresholds and measurement corresponds to a number of expected parameter values, and the monitors perform the comparison of monitored data against the configured threshold; FIG. 1, FIG. 2; para. [0024] “… To make it easier to implement and deploy the edge devices diagnostics system, configuration data files can be used to configure thresholds for monitors, and branded edge device diagnostics configuration files can be used to standardize and simplify configuration of monitors for various edge devices …”; para. [0033] “… a monitor may monitor data about edge device 130, and check the data against a (configured) threshold. The threshold may be defined in a configuration information for the monitor …”; para. [0035] “… Monitors 210 may have corresponding configurations (e.g., defined by configuration data files). A configuration for a monitor may include a name of the monitor, the rate/frequency at which the monitor operates or reports payloads, the data about the edge device being monitored, (optionally) measurement configuration of the monitor … Exemplary identifications of health status information may include, e.g., processor utilization, amount of time the processor utilization is above a certain threshold, occurrence count of processor utilization crossing a threshold, etc. The measurement configuration of the monitor may include one or more thresholds …”; para. [0067] “… Configurations of monitors may be defined in various configuration data files corresponding to the different monitors (e.g., a file with configuration values in a human-readable data serialization language). Edge devices diagnostics software developers may utilize a template/schema to write the various configuration data files for different monitors of the edge device …”);
generating, at the mobile … unit, data based on the comparison (Johnson teaches generating edge device health status information based on comparison of monitored data against the configured threshold; FIG. 1, FIG. 2; para. [0033] “… Monitors 210 may output (or publish) payloads having edge device health status. Monitors 210 can determine health status information of edge device 130 and report the health status information as payloads. In some embodiments, a monitor may monitor data about edge device 130, and check the data against a (configured) threshold. The threshold may be defined in a configuration information for the monitor …”); and
generating at least one of a report or an alert based on the data (Johnson teaches generating reports or alerts based on the edge device health status information; FIG. 1, FIG. 2; para. [0021] “… The health status information may be generated at an edge device and transmitted to a compute system over a network. The compute system can collect and process the health status information to assess and diagnose whether certain flags or alerts should be raised, and whether the vehicle should enter a degraded state of operation …”; para. [0033] “… Monitors 210 can determine health status information of edge device 130 and report the health status information as payloads. In some embodiments, a monitor may monitor data about edge device 130, and check the data against a (configured) threshold …”).
Johnson does not explicitly teach, but Phillips teaches the mobile unit acts as a mobile surveillance unit (Phillips, FIGS 1 and 3-6; para. [0018] “… the control system 12 of this embodiment includes a plurality of mobile surveillance units 11 ( or ‘MSUs,’ described below with reference to FIGS. 3-6) …”; para. [0061] “… FIGS. 3 through 6 show an example of the mobile surveillance unit 11. In some embodiments, the mobile surveillance unit 11 may act as a remote video camera integrated into the command-center server 14 …”).
Phillips and Johnson are analogous art because they are both related to mobile unites providing monitoring functionality.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the providing mobile surveillance structure techniques of Phillips with the system of Johnson to provide a cost effective, function efficient surveillance system for remote sites (Phillips, para. [0007]).
For Claim 12, Johnson-Phillips teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising updating at least one parameter of the number of expected parameters of the configuration file (Johnson teaches updating the monitors configuration and thresholds; FIG. 1, FIG. 2, FIG. 3; para. [0023] “… The edge devices diagnostics system further includes interfaces and webservers so that the state of the various components can be queried, and configuration of the various components can be modified …”; para. [0024] “… To make it easier to implement and deploy the edge devices diagnostics system, configuration data files can be used to configure thresholds for monitors …”; para. [0048] “… Monitor library API 310 may accept a request to update the configuration information of the monitor based on an update specified in the request …”).
For Claim 13, Johnson-Phillips teaches the method of claim 10, wherein sensing comprises at least one of sensing at least one of a voltage, a current, a temperature, or a state associated with the at least one device (Johnson teaches monitoring the temperature and voltage of the edge device; FIG. 1, FIG. 2; para. [0033] “… monitors 210 includes a first monitor to periodically output first payloads having first edge device health status (e.g., temperature), and a second monitor to periodically output second payloads having second edge device health status (e.g., voltage) …”)
For Claim 14, Johnson teaches a mobile … unit (Johnson teaches autonomous vehicles; para. [0020] “… Vehicles, e.g., AVs, can have sophisticated networked systems onboard. A networked system for a vehicle may include many edge devices or components (referred herein as edge devices) onboard the AV, such as sensors, network devices, microcontrollers, boards, operating systems, etc. …”), comprising:
a number of electronic devices (Johnson teaches edge devices that may include sensors such as cameras, etc.; FIG. 1; para. [0026] “… AV 102 may include one or more edge devices 130. An edge device is a device or component that performs one or more functions at the edge of a networked computing system. An edge device may be communicably coupled to one or more main processing units of a compute system. One or more edge devices 130 may include sensors of AV 102, such as a plurality of cameras, a plurality of light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensors, a plurality of radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensors, a plurality of ultrasonics sensors, a plurality of time-of-flight (TOF) sensors, a board having processing units of a compute system mounted thereon, an operating system of the compute system, a non-transient computer-readable storage device, a network device, an audio system, cabin entertainment system, impact sensor system, etc. …”);
a monitoring unit configured to receive sensed parameter values associated with one or more of the number of electronic devices (Johnson teaches that a monitor associated with an edge device of the AV performs monitoring the data, the monitor is configured to include a name, a threshold and measurement configuration; FIG. 1, FIG. 2; para. [0033] “… a monitor may monitor data about edge device 130, and check the data against a (configured) threshold. The threshold may be defined in a configuration information for the monitor …”; para. [0035] “… Monitors 210 may have corresponding configurations (e.g., defined by configuration data files). A configuration for a monitor may include a name of the monitor, the rate/frequency at which the monitor operates or reports payloads, the data about the edge device being monitored, (optionally) measurement configuration of the monitor);
a number of configuration files including a number of parameter values for the number of electronic devices (Johnson teaches configuration data files to define edge devices associated monitors that includes thresholds and measurement configuration, the thresholds and measurement configuration corresponds to a number of expected parameter values; FIG. 1, FIG. 2; para. [0024] “… To make it easier to implement and deploy the edge devices diagnostics system, configuration data files can be used to configure thresholds for monitors, and branded edge device diagnostics configuration files can be used to standardize and simplify configuration of monitors for various edge devices …”; para. [0033] “… a monitor may monitor data about edge device 130, and check the data against a (configured) threshold. The threshold may be defined in a configuration information for the monitor …”; para. [0035] “… Monitors 210 may have corresponding configurations (e.g., defined by configuration data files). A configuration for a monitor may include a name of the monitor, the rate/frequency at which the monitor operates or reports payloads, the data about the edge device being monitored, (optionally) measurement configuration of the monitor … Exemplary identifications of health status information may include, e.g., processor utilization, amount of time the processor utilization is above a certain threshold, occurrence count of processor utilization crossing a threshold, etc. The measurement configuration of the monitor may include one or more thresholds …”; para. [0067] “… Configurations of monitors may be defined in various configuration data files corresponding to the different monitors (e.g., a file with configuration values in a human-readable data serialization language). Edge devices diagnostics software developers may utilize a template/schema to write the various configuration data files for different monitors of the edge device …”); and
an application program (Johnson teaches program modules to perform desired functions; FIG. 14; para. [0105] “… FIG. 14 illustrates an example processor-based system with which some aspects of the subject technology may be implemented. Edge devices and compute system described herein can processor-based systems …”; para. [0115] “… Computer-executable instructions include, for example, instructions and data which cause a general-purpose computer, special-purpose computer, or special-purpose processing device to perform a certain function or group of functions. Computer-executable instructions also include program modules that are executed by computers in standalone or networked environments …”) configured to:
compare at least one parameter value of the number of parameter values for at least one electronic device of the number of electronic devices to at least one sensed parameter value of the at least one electronic device (Johnson teaches that the monitors perform the comparison of monitored data against the configured threshold; FIG. 1, FIG. 2; para. [0033] “… Monitors 210 can determine health status information of edge device 130 and report the health status information as payloads. In some embodiments, a monitor may monitor data about edge device 130, and check the data against a (configured) threshold …”; para. [0035] “… Exemplary identifications of health status information may include, e.g., processor utilization, amount of time the processor utilization is above a certain threshold, occurrence count of processor utilization crossing a threshold, etc. …”); and
generate data based on the comparison (Johnson teaches generating edge device health status information based on comparison of monitored data against the configured threshold; FIG. 1, FIG. 2; para. [0033] “… Monitors 210 may output (or publish) payloads having edge device health status. Monitors 210 can determine health status information of edge device 130 and report the health status information as payloads. In some embodiments, a monitor may monitor data about edge device 130, and check the data against a (configured) threshold. The threshold may be defined in a configuration information for the monitor …”).
Johnson does not explicitly teach, but Phillips teaches the mobile unit acts as a mobile surveillance unit (Phillips, FIGS 1 and 3-6; para. [0018] “… the control system 12 of this embodiment includes a plurality of mobile surveillance units 11 (or ‘MSUs,’ described below with reference to FIGS. 3-6) …”; para. [0061] “… FIGS. 3 through 6 show an example of the mobile surveillance unit 11. In some embodiments, the mobile surveillance unit 11 may act as a remote video camera integrated into the command-center server 14 …”).
Phillips and Johnson are analogous art because they are both related to mobile unites providing monitoring functionality.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the providing mobile surveillance structure techniques of Phillips with the system of Johnson to provide a cost effective, function efficient surveillance system for remote sites (Phillips, para. [0007]).
For Claim 15, the claim is substantially similar to claim 6 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim 16, Johnson-Phillips teaches the mobile surveillance unit of claim 14, further comprising at least of a driver, a service, or a sensor configured to sense the parameter values (Johnson teaches monitoring the data by a monitor associated with an edge device/sensor of the AV, the monitor is configured to include a name, a threshold and measurement configuration; FIG. 1, FIG. 2, FIG. 13; para. [0033] “… a monitor may monitor data about edge device 130, and check the data against a (configured) threshold. The threshold may be defined in a configuration information for the monitor …”; para. [0035] “… Monitors 210 may have corresponding configurations (e.g., defined by configuration data files). A configuration for a monitor may include a name of the monitor, the rate/frequency at which the monitor operates or reports payloads, the data about the edge device being monitored, (optionally) measurement configuration of the monitor …”; para. [0086] “… The sensor systems 1304-1308 may be considered edge devices 130 of the AV 102. The sensor systems 1304-1308 may include different types of sensors and may be arranged about the AV 102 …”).
For Claim 17, Johnson-Phillips teaches the mobile surveillance unit of claim 14, wherein the number of electronic devices comprises at least one of a camera, a battery, a power generator, a fuel cell generator, a charge controller, or an input/output (I/O) device (Johnson teaches a camera as an edge device; FIG. 1; para. [0026] “… AV 102 may include one or more edge devices 130. An edge device is a device or component that performs one or more functions at the edge of a networked computing system. An edge device may be communicably coupled to one or more main processing units of a compute system. One or more edge devices 130 may include sensors of AV 102, such as a plurality of cameras …”).
For Claim 18, Johnson-Phillips teaches the mobile surveillance unit of claim 14, wherein the number of parameter values comprises at least one of a voltage, a current, or a temperature (Johnson teaches monitoring the temperature and voltage of the edge device; FIG. 1, FIG. 2; para. [0033] “… monitors 210 includes a first monitor to periodically output first payloads having first edge device health status (e.g., temperature), and a second monitor to periodically output second payloads having second edge device health status (e.g., voltage) …”).
For Claim 19, Johnson-Phillips teaches the mobile surveillance unit of claim 14, wherein the data comprises one or more of a report or an alert (Johnson teaches generating edge device health status information, and outputting measurements/alerts based on the generated health status information; FIG. 1, FIG. 2; para. [0021] “… The health status information may be generated at an edge device and transmitted to a compute system over a network. The compute system can collect and process the health status information to assess and diagnose whether certain flags or alerts should be raised, and whether the vehicle should enter a degraded state of operation …”; para. [0033] “… Monitors 210 may output (or publish) payloads having edge device health status. Monitors 210 can determine health status information of edge device 130 and report the health status information as payloads. In some embodiments, a monitor may monitor data about edge device 130, and check the data against a (configured) threshold. The threshold may be defined in a configuration information for the monitor …”; para. [0040] “… Diagnostics driver 220 may publish or output health status information received in the data traffic as measurements to topics 240 …”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250007799 A1 (hereinafter Johnson), in view of US 20160026192 A1 (hereinafter Phillips), and in further view of US 20170163735 A1 (hereinafter Sun).
For Claim 2, Johnson-Phillips teaches the system of claim 1. Johnson-Phillips does not explicitly teach, but Sun teaches the mobile surveillance unit further comprising a monitoring device for conveying the at least one sensed parameter value to the health monitor unit (Sun teaches a middleware sending sensor data to a user application of the sensor data processing platform, here the middleware maps to a monitoring device and the user application maps to the health monitor unit; FIG. 1; para. [0021] “… Operation of sensor 120 with sensor driver 122 may result in sensor data being exchanged from sensor driver 122 to logic of middleware 130 such as the illustrative sensor data processing (SDP) logic 132 …”; para. [0080] “… The method further comprises processing the data packet at the first middleware logic, including the first middleware logic extracting the sensor data from the data packet and performing a conversion of the sensor data, and sending information, based on the conversion of the sensor data, from the first middleware logic to a user application of the first platform (i.e. Platform 110 in FIG. 1) …”).
Sun and Johnson-Phillips are analogous art because they are both related to sensor data processing and transmission.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the providing sensor data processing middleware techniques of Sun with the system of Johnson-Phillips to offload some of the sensor data processing responsibility from the application layer (Sun, para. [0020]).
For Claim 3, Johnson-Phillips-Sun teaches the system of claim 2, the mobile surveillance unit further comprising at least one of a service or a driver for providing the at least one sensed parameter to the monitoring device (Sun teaches a sensor driver providing the sensor data to the middleware; FIG. 1; para. [0021] “… Operation of sensor 120 with sensor driver 122 may result in sensor data being exchanged from sensor driver 122 to logic of middleware 130 such as the illustrative sensor data processing (SDP) logic 132 …”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the providing sensor data processing middleware techniques of Sun with the system of Johnson-Phillips to offload some of the sensor data processing responsibility from the application layer (Sun, para. [0020]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250007799 A1 (hereinafter Johnson), in view of US 20160026192 A1 (hereinafter Phillips), and in further view of US 20190173951 A1 (hereinafter Sumcad).
For Claim 7, Johnson-Phillips teaches the system of claim 6. Johnson-Phillips does not explicitly teach, but Sumcad teaches wherein the broker comprises a message queuing telemetry transport (MQTT) broker coupled to the health monitor unit (Sumcad teaches a MQTT broker for communicating messages; FIG. 1; para. [0056] “… Messaging broker 60 can be implemented using various messaging software, including libraries that can be downloaded and installed on various electronic computing devices or servers. In one particular embodiment, the broker implements an MQTT protocol and can include an MQTT library that enables the servers to act as a broker …”).
Sumcad and Johnson-Phillips are analogous art because they are both related to network communication techniques.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the MQTT broker techniques of Sumcad with the system of Johnson-Phillips to facilitate a system in conjunction with a variety of devices (Sumcad, para. [0029]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 8, 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250007799 A1 (hereinafter Johnson), in view of US 20160026192 A1 (hereinafter Phillips), and in further view of US 20100127880 A1 (hereinafter Schechter).
For Claim 8, Johnson-Phillips teaches the system of claim 6. Johnson-Phillips does not explicitly teach, but Schechter teaches wherein the mobile surveillance unit is configured to convey the at least one of the report or the alert to a remote server via a metered connection (Schechter teaches a remote monitoring unit sending a report to a server via the cost involved cellular telephone network; para. [0036] “… In some embodiments, the system uses a cellular telephone network, such as a GSM network, for communication … the overall communication cost can be low by employing a communication protocol that allows monitoring functionality to be implemented with low communication overhead. As a result, only a small amount of data is communicated using a relatively small number of interactions. As an example, each remote unit may send a UDP packet to communicate a temperature report or a status change for the device. The server may acknowledge the packet and provide a new monitoring interval for the remote unit with a second packet …”).
Schechter and Johnson-Phillips are analogous art because they are both related to network communication techniques.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the cellular telephone network to communicate monitoring report techniques of Schechter with the system of Johnson-Phillips to provide widespread network access without requirement of special infrastructure (Schechter, para. [0036]).
For Claim 11, the claim is substantially similar to claim 8 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim 20, the claim is substantially similar to claim 8 and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed below, thank you:
i. US 20240305541 A1 (Singarayan) teaches a method for monitoring a multi-tenant system deployed in a cloud, at a monitoring service deployed in the cloud. The method deploys a first service instance in the cloud for a first tenant that is based on a monitoring service configuration defined by an administrator of the multi-tenant system. The method collects (i) a first set of metrics of the first service instance and (ii) a second set of metrics of a second, existing service instance deployed in the cloud for a second, existing tenant of the multi-tenant system. The method uses the second set of metrics to determine an effect on the second service instance of the deployment of the first service instance (Abstract). In some embodiments, the synthetic monitoring service compares the metrics for both the newly deployed service instances and the existing service instances to various thresholds specified in a declarative configuration file. These declarative configuration files, which are described in greater detail below, may be derived from service level agreements for the actual tenants so as to ensure that these service level agreements are met (para. [0060]).
ii. US 20160378578 A1 (Nandakumar) teaches that If the first list of the configuration file identifies a plurality of mobile device resources to be monitored at block 507, the configuration file may identify a respective threshold for each resource, monitoring at block 507 may include monitoring each resource of the first list, and deciding at block 511 may include deciding based on a comparison of consumption of each resource with the respective threshold. Moreover, a different notification may be provided at block 515 for each resource being monitored (e.g., the notification may identify the particular resource that triggered the notification), and/or access to a different source(s) may be blocked at block 517 for each resource being monitored (e.g., the blocking may be different depending on the resource that triggered the blocking) (FIG. 5, para. [0062]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZONGHUA DU whose telephone number is (408)918-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM PST.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
/Z.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights