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 .
Notice to Applicants
This action is in response to the Restriction Election filed on 03/03/2026.
Claims 1-15 and 21-25 are pending.
Priority
The Application claims priority to PCT/IB2021/059087 with filing date 10/04/2021, as well as to Provisional Applications 63/260,734 and 63/092,842 with filing dates of 08/31/2021 and 10/16/2020, all of which are acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 09/25/2023 has been fully considered by the examiner.
Restriction/Election
The examiner thanks Applicant for their careful consideration of the Restriction Requirement mailed on 01/06/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 7-14 and 23-24) in the reply filed on 03/03/2026 is acknowledged. Although the election was made with traverse, no specific arguments against the Restriction Requirement were presented. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15 and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/03/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to.
Regarding claim 8, “applying a ruleset to the image to identify characteristics the picture” should read “applying a ruleset to the image to identify characteristics of the picture” (emphasis added).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “wherein analyze comprises applying a ruleset to the image to identify characteristics the picture, then determining if the characteristics are consistent with a defined readiness states of the article of PPE” (emphasis added). Although the emphasized portion appears to contain a mere typographical error, it is still unclear if the emphasized portion was intended to read “a defined readiness state”, or “defined readiness states”. Thus, it is unclear if the claim was intended to require only/at least one defined readiness state, or if the claim was intended to require a plurality of defined readiness states.
In the interest of compact prosecution, prior art will be applied below assuming that at least one readiness state would read on the claim, as this would appear to be the broadest reasonable interpretation of Applicant’s intent.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Analysis for claim 1 is provided in the following. Claim 1 is reproduced in the following (annotation added):
A personal protection equipment (PPE) interrogation device, comprising:
a processor; a memory;
and, an audio or visual sensor that receives sensor input associated with an article of PPE and produces sensor data representative of the sensor input;
wherein the interrogation device executes instructions which cause the processor to: receive sensor data;
analyze the sensor data using the processor to determine a readiness state of an article of PPE;
and, perform a function based on the readiness state.
Step 1: Does the claim belong to one of the statutory categories? Claim 1 is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention (YES).
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception? Parts e-f can be regarded as reciting mental processes, such as observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions, that can be practically performed in the human mind. Part e can be performed by any mental analysis of sensor data to mentally recognize/determine any characteristic of a readiness state of an article of PPE. The analysis is only restricted by generally “using the processor”; note that the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III). Part f reads on a wide variety of functions; any mental process would read on this step, as long as it is merely “based on the readiness state” (YES).
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? Parts a-b recite a computerized system at a high level of generality. Parts c-d recite mere data gathering (NO).
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception? The claim as a whole recites a computerized system at a high level of generality that performs data gathering, and then performs further actions on said data that can all be practically performed in the human mind (NO). Claim 1 is not eligible.
Similar analysis is applicable to independent claim 21. The claim similarly recites a computerized system at a high level of generality (“a computer having a processor and a memory”), and data gathering (“receiving… element data”). The claim also similarity recites mental processes involving analyzing the element data to determine a readiness state of the PPE (“analyzing, with the processor, the element data; based on the analysis, determining, using the processor, if the element data is consistent with a defined readiness state of the article of PPE”); these steps are also only restricted by generally “using the processor”. Finally, the claim recites a different post-analysis action, that being “generating instructions which perform a function based on whether the element data was determined to be consistent”; although “generating instructions” cannot be reasonably or practically performed in the human mind, this is still regarded as a well-understood, routine, conventional activity that does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claim 21 is not eligible.
Claim 2 narrows the interrogation device to further include a display, and recites providing a user indicia of the readiness state, which amounts to mere data output. Claim 2 is not eligible.
Claim 3 recites similar data output. Claim 3 is not eligible.
Claim 4 narrows the interrogation device to be a smartphone, and narrows the instructions to embody an app running on the smart phone; although the claimed smart phone reads as a particular machine, it is still regarded as insignificant extra-solution activity, as the claim does not otherwise impose any meaningful limits on or integrate the smart phone with the mental processes. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Claim 4 is not eligible.
Claim 5 narrows the readiness state to indicate the PPE having failed an inspection step; this readiness state can still be practically determined in the human mind. Claim 5 is not eligible.
Claim 6 recites writing information indicating the readiness state to a log file in the memory, which amounts to mere data output. Claim 6 is not eligible.
Claim 7 narrows the sensor input to be an image of the PPE, which does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claim 7 is not eligible.
Claim 8 narrows the analyzing to include applying a ruleset to the image to identify pictorial characteristics, then determining if the characteristics are consistent with a defined readiness state(s) of the article of PPE; these can both still be practically performed in the human mind. Claim 8 is not eligible.
Claims 9 and 23 narrow the analyzing to include generally applying a machine learning model to the image; the generality of “applying a machine learning model” is still interpreted similarly to “using the processor” in part e of claim 1 above, as it amounts to generally using a computerized system to perform mental processes. Claims 9 and 23 are not eligible.
Claims 10 and 24 recite that the machine learning model has instructions that cause the processor to provide data “indicative of whether the picture of the element is associated with a positive readiness state for that element”; again, this is interpreted as generally using a computerized system to perform mental processes. Claims 10 and 24 are not eligible.
Claim 11 recites that the processor determines the readiness state of the PPE based on the data [provided in claim 10]. This can still be practically performed in the human mind. Claim 11 is not eligible.
Claims 12 and 13 narrow the objects depicted in the image to specific species. Claims 12 and 13 are not eligible.
Claim 14 recites that the readiness state for the strap includes determining whether the strap is damaged, can still be practically performed in the human mind. Claim 14 is not eligible.
Claim 22 narrows the element data to be either audio or image data, which does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claim 22 is not eligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Deutsch (U.S. Publ. US-2014/0307076-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Deutsch discloses a personal protection equipment (PPE) interrogation device (see figure 1, system 100 and paragraph 0021), comprising: a processor (see figure 1, processor 134); a memory (see figure 1, memory 136);
and, an audio or visual sensor (see figure 1, imaging device 110) that receives sensor input associated with an article of PPE and produces sensor data representative of the sensor input (see figure 5, step 502 and paragraphs 0019 and 0032, where the imaging device obtains images of articles of PPE worn by an individual);
wherein the interrogation device executes instructions which cause the processor to: receive sensor data (see paragraph 0020);
analyze the sensor data using the processor to determine a readiness state of an article of PPE (see figure 5, step 506 and paragraph 0032, where an individual is first recognized in the image data; then see figure 5, step 508 and paragraphs 0025 and 0032, where the PPE worn by the individual is analyzed to determine if all required PPE for an environment is present or not; this reads on the disclosed "readiness state", as the presence/absence of all required PPE determines the suitability of the remaining PPE for use in the relevant environment);
and, perform a function based on the readiness state (see figure 5, step 510 and paragraphs 0021 and 0032, where a message can be output based on the presence/absence of all required PPE).
Regarding claim 2, Deutsch discloses wherein the interrogation device additionally comprises a display (see paragraph 0016, where the computer can include a display and a graphical user interface),
and wherein the performed function comprises executing instructions which cause the processor additionally to: provide to a user of the interrogation device indicia of the readiness state of the article of PPE (see figure 5, step 510 and paragraphs 0021 and 0032, where a message can be output based on the presence/absence of all required PPE).
Regarding claim 3, Deutsch discloses wherein the performed function comprises executing instructions which cause the processor additionally to: provide a user of another communicatively coupled device indicia of the readiness state of the article of PPE (see paragraph 0021, where a message representing the readiness state can be transmitted to another user).
Regarding claim 4, Deutsch discloses wherein the interrogation device comprises a smart phone, and the instructions embody an app running on the smart phone (see paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 5, Deutsch discloses wherein the readiness state is indicative of the article of PPE having failed an inspection step (see figure 5, step 508 and paragraphs 0025 and 0032, where the PPE worn by the individual is analyzed to determine if all required PPE for an environment is present or not, which reads on failing an inspection step if all required PPE are not present).
Regarding claim 6, Deutsch discloses wherein the performed function comprises executing instructions which cause the processor to: write to a log file in the memory information indicative of the readiness state of the article of PPE (see paragraph 0021, where if non-compliance with safety protocols is detected, the violation information, along with a time stamp and the image of the individual, can be stored in memory for administrative action).
Regarding claim 7, Deutsch discloses wherein the sensor input comprises an image of an element of an article of PPE (see figure 5, step 502 and paragraphs 0019 and 0032, where the imaging device obtains images of articles of PPE worn by an individual).
Regarding claim 8, Deutsch discloses wherein analyze comprises applying a ruleset to the image to identify characteristics the picture, then determining if the characteristics are consistent with a defined readiness states of the article of PPE (see figure 5, step 506 and paragraph 0032, where an individual is first recognized in the image data; then see figure 5, step 508 and paragraphs 0025 and 0032, where the PPE worn by the individual is analyzed to determine if all required PPE for an environment is present or not; the examiner interprets the presence of all required PPE as a ruleset applied to the image data, where all required PPE being present represents a defined readiness state).
Regarding claim 9, Deutsch discloses wherein analyze comprises applying a machine learning model to the image (see paragraphs 0018 and 0035, where convolutional neural networks can be applied to the image data to recognize the PPE).
Regarding claim 10, Deutsch discloses wherein the machine learning model has instructions which cause the processor to provide data indicative of whether the picture of the element is associated with a positive readiness state for that element (see paragraphs 0018 and 0035, where convolutional neural networks can be applied to the image data to recognize the PPE; this recognition enables the processor to determine if all required PPEs are present).
Regarding claim 11, Deutsch discloses wherein the processor determines the readiness state of the article of PPE based on the data indicative of whether the picture of the element is associated with a positive readiness state for that element (see figure 5, step 508 and paragraphs 0025 and 0032, where the PPE worn by the individual is analyzed to determine if all required PPE for an environment is present or not; this reads on the disclosed "readiness state", as the presence/absence of all required PPE determines the suitability of the remaining PPE for use in the relevant environment).
Regarding claim 21, Deutsch discloses a method of determining a readiness state of an article of personal protection equipment (PPE) (see figure 5), comprising:
receiving, into a computer having a processor and a memory (see figure 1, system 100, processor 134, memory 136, and paragraph 0021),
element data, associated with an element of the article of PPE (see figure 5, step 502 and paragraphs 0019 and 0032, where the imaging device obtains images of articles of PPE worn by an individual);
analyzing, with the processor, the element data; based on the analysis, determining, using the processor, if the element data is consistent with a defined readiness state of the article of PPE (see figure 5, step 506 and paragraph 0032, where an individual is first recognized in the image data; then see figure 5, step 508 and paragraphs 0025 and 0032, where the PPE worn by the individual is analyzed to determine if all required PPE for an environment is present or not; this reads on the disclosed "readiness state", as the presence/absence of all required PPE determines the suitability of the remaining PPE for use in the relevant environment);
and, generating instructions which perform a function based on whether the element data was determined to be consistent (see figure 5, step 510 and paragraphs 0021 and 0032, where a message can be output based on the presence/absence of all required PPE).
Regarding claim 22, Deutsch discloses wherein the element data comprises audio or image data (see figure 5, step 502 and paragraphs 0019 and 0032, where the imaging device obtains images of articles of PPE worn by an individual).
Regarding claim 23, Deutsch discloses wherein element data comprises image data (see figure 5, step 502 and paragraphs 0019 and 0032, where the imaging device obtains images of articles of PPE worn by an individual),
and wherein analyzing comprises applying a machine learning algorithm to the image data (see paragraphs 0018 and 0035, where convolutional neural networks can be applied to the image data to recognize the PPE).
Regarding claim 24, Deutsch discloses wherein applying the machine learning algorithm to the image data provides data indicative of whether the element is likely associated with an element that is consistent with the defined readiness state (see paragraphs 0018 and 0035, where convolutional neural networks can be applied to the image data to recognize the PPE; this recognition enables the processor to determine if all required PPEs are present).
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.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch (U.S. Publ. US-2014/0307076-A1) in view of Pham et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2017/0162025-A1).
Regarding claim 12, Deutsch fails to disclose the limitations of claim 12.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Pham discloses wherein the image comprises a picture of a strap coupled to the article of PPE (see figure 1 and paragraphs 0008-0009, where a strap 100 contains an optical transmitter 130 and receiver 140 that image the strap).
Deutsch and Pham are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image analysis of articles of PPE. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Pham into Deutsch because doing so enables determining if damage to the strap has occurred (see Pham paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 14, Deutsch fails to disclose the limitations of claim 14.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Pham discloses wherein the readiness state for the strap comprises a determination of whether the strap is damaged (see figure 2 and paragraph 0010, where if the strap is damaged and unfolds, the optical transmitters and receivers detect this and thus indicate that the strap has been damaged).
Deutsch and Pham are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image analysis of articles of PPE. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Pham into Deutsch because doing so enables signaling of alarms to inform users of damage to PPE occurring (see Pham paragraph 0010).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch (U.S. Publ. US-2014/0307076-A1) in view of McSheffrey et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2016/0037135-A1).
Regarding claim 13, Deutsch fails to disclose the limitations of claim 13.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, McSheffrey discloses wherein the image comprises a picture of a gauge coupled to the article of PPE (see figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0016-0020, where a fire extinguisher 10 has a gauge 14 with an attached CMOS camera 12 equipped to photograph the gauge).
Deutsch and McSheffrey are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image analysis of articles of PPE. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of McSheffrey into Deutsch because doing so allows for automatically determining if the extinguisher is within a normal/safe pressure state (see McSheffrey paragraph 0020).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO whose telephone number is (703)756-5539. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7778. 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. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
/NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667