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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1,2,3,5,9,10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chelmecki 20220141290 in view of Edwards 20180060805
Regarding Claim 1,
a first 2-wire bus configured to carry power and data at the first measurement location;
a first plurality … connected to the first 2-wire bus in a daisy chain configuration, wherein each of the first plurality … is configured to provide … data … measured at the first measurement location; and
Chelmecki is directed to a sensor network based on single pair 10baseT1 ethernet. (Chelmecki, abstract; fig.4, para 0003, “Single Pair Ethernet (SPE) is specified by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.3cg standard as 10BASE-T1L or 10BASE-T1S. SPE may be utilized to replace and update existing proprietary wiring/protocols in various industries such as industrial/building automation and automotive/vehicle networks with an interface that provides forms of both power and data transmission (e.g., Ethernet). A single pair of conductors (in contrast to two pairs or four pairs of conductors for traditional Ethernet) reduces the cost of cabling and installation. For 10BASE-T1L, a data rate of 10 megabits/sec (MBS) is provided for bus lengths up to 1000 meters, with optional power delivery (i.e., power over data line (PoDL)). Alternatively, 10BASE-T1S provides for multidrop configurations up to 8 nodes but is limited to 25 meters of total bus length and does not include power delivery.”).
a first media converter connected to the first 2-wire bus and connected to a network via a first Ethernet connection, wherein the first media converter is configured to provide the … data to the network and configured to provide power to the first plurality … via the first 2-wire bus;
(Chelmecki, fig.4, element 34; para 0024, “Like the digital temperature and humidity sensor 16, the external temperature probe 18a, 18b, the ADC 20, and/or the SPE interface 22, the controller 32 may also be supplied with electrical power by the PoDL power circuitry 30 via SPE link 24 configured to deliver electrical power according to the 10BASE-T1L IEEE 802.3cg SPE standard previously described.”)
at least a second networked …system located at a second measurement location, the second networked … system comprising:
at least a second 2-wire bus configured to carry power and data at the second measurement location;
at least a second plurality … connected to the second 2-wire bus in a daisy chain configuration, wherein each of the second plurality of scales is configured to provide …data … measured at the second measurement location;
at least a second media converter connected to the second 2-wire bus and connected to the network via a second Ethernet connection, wherein the second media converter is configured to provide the scale data to the network and configured to provide power to the second plurality … via the second 2-wire bus; and
See rejection above. The examiner notes that the claimed second network and associated hardware appears to duplicate the features of the first network taught by Chelmecki. The examiner suggests that claiming the features of the second network would be obvious in light of the teaching of first network. Design choice may be an acceptable rationale for an obviousness rejection when a claimed product merely arranges known elements in a configuration recognized as functionally equivalent to a known configuration.” See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975). In addition MPEP 2144 states that duplication of parts may not be significant without new and unexpected results. (MPEP 2144, “ B.Duplication of Parts In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)”). In the instant case, the examiner respectfully suggests that duplicating a first network as a second network does not produce an unexpected result. For example a business owner may own two distinct businesses with a need to weigh inventory in distinct locations and therefore require duplication of the networked infrastructure to obtain data from the two sites. (E.g. a business could own a chain of restaurants and require monitoring inventory at several locations).
Chelmecki does not explicitly disclose
a first networked scale system located at a first measurement location, the first networked scale system comprising:
of scales
of scales
scale
including at least weight data representing weight of inventory items
scale
of scales
scale
scale
of scales
scale
of scales
including at least weight data representing weight of inventory items
Edwards is directed to a system for performing real time monitoring of beverage bottle weights using a network of scales. (Edwards, abstract; fig.1)
a network computing device connected to the network, the network computing device including a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium that includes instructions that, when executed by processor circuitry included in a portable electronic device, cause the processor circuitry to:
provide a user interface (UI) to allow a user to access the scale data; and track inventory of one or more inventory items based on the scale data.
Edwards discloses that a server may report data to a user. (Edwards, para 0023, “[0023] The cloud network 130 may be communicatively linked to one or more databases 135 configured to store and/or process the scale data into a viewable form suitable for reporting to the end user.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Chelmecki with the scales of Edwards with the motivation of monitoring an inventory of beverages. Id.
Regarding Claim 2, Chelmecki and Edwards disclose the system of claim 1.
wherein the network is the internet.
(Chelmecki, para 0025, “The SPE switch/uplink 34 may be provided in communication with a remote server 36 (or servers) via a network 38 which may comprise a Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) network, such as the Internet and/or any other TCP/IP network. In that regard, the remote server (or servers) may comprise a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) server, an Automation server, a Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) server, and/or any other similar type of server or similarly configured server.”)
Regarding Claim 3, Chelmecki and Edwards disclose the system of claim 1.
wherein the first 2-wire bus and the second 2-wire bus carry power and data using a 10BASE-T1 standard, and
(Chelmecki, para 0003, “Single Pair Ethernet (SPE) is specified by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.3cg standard as 10BASE-T1L or 10BASE-T1S. SPE may be utilized to replace and update existing proprietary wiring/protocols in various industries such as industrial/building automation and automotive/vehicle networks with an interface that provides forms of both power and data transmission (e.g., Ethernet). A single pair of conductors (in contrast to two pairs or four pairs of conductors for traditional Ethernet) reduces the cost of cabling and installation. For 10BASE-T1L, a data rate of 10 megabits/sec (MBS) is provided for bus lengths up to 1000 meters, with optional power delivery (i.e., power over data line (PoDL)). Alternatively, 10BASE-T1S provides for multidrop configurations up to 8 nodes but is limited to 25 meters of total bus length and does not include power delivery.”)
wherein the first media converter and the second media converter each include a 10BASE-T1 port connected to the first 2-wire bus and the second 2-wire bus, respectively.
(Chelmecki, para 0006, “The sensor network may further comprise an SPE switch comprising a plurality of device switch ports and a server switch port, each of the plurality of device switch ports configured for communication with one of the plurality of sensor devices and the server switch port configured for communication with the remote server.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Chelmecki and Edwards disclose the system of claim 3.
wherein the 10BASE-T1 standard is a 10BASE-T1L standard.
See prior art rejection of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 9, Chelmecki and Edwards disclose the system of claim 1.
Chelmecki does not explicitly disclose
wherein the network computing device comprises a server hosting a web application, and wherein the portable electronic device comprises a user device connected to the server via the network.
(Edwards, para 0028, “[0028] In some embodiments, the front-end server application 140 may further comprise an alert module configured to transmit an alert to a user when an irregularity in the processed data is identified. The alert may be transmitted to the user in any suitable method to bring the alert to the user's attention. For example, the alert module may transmit the alert via the internet to the user's email, a push notification such as to a cell phone, and/or an alert icon on the dashboard to draw the user's attention to the alert.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Chelmecki with the web app of Edwards with the motivation of monitoring an inventory of beverages. Id.
Regarding Claim 10, Chelmecki and Edwards disclose the system of claim 1.
wherein the first plurality of scales and the second plurality of scales each include 10 to 25 scales.
(Edwards, fig.1) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Chelmecki with the scales of Edwards with the motivation of monitoring an inventory of beverages. Id.
Claims 4,6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chelmecki 20220141290 in view of Edwards 20180060805 in view of
Posch, “Underwater Sensor Takes Single Pair Ethernet For A Dip”, 2/2024, “https://hackaday.com/2024/02/27/underwater-sensor-takes-single-pair-ethernet-for-a-dip/
Regarding Claim 4, Chelmecki and Edwards disclose the system of claim 3.
Chelmecki does not explicitly disclose
wherein the 10BASE-T1 standard is a 10BASE-T1S standard.
Posch is an article describing a sensor using 10baset1. (Posch, p.1, The 10BASE-T1 Ethernet standard is also known as ‘single pair Ethernet’ (SPE), as it’s most defining feature is the ability to work over a single pair of conductors. Being fairly new, it offers a lot of advantages where replacing existing wiring is difficult, or where the weight of the additional conductors is a concern, such as with the underwater sensor node project that [Michael Orenstein] and [Scott] dreamed up and implemented as part of a design challenge. With just a single twisted pair, this sensor node got access to a full-duplex 10 Mbit connection as well as up to 50 watts of power.
The SPE standards (100BASE-T1, 1000BASE-T1 and NGBASE-T1) 10BASE-T1 can do at least 15 meters (10BASE-T1S), but the 10BASE-T1L variant is rated for at least 1 kilometer. This makes it ideal for a sensor that’s placed well below the water’s surface, while requiring just the single twisted pair cable when adding Power over Data Lines (PoDL). Whereas Power-over-Ethernet (PoE) uses its own dedicated pairs, PoDL piggybacks on the same wires as the data, requiring it to be coupled and decoupled at each end.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
575
1391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Posch discloses that T1L and T1S SPE standards are similar in capability but may noticeably differ in range. Id. Chelmecki discloses that T1L SPE could be used for sensor network. (Prior art rejection of claim 1). The examiner proposes that substituting T1L for T1S would have produced predictable results. Presumably a sensor network could be localized in nature and not be required to extend beyond 15m, depending on the design needs of the business. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding Claim 6, Chelmecki and Edwards disclose the system of claim 3.
Chelmecki does not explicitly disclose
wherein the first media converter and the second media converter each include a power of ethernet (PoE) port connected to the first Ethernet connection and the second Ethernet connection, respectively, and wherein the first media converter and the second media converter convert between PoE and 10BASE-T1.
See prior art rejection of claim 4.
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chelmecki 20220141290 in view of Edwards 20180060805 in view of
Daisy-Chained Power and Data Over Single Pair Ethernet
(T1) Reference Design”, 2020, https://www.ti.com/lit/ug/tiduet1/tiduet1.pdf, hereinafter Texas Instruments
Regarding Claim 7, Chelmecki and Edwards disclose the system of claim 1.
wherein each scale of the first and second plurality of scales comprises:
at least one sensor for sensing a mass of an inventory item;
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding Edwards
Chelmecki does not explicitly disclose
an upstream connection connected to the 2-wire bus for receiving power and data from upstream on the 2-wire bus; and
a downstream connection connected to the 2-wire bus for providing power and data downstream on the 2-wire bus.
