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 .
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
I. Claim 1-9, 17-18, drawn to a hazard sensor unit, classified in GO8B 21/182.
II. Claim 1, 10-16, 19-20 , drawn to a hazard sensor unit which can control a construction device, classified in GO8B 21/182.
These species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, Claim | is generic.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
(1) Separate status in the art
(2) Different classification
(3) Same classification but recognition of divergent subject matter
(4) Divergent fields of search, and
(5) Search required for one group not required for the other.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, Applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should Applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, Applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AJA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, Applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.174).
During a telephone conversation with Jeremy M. Jay on 1/16/2025 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of I, claims 1-9, 17-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 10-16, 19-20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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) 1-5 is/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.
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 4, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 1. {see [0124]}
Regarding claim 5, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 1. {see [0124], “preferably gases such as carbon monoxide, radon, toxic gases;” thus a particle concentration}
Regarding claim 7, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 3. {see [0066] }
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)
Application/Control Number: 18/289,106 Page 10 Art Unit: 2687
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
Restriction/Election
The examiner acknowledges the election with traverse. The examiner is not persuaded by the traversal arguments. Having overlapping subject matter does not itself overcome a restriction requirement. Here the gathering of data is classified in one location and the use of data to control a particular machine is classified in another different location and requires a separate search.
The examiner does agree that the claims as currently submitted would be rejoined if allowable subject matter were present due to the dependency of the group 2 (withdrawn) claims.
Rejection under 112b.
In light of the amendment to claim, and the amendment to claim 1, the 112b antecedent basis rejection
is withdrawn.
Rejections under 102 and 103.
The new grounds of rejection presented above addresses any issues regarding the 102 and 103 rejections.
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