DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
General Information Matter
Please note, the instant Non-Provisional application (19/262,653) under prosecution at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been assigned to David Zarka (Examiner) in Art Unit 2449. To aid in correlating any papers for 19/262,653, all further correspondence regarding the instant application should be directed to the Examiner.
Joint Inventors
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. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 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 § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDS filed July 8, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. The IDS has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(q) recites “Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed.” Moreover, 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(r) recites “Arrows may be used at the ends of lines, provided that their meaning is clear, as follows: (1) On a lead line, a freestanding arrow to indicate the entire section towards which it points.”
Fig. 1, item 100 is a reference character that does not indicate a surface or cross section on which it is placed. Thus, the drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(q) for failing to include lead lines for each reference character. Moreover, Fig. 1, item 100 appears to indicate the entire section towards which it points. Thus, the Examiner recommends adding to arrow at the end of the lead line.
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(t) recites “These [numbering of sheets of drawings], if present, must be placed in the middle of the top of the sheet, but not in the margin. . . . The drawing sheet numbering must be clear and larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion.” See MPEP § 608.02.
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(t) for failing to include the numbering of sheets of drawings in the middle of the top of the sheet, but not in the margin.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Applicants are advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the USPTO does not prepare new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, Applicants 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.
Specification
Applicants are reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure—the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet preferably within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b); see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.72.
The following is a quotation of 37 C.F.R. § 1.72(b):
The sheet or sheets presenting the abstract may not include other parts of the application or other material. The abstract must be as concise as the disclosure permits, preferably not exceeding 150 words in length. The purpose of the abstract is to enable the Office and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure.
MPEP § 608.01(b) recites “The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, ‘This disclosure concerns,’ ‘The disclosure defined by this invention,’ ‘This disclosure describes,’ etc.”
The abstract is objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.72(b) for repeating information given in the title. The Examiner recommends deleting the first sentence of the abstract.
The lengthy Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicants’ cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicants may become aware in the Specification.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): “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 MPEP recites “[d]uring examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected.” MPEP § 2173.02(I) (citing In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) . . . is appropriate.” Id. See also id. § 2173.05(e)(discussing indefiniteness arising for terms lacking proper antecedent basis).
Claims 4–6 and 10–19 are rejected under § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(i) claim 4, line 3, “the data feature information” lacks clear antecedent basis.
(ii) claim 9, line 2, “a signal” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as to whether the limitation refers to the signal introduced in claim 1, line 3 or not.
It is assumed for examination purposes that the limitation refers to the introduced in claim 1, line 3. See MPEP § 2173.06 (reciting “When making a rejection over prior art in these circumstances, it is important that the examiner state on the record how the claim term or phrase is being interpreted with respect to the prior art applied in the rejection.”; emphasis omitted).
Claim 10, line 3; claim 15, line 2; and claim 19, line 2 by analogy.
(iii) claim 15, lines 4–5, “wherein the third message is used to request to query the transmission state of the first data” appears grammatically incorrect and thus adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as to whether the limitation refers to
(a) wherein the third message is used to request to and query the transmission state of the first data; (b) wherein the third message is used to request to query the transmission state of the first data; or
(c) wherein the third message is used to request to query the transmission state of the first data.
(iv) claim 16, line 11, “and/or” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as to whether the limitation refers to “and” or “or.”
It is assumed for examination purposes that the limitation refers to “or.”
(v) claim 19, lines 15–17, “a protocol layer identity granularity, an AI model identity granularity, a function characteristic granularity, a band granularity, or a band combination granularity” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as to whether the limitation refers the protocol layer identity granularity, the AI model identity granularity, the function characteristic granularity, the band granularity, and the band combination granularity introduced in claim 18, lines 12–14 or not.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 1021
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–14, 16–18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Mirza et al. (US 2017/0064491 A1; filed Aug. 26, 2015).
Regarding claim 1, Mirza discloses a first device (figs. 1, 2, and 6, item 100), comprising a transceiver (fig. 3, item 380; “Communication interface 380 may include any transceiver mechanism” at ¶ 34; “FIG. 3 is a diagram of exemplary components of a device 300 that may correspond to . . . IoT device of FIG. 2” at ¶ 4), a memory (fig. 3, item 330), and a processor (fig. 3, item 320), wherein the memory is configured to store a program (¶ 36), and the processor is configured to invoke the program in the memory and control the transceiver to receive or transmit a signal (¶ 34), to cause the first device to:
transmit a first message (figs. 1 and 4, item 115; fig. 6, item 600) to a second device (figs. 1, 2, and 6, item 110), wherein the first message is used for management and control (¶¶ 14–15) related to first data (fig. 4, item 440), and the first message is associated with a data type identity (the information within fig. 4, items 420, 430) of the first data.
Regarding claim 2, Mirza discloses wherein if the first message is associated with the data type identity of the first data, the data type identity of the first data is associated with data feature information (¶¶ 40–41) of the first data, and the data feature information of the first data comprises one or more of following: a data meaning of the first data (“a routing code may be inserted in sensor ID field 430, where the routing code may include the IoT device’s MAC address prefixed with a prefix that includes the data type indicator. In one example, the prefix ‘AAAA’ may indicate temperature sensor data, the prefix ‘BBBB’ may indicate humidity sensor data, and the prefix ‘CCCC’ may indicate barometric pressure sensor data.” at ¶ 41); a data source of the first data; or data precision of the first data.
Regarding claim 3, Mirza discloses wherein if the data feature information of the first data comprises the data source of the first data, the data source of the first data is used to indicate one or more of following: a country to which the first data belongs; a geographical area to which the first data belongs; an operator to which the first data belongs; a cell to which the first data belongs; a tracking area to which the first data belongs; or an access network notification area to which the first data belongs.2
Regarding claim 4, Mirza discloses wherein the data type identity (the information within fig. 4, items 420, 430) of the first data (fig. 4, item 440) is carried in a first indicator field (“a sensor identifier (ID) field 430” at ¶ 40; fig. 4, item 430) in the first message, and the first indicator field is associated with one or more types of the data feature information of the first data (“a routing code may be inserted in sensor ID field 430, where the routing code may include the IoT device’s MAC address prefixed with a prefix that includes the data type indicator. In one example, the prefix ‘AAAA’ may indicate temperature sensor data, the prefix ‘BBBB’ may indicate humidity sensor data, and the prefix ‘CCCC’ may indicate barometric pressure sensor data.” at ¶ 41).
Regarding claim 5, Mirza discloses wherein the first indicator field (“a sensor identifier (ID) field 430” at ¶ 40; fig. 4, item 430) is one of a plurality of indicator fields (fig. 4, items 420, 430) in the first message that carry the data type identity (the information within fig. 4, items 420, 430) of the first data, the plurality of indicator fields further comprise at least one second indicator field (fig. 4, item 420), and each of the at least one second indicator field is associated with respective one or more types (“Sensor service UUID field 420 may include 16 bytes (bytes 3-18) that specify a UUID.” at ¶ 40) of the data feature information (¶¶ 40–41) of the first data.
Regarding claim 6, Mirza discloses wherein the data feature information (¶¶ 40–41) of the first data associated with the first indicator field (“a sensor identifier (ID) field 430” at ¶ 40; fig. 4, item 430) is partially or entirely different (¶¶ 40–41) from the data feature information (¶¶ 40–41) of the first data associated with any one of the at least one second indicator field (fig. 4, item 420).
Regarding claim 7, Mirza discloses wherein the data type identity of the first data (fig. 4, items 420, 430) comprises a plurality of type identities (fig. 4, items 420, 430), and the plurality of type identities comprise one or more of following: a globally unique data type identity (“Sensor ID field 430 may include 5 bytes (bytes 19-24) that uniquely identify the IoT device 100. In one implementation, a Medium Access Control (MAC) address (e.g., Bluetooth MAC address) may be assigned to each IoT device 100” at ¶ 41); an area-defined data type identity; or a temporary data type identity.
Regarding claim 8, Mirza discloses wherein the first message is used to indicate an association relationship (fig. 4 illustrates item 430 contained within bytes 19–24 occurs after item 420 contained within bytes 3–18) between the plurality of type identities (fig. 4, items 420, 430), and the association relationship comprises one or more of following: the plurality of type identities are in a one-to-one association relationship (item 430 contained within bytes 19–24 occurring after item 420 contained within bytes 3–18 is a one-to-one association relationship); the plurality of type identities are in a many-to-one association relationship; or the plurality of type identities are in a one-to-many association relationship.
Regarding claim 9, Mirza discloses wherein the processor is configured to invoke the program in the memory and control the transceiver to receive or transmit a signal (¶ 34), to cause the first device further to: receive a second message (fig. 6, item 610) transmitted by the second device, wherein the second message is used to request the association relationship or is used to trigger transmission (fig. 6, item 6, item 615 does not occur but for first transmitting item 610 to item 100) of the first message.
Regarding claim 10, Mirza discloses a second device (figs. 1, 2, and 6, item 110), comprising a transceiver (fig. 3, item 380; “Communication interface 380 may include any transceiver mechanism” at ¶ 34; “FIG. 3 is a diagram of exemplary components of a device 300 that may correspond to the mobile device . . . of FIG. 2” at ¶ 4), a memory (fig. 3, item 330), and a processor (fig. 3, item 320), wherein the memory is configured to store a program (¶ 36), and the processor is configured to invoke the program in the memory and control the transceiver to receive or transmit a signal (¶ 34), to cause the second device to:
receive a first message (figs. 1 and 4, item 115; fig. 6, item 600) transmitted by a first device (figs. 1, 2, and 6, item 100), wherein the first message is used for management and control (¶¶ 14–15) related to first data (fig. 4, item 440), and the first message is associated with a data type identity (fig. 4, items 420, 430) of the first data.
Regarding claim 11, Mirza discloses wherein the first message (figs. 1 and 4, item 115; fig. 6, item 600) is used to indicate a transmission state (one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to infer that sensor data item 440 was successfully transmitted once PDU item 115 is successfully transmitted to mobile device item 110; see MPEP § 2144.01) of the first data (fig. 4, item 440), and if the first data belongs to a data type that the first device is concerned with, the first message comprises one or more of following information: data type identity information (“a routing code may be inserted in sensor ID field 430, where the routing code may include the IoT device’s MAC address prefixed with a prefix that includes the data type indicator. In one example, the prefix ‘AAAA’ may indicate temperature sensor data, the prefix ‘BBBB’ may indicate humidity sensor data, and the prefix ‘CCCC’ may indicate barometric pressure sensor data.” at ¶ 41) associated with data providable by the first device; data volume information associated with data providable by the first device; precision information associated with data providable by the first device; data source information associated with data providable by the first device; data type identity information associated with data that is not providable by the first device; cause indication information associated with data that is not providable by the first device; or restriction condition information associated with data that is not providable by the first device.
Regarding claim 12, Mirza discloses wherein if the first message comprises the cause indication information associated with the data that is not providable by the first device, the cause indication information is used to indicate one or more of following: the first device does not support collection of the data that is not providable; the first device supports collection of the data that is not providable, and a current data volume of the data that is not providable is 0; the first device supports collection of the data that is not providable, and a current data volume of the data that is not providable is less than a preset data volume; the first device supports collection of the data that is not providable, and a current data volume of the data that is not providable is less than a data volume required by a data requester; or the data that is not providable by the first device does not meet the associated restriction condition or meets the associated restriction condition.3
Regarding claim 13, Mirza discloses wherein the restriction condition information comprises one or more of following information: first time information, wherein data associated with the first time information is providable outside a range constrained by the first time information or within a range constrained by the first time information; second time information, wherein data associated with the second time information is not providable outside a range constrained by the second time information or within a range constrained by the second time information; first logical area information, wherein data associated with the first logical area information is providable outside a range constrained by the first logical area information or within a range constrained by the first logical area information; or second logical area information, wherein data associated with the second logical area information is not providable outside a range constrained by the second logical area information or within a range constrained by the second logical area information.4
Regarding claim 14, Mirza discloses wherein at least one of the first logical area information or the second logical area information comprises one or more of following information: public land mobile network (PLMN) identity information, cell identity information, tracking area code (TAC) identity information, or access network notification area (RANAC) identity information.5
Regarding claim 16, Mirza discloses wherein the first message is used to execute a data collection task management operation (fig. 6, item 615; “Sensor data server 125 includes one or more network devices that . . . store data from the PDUs in sensor data DB 135” at ¶ 26), and the data collection task management operation is associated with the first data (fig. 4, item 440);
wherein the data collection task management operation comprises one or more of following operations: adding a data collection task; deleting a data collection task; modifying a data collection task (fig. 6, item 615; “Sensor data server 125 includes one or more network devices that . . . store data from the PDUs in sensor data DB 135” at ¶ 26; fig. 5, item 135); suspending a data collection task; or resuming a data collection task, wherein the first message comprises the data type identity of the first data and/or an identity of the data collection task, and there is an association relationship between the identity of the data collection task and the data type identity of the first data.
Regarding claim 17, Mirza discloses wherein the first message further comprises one or more of cell identity information (fig. 4, items 420, 430), protocol layer identity information, bandwidth part (BWP) identity information, or transmission configuration indicator (TCI) identity information associated with the data collection task management operation.
Regarding claim 18, Mirza discloses wherein the first message comprises a capability (“a routing code may be inserted in sensor ID field 430, where the routing code may include the IoT device’s MAC address prefixed with a prefix that includes the data type indicator. In one example, the prefix “AAAA” may indicate temperature sensor data, the prefix “BBBB” may indicate humidity sensor data, and the prefix “CCCC” may indicate barometric pressure sensor data.” at ¶ 41) related to collecting the first data by the first device, wherein the capability related to collecting the first data by the first device comprises one or more of following information: a data type identity of the first data that the first device supports collecting (“a routing code may be inserted in sensor ID field 430, where the routing code may include the IoT device’s MAC address prefixed with a prefix that includes the data type indicator. In one example, the prefix “AAAA” may indicate temperature sensor data, the prefix “BBBB” may indicate humidity sensor data, and the prefix “CCCC” may indicate barometric pressure sensor data.” at ¶ 41); a collection condition associated with the first data that the first device supports collecting; a data type identity associated with the first data that the first device does not support to collect; or a collection barring condition associated with the first data that the first device does not support to collect,
wherein one or more types of the capability related to collecting the first data by the first device is provided based on one or more of following granularities: a protocol layer identity granularity, an AI model identity granularity, a function characteristic granularity (“a routing code may be inserted in sensor ID field 430, where the routing code may include the IoT device’s MAC address prefixed with a prefix that includes the data type indicator. In one example, the prefix “AAAA” may indicate temperature sensor data, the prefix “BBBB” may indicate humidity sensor data, and the prefix “CCCC” may indicate barometric pressure sensor data.” at ¶ 41), a band granularity, or a band combination granularity.
Regarding claim 20, Mirza discloses a wireless communication method (fig. 6) comprising operations according to claim 1. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 20.
Claims 1–3, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Raman et al. (US 2017/0078195 A1; filed Sept. 15, 2015).
Regarding claim 1, Raman discloses a first device (fig. 1, item 172), comprising a transceiver (“Collector devices 171 and 172 may comprise devices that receive sensor data and transmit sensor data packets” at ¶ 33 at least suggests a transceiver to receive and transmit the packets), a memory (fig. 5, item 504), and a processor (fig. 5, item 502), wherein the memory is configured to store a program, and the processor is configured to invoke the program in the memory and control the transceiver to receive or transmit a signal (“Collector devices 171 and 172 may comprise devices that receive sensor data and transmit sensor data packets” at ¶ 33), to cause the first device to:
transmit (fig. 3, item 320) a first message (“Collector devices 171 and 172 may comprise devices that . . . transmit sensor data packets” at ¶ 33) to a second device (fig. 1, item 120; “an AS 120 may take the form of device 500 illustrated in FIG. 5” at ¶ 31; “the method 300 will now be described in terms of an embodiment where steps of the method are performed by a processor of a device, such as processor 502 in FIG. 5” at ¶ 47), wherein the first message is used for management and control (¶ 50) related to first data (“sensor data” at ¶ 49), and the first message is associated with a data type identity (“sensor classification” at ¶ 49; ¶ 14) of the first data.
Regarding claim 2, Raman discloses wherein if the first message is associated with the data type identity of the first data, the data type identity (“sensor classification” at ¶ 49; ¶ 14) of the first data is associated with data feature information of the first data, and the data feature information of the first data comprises one or more of following: a data meaning (¶ 14) of the first data; a data source of the first data; or data precision of the first data.
Regarding claim 3, Raman discloses wherein if the data feature information of the first data comprises the data source of the first data, the data source of the first data is used to indicate one or more of following: a country to which the first data belongs; a geographical area to which the first data belongs; an operator to which the first data belongs; a cell to which the first data belongs; a tracking area to which the first data belongs; or an access network notification area to which the first data belongs.6
Regarding claim 10, Raman discloses a second device (fig. 1, item 120; “an AS 120 may take the form of device 500 illustrated in FIG. 5” at ¶ 31; “the method 300 will now be described in terms of an embodiment where steps of the method are performed by a processor of a device, such as processor 502 in FIG. 5” at ¶ 47), comprising a transceiver (Raman at least suggests item 120 including a transceiver to receive and transmit packets), a memory (fig. 5, item 504), and a processor (fig. 5, item 502), wherein the memory is configured to store a program, and the processor is configured to invoke the program in the memory and control the transceiver to receive or transmit a signal (¶ 31), to cause the second device to:
receive a first message (“Collector devices 171 and 172 may comprise devices that . . . transmit sensor data packets” at ¶ 33) transmitted by a first device (fig. 1, item 172), wherein the first message is used for management and control (¶ 50) related to first data (“sensor data” at ¶ 49), and the first message is associated with a data type identity (“sensor classification” at ¶ 49; ¶ 14) of the first data.
Regarding claim 20, Raman discloses a wireless communication method (fig. 3) comprising operations according to claim 1. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure: US-6553336-B1 and US-20210099881-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449
1 The Examiner notes claims 15 and 19 are not prior-art rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 in the instant Office action. The instant Office action does not indicate these claims as being allowable since the Examiner is not satisfied that the prior art has been fully developed. See MPEP § 707.07(j) (reciting “Where the examiner is satisfied that the prior art has been fully developed and some of the claims are clearly allowable, the allowance of such claims should not be delayed.”).
2 The Examiner does not rely on Mirza disclosing “a data source of the first data” as recited in claim 2. Thus, because claim 3 is only limiting “if the data feature information of the first data comprises the data source of the first data” as recited in claim 3, then claim 3 is non-limiting.
3 The Examiner does not rely on Mirza disclosing the first message comprising “cause indication information associated with data that is not providable by the first device” as recited in claim 11. Thus, because claim 12 is only limiting “if the first message comprises the cause indication information associated with the data that is not providable by the first device” as recited in claim 12, then claim 12 is non-limiting.
4 The Examiner does not rely on Mirza disclosing the first message comprising “restriction condition information associated with data that is not providable by the first device” as recited in claim 11. Thus, claim 13 is non-limiting.
5 See n. 3 supra.
6 The Examiner does not rely on Raman disclosing “a data source of the first data” as recited in claim 2. Thus, because claim 3 is only limiting “if the data feature information of the first data comprises the data source of the first data” as recited in claim 3, then claim 3 is non-limiting.
Prosecution Insights