FINAL REJECTION
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that:
“Applicant contends that at most only one of the button functions described in Lamb is an action including transmitting a pre-programmed message. Referring to the "OK" button that the Office Action interprets as first level urgency, Lamb discloses in paragraph [0038] that no message is sent in response to this user action” (page 1 and 2, remarks),
“(Emphasis added). Lamb describes another embodiment in which a predetermined message can be sent. However, it does not specify if this is in response to a button press as opposed to some other kind of control input. See paragraph [0038]” (page 2, remarks),
“Accordingly, Lamb does not teach two or more buttons sending pre-programmed messages, where the messages have different levels of urgency.” (page 2, remarks), and
“Applicant submits there is a distinction between the present claim limitation and the cited prior art specifically in that the message content (i.e. the substance of the message) conveys the varying level of urgency.” (page 3, remarks).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Lamb teach teaches where the personal communication device 106 may be a “smartphones, tablet computers, personal digital assistants, wearables, laptop computers, desktop computers, or other devices capable of communicating, via wired or wireless means” (paragraph 19). Further, Lamb teaches the device having a user interface 204 where the interface may comprise “one or more pushbuttons, touchscreen devices, electronic display devices, lights, LEDs, LDCs, biometric readers, switches, sensors, keypads, microphones, speakers, and/or other human interface devices that present indications to a user or generate electronic signals for use by processor 200 upon initiation by a user. A very popular user interface device today is a touchscreen device.” (paragraph 23). Therefore, Lamb teaches the claimed personal sensing device that includes two pre-programmed messaging buttons including the claimed “configured to…” function since the user interface 204 may comprise one or more pushbuttons or a touchscreen (which may be interpreted as having numerous “buttons”) and as to the claimed function the MPEP states that:
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing 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" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. (MPEP 2114 II.).
Therefore, the function of “configured to send a pre-programmed message containing pre-programmed textual content wherein the pre-programmed textual content of the pre-programmed messages conveys different levels of urgency” does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the teachings of Lamb in view of the obviousness rejection of Mullins as modified by Lamb.
Further, Lamb teaches:
“in response to determining that an alert message has been received, processor 200 generates an indication for presentation to a user of personal communication device 106 of the alert message.” (paragraph 33), and
“the response from the user may indicate to processor 200 that the user wishes to place a phone call, text message, or email to one or more parties that may be interested in knowing about the event. In this embodiment, processor 200 may display a list of one or more names, icons, or other information identifying one or more people or entities, such as police departments, fire departments, paramedics, etc. The user may select one or all of the names, wherein processor 200 causes personal communication device 106 to send either a predetermined message to the selected persons/entities via a selected or default communication method (such as email, text, or phone call), or sends a custom message to one or more persons/entities as a result of receiving such a customized message from the user via user interface 204, such as a text or voice input from the user.” (paragraph 38).
Therefore, Lamb is interpreted as teaching that in response to an alarm event a user may send a plurality of pre-programmed messages (predetermined message and/or custom message to one or more persons/entities) to a plurality of pre-programmed contacts or users (list of one or more names, icons, or other information identifying one or more people or entities) from the device using the touchscreen or other buttons.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15, 17, 18, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0197876 in view of Lamb U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0309160.
With respect to claims 1, 18, and 20-22, Mullins teaches a personal sensing device (mobile device 112) to be worn by a person (user 100) on a site (environment 100), comprising: a gas sensor (gas detector 230) for measuring a gas concentration of a gas (paragraph 25); a communication system (transceiver 814 that interfaces with an antenna 816, paragraph 70) for communicating an alarm/event or operational condition to a computer system (Computing device in communicating with a reporting system 245 receives hazardous condition data from at least one detector 230 of the mobile device 112, and the reporting system 245 determines whether or not a predetermined hazard criteria is satisfied by an environment 100 of a user 110 of the mobile device 112 based on the hazardous condition data then sends the data to a computing device 130, paragraphs 26, 27, 61, and 62.), wherein the computer system (computing device 130) is arranged for at least one of processing the communicated alarm/event or triggering an alarm/response in response to the communication of the operational condition (remote computing device 130 that may be configured to use the sensor data to track the position of the user 110 within the environment 100, paragraph 21); wherein the computer system is configured for distribution of one or more alarm/event instructions in response to the alarm/event or operational condition (the remote computing device 130 may transmit the position data of the user, as well as the map of the environment 100, to one or more mobile devices 142 of one or more other users 140, paragraph 21). Further, Mullins teaches one or more personal sensing devices (mobile devices 112 and 142, paragraphs 21-24) where the sensed data is communicated between the devices (the sensed data is interpreted as operational conditioned that is being read and received by the devices, paragraphs 21-24), and wherein the devices 112 include a display 810 and one or more input/output (I/O) devices 812, such as a keypad, a touch panel sensor, and a microphone (paragraph 70, figure 8).
Mullins fails to teach wherein the personal sensing device includes at least two pre-programmed messaging buttons, wherein each of the at least two pre-programmed messaging buttons is configured to send a pre-programmed message containing pre-programmed textual content, wherein the textual content of the pre-programmed messages conveys different levels of urgency, to at least one of: the communication system and another personal sensing device, and where the pre-programmed buttons are configured to send a first alarm, representative of a first operational condition, in response to a single press and are configured to send a second alarm, representative of a second operational condition, in response to a second press.
Lamb teaches a monitoring system 100 comprising gateway 102, sensors 104, personal communication device 106, a remote monitoring facility 108, wide-area network 110, wireless network 112, and router/modem 114. The sensors 104 are installed throughout premises 116 in order to detect “events” that may occur at premises 116, such as a door or window being opened, movement or sound within premises 116, the presence of smoke, fire, or carbon monoxide, freezing, flooding, a light being turned on or off, or a medical emergency (paragraph 15). When personal communication device 106 receives the alert message from gateway 102, an indication is generated and provided to a user of personal communication device 106. The indication alerts the user of the fact that one of the sensors 104 has detected an event. The user may respond to the indication by operating personal communication device 106 via a user interface, such as a touchscreen device, one or more push-buttons, a microphone, an accelerometer, gyroscope, or other motion-sensitive device. In response, the user may simply acknowledge receipt of the signal by touching the touchscreen device, pressing an icon on the touchscreen device, pressing a button, speaking into a microphone, or simply shaking personal communication device 106 in a predefined manner understood (paragraph 16). Further, a processor 200 (of the device 106) performs one or more actions based on the response from the user, for example, when the user simply acknowledges the indication by operating personal communication device 106 in a predetermined manner, such as pressing an “OK” icon displayed on user interface 204, or pressing a key as part of user interface 204. Also, the user may select to send a predetermined message to a selected persons/entities via a selected or default communication method (such as email, text, or phone call), or sends a custom message to one or more persons/entities as a result of receiving such a customized message from the user via user interface 204, such as a text or voice input from the user (paragraph 38).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the sensing device having the touch panel sensor/button of Mullins with the pre-programmed message buttons/touch display that communicate different message events of urgency (pressing “OK” vs press other buttons and send a pre-programmed message to first response, the pressing other buttons are interpreted as a “second press”) as taught by Lamb in order to provide a device that reduces the occurrences of false alarms of monitoring system (paragraph 18, Lamb).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Mullins teaches wherein the computer system (interpreted as the reporting system 245) is comprised by the personal sensing device or a mobile phone carried by the person in communication with the personal sensing device (paragraphs 26-27, figure 4), and wherein the computer system is controlled by a mobile telephone application on the mobile telephone of the person (applications of the mobile device 112, paragraph 70, figure 8).
With respect to claim 4, Mullins teaches wherein the computer system is arranged on a server external to the personal sensing device (remote computing device 130, figure 1).
With respect to claim 5, Mullins teaches wherein the computer system is configured to distribute the one or more alarm instructions in response to the alarm to another personal sensing device in the vicinity of the personal sensing device (a hazard criteria is determined and indicated from sensor data exceeded a threshold, paragraphs 55 and 60).
With respect to claim 6, Mullins teaches comprising one or more pre-programmed messaging buttons (I/O devices 812, paragraph 70), each configured to send an alarm or a signal representative of the operational condition to at least one of the computer system and to another personal sensing device when the pre-programmed message button is pressed (paragraph 70).
With respect to claim 7, Mullins teaches wherein the operational condition comprises an indication that the personal sensing device is working in a normal operational mode thereof (normal operation is interpreted as the mobile device communicating any signals, paragraphs 61-63).
With respect to claim 8, Mullins teaches wherein the operational condition comprises an indication that the person wearing the personal sensing device is responding to an alarm generated at a position away from the current position of said person (location data of the user are communicated and determined, paragraphs 21-23).
With respect to claim 9, Mullins teaches wherein the operational condition comprises an indication that the person wearing the personal sensing device is in distress and needs help (interpreted as a hazard condition being determined, paragraphs 55 and 60).
With respect to claim 10, Mullins teaches wherein the operational condition comprises an indication that the person wearing the personal sensing device is absent from the site (interpreted as the mobile device 112 tracking location data, paragraphs 21-23).
With respect to claim 11, Mullins teaches wherein the operational condition comprises an indication that communication between the personal sensing device and the computer system is lost (interpreted as the mobile device 112 and 142 losing communication, which a user would see the sensor data not updating, paragraphs 30-31).
With respect to claim 12, Mullins teaches wherein the one or more alarm instructions are sent to all further personal sensing devices within 100 meters of the personal sensing device (interpreted as the mobile devices 112 and 142 communicating with each other, figure 1).
With respect to claim 13, Mullins teaches wherein the one or more alarm instructions are communicated to one, two, three, four, five or more further personal sensing devices closest to said personal sensing device (mobile device 112 and 142 communicating with each other, figure 1).
With respect to claim 14, Mullins teaches wherein the one or more alarm instructions are sent to all further activated personal sensing devices on the site (interpreted as the mobile devices 112 and 142 communicating with each other, figure 1).
With respect to claim 15, Mullins teaches wherein the operational condition indicates that the person wearing the personal sensing device has received and read an incoming message (The terms “has received and read an incoming message” is a conditional statement based on an action by a user and does not structurally limit the claim. Therefore, the claimed conditions performed are interpreted as being met by the prior art mobile devices communicating with each other.).
With respect to claim 17, Mullins teaches comprising another alarm, triggered by another trigger than the one alarm (interpreted as mobile device 112 communicating sensor data and hazard data to the other mobile device 142, paragraphs 21-22).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0197876 in view of Lamb U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0309160 and further in view of Wang et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0024091.
With respect to claim 19, Mullins as modified by Lamb teaches the claim invention except wherein said gas sensor is a H2S gas sensor.
Wang teaches portable environmental sensing devices 108 and area monitors 110 for monitoring environments where the gas sensing apparatus 1700 with a housing 1702 and an electrochemical sensor embedded in the housing 1702 is configured to detect one or more gases such as oxygen, carbon monoxide, methane, and hydrogen sulfide, along with others (paragraph 310)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the gas sensors of Mullins as modified by Lamb with hydrogen sulfide sensors as taught by Wang in order to an accurate gas sensing system.
Conclusion
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 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 FREDDIE KIRKLAND III whose telephone number is (571)272-2232. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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.
FREDDIE KIRKLAND III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/Freddie Kirkland III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 5/6/2026
Prosecution Insights