CTNF 19/135,907 CTNF 87167 Detailed Action Drawings 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because the words inside the boxes shown in figures 1, 6 and 7 are illegible. The applicant needs to provide new drawings in which the words inside all the boxes are legible . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Abstract The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract has two paragraphs. The abstract should be written in a single paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim (s) 1-3 and 7-20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: In regards to claim 1, the claim recites in lines 4 “the management node is further configured to” and in line 6-7 “gives an instruction”. Since the verb “gives” in lines 6-7 is preceded by the word “to” in line 4, the verb should be “give” in order to make the sentence grammatically correct. For this reason, the claim is objected . Appropriate correction is required. In regards to claim(s) 2-3 and 10-15, the claim(s) is/are objected due to its/their dependency on objected claim 1. In regards to claim 7, the word “is” is misspelled in line 4. For this reason, the claim is objected. Appropriate correction is required. Also, line 6 of claim 7 has the same issues described in the objection of claim 1 above. For this reason, the claim is objected. Appropriate correction is required. In regards to claim(s) 8-9 and 16-20, the claim(s) is/are objected due to its/their dependency on objected claim 7. In regards to claim 11 and 17, the claims recited in lines 2-3 “into a plurality of multiple frames”. The words “plurality and multiple” are synonyms. Therefore, reciting “a plurality of multiple” is redundant, and the word “multiple” should be deleted. For this reason, the claims are objected. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claim(s) 14 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In regards to claim 14, the claim recites “a frame transmission period is dynamically changed based on a decision made by the sub-sensor terminal and the main sensor terminal or based on an instruction from the management node”. The applicant specification instead of reciting a transmission period recites a transmission cycle [see applicant’s specification paragraph 0022]. Transmission period and transmission cycle are two different things. Transmission period is the interval during which a device transmits data while transmission cycle is a fundamental framework detailing how information flows from a source to a receiver. Therefore, it is unclear what the claim and the specification means by reciting frame transmission period/cycle. Also, the applicant’s specification fails to explain what parameters the terminals or management node use to decide when to change the transmission period/cycle. Therefore, it is unclear how the transmission period/cycle is changed. Furthermore, the specification recites that the transmission cycle can be dynamically changed according to a determination by the terminal and an instruction from the management node [see applicant’s specification par. 0022]. On the other hand, the claim recites that the transmission period/cycle can be dynamically changed according to a decision made by the sub-sensor terminal and the main sensor terminal. The applicant’s specification does not recite that the decision is made by two terminals. Therefore, it is unclear how the sub-sensor terminal and the main sensor terminal agree with each other to change the transmission period/cycle. For the reasons provided above, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement. In regards to claim 20, the claim has the same issues described in the rejection of claim 14 above. For this reason, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement. 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 AIA Claim (s) 3, 7-13 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In regards to claim 3, the claim recites in line 2 “an image of the sensing target”. Claim 1 defines different sensing targets in line 3 of claim 1 and a sensing target in line 5 of claim 1. It is unclear to which of the previously defined sensing targets the limitation of line 2 of claim 3 is referring. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. In regards to claim 7, the claim is directed to a method. However, the claim does not recites the steps of the method. Therefore, it is unclear what steps the method comprises. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: 7. (Currently Amended) A method executed by a management node included in a data collection system that collects sensing data detected by a sub-sensor terminal and a main sensor terminal having different sensing targets in the management node, wherein the management node if further configured to: the method comprising: when receiving , by the management node, an event occurrence notification indicating that a sensing target is sensed by the sub-sensor terminal using an extension area of a layer 2 communication protocol, and gives giving, by the management node, an instruction according to the event occurrence notification to the main sensor terminal when the event occurrence notification is received . In regards to claim(s) 8-9 and 16-20, the claim(s) is/are indefinite due to its/their dependency on indefinite claim 7. In regards to claim 9, line 3 of the claim has the same issues described in the rejection of claim 3 above. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. In regards to claim 10, the claim recites in lines 1-2 “the sensing data detected by the sensor device”. The word “the” in front of the limitation(s) “sensing data detected by the sensor device” and “sensor device” means that the limitation(s) was/were previously defined. However, the limitation(s) was/were not previously defined. Claim 1 only defines sensing data detected by a sub-sensor terminal and a main sensor terminal, but it does not define sensing data detected by a sensor device. For this reason, the limitation(s) lack of antecedent basis and the claim is indefinite. In regards to claim(s) 11-13, the claim(s) is/are indefinite due to its/their dependency on indefinite claim 10. In regards to claim 11, line 1 recites “wherein the sensing data”. Claim 1 defines sensing data detected by a sub-sensor terminal and a main sensor terminal, and claim 10 defines sensing data detected by the sensor device. It is unclear to which of the previously defined data the limitation of line 1 is referring. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. Also, the claim recites in lines 2-3 “before storing into the frame by converting into a shortened code or into a plurality of multiple frames”. The sentence has a missing subject after the verb “storing” and after the verb “converting”. It is unclear what is being stored, and what is being converted. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. In regards to claim 12, line 1 recites “wherein the sensing data”. Claim 1 defines sensing data detected by a sub-sensor terminal and a main sensor terminal, and claim 10 defines sensing data detected by the sensor device. It is unclear to which of the previously defined data the limitation of line 1 is referring. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. In regards to claim 13, line 1 recites “wherein the sensing data”. Claim 1 defines sensing data detected by a sub-sensor terminal and a main sensor terminal, and claim 10 defines sensing data detected by the sensor device. It is unclear to which of the previously defined data the limitation of line 1 is referring. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. In regards to claim 16, line 2 recites “wherein the sensing data”. Claim 7 defines sensing data detected by a sub-sensor terminal and a main sensor terminal. It is unclear if the limitation of line 2 is referring to the data detected by the sub-sensor terminal or to the data detected by the main sensor terminal or to the data detected by both terminals. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. In regards to claim(s) 17-19, the claim(s) is/are indefinite due to its/their dependency on indefinite claim 16. In regards to claim 17, line 2 recites “wherein the sensing data”. Claim 7 defines sensing data detected by a sub-sensor terminal and a main sensor terminal. It is unclear if the limitation of line 2 is referring to the data detected by the sub-sensor terminal or to the data detected by the main sensor terminal or to the data detected by both terminals. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. Also, the claim recites in lines 2-3 “before storing into the frame by converting into a shortened code or into a plurality of multiple frames”. The sentence has a missing subject after the verb “storing” and after the verb “converting”. It is unclear what is being stored, and what is being converted. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. In regards to claim 18, line 2 recites “wherein the sensing data”. Claim 7 defines sensing data detected by a sub-sensor terminal and a main sensor terminal. It is unclear if the limitation of line 2 is referring to the data detected by the sub-sensor terminal or to the data detected by the main sensor terminal or to the data detected by both terminals. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. In regards to claim 19, line 1 recites “wherein the sensing data”. Claim 7 defines sensing data detected by a sub-sensor terminal and a main sensor terminal. It is unclear if the limitation of line 1 is referring to the data detected by the sub-sensor terminal or to the data detected by the main sensor terminal or to the data detected by both terminals. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In regards to claim 19, the claim recites in line 1 “The management node according to claim 16”. Claim 16 is directed to a method executed by a management node. Therefore, claim 19 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “The method executed by the management node according to claim 16”. In regards to claim 20, the claim recites in line 1 “The management node according to claim 7”. Claim 7 is directed to a method executed by a management node. Therefore, claim 20 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “The method executed by the management node according to claim 7”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-10 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Child (US-9,723,273) in view of Bose et al. (US-9,607,652) and Suzuki et al. (US-2021/0362041) . In regards to claim 1, Child teaches a control unit (management node) included in a sensor system that receives sensing data detected by a motion sensor (sub-sensor terminal) and a camera (main sensor terminal) that detect objects/people (having different sensing targets in the management node) [fig. 1 elements 102 (management node), 104 (main sensor terminal) and 106 (sub-sensor terminal), col. 3 L. 50-51 (management node and main sensor terminal), col. 4 L. 22 (person/object), col. 5 L. 17-20 (objects), col. 3 L. 58-66 (sub-sensor and reception of sensing data), col. 6 L. 26-29 (reception of sensing data), col. 8 L. 32-37 (objects)]. Also, Child teaches that the management node is configured to when receiving an event occurrence notification indicating that a sensing target is sensed by the sub-sensor terminal, give an instruction according to the event occurrence notification to the main sensor terminal [col. 8 L. 32-44]. Child teaches that the management node receives sensing data detected by the sub-sensor terminal and the main sensor terminal [col. 3 L. 58-66, col. 6 L. 26-29]. However, Child does not teach that the sensing data is collected. On the other hand, Bose teaches that a management node receiving sensing data from a sub-sensor terminal and a main sensor terminal is configured to collect the sensing data [col. 7 L. 36-46, col. 28 L. 59-67, col. 62 L. 44-48 and L. 63.-67, col. 65 L. 60-64, col. 84 L. 53-56]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Bose’s teachings of collecting the sensing data in the management node taught by Child because it will permit the management node to store the sensing data for later retrieval and display. The combination of Child and Bose teaches that the management node receives the event occurrence notification using 802.11 network (layer 2 communication protocol) [see Child col. 4 L. 35-44, col. 8 L. 32-44]. However, the combination does not teach that the notification is received using an extension area of the layer 2 communication protocol. On the other hand, Suzuki teaches that even information can be transmitted in an extension area of a IEEE 802.11 protocol (layer 2 communication protocol) [par. 0098 L. 3-9]. This teaching means that a notification is received using an extension area of the layer 2 communication protocol. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Suzuki’s teachings of using an extension area of the layer 2 communication protocol to transmit the notification in the management node taught by the combination because it will permit the system to receive notifications of detected events in a reliable manner without breaking backward compatibility of the communication protocol. In regards to claim 2, the combination of Child, Bose and Suzuki, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that an operation defined by the instruction is start of sensing by the main sensor terminal [see Child col. 8 L. 39-44]. In regards to claim 3, the combination of Child, Bose and Suzuki, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the main sensor terminal is a camera terminal that captures an image of the sensing target [see Child fig. 1 element 104, fig. 5, col. 5 L. 17-20]. Also, the combination teaches that the management node teaches that the management node can request sensing data of the main sensor terminal from a specific period of time in which an event occurred, and that the sensing data comprises timestamps [see Bose col. 3 L. 6-14, col. 62 L. 48-63, col. 64 L. 53-65, col. 66 L. 13-17, col. 69 L. 43-47, col. 70 L. 25-31, col. 71 L. 1-8]. This teaching means that an operation defined by the instruction is attachment of a timestamps (marker) to captured video data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Bose’s teachings of having timestamped video data in the management node taught by the combination because it will permit the management node to synchronize event data captured by the sub-sensor terminal with video data of the main sensor terminal. In regards to claim 4, the combination of Child, Bose and Suzuki, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches a management node performing the claimed functionality and in communication with the claimed terminals. Therefore, the combination also teaches the claimed data collection system. In regards to claim 5, the combination of Child, Bose and Suzuki, as applied in the rejection of claim 4 above, further teaches that the main sensor terminal is activated from a sleep state when receiving an instruction from the management node [see Child col. 8 L. 39-44]. In regards to claim 6, the combination of Child, Bose and Suzuki, as applied in the rejection of claim 4 above, further teaches that the sub-sensor terminal is a motion sensor or a proximity sensor [see Child col. 3 L. 61-65, col. 8 L. 24-25 and L. 32-37]. This teaching means that the sub-sensor terminal senses that an object including a person or a thing approaches a vicinity of the own apparatus. In regards to claim 7, the combination of Child, Bose and Suzuki, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches a management node performing the claimed functionality and in communication with the claimed terminals. Therefore, the combination also teaches the claimed method. In regards to claim 8, the combination of Child, Bose and Suzuki, as shown in the rejections of claims 2 and 5 above, teaches the claimed limitations. In regards to claim 9, the combination of Child, Bose and Suzuki, as shown in the rejection of claim 3 above, teaches the claimed limitations. In regards to claim 10, the combination of Child, Bose and Suzuki, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the layer 2 communication protocol can use a frame to transmit data, wherein the frame comprises a frame body in which the data is transmitted and other areas in which metadata such as destination address and source address is transmitted [see Suzuki fig. 5]. This teaching means that the sensing data will be transmitted in the frame body while the metadata will be transmitted in a separate region of the frame. In other words, the sensing data detected by the sensor device is stored in a region different from a region storing meta data in a frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Suzuki’s teachings of transmitting the sensing data using a frame comprising a frame body and other regions to transmit metadata in the management node taught by the combination because it will permit the system to transmit sensing data using the standards of the layer 2 communication protocol. In regards to claim 15, the combination of Child, Bose and Suzuki, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the management node can store synchronized data from the sub-sensor terminal and the main sensor terminal [col. 7 L. 36-46, col. 62 L. 57-67, col. 65 L. 60-64]. This teaching means that the management node is characterized by having a function of storing combinations of two or more pieces of collected information in an information storage. In regards to claim 16, the combination of Child, Bose and Suzuki, as shown in the rejection of claim 10 above, teaches the claimed limitations . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Child (US-9,723,273) in view of Bose et al. (US-9,607,652) and Suzuki et al. (US-2021/0362041) as applied to claim (s) 10 and 16 above, and further in view of Ara et al. (US-9,486,161) . In regards to claim 11, the combination of Child, Bose and Suzuki, as applied in the rejection of claim 10 above, further teaches that a frame with the sensing data is formed in order to transmit the sensing data [see Suzuki fig. 5, par. 0098 L. 3-9]. However, the combination does not teach that the sensing data is processed before storing into the frame by converting into a shortened code or into a plurality of multiple frames. On the other hand, Ara teaches that sensor data can be transmitted by dividing the data into a plurality of frames [col. 9 L. 58-64]. This teaching means that the sensing data is processed before storing the sensing data into the frame by converting the sensing data into a plurality of frames. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Ara’s teachings of dividing the sensing data into a plurality of frames in the management node taught by the combination because it will permit the system to transmit more sensing data by diving the sensing data into a plurality of frames. In regards to claim 17, the combination of Child, Bose, Suzuki and Ara, as shown in the rejection of claim 11 above, teaches the claimed limitations . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 12, 14, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Child (US-9,723,273) in view of Bose et al. (US-9,607,652) and Suzuki et al. (US-2021/0362041) as applied to claim (s) 1, 7,10 and 16 above, and further in view of Santhanam et al. (US-12,438,359) . In regards to claim 12, the combination of Child, Bose and Suzuki, as applied in the rejection of claim 10 above, does not teach that the sensing data is stored at an arbitrarily timing. On the other hand, Santhanam teaches that transmission of sensing data from a terminal can be randomized [col. 6 L. 48-51]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Santhanam’s teachings of transmitting the sensing data at random time in the management node taught by the combination because it will permit the system to avoid collisions during transmissions. The combination of Child, Bose, Suzuki and Santhanam teaches that a frame with the sensing data is formed in order to transmit the sensing data [see Suzuki fig. 5, par. 0098 L. 3-9], and that the sensing data can be transmitted at random times [see Santhanam col. 6 L. 48-51]. These teachings mean that data frames comprising sensing data are formed at random times in order to transmit the sensing data at random times. In other words, the sensing data is stored in the a frame at an arbitrarily timing. In regards to claim 14, the combination of Child, Bose and Suzuki, as applied in the rejection of claim 10 above, does not teach that a frame transmission period is dynamically changed based on a decision made by the sub-sensor terminal and the main sensor terminal or based on an instruction from the management node. On the other hand, Santhanam teaches that a terminal transmitting sensing data can dynamically change the frequency (transmission period) at which the sensing data is transmitted [col. 6 L. 48-57]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Santhanam’s teachings of dynamically changing the transmission period of the sensing data in the management node taught by the combination because it will permit the terminal to decide when sensing data should be transmitted. The combination of Child, Bose, Suzuki and Santhanam teaches that a frame with the sensing data is formed in order to transmit the sensing data [see Suzuki fig. 5, par. 0098 L. 3-9], and that terminal transmitting sensing data can dynamically change the frequency (transmission period) at which the sensing data is transmitted [see Santhanam col. 6 L. 48-57]. These teachings mean that a frame transmission period is dynamically changed based on a decision made by the sub-sensor terminal and the main sensor terminal. In regards to claim 18, the combination of Child, Bose, Suzuki and Santhanam, as shown in the rejection of claim 12 above, teaches the claimed limitations. In regards to claim 20, the combination of Child, Bose, Suzuki and Santhanam, as shown in the rejection of claim 14 above, teaches the claimed limitations . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Child (US-9,723,273) in view of Bose et al. (US-9,607,652), Suzuki et al. (US-2021/0362041) and Santhanam et al. (US-12,438,359) as applied to claim (s) 12 above, and further in view of Raduchel et al. (US-12,222,231) . In regards to claim 13, the combination of Child, Bose, Suzuki and Santhanam, as applied in the rejection of claim 10 above, teaches that the sensing data be transmitted periodically [see Santhanam col. 6 L. 48-51]. However, the combination does not teach that the sensing data transmitted periodically comprises accumulated sensing data. On the other hand, Raduchel teaches that a sensor terminal can transmit sensing data, accumulated over a period of time, periodically [col. 38 L. 22-23 and L. 30-36]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Raduchel’s teachings of transmitting the collected data periodically in the management node taught by the combination because it will permit the system to reduce the number of transmission by transmitting collected data over a period of time. The combination of Child, Bose, Suzuki, Santhanam and Raduchel teaches that a frame with the sensing data is formed in order to transmit the sensing data [see Suzuki fig. 5, par. 0098 L. 3-9], and that the sensing data is transmitted periodically and comprises data accumulated over a period of time [see Raduchel col. 38 L. 22-23 and L. 30-36]. These teachings mean that data frames comprising collected sensing data over a period of time are formed periodically in order to transmit the collected sensing data periodically. In other words, the sensing data is stored in a data frame at a certain period of time after being accumulated . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Child (US-9,723,273) in view of Bose et al. (US-9,607,652) and Suzuki et al. (US-2021/0362041) as applied to claim (s) 16 above, and further in view of Raduchel et al. (US-12,222,231) . In regards to claim 19, the combination of Child, Bose and Suzuki, as applied in the rejection of claim 16 above, does not teach that the sensing data is stored at a certain period of time after being accumulated. On the other hand, Raduchel teaches that a sensor terminal can transmit sensing data, accumulated over a period of time, periodically [col. 38 L. 22-23 and L. 30-36]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Raduchel’s teachings of transmitting the collected data periodically in the management node taught by the combination because it will permit the system to reduce the number of transmission by transmitting collected data over a period of time. The combination of Child, Bose, Suzuki and Raduchel teaches that a frame with the sensing data is formed in order to transmit the sensing data [see Suzuki fig. 5, par. 0098 L. 3-9], and that the sensing data is transmitted periodically and comprises data accumulated over a period of time [see Raduchel col. 38 L. 22-23 and L. 30-36]. These teachings mean that data frames comprising collected sensing data over a period of time are formed periodically in order to transmit the collected sensing data periodically. In other words, the sensing data is stored in a data frame at a certain period of time after being accumulated. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F. 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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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. /FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 2 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 3 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 4 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 5 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 6 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 7 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 8 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 9 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 10 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 12 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 13 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 14 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 15 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 16 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 17 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 18 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 19 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 20 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 21 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 22 Art Unit: 2688 Application/Control Number: 19/135,907 Page 23 Art Unit: 2688
Prosecution Insights