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 .
Priority
The acknowledgment of receipt of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 is withdrawn. No claim for the benefit for foreign priority was made.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210195732 to Longinotti-Buitoni, in view of US 20160037292 to King.
Regarding Claim 1, Longinotti-Buitoni discloses a device for monitoring a first responder (Figs 1-4, 23 and 32, intelligent wear platform for firefighters; ¶¶ [0246]-[0255], [0331], [0343]), wherein the device comprises: a case (Figs 1-4, 23 and 32, intelligent wear platform for firefighters with semi-rigid collar piece and/or sensor manager (SMS) embedded into a rigid case; ¶¶ [0246]-[0255], [0471], [0527]-[0541], [0564]), to which is attached an antenna (Figs 1-4, 23 and 32, antenna array 37; ¶¶ [0246]-[0255], [0350]), a status light (Figs 1-4, 23 and 32, strobe light 32 that can also or instead remain on as a solid light, an indicator light 33, and/or a lighting strip(s) 34; ¶¶ [0246]-[0255], [0290]-[0291]), and a thermal camera (Figs 1-4, 23 and 32, infrared (IR) camera 31; ¶¶ [0246]-[0255], [0290]-[0291]); a flexible printed circuit board assembly connected to an inside portion of the case (Figs 1-4, 23 and 32, semi-rigid collar piece and/or sensor manager (SMS) rigid case with flexible printed circuit board (PCBs)) connected to the smart module in any way; ¶¶ [0246]-[0255], [0429], [0434], [0471], [0527]-[0541], [0564]), wherein the assembly includes GPS (Figs 1-4, 23 and 32, GPS 19; ¶¶ [0248]-[0251], [0277], [0290]-[0291], [0541]), and at least one environmental toxicity sensor (Figs 1-4, 23 and 32, GPS 19; ¶¶ [0246]-[0255], [0277], [0534]-[0540]).
However, Longinotti-Buitoni does not explicitly disclose the environmental toxicity sensor is a toxic gas sensor; and wherein a belt clip is mounted to the case. King discloses the environmental toxicity sensor is a toxic gas sensor (Fig. 1, environment data sensing unit 170 including a gas detector such as a detector for sensing the concentration of CO, CO.sub.2 and/or any other toxic gases; ¶ [0049]); and wherein a belt clip is mounted to the case (¶ [0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Longinotti-Buitoni by providing the environmental toxicity sensor is a toxic gas sensor; and wherein a belt clip is mounted to the case as in King in order to provide for greater accuracy as well as ease of portability using a well-known alternative method of carrying the device. See, e.g., "substitution of art-recognized equivalents" as discussed in MPEP 2144.06II "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)."
Regarding Claim 2, Longinotti-Buitoni discloses a the device further comprises a gyroscope and an accelerometer (Figs 1-4, 23 and 32, intelligent wear platform for firefighters with one or more than one body sensor including a gyroscope and/or a tri-axis accelerometer; ¶¶ [0246]-[0255], [0334]-[0337]).
Regarding Claim 4, King discloses the device further comprises two, three or four toxic gas sensors (Fig. 1, environment data sensing unit 170 including a gas detector such as a detector for sensing the concentration of CO, CO.sub.2 and/or any other toxic gases; ¶ [0049]).
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210195732 to Longinotti-Buitoni in view of King and further in view of US 10786693 to Opperman.
Regarding Claim 3, Longinotti-Buitoni in view of King discloses the device according to claim 1, and Longinotti-Buitoni further discloses the device further comprises a strobe light (Figs 1-4, 23 and 32, strobe light 32 that can also or instead remain on as a solid light, an indicator light 33, and/or a lighting strip(s) 34; ¶¶ [0246]-[0255], [0290]-[0291]), and a display screen (Figs 1-4, 23 and 32, electroluminescent panel 36 (an EL panel) and/or display 40; ¶¶ [0246]-[0255], [0299]). However, Longinotti-Buitoni in view of He does not disclose the display is an LCD screen. Opperman discloses the display is an LCD screen (Figs. 11-12, LCD screen display 605/705; Col. 71, line 40 – Col. 72, line 67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Longinotti-Buitoni in view of King by providing the display is an LCD screen as in Opperman in order to provide for a well-known alternative type of display device. See, e.g., "substitution of art-recognized equivalents" as discussed in MPEP 2144.06II "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)."
Regarding Claim 5, Longinotti-Buitoni in view of King discloses the device according to claim 4, and Longinotti-Buitoni further discloses the device further comprises a gyroscope (Figs 1-4, 23 and 32, intelligent wear platform for firefighters with one or more than one body sensor including a gyroscope; ¶¶ [0246]-[0255], [0334]-[0337]), an accelerometer (Figs 1-4, 23 and 32, intelligent wear platform for firefighters with one or more than one body sensor including a tri-axis accelerometer; ¶¶ [0246]-[0255], [0334]-[0337]), a strobe light (Figs 1-4, 23 and 32, strobe light 32 that can also or instead remain on as a solid light, an indicator light 33, and/or a lighting strip(s) 34; ¶¶ [0246]-[0255], [0290]-[0291]), and a display screen (Figs 1-4, 23 and 32, electroluminescent panel 36 (an EL panel) and/or display 40; ¶¶ [0246]-[0255], [0299]).
However, Longinotti-Buitoni in view of King does not disclose the display is an LCD screen. Opperman discloses the display is an LCD screen (Figs. 11-12, LCD screen display 605/705; Col. 71, line 40 – Col. 72, line 67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Longinotti-Buitoni in view of King by providing the display is an LCD screen as in Opperman in order to provide for a well-known alternative type of display device. See, e.g., "substitution of art-recognized equivalents" as discussed in MPEP 2144.06II "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)."
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, Longinotti-Buitoni discloses all the elements of the claim with the exception of the environmental toxicity sensor being a toxic gas sensor; and wherein a belt clip is mounted to the case. King discloses the additional limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID J BOLDUC whose telephone number is (571)270-1602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10am-6pm.
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, Walter Lindsay, Jr. can be reached at (571) 272-1672. 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.
/DAVID J BOLDUC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights