FINAL ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are not persuasive. “One or more expected output signals for the selected test data” is interpreted as any value that a given sensor would be expected to output for a given condition. One would expect sensors that are all operating correctly to return the same value as each other, therefore the average of all sensors is what is expected for each sensor to replicate. When the value is different, the behavior is unexpected and could indicate the need for maintenance. The claim language does not require the value to be defined at any particular time. However, Lazea does teach that the calibration coefficients are predetermined and stored, which represent the sensors’ expected readings with a known gas concentration (¶24) to improve accuracy.
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) 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazea (20240102983) in view of Bobick (20230184866).
Regarding claim 1, Lazea teaches A computer-implemented method for performing firmware functionality testing of a gas detector device, the computer-implemented method comprising: for each gas of one or more gases (Once powered and supplied with test gas, the air quality sensor units are tested simultaneously. During testing, the sensor units produce test data that is analyzed by the computer. The computer runs testing software that analyzes the test data collected from the air quality sensor units to determine if any of the sensor units fail performance specifications standards” ¶8); applying, using one or more processors, selected test data from test data stored locally on the gas detector device (“Applicable sensor units that do not require additional maintenance are then run using applicable test gasses to generate calibration coefficients which are stored within the sensors' firmware.” ¶8); and generating, using the one or more processors, testing output data based at least in part on comparing the one or more firmware output signals to one or more expected output signals for the selected test data,( “the data outputs of all the sensor units 14 can be compared. The output data from all the sensor units 14 can be used to determine a mean average range” ¶23); wherein the testing output data comprise data indicative of performance of one or more firmware functionalities of the gas detector device with respect to the gas. (“Likewise, if one of the sensor units 14 passes the test, but exhibits data outside a mean average range, then that sensor unit 14 can be further evaluated.” ¶24); wherein for each selected test data, the gas detector device stores expected output signals of a firmware of the gas detector device in response to the selected test data (“Applicable sensor units that do not require additional maintenance are then run using applicable test gasses to generate calibration coefficients which are stored within the sensors' firmware. The output of the calibrated sensors is recorded within a calibration report.” ¶8) calibration data represents expected outputs of properly configured and functioning sensors. Lazea does not teach wherein the selected test data comprise simulated sensor data and is selected based at least in part on the gas; or generating, using the one or more processors, one or more firmware output signals based at least in part on processing the selected test data.
Bobick teaches wherein the selected test data comprise simulated sensor data and is selected (“The waveform simulator 212 may generate the simulated waveforms based on the waveform component values. The number of channels is based on the meter form being simulated.” ¶27) the generated waveforms are equivalent to simulated test data and are generated according to criteria for each device to be tested; generating, using the one or more processors, one or more firmware output signals based at least in part on processing the selected test data. (“The waveform simulator generates simulated waveforms” ¶13, “In some implementations, the meter firmware includes a waveform simulator, an event generator, and the meter firmware interface.” ¶4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the computer implemented gas detector testing methods of Lazea with the generation of simulated device firmware test data taught by Bobick. Lazea in paragraph 5 teaches the testing of multiple types of sensors, which increases cost. Bobick also addresses expensive testing, with the use of simulated test data (¶12 & 13), as well as the ability for the simulated data to be generated for different types of meters (¶19).
Regarding claim 2, Lazea and Bobick teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1 as shown above. Bobick also teaches wherein the test data comprise one or more Analog-to-Digital Converter (ADC) count values (“the ADC 206 may sample signals from the measurement circuitry…In normal operating mode, the switch 216 is configured to provide the data from the ADC to the meter firmware interface 222.” ¶22). Lazea teaches each corresponding to a gas concentration value. (“That is, there are sensor units 14 of different types to monitor different environmental factors. One type of sensor unit 14A may detect carbon dioxide concentrations.” ¶17”).
Regarding claim 3, Bobick teaches wherein processing the selected test data comprise: for each of the one or more ADC count values, (“the ADC 206 may sample signals from the measurement circuitry at an ADC sampling rate to generate multiple channels of data.” ¶22). Lazea teaches generating a gas concentration value for the ADC count values (“The measured component concentration in the test gas 54 is known. Test data is collected from each of the sensor units” ¶24). The test data could be in the form of ADC count values by combining the teachings of these references.
Regarding claim 4, Lazea and Bobick teach The computer-implemented method of claim 2 as shown above. Bobick teaches wherein applying the selected test data comprise: reading the one or more ADC count values for the gas from a test data buffer; (“The circuit board 106 may include meter firmware 202 stored in a component on the circuit board, an ADC 206, a direct memory access (DMA) component 208, and random-access memory (RAM) 210.” ¶20); and providing the one or more ADC count values to a…data processing unit. (“The meter firmware interface 222 receives waveform data from either the output of the ADC or the output of the waveform simulator” ¶20). Lazea teaches gas data being processed (“During testing, the sensor units produce test data that is analyzed by the computer.” ¶8).
Regarding claim 5 Lazea and Bobick teach The computer-implemented method of claim 4 as shown above. Bobick teaches wherein the test data buffer comprises respective ADC count values (“the ADC 206 may sample signals from the measurement circuitry at an ADC sampling rate to generate multiple channels of data” ¶22). Lazea teaches for each gas of the one or more gases. (“The test gases supplied to the sensor unit 14 depend upon what the sensing unit 14 is designed to detect.” ¶22).
Regarding claim 6, Lazea teaches further comprising generating a test report based at least in part on the testing output data. (“The output of the calibrated sensors is recorded within a calibration report.” ¶8)
Regarding claim 8, Bobick teaches wherein applying the selected test data comprises applying the selected test data in response to receiving a test mode signal (The simulation interface component 204 may provide the waveform simulator with simulation component values, as well as enabling the meter 100 to operate in simulation mode. ¶26).
Regarding claim 10, Lazea teaches further comprising transmitting the testing output data to one or more computing devices. (“If any sensor unit 14 fails the electrical or measurement test cycle, a failed condition is forwarded to the computer” ¶21).
Regarding claim 11, Lazea teaches A gas detector device comprising: a test driver unit, (“Referring to FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, in conjunction with FIG. 1, a centralized station 20 is disclosed for examining and calibrating any and all of the sensor units 14 that can be used in the examining and calibrating suite 12 of FIG. 1.” ¶18) wherein the test driver unit is configured to: for each gas of one or more gases; (““Once powered and supplied with test gas, the air quality sensor units are tested simultaneously” ¶8) and generate testing output data based at least in part on comparing the one or more firmware output signals to one or more expected output signals for the selected test data (“the data outputs of all the sensor units 14 can be compared. The output data from all the sensor units 14 can be used to determine a mean average range” ¶23) wherein the testing output data comprise data indicative of performance of one or more firmware functionalities of the gas detector device with respect to the gas. (“Likewise, if one of the sensor units 14 passes the test, but exhibits data outside a mean average range, then that sensor unit 14 can be further evaluated.” ¶24); wherein for each selected test data, the gas detector device stores expected output signals of a firmware of the gas detector device in response to the selected test data. (“Applicable sensor units that do not require additional maintenance are then run using applicable test gasses to generate calibration coefficients which are stored within the sensors' firmware. The output of the calibrated sensors is recorded within a calibration report.” ¶8).
Bobick teaches apply selected test data to a firmware of the gas detector device wherein the selected test data comprise simulated sensor data and is selected (“The waveform simulator 212 may generate the simulated waveforms based on the waveform component values. The number of channels is based on the meter form being simulated.” ¶27) generate one or more firmware output signals based at least in part on processing the selected test data; (“The waveform simulator generates simulated waveforms” ¶13, ““In some implementations, the meter firmware includes a waveform simulator, an event generator, and the meter firmware interface.” ¶4).
Regarding claims 12, 13, 16, 18 and 20 The gas detector device of claim 11 and claim 12 are taught Lazea and Bobick as shown above. They recite the same additional limitations as claims 2, 3, 6, 8 and 10 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, the gas detector device of claim 12 is taught for the reasons above, and it recites the same additional limitations as claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, the gas detector device of claim 14 is taught for the reasons above, and it recites the same additional limitations as claim 5.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazea and Bobick in view of Mastrototaro (US 20080139910).
Regarding claim 7, Lazea and Bobick teach The computer-implemented method of claim 1 as described above. They do not teach wherein the one or more firmware output signals corresponds to one or more of: (i) alarm level, (ii) vibration level, or (iii) light indicator pattern.
Mastrototaro teaches wherein the one or more output signals corresponds to one or more of: (i) alarm level, (“The backlight may be a user programmable multi-color backlight that additionally performs the function of a visual indicator by flashing colors appropriate to the level of an alert or alarm.” ¶47). (ii) vibration level (“For a tactile alarm, such as a vibration, the alarm may get increasingly stronger and/or faster” ¶40) or (iii) light indicator pattern. (“The backlight may be a user programmable multi-color backlight that additionally performs the function of a visual indicator” ¶47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the sensor firmware testing and data simulation of Lazea and Bobick with the alarms taught by Mastrototaro. Both use sensors to alert users of problems (Mastrototaro ¶40). It is also noted the claim only requires the use of one of these listed elements.
Regarding claim 17, Lazea and Bobick teach The gas detector device of claim 11, as described above. It recites the same additional limitations as claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazea and Bobick in view of Fabregas (US 20130154866).
Regarding claim 9, Lazea and Bobick teach The computer-implemented method of claim 8, as shown above. They do not teach further comprising causing disabling of data acquisition from one or more gas sensors in response to receiving the test mode signal.
Fabregas teaches further comprising causing disabling of data acquisition from one or more gas sensors in response to receiving the test mode signal. (“In the test mode, controller 18 disables the sensor input V.sub.IN to multiplexor” ¶29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the sensor firmware testing and data simulation of Lazea and Bobick with the test mode sensor configuring taught by Fabregas. Doing so would prevent other signals from being received (Fabregas, ¶29).
Regarding claim 19, Lazea and Bobrick teach The gas detector device of claim 18 as shown above. The claim recites the same additional limitations as claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 SEAN KEVIN MCNAMARA whose telephone number is (703)756-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/S.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2113
/PHILIP GUYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights