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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/16/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 5, 15-16 and 19-21 are pending.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20090201765 A1) in view of Lesso (US 20180160235 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Holm teaches Sensing device[#100 in Fig 1; 0018-0019], comprising: a trigger module[sabotage sensor #1 10 or motion sensor #130 and microcontroller #160], configured to generate a sensing signal corresponding to one or more properties of an object attached by the sensing device,[] 1 has #110, #130,#160; 0029 has motion detector; 0033 has activation of ultrasound transducer when motion is detected meaning trigger with sensing signal when object moves namely it detects object property that it is in motion and activates ultrasound transducer #170, #190], wherein the trigger module contains at least one of the following; …..
wherein the trigger module contains a Hall effect switch so that the sensing signal is related to a magnetic field detected by the Hall effect switch However based on admission at 0026 of applicant's specification this limitation is well known in the art and does not have patentable weight]…..
an ultrasound generating module[#170] configured to generate an ultrasound signal[#170 is transmitter with #190 transducer meaning #170 can be considered ultrasound generating module]; and
a sound module[#190; #170 is transmitter with #190 transducer meaning #190 can be considered sound module], configured to generate and transmit a wide-frequency sound signal according to the sensing signal directly from the trigger module, [Fig 1 has transmitter #170 and transducer #190; 0055 has transmission on various different frequencies ie wide -frequency sound; 0033 has activation of ultrasound signal based on detection of motion ie sensing signal from motion detector]
wherein both the ultrasound signal generated by the ultrasound generating module [170]and the are transmitted into the sound module [#190; Fig 1 has transmitter #170 and transducer #190; 0033 has transmission of ultrasound signal based on detection of motion ie sensing signal from motion detector to central unit #410 in Fig 4], and the sound module adopts the ultrasound signal to generate the wide-frequency sound signal when the trigger module is triggered. [Fig 1 has transmitter #170 and transducer #190; 0055 has transmission on various different frequencies ie wide-frequency sound; 0012 has ultrasonic and audible alerts ; 0031 also has frequency shift keying meaning ultrasonic frequency is chosen].
While Holm implies but does not explicitly teach wherein ….. the sensing signal are transmitted into the sound module[Fig 1 has transmitter #170 and transducer #190; 0033 has transmission of ultrasound signal based on detection of motion ie sensing signal from motion the sensing signal detector to central unit #410 in Fig 4], ….. and the sound module adopts …..the sensing signal…..
Lesso teaches an ultrasound generating module[#35 in Fig 1 or waveform generator #142 in Fig 9] configured to generate an ultrasound signal[#35 in Fig 1 or waveform generator #142 in Fig 9];…..
Wherein both the ultrasound signal generated by the ultrasound generating module[#35 in Fig 1 or waveform generator #142 in Fig 9; See also 0143-0148 for having waveform generator separate from the rest of the processor] and the sensing signal[Fig 1 has sensor #50 sending sensing signal] are transmitted into the sound module [Fig 1 has the components in #10 namely #20, #30, #40 being the sound module] and the sound module adopts the ultrasound signal and the sensing signal [Fig 1 has the components in #10 namely #20, #30, #40 being the sound module with Fig #35 being ultrasonic module or #142 in Fig 9; See also 0143-0148 for having waveform generator separate from the rest of the processor]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sensing device and ultrasonic transmission in Holm with the and waveform generator separate from the processor in Lesso in order modify the waveform for the output.
Additionally Holm discloses the claimed invention except for having the ultrasonic generating module being separate from the sound module. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made have the waveform generator/ultrasonic generating module separate from the sound module/processor and transmitter since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Additionally Holm discloses the trigger module for module contains a Hall effect switch and the claim only requires one of the triggers to be found. For the remaining triggers the previously cited prior art of either Torres (US 20200090515 Al) or Kweon (US 20170052393 A1) or Chen (17/785307) or Hau (US 9689538 B2) or Smith (US 20140187681 A1) would read on the claim and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the sensing device in Holm with the respective trigger mechanism in the prior art. Moreover It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Moreover the use of certain triggers are common and well known components in the art based admission in applicant's specification.
Regarding claim 5, Holm, as modified, teaches comprising one of the following: the frequency of the wide-frequency sound signal is fixed[0030-0032 has base and adjustable frequencies];
and the frequency of the wide-frequency sound signal is adjustable according to the operation of the trigger [0030-0032 has base and adjustable frequencies; 0035 -0039 has frequency shift keying when in motion meaning the motion has FSK for adjusting frequencies and calculating doppler and identifying the chip by its ID code when the chip is in motion]
Claims 15-16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holm (US 20090201765 A1) in view of Lesso (US 20180160235 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Holm teaches one or more sensing devices[#100 in Fig 1; 0018-0019], wherein each sensing device is configured to transmit a wide-frequency sound signal corresponding to one or more properties of an object attached by the sensing device, 1 has #110, #130, #160; #170 #190; 0029 has motion detector; 0033 has activation of ultrasound transducer when in motion meaning trigger with sensing signal when object moves namely it detects object property that it is in motion and activates ultrasound transducer #170, #190], each sensing device having a trigging module[sabotage sensor #110 or motion sensor #130 and microcontroller #160] configured to generate a sensing signal corresponding to one or more properties of the object attached by the sensing device and a sound module to generate and transmit the wide- frequency sound signal according to the sensing signal directly from the trigger module, [Fig 1 has #110, #130, #160; 0029 has motion detector; 0033 has activation of ultrasound transducer when in motion meaning trigger with sensing signal when object moves namely it detects object property that it is in motion and activates ultrasound transducer #170, #190] and an ultrasound generating module configured to generate an ultrasound signal[#170 is transmitter with #190 transducer meaning #170 can be considered ultrasound generating module], both the ultrasound signal generated by the ultrasound generating module ….. are transmitted into the sound module[Fig 1 has transmitter #170 and transducer #190; 0033 has activation of ultrasound signal based on detection of motion ie sensing signal from motion detector], and the sound module adopts the ultrasound signal….. to generate the wide-frequency sound signal when the trigger module is triggered. [Fig 1 has transmitter #170 and transducer #190; 0055 has transmission on various different frequencies ie wide-frequency sound; 0012 has ultrasonic and audible alerts ; 0031 also has frequency shift keying meaning ultrasonic frequency is chosen]
and an analyzing device, wherein the analyzing device is configured to receive and analyze one or more wide-frequency sound signals transmitted from the one or more sensing devices. [#410 in Fig 4 has analyzer receiving input from Sensor. See 0034 and 0040. 0059 has processing of signals to determine position of transmitters, Claim 12 has processing of signals to estimate positions].
While Holm implies but does not explicitly teach wherein the sensing signal are transmitted into the sound module[Fig 1 has transmitter #170 and transducer #190; 0033 has transmission of ultrasound signal based on detection of motion ie sensing signal from motion the sensing signal detector to central unit #410 in Fig 4], ….. and the sound module adopts….. the sensing signal…
Lesso teaches an ultrasound generating module[#35 in Fig 1 or waveform generator #142 in Fig 9] configured to generate an ultrasound signal[#35 in Fig 1 or waveform generator #142 in Fig 9; See also 0143-0148 for having waveform generator separate from the rest of the processor], both the ultrasound signal generated by the ultrasound generating module[#35 in Fig 1 or waveform generator #142 in Fig 9; See also 0143-0148 for having waveform generator separate from the rest of the processor] and the sensing signal[Fig 1 has sensor #50 sending sensing signal] are transmitted into the sound module [Fig 1 has the components in #10 namely #20, #30, #40 being the sound module] and the sound module adopts the ultrasound signal and the sensing signal [Fig 1 has the components in #10 namely #20, #30, #40 being the sound module with Fig #35 being ultrasonic module or #142 in Fig 9; See also 0143-0148 for having waveform generator separate from the rest of the processor]…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sensing device and ultrasonic transmission in Holm with the and waveform generator separate from the processor in Lesso in order modify the waveform for the output.
Additionally Holm teaches the claimed invention except for having the ultrasonic generating module being separate from the sound module. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made have the waveform generator/ultrasonic generating module separate from the sound module/processor and transmitter since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)
Regarding claim 16, Holm, as modified, teaches wherein different sensing devices transmits different wide-frequency sound signals having different frequencies. [0030-0032 has adjustable frequencies].
Regarding claim 20, Holm, as modified, teaches comprising one or more of the following: the analyzing device decides[0060, claim 1 has #410 detecting signal strength] the variation on the relative distance between itself and an object[(0034-0035 has chips transmitting while moving to estimate doppler shift; 0071 has comparison of signals to determine positions of transmitters and receivers; Claim 1 has comparison of signal strength to calculate object positions] attached by a sensing device[Abstract has multiple detector units] by analyzing the variation of the amplitude of the received wide-frequency sound signal transmitted from the sensing device[0060; Claim 1 measures signal strength at detector to determine position];
and the analyzing device decides the relative distance between the analyzing device and a sensing device by comparing the internal amplitude of the wide-frequency sound signal when the signal is just transmitted by the sensing device and the practical amplitude of the wide -frequency sound signal when the signal is just received by the analyzing device. [0060; Claim 1 measures signal strength at detector to determine position namely distance].
Additionally, based on admission at 0035 of applicant's specification this limitation is well known in the art and does not have patentable weight.
Regarding claim 21, Holm, as modified, teaches comprising one or more of the following: the analyzing device decides[0060, claim 1 has #410 detecting signal strength] the variation on the relative motion between itself and an object [0035 has use of doppler shift to detect motion]attached by a sensing device[Abstract has multiple detector units] by analyzing the variation of the frequency of the received wide-frequency sound signal transmitted from the sensing device[ Abstract; 0035 has doppler and frequency shift analysis while object is in motion];
and the analyzing device decides the relative motion between the analyzing device and a sensing device by comparing the internal frequency of the wide-frequency sound signal when the signal is just transmitted by the sensing device and the practical frequency of the wide -frequency sound signal when the signal is just received by the analyzing device. [Abstract; 0035 has doppler and frequency shift analysis while object is in motion].
Additionally, based on admission at 0036 of applicant's specification this limitation is well known in the art and does not have patentable weight.
Claims 2-3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holm (US 20090201765 A1) in view of Lesso (US 20180160235 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Durley (US 4413629 A).
Regarding claim 2, Holm does not explicitly teach a crystal oscillator module, the trigger module, the crystal oscillator module and the sound module form a circuit, both the oscillation signal generated by the crystal oscillator module and the sensing signal are transmitted into the sound module, the sound module adopts the oscillation signal and the sensing signal to generate the wide- frequency sound signal when the trigger module is triggered, and both the oscillation signal generated by the crystal oscillator module and the sensing signal are not transmitted into the sound module and then no wide-frequency sound signal is generated correspondingly when the trigger module is not triggered.
Durley teaches that comprising a crystal oscillator module, the trigger module, the crystal oscillator module and the sound module form a circuit, both the oscillation signal generated by the crystal oscillator module and the sensing signal are transmitted into the sound module the sound module adopts the oscillation signal and the sensing signal to generate the wide- frequency sound signal when the trigger module is triggered, and both the oscillation signal generated by the crystal oscillator module and the sensing signal are not transmitted into the sound module and then no wide -frequency sound signal is generated correspondingly when the trigger module is not triggered. [Col 7; Lines 1-15 have crystal oscillator to ensure stable frequency with ability to vary it]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sensing device in Holm with the crystal oscillators of Durley in order to boost gain and have stable frequencies. Moreover the use of crystal oscillators such as piezoelectric oscillators are common and well known components in the art based on the age of the Durley reference.
Regarding claim 3, Holm does not explicitly teach wherein the crystal oscillator module comprises one or more crystal oscillators and each of the one or more crystal oscillators generates an individual oscillation signal and the oscillation signal generated by the crystal oscillator module is dependent on which portion of the one or more crystal oscillators are connected electrically with the trigger module and the sound module.
Durley teaches wherein the crystal oscillator module comprises one or more crystal oscillators and each of the one or more crystal oscillators generates an individual oscillation signal and the oscillation signal generated by the crystal oscillator module is dependent on which portion of the one or more crystal oscillators are connected electrically with the trigger module and the sound module. [Claim 2 has plurality of crystals each with its own frequency, Col 7; Lines 1-15 have crystal oscillator to ensure stable frequency with ability to vary it]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sensing device in Holm with the crystal oscillators of Durley in order to boost gain and have stable frequencies. Moreover the use of crystal oscillators such as piezoelectric oscillators are common and well known components in the art based on the age of the Durley reference. Moreover it have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have one or more crystal oscillators, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 19, Holm does not explicitly teach a crystal oscillator module having at least one crystal oscillator, the trigger module, the crystal oscillator module and the sound module form a circuit, both oscillation signal generated by the crystal oscillator module and the sensing signal are transmitted into the sound module and the sound module adopts the oscillation signal and the sensing signal to generate the wide -frequency sound signal when the trigger module is triggered, and wherein both the oscillation signal generated by the crystal oscillator module and the sensing signal are not transmitted into the sound module and then no wide- frequency sound signal is generated correspondingly when the trigger module is not triggered.
Durley teaches a crystal oscillator module having at least one crystal oscillator, the trigger module, the crystal oscillator module and the sound module forma circuit, both oscillation signal generated by the crystal oscillator module and the sensing signal are transmitted into the sound module and the sound module adopts the oscillation signal and the sensing signal to generate the wide -frequency sound signal when the trigger module is triggered, and wherein both the oscillation signal generated by the crystal oscillator module and the sensing signal are not transmitted into the sound module and then no wide- frequency sound signal is generated correspondingly when the trigger module is not triggered. [Col 7; Lines 1-15 have crystal oscillator to ensure stable frequency with ability to vary it]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sensing device in Holm with the crystal oscillators of Durley in order to boost gain and have stable frequencies. Moreover the use of crystal oscillators such as piezoelectric oscillators are common and well known components in the art based on the age of the Durley reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant's arguments on pages 9-17, Applicant is reading the prior art overly narrowly. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here it is the combination of Holm and Lesso that read on the claimed limitation regarding transmission of object property information. Moreover the transmission of data through of data through ultrasonic signals is also well known in the art and thus reads on the claimed limitation.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., MCU workings on page 10-12) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that invention has a low power mode, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to applicant's argument that Lesso is nonanalogous art or is teaching away, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Lesso involves ultrasonic sound generation which is what the claim requires.
Applicants arguments amount to an assertion that the prior art does not establish signal transmission based on object characteristics without explaining what it means or how the prior art is different from the claimed invention. Said another way if sending a different signal based on object characteristics is what is being claimed then an alarm that has a different sound based on fire as compared to a tornado would read on the claim limitation. Here the applicant claims a difference without explaining what the difference actually is and what the claimed invention is doing and how it is doing it that the prior art does not. Said another way if the invention contemplates a different frequency based on the alarm then prior art that has frequency modulation and transmits information using the same would read on the claim and applicant has not explained how it is distinguishable from the claimed invention. Said another way applicant is claiming it is different without explaining how.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Rejections are maintained – and no allowable subject matter can be identified at this time.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKAS NMN ATMAKURI whose telephone number is (571)272-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
/VIKAS ATMAKURI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645