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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wrobel et al (Wrobel hereinafter US 11549883 B2) In view of Erickson et al (Erickson hereinafter US 20160080548 A1)
As per claim 1
Wrobel teaches A computational device configured for determination to airborne particulate matter with circuitry configured to capture an image of a pollution detection article(Abstract “ …exposure to incident airborne particulate pollution…” and Summary paragraph (6) “ reading its color changes with the aid of the camera of a smartphone or other device via a companion application”), imagery of a polymer of the pollution detection article, wherein the polymer is configured to adsorb airborne particulates thereon to cause the polymer to become a discolored polymer (Fig 2. , Summary paragraph (10) “…wearable pollutant indicator comprising a polymeric film substrate…” and paragraph (22) “sensor provides a visual transition from a first visual state to a second visual state on exposure to the analyte” as well as Paragraph 12-13 “…wearable pollutant indicator typically includes a redox indicator, which produces a color change in the presence of…the qualitative indicator includes an ink or gel base. Examples of which include, but are not limited to, carboxymethyl cellulose, carboxyethyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, gum arabic, dextrin, waterborne latex dispersions, waterborne polyurethane dispersion, and combinations thereof. In certain embodiments, the ink or gel base may be crosslinked.” In totality Wrobel shows a polymeric film substrate supporting a reactive colorimetric layer that is exposed to ambient air. Airborne pollution particles incident upon and accumulate on the indicator and as accumulation increases the indicator exhibits a color change i.e. the polymer and article becomes discolored due to the particulates collected thereon) and circuitry configured to compare the discoloration reference to the discolored polymer for an optical comparison, wherein the optical comparison enables determination of whether the pollution detection article has airborne particulate matter exposure. ( paragraph (72) “The app will compare the color change between these reference colors and the contiguous colors to determine whether the applique is beginning to activate or approaching saturation, translating this to the appropriate caution.”)
Wrobel teaches “the app will compare the color change between these reference colors and the contiguous color” but does not explicitly teach how the images are being compared and or analyzed in regards to color stability between a control (reference) and the actual test portion .
Erickson teaches image analysis and comparison of a reference image with its test variant, (Paragraph [0028] “method for obtaining a point-of-collection, selected quantitative indicia of an analyte on a test platform with a smartphone. Illustrative method steps include providing a modular, colorimetric reactive test platform having a test region and a calibration region; providing an analyte to be tested on the test region of the modular, colorimetric test platform, wherein the test region is adapted to enable a colorimetric reaction to the analyte; obtaining a color image of the test region containing the analyte and the calibration region:” Abstract “ colorimetric-based measurements of target analytes” Paragraph [0047]-[0048] “having at least one test region and a control region…test and control regions to be measured; determining a depth, width, height (for example, based on intensity or color maxima/minima), and/or area (for example, based on integrated color or intensity”) paragraph [0099] ( “FIG. 6 illustrates a disposable test strip 200 having a test region that contains four separate colorimetric pH indicator regions 202, 203, 204, 205 and two constant colored plastic reference patches 208, 209 that do not vary with pH, which are used to calibrate away differences in light intensity and camera function from smartphone platform to smartphone platform.) and paragraph [105] “The process of image analysis is as follows. When the “Analyze” button is pressed, the smartphone app activates the camera flash, and an image is captured and stored first as an RGBA (red green blue alpha) byte array. The alpha channel, which is a measure of transparency, is discarded as it does not vary with analyte concentration. The RGB array is split into two sections—the first, corresponding to the upper colorimetric test strip, and the second, to a lower reference region of known color value which is used to compensate for variations…. A 256×256-pixel square is selected from the center of each of these sections, and the hue value is calculated for each pixel from the RGB channels. The hue values are sorted, and the median value is chosen to minimize any remaining edge effects which are not removed by the PDMS flash diffuser. Because the color of the plastic reference section should not change between experiments if the device works correctly, the image acquisition process is restarted if the reference hue value varies from the expected calibration value by more than 5.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed to have modified Wrobel’s workflow (directed to a wearable pollutant indicator having a polymeric film substrate that provides a visual color transition that indicates accumulated exposure to incident airborne particulate pollution that can be read by a smartphone camera/app (a computational device) that can compare the indicators color to a reference color) with Ericksons workflow (directed to a computational device that takes a single image of both a test region and a control/reference/calibration region and performs an optical comparison by associating the test region color value with the calibration region color value.) and arrived at the limitations outlined in claim 1. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Wrobel’s workflow with Erickson because this modification shows improved repeatability and accuracy by using optical color determination by a computerized device for sensing and comparing a reference image to a test image rather than relying on subjective human perception in regards to an optical comparison. Configuring the computerized device to compare the singular image having both the reference and test media together can eliminate factors like lighting variability what can offset decision making.
As per claim 2
Wrobel and Erickson cover all claim limitations previously presented in claim 1’s rejection. See claim 1 103 rejections.
Erickson teaches the discoloration reference being optically correspondent to the discolored test portion so that the reference partially matches the imagery of the test for determination of exposure. Erickson requires the same captured image to include both regions and then performs an optical association and comparison between their color values (Paragraph [0028] “obtaining color image and the test region…and the calibration region” Paragraph [0028] “…converting…to…test color space and a …calibration color space” Paragraph [0028] associating a median…test color space value and a …calibration color space value”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed to extend the Wrobel/Erickson’s workflow to include Erickson’s concept of matching the reference color with the test color for image analysis and downstream determination. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this extension to the modification because by matching the test indication image to a corresponding reference holding the same color allows for a consistent tier/leveling of exposure in regards to their saturation as well as a distinction and classification of the nature of the pollutant. This leveling and classification would give the computerized device the capability of diversifying its suggested mitigation paths to present to the user. This essentially improves interpretability of the computerized device and its downstream decision making.
As per claim 3
Wrobel and Erickson cover all claim limitations previously presented in claim 1’s rejection. See claim 1 103 rejections.
Erickson teaches circuitry that determines whether the relevant condition exists based on the optical comparison of the captured test region imagery to the calibration/reference imagery ( “Paragraph [0052] “acquires an image of at least a portion of the test strip…splits the image into a test image and a calibration image…determines a quantitative value of the selected indicia of the analyte” )
Accordingly one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have been motivated to modify Wrobel’s particulate exposure applique reading workflow (where the app compares the color change between reference colors and contiguous colors on a polymer based detection article) to incorporate Erickson’s reference/calibration region method (obtaining a color image of the test region and the calibration region and associating the test color space value with the calibration color space value) because Erickson provides a concrete image analysis implementation that stabilizes the optical comparison against capture variability and yields a computable basis for determining the outcome from the image. Using Ericksons in-image association with Wrobel’s workflow improves repeatability and validity of the exposure determination by anchoring the sensed color and discoloration to a co-captured image thereby reducing susceptibility to outlying factors such as lighting while enabling a more consistent exposure or no exposure determination.
As per claim 4
Wrobel and Erickson cover all claim limitations previously presented in claim 1’s rejection. See claim 1's 103 rejection.
Wrobel further teaches the pollution detection article comprises a plurality of discoloration references along a gradient and each discoloration reference corresponds to a degree of discoloration of the discolored polymer (Figures 2-5. Paragraph (72) “in the gradient artwork embodiment, reference colors can be printed on the applique, for instance, one each at the end of the path over which the color gradient is printed. The app will compare the color change between these reference colors and the contiguous colors to determine whether the applique is beginning to activate or approaching saturation, translating this to the appropriate caution.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed to extend the Wrobel/Erickson workflow to include Wrobel’s concept of allowing a pollution detection article to have a plurality of discoloration references along a gradient and each discoloration reference corresponds to a degree of discoloration of the discolored polymer. Wrobel teaches that gradient plus calibrated threshold markers convey levels of exposure to the device or user and enables the configured device to interpret activation vs saturation by comparison and interpolation. This yields more informative more fine-grained exposure indication beyond a single binary reference.
As per claim 5
Wrobel and Erickson cover all claim limitations previously presented in claim 1’s rejection. See claim 1's 103 rejection.
Erickson teaches determining a level of incident exposure based on the optical comparison. Erickson explicitly determines a selected quantitative indicium by using the captured image’s color values and a calibration process (Paragraph [0028] “providing a calibration indicia that relates a selected quantitative indicium of the analyte…calibration color space value; and associating…test color space value with…calibration color space value to determine the selected quantitative indicia”). The level is then explicitly calibration curved based; Paragraph [0034] “the calibration indicia is a calibration curve that relates the selected quantitative indicia…to a hue value…”. Erickson’s “selected quantitative indicia” is a computed level derived from image-based color comparison against reference information
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed to extend the Wrobel/Erickson workflow to include Erickson’s concept of determining a level of exposure based on the optical comparison. Erickson teaches a concrete image analysis framework in which the device uses an in-image reference relationship to compute “a selected quantitative indicia” that relates a quantitative indicia to a calibration color space value and then associates the test color space value with the calibration color space value to determine the selected quantitative indicia with the calibration indicia expressly being a calibration curve. Implementing the level determination feature in this manner yields a more repeatable and informative output than a binary determination. This is because the optical comparison is converted into a calibrated quantitative level via the curve enabling consistent interpretation of the sensed discoloration across capture conditions.
As per claim 6
Wrobel and Erickson cover all claim limitations previously presented in claim 1’s rejection. See claim 1's 103 rejection.
Wrobel teaches circuitry configured to display, via a user interface ( Paragraph 6 “more specific information can be provided by reading its color changes with the aid of the camera of a smartphone or other device via a companion application”) a recommendation for an action and/or a product based on a level of airborne particulate matter exposure of the pollution detection article as determined based on the optical comparison (Paragraph (9) “The colorimetric airborne pollution sensor can be provided in the form of a film applique to skin, clothing, or other locations of a user's choosing, that, through color change, indicates one's cumulative exposure to airborne particulate pollution. The purpose of the device is to provide a qualitative basis for decision making on controlling one's exposure to atmospheric particulates through either covering exposed skin, limiting exertion, or removing oneself from the affected outdoor environment entirely.” In combination, Paragraph (71) “colors of the applique may either be read, and interpreted, by the user acting alone or with the aid of a camera application, which could be used in conjunction with a smartphone… The app will compare the color change between these reference colors and the contiguous colors to determine whether the applique is beginning to activate or approaching saturation, translating this to the appropriate caution.” The term “app” inherently has a user display.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed to extend the Wrobel/Erickson workflow to include Wrobel’s concept of using a companion application interface to display a recommendation for an action (e.g. covering exposed skin, limiting exertion and or removing oneself from the environment) based on determined exposure levels from the optical comparison of the exposed indicator and reference. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to extend the Wrobel/Erickson workflow with Wrobel’s concept because doing so yields predictable technical benefit of translating an exposure level with a suitable action to mitigate said exposure in real time of incident. This improves the end user’s comprehension, strategy and behavior in a timely manner to reduce exposure or exposure effects.
As per claim 7
Wrobel and Erickson cover all claim limitations previously presented in claim 1’s rejection. See claim 1's 103 rejection.
Wrobel further teaches a circuitry of the computational device is configured for image recognition detection of the discoloration reference and the discolored polymer based on an arrangement of the pollution detection article. (Paragraph (22) “the vision application may read a transformation of an absolute colorimetric readout to a relative change in color along a geometry under different lighting conditions. In other cases, the vision application reads a transformation of an absolute colorimetric readout to a relative change in color along a geometry with non-uniform shading.” And paragraph (72) “reference colors can be printed on the applique, for instance, one each at the end of the path over which the color gradient is printed. The app will compare…”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed to extend the Wrobel/Erickson workflow to include Wrobel’s concept of image recognition detection of both the discoloration reference and the discolored polymer based on arrangement/geometry. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do this because this configuration improves repeatability of exposure assessment by enabling consistent automated detection and comparison of the correct regions despite variations in capture conditions while leveraging known layouts to stabilize interpretation.
As per claim 8
Wrobel and Erickson cover all claim limitations previously presented in claim 7’s rejection. See claim 7’s 103 rejection.
Wrobel further teaches a circuitry of the computational device is configured for image recognition detection of the discoloration reference and the discolored polymer based on an arrangement of the pollution detection article. (Paragraph (22) “the vision application may read a transformation of an absolute colorimetric readout to a relative change in color along a geometry under different lighting conditions. In other cases, the vision application reads a transformation of an absolute colorimetric readout to a relative change in color along a geometry with non-uniform shading.” And paragraph (72) “reference colors can be printed on the applique, for instance, one each at the end of the path over which the color gradient is printed. The app will compare…”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed to extend the Wrobel/Erickson workflow to include Wrobel’s concept of image recognition detection of both the discoloration reference and the discolored polymer based on arrangement/geometry. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do this because this configuration improves repeatability of exposure assessment by enabling consistent automated detection and comparison of the correct regions despite variations in capture conditions while leveraging known layouts to stabilize interpretation.
As per claim 10
Wrobel teaches a computational device configured for measurement of exposure to airborne particulate matter (technical field paragraph (2)” Described herein are wearable colorimetric indicators of the presence of airborne particulate pollution. “), circuitry configured to capture an image of a pollution detection article (Summary paragraph (6) “ with the aid of the camera of a smartphone or other device via a companion application. “) wherein the image includes imagery of a plurality of discoloration references along a gradient (Paragraph (72) of description (…in the gradient artwork embodiment, reference colors can be printed on the applique, for instance, one each at the end of the path over which the color gradient is printed. The app will compare the color change between these reference… ) and imagery of a polymer of the pollution detection article (Paragraph (10) “…a wearable pollutant indicator comprising a polymeric film substrate…”) wherein the polymer is configured to adsorb airborne particulates theron to cause polymer to become discolored (Paragraph 22 ”…the analyte sensing composition includes a metal oxide reducing compound, a per-compound, and a redox indicator dye, wherein the analyte sensing composition is disposed in arbitrary design upon a polymeric film substrate, which is impermeable to the analyte sensing composition, and wherein the sensor provides a visual transition from a first visual state to a second visual state on exposure to the analyte.”)
Wrobel teaches “the app will compare the color change between these reference colors and the contiguous color” but does not go into the mechanics of the comparison of the two images.
Erickson teaches in paragraph [0090] “the camera image is split into sections with one section containing the sample to be measured and additional sections for each of the calibration colors…” and in paragraph [0091] that “the median RGBA value is…converted to…HSL color space “ and in paragraph [0092]“by comparing the median HSL value to this calibration curve the pH of a sample can be reliably determined from the measured color”. This creates a capture image containing a test and reference section and optically compare the two for measurement of exposure blueprint.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed to have modified Wrobel’s workflow (directed to a wearable pollutant indicator having a polymeric film substrate that provides a visual color transition that indicates accumulated exposure to incident airborne particulate pollution that can be read by a smartphone camera/app (a computational device) that can compare the indicators color to a reference color) with Ericksons workflow (directed to a computational device that takes a single image of both a test region and a control/reference/calibration region and performs an optical comparison by associating the test region color value with the calibration region color value.) and arrived at the limitations outlined in claim 1. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Wrobel’s workflow with Erickson because this modification shows improved repeatability and accuracy by using optical color determination by a computerized device for sensing and comparing a reference image to a test image rather than relying on subjective human perception in regards to an optical comparison. Configuring the computerized device to compare the singular image having both the reference and test media together can eliminate factors like lighting variability what can offset decision making.
As per claim 11
Wrobel and Erickson cover all claim limitations previously presented in claim 10s’s rejection. See claim 10’s 103 rejection.
Wrobel teaches discoloration reference corresponds to a level of exposure to airborne particulate matter that is based at least in part on an airborne concentration of particulate matter in an environment (Paragraph (2) “ …this invention relates to qualitative colorimetric dose-responsive airborne particulate pollution indicators that are capable of providing cumulative dose…” Paragraph (3) “The qualitative indicator provides a qualitative indication of the accumulated exposure to incident airborne particulate…“ and paragraph (16) …the qualitative indicator also includes fixed-tint calibration markers and/or fixed-tint reference colors to allow for more fine-tuned interpretation of the color change and signal provided to users…” Wrobel’s airborne particulate level is expressed as a concentration Paragraph (7) “…airborne particulates may be present at very low levels, ppm if not ppb…”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have extended the Wrobel/Erickson modified workflow to incorporate Wrobel’s concept of particulate exposure indicator with fixed fine-tuned interpretation of the color change signal and a qualitative indication of accumulated exposure to incident airborne particulate pollution i.e. dose level information and expressly recognizing airborne particulate levels may be present at concentrations “ppm if not ppb” to configure the computational device such that each discoloration reference corresponds to an exposure level based at least in part on an airborne concentration in the environment. Wrobel frames the indicator as “dose responsive” and teaches that the reference colors and calibration markers enable interpretation of the exposure signal and ties the relevant particulate condition to concentration magnitudes (ppm or ppb) thereby providing a concrete basis to align each reference level with a corresponding environmental concentration range. A person of ordinary skill in the art would see the advantage of defining the discoloration references in terms of concentration-based exposure levels yields more informative and actionable measurement outputs from the optical comparison that Erickson would provide. This enables the computational device to map observed discoloration and reference matching to standardized concentration related exposure level rather than some untethered color state. It also improves interpretability and consistency when reporting exposure levels derived from pollutant device image.
As per claim 12
Wrobel and Erickson cover all claim limitations previously presented in claim 10s’s rejection. See claim 10’s 103 rejection.
Wrobel teaches “the app will compare the color change between these reference colors and the contiguous color” but does not go into the mechanics of the comparison of the two images
Erickson teaches computing, based on imagery of the image, a degree of discoloration of the discolored test region. (Erickson computes a quantitative color value from the image, i.e. the “degree of discoloration” Paragraph [0028] “Determining a median RGBA color value … converting the median RGBA color value…to…HSL” and does this for the test region in the captured image “the camera image is split into sections, with one section containing the sample to be measured…” in paragraph [0090]. This computed median RGBA to converted HSL/HSV value for the sample and test region reads on computing the degree of discoloration.) and computing a degree of discoloration of the plurality of discoloration references that is associated with the degree of discoloration of the discolored test region to enable measurement of exposure to particulate matter. Erickson computes the values for calibration/reference colors (plurality) (Paragraph [0090] “The camera image is split into sections, with one section containing the sample to be measured and additional sections for each of the (one or more) calibration colors…” ) and associates the test value to the calibration values (Paragraph [0028] “associating…test color space value with the…calibration color space value to determine the selected quantitative indicia” )
Accordingly it would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to augment the Wrobel/Erickson workflow to configure the device so that the comparison includes computing a degree of discoloration from the captured image, a degree of discoloration of the polymer and computing corresponding degree of discoloration for the plurality of references that are associated with the polymers degree of discoloration using Erickson’s workflow described above. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement these computation steps provided by Erickson because they provide a concrete objective way to perform the optical comparison using the captured imagery rather than relying on subjective human assessment by converting pixel data into consistent color space quantities for both the sensing region and the reference regions. This strategy from the modification improves repeatability and robustness of the exposure measurement by enabling the device to quantify discoloration of the sensing polymer from the image data and relate the quantified value to reference values derived from captured reference regions reducing sensitivity to capture variability while yielding a consistent basis for determining exposure level.
As per claim 13
Wrobel covers all claim limitations previously presented in claim 12s’s rejection. See claim 12’s 103 rejection.
Wrobel does not teach computing a standard curve thereof configured for the computing the degree of discoloration of the plurality of discoloration references.
Erickson teaches computing a standard curve thereof configured for the computing the degree of discoloration of the plurality of discoloration references. (Paragraph [0092 “a calibration curve was determined…By comparing the median HSL value to this calibration curve,” and Paragraph [0032] “ calibration region includes a plurality of calibration regions each of which has a different calibration color;” For each calibration region the apps pipeline sets up the same pixel to color to value computation: “selecting an array of pixels…of the…calibration region”, “determining a median RGBA color value…” and “converts…to a calibration…(HSL or HSV) color space value” The color space value is the quantitative “degree” used for comparison. Erickson’s calibration curve equates to a standard curve because “calibration indicia is a calibration curve that relates the selected quantitative indicia of the analyte to a hue value of the HSL or HSV calibration color space value;” Paragraph [0034] )
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed to extend the Wrobel/Erickson workflow to include Erickson’s concept of multiple calibration regions which help compute a quantitative color/discoloration value for each region (median RGBA to HSL/HSV) and defining a calibration curve relating the quantitative indicia to the computed hue i.e. a standard curve derived from the plurality of reference color degrees. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do this because this gives repeatability across devices, gives validity to lighting variability and resolution. This enables more trusted exposure determination from the patch image.
As per claim 14
Wrobel and Erickson cover all claim limitations previously presented in claim 10s’s rejection. See claim 10’s 103 rejection.
Wrobel teaches circuitry configured to display, via a user interface ( Paragraph 6 “more specific information can be provided by reading its color changes with the aid of the camera of a smartphone or other device via a companion application”) a recommendation for an action and/or a product based on a level of airborne particulate matter exposure of the pollution detection article as determined based on the optical comparison (Paragraph (9) “The colorimetric airborne pollution sensor can be provided in the form of a film applique to skin, clothing, or other locations of a user's choosing, that, through color change, indicates one's cumulative exposure to airborne particulate pollution. The purpose of the device is to provide a qualitative basis for decision making on controlling one's exposure to atmospheric particulates through either covering exposed skin, limiting exertion, or removing oneself from the affected outdoor environment entirely.” In combination, Paragraph (71) “colors of the applique may either be read, and interpreted, by the user acting alone or with the aid of a camera application, which could be used in conjunction with a smartphone… The app will compare the color change between these reference colors and the contiguous colors to determine whether the applique is beginning to activate or approaching saturation, translating this to the appropriate caution.” The term “app” inherently has a user display.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to configure the computational device to display via a user interface a recommendation for an action and or product based on the level of airborne particulate exposure either compared from the cameras smart phone in Wrobel’s pipeline or from Erickson’s fleshed out reference/test optical comparison in his workflow. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement recommendation display in the companion application because Wrobel’s system is expressly intended to move from the measured exposure state to user guidance and a smartphone “app” inherently presents guidance through a user facing display interface. It would be to the advantage of a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a UI-displayed recommendation based on measured exposure level because this improves usability and safety by converting the optical comparison result into immediate actionable guidance at the same time the exposure is assessed, enabling more timely and informed user decisions in response to particulate pollution conditions.
As per claim 15
Wrobel and Erickson cover all claim limitations previously presented in claim 14s’s rejection. See claim 14’s 103 rejection.
Wrobel teaches wherein the recommendation is further based on a historical level of airborne particulate matter exposure of the pollution detection article and/or a historical level of airborne particulate matter exposure of an individual (Paragraph (10) “The qualitative indicator provides a qualitative indication of the accumulated exposure to incident “ “historical level” equates to accumulated exposure. In regards to the recommendation Paragraph (72) “The app will compare the color change between these reference colors and the contiguous colors to determine whether the applique is beginning to activate or approaching saturation, translating this to the appropriate caution.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to base the displayed recommendation further on a historical level of exposure of the article and or individual because Wrobel expressly teaches that the indicator provides an indication of “accumulated exposure” to incident particulate pollution and that the apps comparison “translates this to appropriate caution”. Using accumulated (historical) exposure as an additional input improves the relevance of the recommendation by tailoring the caution to longer term exposure burden rather than a single instantaneous reading.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wrobel et al (Wrobel hereinafter US 11549883 B2) In view of Erickson et al (Erickson hereinafter US 20160080548 A1) in further view of Boortz et al (Boortz hereinafter US 20230366831 A1)
Wrobel and Erickson cover all claim limitations previously presented in claim 7’s rejection. See claim 7’s 103 rejection.
Wrobel nor Erickson teach discoloration reference comprises an aperture thereon, such that a portion of a surface positioned underneath the aperture appears adjacent to the discoloration reference for the optical comparison between the discoloration reference and the discolored polymer.
Boortz teaches the discoloration reference comprises an aperture thereon (Paragraph [0005] detection layer comprising a detection layer surface and one or more apertures disposed through the detection layer surface) such that a portion of a surface positioned underneath the aperture appears adjacent to the discoloration reference for the optical comparison between the discoloration reference and the discolored polymer ( Boortz teaches that the optical windows through which an underlying target layer is visible: Paragraph [0010]- “ forming one or more optical windows bounded by the one or more apertures the optical substance configured to adsorb a particulate matter” and Paragraph [0012] “a graphical target layer viewable through the one or more optical windows.“)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the Wrobel/Erickson to include Boortz concept of the article to include a discoloration reference having an aperture that reveals the underlying surface for in-image comparison as taught by Boortz. Boortz discloses “one or more apertures disposed through the detection layer surface” and “forming one or more optical windows bounded by the one or more apertures” with a graphical target layer viewable through the one or more optical windows. The aperture and or optical window arrangement provides a controlled co location comparison region that is consistently visible in the same captured image, improving robustness and repeatability of the optical comparison between the reference and test/discolored regions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE WRENSFORD CODRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-8130. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5pm.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272-7778. 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.
/SHANE WRENSFORD CODRINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/TOM Y LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667