Texas instruments is a design document describing daisy chaining on T1 SPE networks. (Texas, instruments, p.1). Texas instruments discloses that nodes may be connected with upstream and downstream data/power connections. (Texas Instruments, Section 2.2)
PNG
media_image2.png
1920
1200
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Chelmecki and Edwards with the daisy chain configuration of Texas Instruments with the motivation of providing power to SPE nodes. Id.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chelmecki 20220141290 in view of Edwards 20180060805 in view of Posch
Regarding Claim 11,
a 2-wire bus configured to carry power and data using a 10BASE-T1 standard;
a plurality of scales connected to the 2-wire bus in a daisy chain configuration, wherein each of the scales comprises:
at least one sensor for sensing a mass of an item;
See prior art rejection of claim 1.
a media converter including at least one 10BASE-T1 port connected to the 2-wire bus and at least one Ethernet port configured to be connected to an Ethernet connection, wherein the media converter converts between standard Ethernet and 10BASE-T1 and provides power to the plurality of scales over the 2-wire bus.
See prior art rejection of claim 6 regarding Posch
an upstream connection connected to the 2-wire bus for receiving power and data from upstream on the 2-wire bus; and
a downstream connection connected to the 2-wire bus for providing power and data downstream on the 2-wire bus; and
See prior art rejection of claim 7 regarding Texas Instruments
Regarding Claim 12, 13,14, 15
See prior art rejections of claim 4,5,10, 6
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chelmecki 20220141290 in view of Edwards 20180060805 in view of Texas Instruments in view of
“Digital Load Cells vs. Analog Load Cells”, 10/2020, https://web.archive.org/web/20201001043111/https://www.arlynscales.com/digital-indicator/digital-load-cells-vs-analog-load-cells/, hereinafter Arlyn
Regarding Claim 8, Chelmecki, Edwards and Texas Instruments disclose the system of claim 7.
Chelmecki does not explicitly disclose
an Ethernet transceiver connected between the processor and the upsteam connection and the downstream connection, wherein the Ethernet transceiver is configured to transmit and receive data via the upstream connection and the downstream connection using a 10BASE-T1 standard; and
at least one power converter configured to receive power from the upstream connection and configured to supply power to at least the ADC, the processor and the Ethernet transceiver.
See prior art rejection of claim 7 regarding Texas Instruments.
wherein each scale of the first and second plurality of scales further comprises:
an analog to digital converter (ADC) for converting analog sensor signals from the at least one sensor to digital sensor signals representative of the mass of the inventory item;
a processor for processing the digital sensor signals to produce at least weight data including at least a measured weight of the inventory item as determined by the sensor;
Arlyn is an article describing weighing scale technology. (Arlyn, p.1). Arlyn discloses that an analog load cell (aka a strain gauge) may produce a signal interpreted by a processor to yield a digital value. (Id., “The leading analog load cell is called a strain gauge load cell. It measures the stress and strain of the load on the platform. Strain gauges are special resisters that are bonded to a spring element. The element bends when a load is placed on the scale platform. This causes the strain gauge resistors to stretch specific amounts, which changes their resistance. The resistors are wired together into the form of a Wheatstone Bridge. This means that a change in resistance changes the voltage coming from the bridge. The voltage signal is typically sent along a wire to the digital indicator. An Analog to Digital (A/D) converter changes the voltage reading to a digital value and the microprocessor in the digital indicator then uses that value to determine the weight that is on the scale platform.” ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Chelmecki , Edwards and Texas Instruments with the load cell of Arlyn with the motivation of weighing objects. Id.
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chelmecki 20220141290 in view of Edwards 20180060805 in view of Texas Instruments in view of
Posch in view of Arlyn
Regarding Claim 16, Chelmecki, Edwards, Posch and Texas instruments disclose the system of claim 11.
See prior art rejection of claim 8.
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arlyn in view of Texas Instruments in view of Edwards
Regarding Claim 17
at least one sensor for sensing a mass of an item and for generating analog sensor signals representative of the mass of the item;
an analog to digital converter (ADC) for converting the analog sensor signals to digital sensor signals representative of the mass of the item;
a processor for processing the digital sensor signals to produce at least weight data including a measured weight of the item as determined by the sensor;
See prior art rejection of claim 8 regarding Arlyn
an upstream connection configured to be connected to a 2-wire bus that carries power and data using a 10BASE-T1 standard;
a downstream connection configured to be connected to the 2-wire bus;
an Ethernet transceiver connected between the processor and the upstream connection and the downstream connection, wherein the Ethernet transceiver is configured to transmit and receive data via the upstream connection and the downstream connection using a 10BASE-T1 standard; and
at least one power converter configured to receive power from the upstream connection and configured to supply power to at least the ADC, the processor and the Ethernet transceiver.
See prior art rejection of claim 7 regarding Texas Instruments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Arlyn with the network of Texas Instruments with the motivation of creating a networked scale inventory monitoring system. (Edwards, abstract).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arlyn in view of Texas Instruments in view of Edwards in view of Posch
Regarding Claim 18,19,20
See prior art rejection of claim 4,5,8
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights