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
1. Claims 1-23 have been presented for examination based on the amendment filed on 8/7/2025.
2. Claim rejection of Claims 1-23 under USC 101 is withdrawn based on the amendment filed on 8/7/2025.
3. Claim rejection of Claims 18-23 under USC 101 is withdrawn based on the amendment filed on 8/7/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated August 7, 2025 is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of each of the PTOL-1449s initialed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Response to Applicant’s arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments, see P-9-10, filed 08/07/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 10-13, 17-20-and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C 102 rejection has been withdrawn and replaced with the rejections under 35 U.S.C 103. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection of USC 35 U.S.C 103 is made over White et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0203727 A1), in view of Cooper et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0117840 A1).
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 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.
6. Claims 1-23 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over White et al., hereafter White (Pub. No.: US 2016/0203727 A1), in view of Cooper et al., hereafter Cooper (Pub. No.: US 2020/0117840 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, White discloses a method performed by a simulation controller device for accessing a detector description for a detector and that invokes manufactured detector readings in the detector (White: abstract), the method comprising:
establishing a connection with the detector (White: Figures 3, 4, [0017], [0021], [0022]);
sending to the detector a request for the detector description of the detector, the detector description having parameters with parameter values (White: Figures 3, 4, [0017], [0021], [0022]); the parameter values defining characteristics of detector hardware of the detector (White: Figure 7, Figures 11, [0021], [0031], [0035]);
receiving from the detector the parameter values of the parameters of the detector description (White: Figure 4, [0024], [0025], [0026], Figure 11, [0035]);
storing the parameter values of the parameters (White: Figure 4 [0023], [0027]);
accessing simulated detector signals generated based on the parameter values, (White: Figure 4, [0024], Figure 7, [0031]); and
injecting into the detector the simulated detector signals (White: Figure 6, Figures 7, Figure 8, Figure 9, [0030], [0031], [0032], [0033]).
White do not explicitly disclose:
A detector sensor that measures a local or ambient quantity and a simulated detector signal is data that represents a simulated detection of the local or ambient quantity.
Cooper disclose:
A detector sensor that measures a local or ambient quantity and a simulated detector signal is data that represents a simulated detection of the local or ambient quantity (Cooper: [0007], [0008], [0009], [0027], claims 15 and 16).
White and Cooper are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They both relate to Hazmat incidence simulation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above incident simulation system, as taught by White, and incorporating the use of local environment sensing system, as taught by Cooper.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide simulated source that encompasses diversity of simulated training scenarios, as suggested by Cooper (Cooper: [0003]).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 2, the combinations of White and Cooper discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising sending the parameter values to an exercise incident system and receiving the simulated detector signals from the incident exercise system (White: Figure 3, [0017], [0021]; Figure 4, [0024], [0025], [0026], Figure 11, [0035]).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claim 2 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 3, the combinations of White and Cooper discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising generating simulated detector signals based on the parameter values (White: Figure 4, [0024], Figure 7, [0031]).
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 4, the combinations of White and Cooper discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the sending and receiving is via a wired connection between the simulation controller and the detector (White: [0027]).
Regarding Claims 5, 6 and 9, the combinations of White and Cooper do not explicitly disclose an RS-232 connection, a universal serial bus (USB) connection or the simulation controller is attached to the detector.
However, wired connection like RS-232 and/or USB is well known in the art and the specifics of the detector configuration attached to the simulation controller would have been a matter of design choice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate various connecting and configuration techniques in the invention of Watanabe in order to enhance the communication efficiency and robustness in processing and analyzing simulation and detector data.
Regarding Claims 14-16, and 21 and 23 the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claims 5-6 and 9 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 7, the combinations of White and Cooper discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the connection is via a wireless connection (White: [0027]).
Regarding Claim 8, the combinations of White and Cooper discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising sending to the detector a request for detector type of the detector and receiving from the detector the detector type wherein the requested parameter values are for parameters that are specific to the detector type (White: Figure 3, [0017], [0021]; Figure 4, [0024], [0025], [0026], Figure 11, [0035]).
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 8 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 10, the combinations of White and Cooper discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the simulation controller provides a standard hardware and software interface for interfacing with different types of detector (White: Figure 3, [0017], [0021]; Figure 4, [0024], [0025], [0026], Figure 11, [0035]).
Examination Considerations
7. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers (or paragraphs) in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific imitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
8. The claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. "Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 105455, 44USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d, 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969)" (MPEP p 2100-8, c 2, I 45-48; p 2100-9, c 1, I 1-4). The Examiner has full latitude to interpret each claim in the broadest reasonable sense. Examiner will reference prior art using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning.
9. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to prior art to assist the applicant to better understand the nature of the prior art, application of such prior art and, as appropriate, to further indicate other prior art that maybe applied in other office actions. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent and spirit of compact prosecution. However, and unless otherwise stated, the Examiner's Notes are not prior art but a link to prior art that one of ordinary skill in the art would find inherently appropriate.
Conclusion
10. Claims 1-23 are rejected.
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO
MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFTEKHAR A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00AM-6:00PM (CST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached on (571)272-3652. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. 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, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/IFTEKHAR A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights