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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryan et al. (U.S. 2014/0361883, hereafter referred to as Ryan).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Ryan teaches a sensor apparatus 12 for connection to a storage rack 10 having upright components 14 wherein the sensor apparatus is secured to the upright component 14; the sensor comprising a body 16 which defines a housing; a power source (see para. 0016, ‘sensor 18 is powered by the processor’) located within the housing 16 (see figure 2); one or more impact and/or proximity sensors 18 located within the housing (see para. 0015, ‘In another of the illustrated exemplary embodiments, the sensor 18 is integrally positioned within the housing 16 such that the sensor 18 is operatively affixed to the stationary structure 10 when the collision sensor assembly 12 is attached to the stationary structure 10’) and electrically connected to the power source (see figure 2); a processor 20 located within the housing 16 and electrically connected to the power source and the sensor (see figure 2; additionally, para. 0016 teaches, ‘the sensor 18 can include an independent power source’); and a signal emitter 22 located within the housing and electrically connected to the power source and the processor (see figure 2), wherein the signal emitter emits a signal in response to an activation signal from the processor (see para. 0017, ‘a signal is transmitted to an output signal generator 22 so that the output signal generator 22 generates an output signal from the collision sensor assembly 12 to indicate to a user, operator, or another system that a collision has occurred’).
Regarding claim 7, Ryan further teaches wherein the processor 20 transmits an activation signal to the signal emitter 22 when a body is sensed to be within a pre-determined distance from the sensor apparatus or when the impact sensors sense an impact with the housing (see para. 0018).
Regarding claim 8, Ryan further teaches wherein the signal emitter emits an audible alert signal, a visual alert signal (see para. 0018, ‘light’), an electronic alert signal or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 9, Ryan further teaches wherein the electronic signal is a wireless signal (see para. 0018).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-6, 10, 11, 13-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan in view of Son et al. (KR 20130045877, hereafter referred to as Son).
Regarding claim 2, Ryan does not explicitly teach the activation signal is transmitted by the processor in response to an impact sensed by the or one of the impact sensors and the emitted signal includes data relating to the force of the impact.
Son teaches a similar device for monitoring impact on a storage rack 102 wherein an activation signal is transmitted by a processor in response to an impact sensed by an impact sensor and the emitted signal includes data relating to the force of the impact (see para. 0044, ‘The shock transmitter 310 is a component that detects when an external shock is applied to the rack post 202 and transmits the shock degree, the shock generation time and the number of shocks to the shock receiver 320’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Ryan with the teaching of Son in order to provide a user with detailed information regarding the current status of the storage rack.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Ryan further teaches wherein the collision sensor assembly 12 may also include multiple sensors 18 of different types operatively connected thereto. For example, a collision sensor assembly 12 includes an accelerometer as well as a strain gauge, which can increase the likelihood of detecting a collision with the stationary structure 10 (see para. 0016). Ryan further teaches wherein the sensor 18 can be any mechanical, electrical, chemical or other commonly known sensor that is capable of registering a collision with the structure to which it is attached. Exemplary sensors may include an accelerometer, voltage sensor, strain gauge, laser sensor, proximity sensor, vibration sensor, magnetic sensor, and the like (see para. 0016). Ryan additionally teaches wherein the sensors are connected to the power-source/ processor 20 and that the signal emitter 22 emits an alert signal in response to a proximity activation signal from the processor (see para. 0017, 0018).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, neither reference explicitly teaches wherein the (or each) proximity sensor is configured to sense the proximity of a body to the apparatus within the range 0cm to 100cm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Ryan and Son since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, neither reference explicitly teaches wherein the power source comprises one or more batteries.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Ryan with the teaching of Son since the examiner takes Office Notice of the equivalence of a battery and a processor for their use in art, and the selection of any of these known equivalents to power a sensor would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, since the processor is powering the sensor, it would suggest that the power source is rechargeable.
Regarding claim 13, Ryan does not explicitly teach wherein the apparatus includes one or more attachment elements for securing the body to a storage rack.
Son teaches the similar device with attachment elements 214.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Ryan with the teaching of Son in order to prevent disconnection.
Regarding claim 14, Son further teaches wherein the body includes or defines the or each attachment element 214 (see figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Ryan with the teaching of Son in order to prevent disconnection.
Regarding claim 15, Son further teaches wherein the body includes one or more resiliently deformable anchor elements 234 extending from a main body portion of the body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Ryan with the teaching of Son in order to prevent disconnection.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Son further teaches wherein the body has an arcuate cross-section (see figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Ryan with the teaching of Son in order to prevent disconnection.
Additionally, none of the references explicitly teach wherein the arcuate cross-section defines an arc of between 60° and 2700; however, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 19, Son further teaches wherein the body includes an impact-absorbent outer layer 210.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Ryan with the teaching of Son since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 22, Son further teaches wherein the sensor apparatus includes a body including one or more resiliently deformable anchor elements 234 in the form of arms which extend from a main body portion of the body 210, wherein the resiliently deformable arms snap-fit around the upright component (see figures 5 and 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Ryan with the teaching of Son in order to prevent disconnection.
Claim(s) 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan in view of Smith (WO 2017/203235).
Ryan does not explicitly teach wherein the processor includes a data memory component configured to record data from a sensor.
Smith teaches a racking protection device arranged to monitor impacts, wherein the monitor includes a memory (See Abstract), wherein the memory is connected to a controller (see page 4, lines 25 and 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Ryan with the teaching of Smith in order to provide storage for local sensor readings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMEL E WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-4pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/JAMEL E WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights