DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/11/2022 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendment received on 05/13/2022 is acknowledged and entered. Claim 1 has been amended. New claims 2-10 have been added. Claims 1-10 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn due to the Applicant’s amendment.
Examiner’s Note
Claims filed on 05/13/2022 are not in accordance with the history of prosecution; claim 1 appears to be amended, and claims 2-10 are new.
Further, while Applicant was advised about Revised Amendment Practice on numerous occasions (e.g. Notices of a non-compliant amendment of 07/01/2021 and 11/12/2021), the claims identifiers are still not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121.
However, in order to expedite a prosecution of the application, the current Office Action is issued.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84 and 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in this application because the drawings submitted 08/13/2019 are not identified in the top margin as “Replacement Sheet”.
Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares 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.
The following is provided for Applicant convenience:
37 CFR 1.121 Manner of making amendments in application.
D. Amendments to the Drawing
Any changes to an application drawing must comply with 37 CFR 1.84 and must be submitted on a replacement sheet of drawings, even when applicant is only submitting better quality drawings without any substantive changes. Any additional new drawings must be submitted on a new sheet of drawings. The replacement or new sheet of drawings must be an attachment to the amendment document and must be identified in the top margin as “Replacement Sheet.” The new drawing sheet must be identified in the top margin as “New Sheet.” The replacement drawing sheet must include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be included. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, must be provided when required by the examiner.
An explanation of the changes made must be presented in the “Amendments to the Drawings” or the remarks section of the amendment document. If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not approved by the examiner, applicant will be notified in the next Office action. Applicant must amend the brief and detailed description of drawings sections of the specification if they are not consistent with the changes to the drawings. For example, when applicant files a new drawing sheet, an amendment to the specification is required to add the brief and detailed description of the new drawings.
The proposed drawing correction practice has been eliminated. For any changes to the drawings, applicant is required to submit a replacement sheet of drawings with the changes made. No proposed changes in red ink should be submitted. Any proposed drawing corrections will be treated as non-compliant under 37 CFR 1.121(d). In response to any drawing objections, applicant should submit drawing changes by filing a replacement sheet of drawings or a new sheet of drawings with the corrections made. A letter to the official draftsman is no longer required.
Drawing submissions without any amendments to the specification and claims after allowance should be forwarded to the Office of Data Management.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is 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 within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
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, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art, such as “revolutionizes the Medical and Environmental fields”, “easy to use”, “surpasses all existing Medical and Environmental tools,” “will provide cheap, reliable and dependable analysis”, “changes the way we operate, think, see, and live”. Further, the abstract appears to have missing words: “introducing...... Body Guard”.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-8 and 10 are objected because the claims recite the limitation “the means”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Further, the term "specific" in claim 2-4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "specific" is not defined by the claim, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is not clear how specific the area would need to be in order to infringe the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 is vague and replete with indefinite language; it is not clear which part of the claim belongs to a preamble including a general description of the claimed device including structural element which are conventional or known, and which part constitutes a body of the claim comprising structural elements and/or their relationships which constitute improvement of prior art. In fact, it appears that there is no steps recited in the claim. Further, the claim as a whole appears to be a narrative of possible effects to be achieved by using the device rather than description of the elements constituting the invention. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112 6th Paragraph
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.
With respect to claim 2, claim 2 has limitations that invoke and are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “the means” coupled with functional language “of detecting air particles” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 2 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“Indoor and Outdoor Air Quality Tester “ – [0022]
With respect to claim 3, claim 3 has limitations that invoke and are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “the means” coupled with functional language “of detecting food toxins” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 2 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“The Digital Food/Quality Tester” – [0029]
With respect to claim 4, claim 4 has limitations that invoke and are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “the means” coupled with functional language “of detecting liquid toxins of lead” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 2 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“Electrical Water Quality Tester” – [0048]
With respect to claim 5, claim 5 has limitations that invoke and are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “the means” coupled with functional language “of analyzing plug in strips for blood, urine and saliva” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 2 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“Digital Blood Analyzer/Tester,(17); Digital Urine Analyzer,(18) – [0020]
With respect to claim 6, claim 6 has limitations that invoke and are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “the means” coupled with functional language “of analyzing body, room, surface temperature” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 2 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“The Digital Thermometer” – [0040]
With respect to claim 7, claim 7 has limitations that invoke and are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “the means” coupled with functional language “of analyzing body pulse” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 2 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“The Digital Pulse Wave Analyzer” – [0045]
With respect to claim 8, claim 8 has limitations that invoke and are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “the means” coupled with functional language “of recharging devices” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 2 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“Micro USB/Mini USB port,(14);” – [0018]
With respect to claim 10, claim 10 has limitations that invoke and are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “the means” coupled with functional language “to create sound waves” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 2 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“The Digital Pulse Wave Analyzer” – [0045]
If Applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the Examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If Applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites: “external sensor in said telecommunication embodiment in claim 1 has the means of detecting air particles of covid 19, any variant thereof, tuberculosis, carbon monoxide, pollen, female estrogen for outdoor camping protection, smoke, and any known toxin within region, country or specific area.”.
However, the Specification does not provide support for the recited limitations. While the Specification mentioned an Indoor and Outdoor Air Quality Tester “ [0022], the Specification is silent regarding “covid 19, any variant thereof, tuberculosis, carbon monoxide, pollen, female estrogen for outdoor camping protection, smoke, and any known toxin within region, country or specific area”.
Same rationale is applied to the limitations: “device made of plastic” in claim 1; “detecting food toxins of salmonella” in claim 3; “detecting liquid toxins of lead, sleeping agents, date rape drugs” in claim 4; “made also in solar panel plastic to provide the means of recharging devices energy source” in claims 8 and 9, and “to create sound waves to thwart off insects, high pitch sound to help thwart off attacks by either humans or animals” in claim 10.
Amended claims which introduce new elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972).
When an explicit limitation in a claim "is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation." Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). The lack of support is not cured simply because one skilled in the art could have arrived at the claimed invention or found it obvious to modify the system in such a manner. If it would be possible, anything could be added to the claims without violating the written description requirement. No limitations from the Specification have been read into the claim for the purposes of determining support under § 112. “What may or may not be obvious is not the test.” Lockwood vs. Anderson, 41USPQ 2d @ 1966.
Therefore, the recited newly introduced limitations constitute new matter.
Preliminary Note
During patent examination, the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 320,322 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In determining the patentability of claims, the PTO gives claim language its broadest reasonable interpretation" consistent with the specification and claims. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 904.1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stivoric et al. (US 7,285,090 B2).
Claim 1. Stivoric et al. (Stivoric) discloses: In a telecommunication embodiment, comprising a electronic device made of plastic, enhanced with hardware, software, one or more built in internal and external sensors to detect, emit, warn, prevent, safeguard society of daily environmental, medical, physical and life threatening circumstances.
Abstract; C. 7, L. 8-27; C. 8, L. 1-3.
Claim 2. Built in internal and external sensor in said telecommunication embodiment in claim 1 has the means of detecting air particles of covid 19, any variant thereof, tuberculosis, carbon monoxide, pollen, female estrogen for outdoor camping protection, smoke, and any known toxin within region, country or specific area. C. 7, L. 8-26
Claim 6. Built in internal and external sensor in said telecommunication embodiment in claim 1 has the means of analyzing body, room, surface temperature. C. 7, L. 8-26; Table 1
Claim 7. Built in internal and external sensor in said telecommunication embodiment in claim 1 has the means of analyzing body pulse, heart rate, and any known cardiovascular analysts within medical field. C. 8, L. 5-27; Table 1
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stivoric in view of Niemeyer et al. (US 11,287,434 B2).
Claim 3. Stovoric does not specifically teach Built in internal and external sensor in said telecommunication embodiment in claim 1 has the means of detecting food toxins of salmonella, pathogens, poisons, and any known toxin within region, country, or specific area, which is disclosed in Niemeyer et al. (Niemeyer). C. 1; L. 10-20; C. 11; L. 42-54
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stovoric to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Niemeyer, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Both references discloses portable devices configured to test a substance, such as a food sample, environmental sample, biological sample or another sample, in particular for environmental analytics or food safety and/or for detecting other substances, said tests conducted independently and/or away from a central laboratory or the like. Thus, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claim 4. Stovoric does not specifically teach Built in internal and external sensor in said telecommunication embodiment in claim 1 has the means of detecting liquid toxins of lead, poisons, sleeping agents, date rape drugs and any known toxins within region, country, or specific area, which is disclosed in Niemeyer. C. 1; L. 10-20; C. 9; L. 61-67; C. 10; L. 1-2; C. 11; L. 42-54
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stovoric to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Niemeyer, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Both references discloses portable devices configured to test a substance, such as a food sample, environmental sample, biological sample or another sample, in particular for environmental analytics or food safety and/or for detecting other substances, said tests conducted independently and/or away from a central laboratory or the like. Thus, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claim 5. Stovoric does not specifically teach Built in internal and external sensor in said telecommunication embodiment in claim 1 has the means of analyzing plug in strips for blood, urine, and saliva samples, which is disclosed in Niemeyer. C. 37; L. 31-37
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stovoric to include the recited limitations, as disclosed in Niemeyer, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Both references discloses portable devices configured to test a substance, such as a food sample, environmental sample, biological sample or another sample, in particular for environmental analytics or food safety and/or for detecting other substances, said tests conducted independently and/or away from a central laboratory or the like. Thus, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stivoric in view of Official Notice.
Claim 8. Said telecommunication embodiment in claim 1 is made also in solar panel plastic to provide the means of recharging devices energy source. While Stivoric discloses a rechargeable battery for powering the device (C. 26, L. 41-62), Stovoric does not specifically teach the use of solar panels for charging said battery.
Official Notice is taken that it is old and well-known to use solar panel elements mounted on a device housing for recharging a battery powering the device, for the benefit of avoiding replacing batteries, thereby providing convenience to users.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stovoric to include the recited limitations, for the benefit of avoiding replacing batteries, thereby providing convenience to users.
Claim 9. Said claim 8, provides both solar panel plastic encasement, and or plastic strips on external housing of said telecommunication embodiment. While Stivoric discloses a rechargeable battery for powering the device (C. 26, L. 41-62), Stovoric does not specifically teach the use of solar panels for charging said battery.
Official Notice is taken that it is old and well-known to use solar panel elements mounted on a device housing for recharging a battery powering the device, for the benefit of avoiding replacing batteries, thereby providing convenience to users.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stovoric to include the recited limitations, for the benefit of avoiding replacing batteries, thereby providing convenience to users.
Claim 10. Said telecommunication embodiment in claim 1 has built in internal and external hardware, software, with means to create sound waves to thwart off insects, high pitch sound to help thwart off attacks by either humans or animals.
While Stivoric does not disclose the recited limitations, Official Notice is taken that it is old and well-known to use sound waves to thwart off insects or animals, for the benefit of avoiding physical contact with animals and, thereby, avoiding diseases acquired from contact with animals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stovoric to include the recited limitations, for the benefit of avoiding physical contact with animals and, thereby, avoiding diseases acquired from contact with animals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that the claimed device differs from Stovoric, the Examiner respectfully notes that Stovoric discloses all limitations recited in claims 1-2 and 6-7; specifically, Stovoric discloses a portable device equipped with various sensors and configured to analyze air quality and conduct various biological tests in telecommunication environment. (Please see the discussion above)
Regarding constructive assistance argument, the Examiner respectfully notes that MPEP 707.07(J) states that when “it becomes apparent to the examiner that there is patentable subject matter disclosed in the application, the examiner should draft one or more claims for the applicant and indicate in his or her action that such claims would be allowed if incorporated in the application by amendment.” In the current case there is no allowable subject matter; the prior art of record anticipates or renders obvious claims limitations, therefore Applicant’s argument is moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Igor Borissov whose telephone number is 571-272-6801. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Darnell M. Jayne can be reached on 571-272-7723. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/IGOR N BORISSOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3649 05/16/2023