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 § 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) 1-4 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos (US 2009/0058669) in view of Turiello (2010/0084043).
Regarding claim 1, Santos discloses a method of a safety system of a structure having an emergency station 100, 200, 300, thereof for use by personnel, comprising:
detecting, through a sensor 180 in conjunction with a processor (a control device, paragraph 17), a visibility parameter in a vicinity of the emergency station (p. 14); and
automatically controlling, through the processor, a parameter of at least one output device 120, 220, at least one of: located proximate to and on the emergency station in accordance with the detection of the visibility parameter to aid the personnel in locating the emergency station (p. 14, figures 1-3).
Santos does not disclose the emergency station being an emergency air fill station and the safety system of the structure having a fixed piping system implemented therein to supply breathable air from a source across the safety system to the emergency air fill station thereof for use by the personnel to fill an air bottle. Turiello teaches the use of an emergency station being an emergency air fill station 102 and a safety system of a structure having a fixed piping system implemented therein to supply breathable air from a source across the safety system to the emergency air fill station thereof for use by personnel to fill an air bottle (p. 47, p. 88). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the emergency station being an emergency air fill station and the safety system of the structure having a fixed piping system implemented therein to supply breathable air from a source across the safety system to the emergency air fill station thereof for use by the personnel to fill an air bottle to the method of Santos as taught by Turiello for the purpose of effectively locating the emergency air fill station.
Regarding claim 8, Santos discloses a method of a safety system of a structure having an emergency station 100, 200, 300, thereof for use by personnel, comprising:
detecting, through a sensor 180 in conjunction with a processor (a control device, paragraph 17), that a visibility parameter in a vicinity of the emergency station is below a first threshold (p. 14); and
automatically controlling, through the processor, a parameter of at least one output device 120, 220, at least one of: located proximate to and on the emergency station in accordance with the detection that the visibility parameter is below the first threshold to aid the personnel in locating the emergency station (p. 14, figures 1-3).
Santos does not disclose the emergency station being an emergency air fill station and the safety system of the structure having a fixed piping system implemented therein to supply breathable air from a source across the safety system to the emergency air fill station thereof for use by the personnel to fill an air bottle. Turiello teaches the use of an emergency station being an emergency air fill station 102 and a safety system of a structure having a fixed piping system implemented therein to supply breathable air from a source across the safety system to the emergency air fill station thereof for use by personnel to fill an air bottle (p. 47, p. 88). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the emergency station being an emergency air fill station and the safety system of the structure having a fixed piping system implemented therein to supply breathable air from a source across the safety system to the emergency air fill station thereof for use by the personnel to fill an air bottle to the method of Santos as taught by Turiello for the purpose of effectively locating the emergency air fill station.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Santos discloses at least one of: that the visibility parameter in an environment in the vicinity of the emergency station is below a first threshold (p. 14), and that the visibility parameter of a light of the emergency air fill station is below the first threshold.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Santos discloses at least one of: an output light device 120, 220, an audio device, an imaging device and a heater associated with the emergency air fill station.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Santos (modified by Turiello) discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 3, but does not disclose providing the output light device on a door of the emergency air fill station. Turiello further teaches the use of providing an output indication on a door 624 of the emergency air fill station 102 (figure 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include providing the output light device on a door of the emergency air fill station to the method of Santos as taught by Turiello for the purpose of effectively providing an indication.
Regarding claim 7, Santos discloses the at least one output device being at least one of: wirelessly communicatively coupled to the processor and coupled thereto in a wired manner (figures 1-3).
Claim(s) 14-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos (US 2009/0058669) in view of Turiello (2010/0084043) and Donegan (US 11,626,002).
Regarding claim 14, Santos discloses a safety system of a structure, comprising:
an emergency station 100, 200, 300;
a sensor 180; and
a processor (a control device, paragraph 17),
wherein the sensor in conjunction with the processor detects a visibility parameter in a vicinity of the emergency station (p. 14), and
wherein the processor automatically controls a parameter of at least one output device 120, 220, at least one of: located proximate to and on the emergency air fill station in accordance with the detection of the visibility parameter to aid the personnel in locating the emergency station (p. 14, figures 1-3).
Santos does not disclose the emergency station being an emergency air fill station, a source of breathable air; a fixed piping system within the structure for supply of the breathable air from the source across the safety system; the emergency air fill station coupled to the fixed piping system to provide access to the breathable air therethrough for personnel to fill an air bottle; the processor communicatively coupled to a memory. Turiello teaches the use of an emergency station being an emergency air fill station 102, a source of breathable air (p. 47); a fixed piping system within a structure for supply of the breathable air from a source across the safety system (p. 47, figure 1); the emergency air fill station coupled to the fixed piping system to provide access to the breathable air therethrough for personnel to fill an air bottle (p. 47, p. 88). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the emergency station being an emergency air fill station, a source of breathable air; a fixed piping system within the structure for supply of the breathable air from the source across the safety system; the emergency air fill station coupled to the fixed piping system to provide access to the breathable air therethrough for personnel to fill an air bottle to the system of Santos as taught by Turiello for the purpose of effectively locating the emergency air fill station.
Donegan teaches the use of a processor 1202 communicatively coupled to a memory 1204 (column 54, lines 43-65, figure 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the processor communicatively coupled to a memory to the system of Santos (as modified by Turiello) as taught by Donegan for the purpose of effectively locating the emergency air fill station.
Regarding claim 15, Santos discloses at least one of: that the visibility parameter in an environment in the vicinity of the emergency station is below a first threshold (p. 14), and that the visibility parameter of a light of the emergency air fill station is below the first threshold.
Regarding claim 16, Santos discloses at least one of: an output light device 120, 220, an audio device, an imaging device and a heater associated with the emergency air fill station.
Regarding claim 17, Santos (modified by Turiello and Donegan) discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 16, but does not disclose providing the output light device on a door of the emergency air fill station. Turiello further teaches the use of providing an output indication on a door 624 of the emergency air fill station 102 (figure 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include providing the output light device on a door of the emergency air fill station to the system of Santos as taught by Turiello for the purpose of effectively providing an indication.
Regarding claim 20, Santos discloses the at least one output device being at least one of: wirelessly communicatively coupled to the processor and coupled thereto in a wired manner (figures 1-3).
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos and Turiello as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seong (US 2006/0213513).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Santos (modified by Turiello) discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose detecting, through another sensor in conjunction with the processor, that an air parameter of the breathable air is outside a second threshold; and automatically triggering, through the processor, the at least one output device to signal at least one of: audibly and visibly a state corresponding to the detection that the air parameter of the breathable air is outside the second threshold. Seong teaches the use of detecting, through another sensor in conjunction with a processor, that an air parameter of breathable air is outside a second threshold; and automatically triggering, through the processor, at least one output device to signal at least one of: audibly and visibly a state corresponding to the detection that the air parameter of the breathable air is outside the second threshold (p. 6, p. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include detecting, through another sensor in conjunction with the processor, that an air parameter of the breathable air is outside a second threshold; and automatically triggering, through the processor, the at least one output device to signal at least one of: audibly and visibly a state corresponding to the detection that the air parameter of the breathable air is outside the second threshold to the method of Santos (modified by Turiello) as taught by Seong for the purpose of effectively monitoring the condition of the breathable air.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos and Turiello as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Chrostowski (US 10,139,282).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Santos (modified by Turiello) discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 4, but does not disclose utilizing, through the processor, the TIC to locate at least one of: the emergency air fill station and an obstacle in the vicinity of the emergency air fill station. Chrostowski teaches the use of utilizing, through a processor, a TIC to locate at least one of: an emergency air fill station and an obstacle in the vicinity of the emergency air fill station (column 3, line 49-col. 4, line 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include utilizing, through the processor, the TIC to locate at least one of: the emergency air fill station and an obstacle in the vicinity of the emergency air fill station to the method of Santos (modified by Turiello) as taught by Chrostowski for the purpose of effectively locating the station or an obstacle in the vicinity of the emergency station.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos, Turiello, and Donegan as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Seong (US 2006/0213513).
Regarding claim 18, Santos (modified by Turiello and Donegan) discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 14, but does not disclose detecting, through another sensor in conjunction with the processor, that an air parameter of the breathable air is outside a second threshold; and automatically triggering, through the processor, the at least one output device to signal at least one of: audibly and visibly a state corresponding to the detection that the air parameter of the breathable air is outside the second threshold. Seong teaches the use of detecting, through another sensor in conjunction with a processor, that an air parameter of breathable air is outside a second threshold; and automatically triggering, through the processor, at least one output device to signal at least one of: audibly and visibly a state corresponding to the detection that the air parameter of the breathable air is outside the second threshold (p. 6, p. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include detecting, through another sensor in conjunction with the processor, that an air parameter of the breathable air is outside a second threshold; and automatically triggering, through the processor, the at least one output device to signal at least one of: audibly and visibly a state corresponding to the detection that the air parameter of the breathable air is outside the second threshold to the system of Santos (modified by Turiello and Donegan) as taught by Seong for the purpose of effectively monitoring the condition of the breathable air.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos, Turiello, and Donegan as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Chrostowski (US 10,139,282).
Regarding claim 19, Santos (modified by Turiello and Donegan) discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 17, but does not disclose utilizing, through the processor, the TIC to locate at least one of: the emergency air fill station and an obstacle in the vicinity of the emergency air fill station. Chrostowski teaches the use of utilizing, through a processor, a TIC to locate at least one of: an emergency air fill station and an obstacle in the vicinity of the emergency air fill station (column 3, line 49-col. 4, line 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include utilizing, through the processor, the TIC to locate at least one of: the emergency air fill station and an obstacle in the vicinity of the emergency air fill station to the system of Santos (modified by Turiello and Donegan) as taught by Chrostowski for the purpose of effectively locating the station or an obstacle in the vicinity of the emergency station.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH V LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2970. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ANH V LA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
ANH V. LA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
Al
April 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights