DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/05/2026. It is noted that, in the reply, applicant asserted that claims 1-9 encompass the elected species.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/21/2023, 01/10/2024, and the three submitted on 08/29/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed in this case fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.56 (b) which states that information is material to patentability which is NOT CUMULATIVE to information…being made of record in the application. Applicant has cited over ~500 references for consideration. The examiner believes that the significant number of references for consideration is largely cumulative and, therefore, based upon the large number of references cited, the references contained in the information disclosure statements have been considered in a cumulative manner. The examiner notes Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172 (Fed Cir. 1995), which established the concept of “burying” a highly relevant, material reference in a “voluminous” IDS -- effectively forcing the examiner to find “a needle in a haystack” -- is evidence of bad faith. If applicant is aware of one or more such highly relevant, material references, the examiner recommends explicit citation thereof in the reply.
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 of this title, 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rachakonda et al. (US 20170205454 A1) in view of Hyma (US 20210106089 A1) and further in view of Thompson et al. (US 20220276288 A1).Regarding claim 1:Rachakonda teaches (FIG. 1a, unless explicitly stated otherwise in a citation) a safety system comprising:
a first device (30) comprising: a first housing (30);
a first detector (22) coupled to the first housing (30), the first detector configured to generate a first signal ([0031]-[0032]; e.g., FIG. 2 - signal from 38 or any signal from 38 to 46) in response to detecting nearby objects having currents with a high voltage (e.g., abstract); and
a first controller (FIG. 2 - 46) coupled to the first housing and in electrical communications with the first detector (specifically FIG. 2 - 38), the first controller configured to emit a second signal in response to receiving the first signal from the first detector (e.g., [0031]-[0033]; FIG. 2 - 46 transmits the second signal to both of 24 and 26 in FIG. 1a); and
a second device (FIG. 4) comprising: a second housing (FIG. 4); a second controller (inherent to the device of FIG. 4 and associated discussion) coupled to the second housing and in electrical communications with the first controller (e.g., [0031]-[0033]; FIG. 2 - 46 transmits the second signal to both of 24 and 26 in FIG. 1a), the second controller configured to generate a third signal (e.g., the signal which results in the alarm/alerts - [0035], [0038]-[0040], etc.) in response to receiving the second signal from the first controller; and a notification device (e.g., FIG. 4 - 104 and/or 102s) physically coupled to the second housing and in electrical communications with the second controller, the notification device configured to generate an alarm in response to the notification device receiving the third signal from the second controller ([0035], [0038]-[0040], etc.)Rachakonda fails to teach:
the first housing comprising an opposing pair of protrusions extending towards each other, the protrusions configured to couple the first housing to a body of a safety headwear;
the second housing configured to couple to a brim of the safety headwear(The examiner notes that Rachakonda explicitly teaches that the high voltage detector is wearable.)Hyma teaches:
the first housing comprising an opposing pair of protrusions (FIGS. 4-5, elements 28) extending towards each other, the protrusions configured to couple the first housing to a body (via FIG. 3 - 12 / 30) of a safety headwear (FIG. 3 - 10)(Also see, e.g., FIG. 18 and [0061] which discloses that other accessories or devices may be mounted using such a housing / bracket rather than just a headlamp) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the protrusions / mounting bracket of Hyma in the device of Rachakonda to mount the detector to a hard hat. Rachakonda teaches mounting the detector to a jacket or worn on an outer side of the body. Jackets may get dirty and are have sizes for differing wearers. Further, mounting to the outside of the jacket may get in the way of the user’s work. By mounting the detector to the ridges of a hard hat, the detector is out of the way and the same device can be worn by more users. Further, it places the detector clear of the user’s workspace / immediate working environment.Thompson teaches:
the second housing configured to couple to a brim of the safety headwear ([0062]-[0063]; FIGS. 7-9; the examine notes the limitation of “second” is met upon combination since Rachakonda teaches two housings)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the alert / alarm housing to a brim of the safety headwear, as taught by Thompson, in the device of Rachakonda to provide a hands-free, attached device that the user can’t forget (i.e., if they have their assembled hardhat, they have the alert/alarm mechanism) and that better alerts the user since the alarm / alert device is right in the user’s face at all times.
Regarding claim 2:Rachakonda, Hyma, and Thompson teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Rachakonda also teaches:
wherein the first controller and second controller wirelessly communicate button with each other (e.g., abstract, FIG. 1a)
Regarding claim 3:Rachakonda, Hyma, and Thompson teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Rachakonda fails to explicitly teach:
the first device comprising a plurality of interface buttons electrically coupled to the first controller and configured to control the first controller and the first detector(Rachakonda teaches a pairing button 32.)
However, the examiner takes Official notice that it is common to include a plurality of buttons on a detector housing for settings, power, muting, etc.
Regarding claim 4:Rachakonda, Hyma, and Thompson teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Rachakonda also teaches:
wherein the alarm comprises a first alarm selected from the group consisting of a visual alarm and an audio alarm (e.g., [0044])
Regarding claim 5:Rachakonda, Hyma, and Thompson teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Rachakonda also teaches:
wherein the alarm comprises a haptic alarm (e.g., [0044])
Regarding claim 6:Rachakonda, Hyma, and Thompson teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above Hyma teaches:
the first housing defining a back surface facing away from the second device, the protrusions extending over the back surface(E.g., FIG. 5, FIG. 18 - the protrusions 28 extend / protrude over the back surface which is the surface that is facing the helmet)
Regarding claim 7:Rachakonda, Hyma, and Thompson teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above Thompson teaches or renders obvious:
the second housing comprising an aperture and a protrusion extending into the aperture, the aperture and protrusion configured to collectively couple the second device to the brim of the safety headwear(FIGS. 7-9; [0061]-[0063])
The examiner notes that “aperture” may be defined as “an opening, hole, or gap”. The space between the clips/fastening mechanisms and the body of the rest of the device may be interpreted as a “gap”. The clips and/or the bent portions thereof, e.g., FIGS. and 9, protrude into the gap (e.g., [0063] - “curl against the top side of the housing 800 to attach the device 700 to the brim of a hat”. Thompson also contemplates other suitable fastening mechanisms ([0063]). Lastly, the examiner takes Official notice that aperture and protrusion clips are well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 8:Rachakonda, Hyma, and Thompson teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 7, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above Thompson teaches:
the second housing defining a lower surface, wherein the notification device is coupled to the lower surface(e.g., FIG. 7 shows the orientation; [0061]-[0063])
Regarding claim 9:Rachakonda, Hyma, and Thompson teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above Thompson teaches:
wherein the notification device generates a visual alarm in response to the notification device receiving the third signal from the second controller (e.g., [0061]-[0063])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855