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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 is depended on canceled claim 4. Claim 7 has still been treated on its merits, however, Appropriate correction is required.
ART REJECTION:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,7-8,10-13,15,21, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salihu(WO 2020083712 A1).
-- In considering claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Salihu includes:
1) a life sensor, disposed inside a burial space, configured to automatically detect presence of a living human person in said burial space based on micro-movements or breathing patterns is met by the motion sensors(14), which are arranged at suitable locations within the coffin(13)(see: Salihu, lines 176-180);
2) an oxygen container having an outlet into said burial space is met by the at least one oxygen supply which is a small compressed air bottle with an associated breathing mask(see: Salihu, lines 288-301);
3) an alarm configured to be activated upon detecting by said life sensor a living person is met by the gravel lamp(26) including flashing light(30) and loudspeaker(29)(see: Salihu, lines 274-280);
4) a control unit configured to, upon said detection, perform one or more of:
i) enabling said oxygen container to automatically release oxygen into said burial space, and activating said alarm, wherein said alarm comprises at least one of an audio alert and a visual alert is met by the necessary electronics(27), which control the notification device(28) for causing activation of notification(see: Salihu, lines 274-280).
-- With regards to claim 7,
1) the alert includes information of the geographical location in which said person is buried, wherein said information is selected from a group consisting of: predefined information, information obtained by a GPS is met by the signals that are sent to the service center naturally containing the information about the exact location of the coffin in question(see: Salihu, lines 365-372).
-- With regards to claim 8,
1) adapted to send an alert message to an email or a messaging recipient is met by the reporting electronics wirelessly sending a standard voice message, or an SMS(see: Salihu, lines 365-369).
-- With regards to claim 10,
1) said life sensor analyzes micro movements of said person is met by the radar motion detector(18), which detects movements within the range of 0.6m/sec(see: Salihu, lines 219-227), which would constitute detection of micro movements of a person.
-- With regards to claim 11,
1) said life sensor detects a pattern of a living human breathing in a sound sensed by said life sensor is met by the microphone, sound sensor(22,23), which is placed very close to the mouth opening of the person, such that the sounds are evaluated differentially by software, such that noise from only a source within the coffin, indicative of a certain sound, can activate the alarm(see: Salihu, lines 236-246)
-- With regards to claim 12,
1) said sensed signal is audio signal is met by the microphone(22) or sound sensor(23),which monitors noise inside the coffin(see: Salihu, lines 236-246).
-- With regards to claim 13,
1) said burial space is of a coffin is met by the coffin(13), as discussed in claim 1 above.
-- Claim 15 recites a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 1, and therefore, is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
-- With regards to claim 21,
1) the control unit is further configured to transmit a remote alert including geographical location data of the burial space via at least one of SMS, email, or messaging application is met by the reporting electronics wirelessly sending a standard voice message, or an SMS(see: Salihu, lines 365-369).
-- With regards to claim 24,
1) said life sensor detects a pattern of a living human breathing in a sound sensed by said life sensor is met by the microphone, sound sensor(22,23), which is placed very close to the mouth opening of the person, such that the sounds are evaluated differentially by software, such that noise from only a source within the coffin, indicative of a certain sound, can activate the alarm(see: Salihu, lines 236-246)
-- With regards to claim 25,
1) the alert comprises an audio or visual signal detectable from outside the burial space is met by the grave lamp(26) located on the grave and containing the necessary electronics(27) and the notification device(28) including flashing light(30) and loudspeaker(29) for acoustic alarm(see: Salihu, lines 274-280).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 9 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salihu in view of Alsaffar(USPGPUB 2014/0189988 A1).
-- With regards to claim 9, Salihu does not teach:
1) a button or handle disposed in said burial space, for manually activating said alarm by said buried person.
Although not specifically taught by Salihu, use of buttons disposed in a burial space for activating an alarm by a buried person is well known. In related art, Alsaffar teaches the use of a life sensor disposed inside of a burial space, wherein a switch or button(40) for intitiating or triggering an alarm, is included inside of a coffin, and activated by the person buried(see: Alsaffar, sec[0022]).
Since the use of a button to activate and alarm by a buried person is well known, as taught by Alsaffar, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the button(40) of Alsaffar, into the system of Salihu, since this would have ensured a means for a buried person to be detected, in the event there is a malfunction of other sensors in the system that would have normally detected life within the coffin.
-- Claim 23 depends from claim 15, and recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 9. Therefore, claim 23 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 9 and 15 above.
Claim(s) 14 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salihu.
-- With regards to claims 14 and 22, Salihu does not specifically teach:
1) said burial space is confined by bricks according to a Jewish tradition(claim 14)
2) the burial space is defined without a coffin and enclosed by brick walls(claim 22).
Although the specific use of a burial space confined by bricks according to a Jewish tradition, and wherein the burial space is defined without a coffin and enclosed by brick walls is not specifically disclosed by Salihu, Salihu does teach that the monitoring system is used to monitor dead persons in a cooing chamber of a mortuary(see: Abstract, line 2). Salihu teaches that the monitoring sensors as discussed above, are included in a cooling chamber(2) of a mortuary, prior to the body being transported to a burial site in a coffin. Salihu does not specify the makeup of the cooling chamber, however, use of enclosed walls made of bricks as the chamber would have been readily utilized, and therefore would not have affected overall operation of the system.
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate bricks as the walls that make up the chamber(2), wince this would have been a suitable material to house the bodies, prior to transport or cremation. Once of ordinary skill would have considered bricks a matter of obvious design choice, that would not have impeded the functioning of the system.
REMARKS:
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, CURTIS A KUNTZ can be reached at 571-272-7499. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2687