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 Objections
Claims 7-13 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 7-13 have not been further treated on the merits.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Snyder et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0183351, hereinafter referred to as Snyder).
With respect to claim 1, Snyder discloses and illustrates a network-based sensor system comprising multiple base units (see Figures 1 and 2, Controllers 138 A, B, C) with directly or indirectly connected sensors (LED 140A A, B, LED 141 A, B), including gas sensors (see at least paragraph [0251]) and sensors of other types such as thermal, environmental, power, or mechanical sensors (see at least paragraph [0251]), connected in a daisy chain configuration (see at least paragraph [0044]) using RJ-type cables (see at least paragraph [0264]).
With respect to claim 2, the system of claim 1, wherein the sensors in the daisy chain configuration are capable of transmitting both data and power through the RJ-type cables (see at least paragraph [0152]).
With respect to claim 4, the system of claim 1, wherein the base units are capable of sharing resources across the network, allowing for coordinated control and interaction with devices connected to different base units (see at least paragraph [0244]).
With respect to claim 5, the system of claim 4, wherein the shared resources include, but are not limited to, relays, contact devices, and IP-enabled devices (see at least paragraph [0089]).
With respect to claim 6, the system of claim 1, where the base units are capable of interfacing with an IP network to enable data sharing, remote management, and coordination of actions across the network.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder.
With respect to claim 3, Snyder discloses the system of claim 1, further including a data analysis unit capable of processing data from the sensors using decision-making frameworks. Snyder does not, however, Snyder fails to disclose the sensors using decision-making frameworks that include rule-based systems, predictive learning, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or combinations thereof. However, all the claimed decision-making frameworks are well known frameworks used with processors. In particular, machine learning and artificial intelligence are very well known and used with more recent systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use machine learning or artificial intelligence frameworks with the controllers disclosed in Snyder.
Conclusion
As a matter to make prosecution as compact as possible, the Examiner would like to note that while claims 7-13 are not being treated on the merits, Snyder appears to disclose these limitations as well. Claim 7 is disclosed in at least Chart 2, claim 8 in at least paragraph [0100], claim 9 in at least paragraph [0044], claim 10 in at least paragraph [0115], claim 11 in at least paragraph [0113], claim 12 in at least paragraph the last section of Chart 2, and claim 13 in at least paragraph [0077].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY T FRANK whose telephone number is (571)272-2193. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
RODNEY T. FRANK
Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
January 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights