DETAILED ACTION
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 following action is in response to the amendment filed 11/4/2025. Claims 4 and 5 have been canceled. Claim 8 had been previously cancelled. Claims 10-16,19 and 20 are withdrawn in view of a restriction requirement. Claims 1-3,6,7,9,17 and 18 are addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
The specifics of the restriction can be found in the office action dated 8/4/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucchieri (20240087444) in view of Beard (4668940).
Regarding claim 1, Bucchieri disclosed a predictive system for safety in the workplace, comprising A hazard sensor unit for a hazard management system for use on a construction site, wherein the hazard sensor unit is configured to determine at least one measured hazard value of the construction site for at least one hazard, and wherein the hazard sensor unit is configured to detect a usage type of the hazard sensor unit.
[0006] In the following description, the working environment is understood to mean both a "closed" work environment, such as for example, offices, warehouses, factories, industrial sheds and the like, and "open" environments, such as construction sites, electric energy and gas transmission networks, data transmission networks, etc.
[0120] Some non-limiting examples of first parameters Pi characteristic of the work environment comprise: [0121] proximity sensors adapted to identify the subject's position; [0122] sensors capable of detecting the brightness of the work environment; [0123] sensors capable of detecting sound pressure and vibration levels; [0124] sensors capable of detecting the presence of dust or gases in the work environment, preferably gases such as carbon monoxide, radon, toxic gases; [0125] sensors capable of detecting the temperature and humidity of the work environment; [0126] meteorological sensors, preferably configured to measure barometric pressure, wind speed.
The sensors capable of detecting sound pressure and vibration levels; [0124] sensors capable of detecting the presence of dust or gases in the work environment thus the hazard sensor unit is configured to detect a usage type of the hazard sensor unit.
Bucchieri also teaches different sensors used to collect hazard data in the system. Sensor 3 is stationary and collects environmental data. See paragraph 66.
[0066] Each environmental sensor 3 is located in a corresponding station, zone or work area, preferably in a fixed position, and is configured to transmit its unique identification code ID_1, which will be referred to below as the "first identification code" to distinguish it from the second identification code. Each environmental sensor 3 is also configured to transmit one or more parameters Pi characteristic of the measurement of one or more magnitudes of the workplace to be monitored as they affect the risk of accidents.
Since the data from the environmental sensor is used differently from the wearable device records, this would meet the limitation of claim 1: determine at least one measured hazard value of the construction site for at least one hazard, and wherein the hazard sensor unit is configured to detect a usage type of the hazard sensor #a#= unit, wherein the hazard sensor unit is configured to distinguish at least usage modes of "arranged on a person at a construction site." "deposited at a fixed location at a construction site" and/or "in motion at a construction site independently of a person" as the usage type.
Additionally Beard teaches three types of sensors. Col. 1 lines 15-30:
Type I: Permanently Installed Monitors powered by permanent means, e.g. mains electricity. One example of a system of this type is used at operational nuclear power stations to ensure that radioactive materials are not accidentally removed or allowed to escape from specified areas.
(5) Type II: Individual Monitors worn or carried by each operative entering a potentially hazardous area. Radiation film badges worn by the operatives at nuclear power stations are of this type.
(6) Type III: Stand-alone Monitors powered by internal means, e.g. the Davy Lamp.
Here again, the data from the different types is used differently and thus the identity of the type of sensor must be discernable. See col. 5 lines 17 to 25.
(12) In the event of a detrimental external influence, e.g. flooding, being detected or an external influence, e.g. temperature, pressure, exceeding the design specification, the environmental monitor 17 generates a third signal 3 to activate the alarm operating device 14 and simultaneously deactivate the safe condition indicator (fifth signal 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have distinguished the different data available to a hazard system as suggested by Beard (and Bucchieri) since such distinguishing would provide additional data in determining hazard conditions.
Note that the claims call for at least determining “a dust particle concentration or a dust particle distribution”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these terms are broad enough to be met by a determination of the presence of dust. In order to detect the presence of dust, it is inherent that a concentration or distribution must be over a threshold.
Regarding claim 2, Bucchieri disclosed [0016] Other known solutions provide for greater automation in the collection of reports, through the installation of sensors that are wearable (wearables) by the workers, through which it is possible to detect the passage through gates, the presence of workers in some company areas, the actual use of personal protective equipment, etc. {to detect the passage through gates, the presence of workers in some company area thus a space-related; wearable (wearables) by the workers thus a person-related }.
Regarding claim 3, Bucchieri disclosed [0064] In particular, in the case of a three-axis accelerometer and three-axis gyrometer, six measurements are taken in total, so a record will consist of nine fields, i.e. the six measurements M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, the first unique identification code ID_1, the second identification code ID_2 and the relative progressive number n.
[0065] For example, each wearable device 2 sends a certain predetermined number of records per second wirelessly to a first server or to the computer unit 20 or to a log database 60 (FIG. 2). A first database of records is thus stored on the log database 60. [0066] Each environmental sensor 3 is located in a corresponding station, zone or work area, preferably in a fixed position, and is configured to transmit its unique identification code ID_1, which will be referred to below as the "first identification code" to distinguish it from the second identification code. Each environmental sensor 3 is also configured to transmit one or more parameters Pi characteristic of the measurement of one or more magnitudes of the workplace to be monitored as they affect the risk of accidents.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 3. {see [0066] }
2. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucchieri and Beard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chadha (20210033586).
Regarding claim 6, Bucchieri did not disclose wherein the hazard sensor unit has an optical sensor unit for determining the at least one measured hazard value.
Chadha teaches a mobile sensor unit wherein [0139] FIG. 5 presents a schematic of an example optical air quality sensor. This sensor 508 may be used as air quality sensor 108 of FIG. 1, which may be included on the mobile monitoring unit 402. Here, the air quality sensor 508 includes a light source 560 such as a laser that emits a light beam 562 and is configured to allow particles (a single particle 564 is illustrated) to pass through the beam 562. Sensor 508 optionally includes a mirror 566 and a detector 568. The laser may be a diode laser source. In some embodiments, the air quality sensor 508 has a fan or pump to push or pull air into the air quality sensor 508, through the inlet 448, which, in some embodiments, directs particles to pass through the laser beam 562. In FIG. 5, the particles are shown travelling through the air quality sensor 508 in a direction perpendicular to the beam 562 and to the plane of the page, as indicated by the "X" in the particle 564. As the particle 564 passes through the beam 562, the particle 564 interacts with the beam 562 to cause light to scatter off the particle, onto the concave mirror 566, and into the detector 568 which is configured to detect and capture this optical signal as a measurable pulse. Further, in the KSR decision, the Supreme Court states that rationales for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness includes (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; Bucchier, Beard and Chadha are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to a sensor unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hazard sensor unit has an optical sensor unit for determining the at least one measured hazard value for Bucchieri's sensor as a simple substitution.
Claims 9, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucchieri (US 20240087444) and Beard as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kaack (WO 2015149982). Regarding claim 9, Bucchieri did not disclose wherein the hazard sensor unit can be operated with a glove.
Kaack teaches a mobile sensor wherein Such a sensor can also be operated under adverse circumstances, for example with gloves. For example, the sensor node may be rotated, shaken, straightened, pivoted or tapped to make a predetermined user input. Such input patterns may be more memorable than triggering a function displayed on a touch-sensitive screen. (page 2, para. 6)
Bucchieri, Beard and Kaack are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to a sensor unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hazard sensor unit can be operated with a glove for Bucchieri's sensor when it is operated under adverse circumstances.
Regarding claim 18, Bucchieri did not disclose explicitly wherein the hazard sensor unit can be operated with a construction glove. However, Bucchieri disclosed [0006] In the following description, the working environment is understood to mean both a "closed" work environment, such as for example, offices, warehouses, factories, industrial sheds and the like, and "open" environments, such as construction sites, electric energy and gas transmission networks, data transmission networks, etc. Therefore, when the sensor unit of Bucchieri and Kaack is exposed at construction sites, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a construction glove in order to comfort to construction sites regulations.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucchieri (US 20240087444) in view of Gu (CN 207882017).
Regarding claim 17, Bucchieri did not disclose wherein the dust is an alveolar dust, a silica-based and/or a wood-based dust.
Gu teaches a sensor unit wherein dust is that solid particles can be suspended in the air for a long time. in human productivity production life, dust pollution and damaging the worker working environment harmful factors very important, it can cause more serious occupational lung diseases including pneumoconiosis. our workplace dust occupational contact limit comprising a total dust and respirable dust two types, the total dust can enter the respiratory tract (nose, throat, larynx, trachea, bronchi, bronchioles, respiratory bronchioles, alveolar) of dust, for short, respirable dust can enter the alveoli of the dust particle respirable dust collected, which is called the standard measuring method call, an aerodynamic diameter are less than 7.07 um.
In our workplace dust detection result judging and occupational health hazard evaluation, both and matched, the lack of which one cannot be completely determined, so in occupational health detection at the same detection point alternately using and the sampling head to finish sampling the workload increases, the operation is complicated. (page 1, para. 3-4) Bucchieri and Gu are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to a sensor unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the dust is an alveolar dust, a silica-based and/or a wood-based dust for Bucchieri's sensor in order to ensure worker's safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the references do not teach the limitations added from claims 4 and 5. The applicant states that “(e)ven if Buccieri could be interpreted as teaching determining the presence of dust or gas, determining the mere presence of dust or gas (i.e., regardless of the amount), there is no pointer leading one of skill in the art from Buccieri to a "hazard sensor unit is configured to record as the at least one hazard, a dust, and configured to determine at least one of a dust particle concentration, a dust particle size, a dust particle distribution or a chemical dust particle composition as the at least one measured hazard value," as recited in amended claim 1.”
The previous action states referring to paragraph [124], Bucchieri teaches sensors capable of detecting the presence of dust or gas in the work environment.
Note that the claims call for at least determining “a dust particle concentration or a dust particle distribution”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these terms are broad enough to be met by a determination of the presence of dust. In order to detect the presence of dust, it is inherent that a concentration or distribution must be over a threshold. The claim does not say that a numerical value is determined, merely that a vague concentration is determined. It remains the examiner’s position that the references reads on the claimed language.
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 BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3059. The examiner can normally be reached m,t,tr 6-4; w,f 6-noon.
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.
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.
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights