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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peeters (US 2015/0056099).
In regards to claim 1, Peeters teaches a device comprising:
a modular, wireless sensor, (para [0041]; 2, 4 fig. 1, wireless phone’, ‘patch’) wherein the modular, wireless sensor has an identification tag, (para [0051]) and wherein the modular, wireless sensor is further configured to transmit the identification tag in response to a sensor event; and (para [0042]; 2, 4 fig. 1)
a wireless reader for receiving input from the modular, wireless sensor, ( para [0042]; 2, 4 fig. 1) wherein the wireless reader identifies the modular, wireless sensor experiencing the sensor event using the identification tag. (para [0042, 0051]; 4 fig. 1)
In regards to claim 2, Peeters teaches a device of claim 1 (see claim rejection 1) wherein the modular, wireless sensor comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) sensor. (para [0041, 0042; 2, 4 fig(s) 1-2, ‘cellular phone’, ‘disposable patch’, ‘phone 2 includes a microprocessor and the necessary logic to serve as a power up and read device for a passive RFID tag mounted directly inside a disposable patch 4.’)
In regards to claim 4, Peeters teaches a device of claim 1 (see claim rejection 1) wherein the sensor event takes the form of pressure applied to the modular, wireless sensor. (para [0088], ‘shows a diagnostic application of RFID passive sensors applied to stresses. In this embodiment, an RFID-stress sensor 295 is provided that is composed of two distinct parts. The first one forms a power and communication unit 290 that includes an RFID tag and an antenna 8. Unit 290 is connected to a sensor 260 that includes attachment points 270, typically allowing a rigid mounting, stretchable leads 275 and a connection area 280.‘, 295 fig. 18, ‘stress sensor unit’)
In regards to claim 5, Peeters teaches a device of claim 2 (see claim rejection 2) wherein the RFID sensor comprises an RFID chip (10 fig(s) 1-2, ‘RFID electronic chip’, para [0047]) and an RFID antenna. (4, 8, 10-12 fig(s). 1, ‘disposable patch’, ‘antenna’, ‘RFID electronic chip’, ‘sensor module’, ‘sensor’,
In regards to claim 6, Peeters teaches a device of claim 5 (see claim rejection 5) wherein the RFID chip and the RFID antenna are separated such that a pressure event is needed to reconnect the RFID chip to the RIFD antenna to allow the RIFD sensor to transmit the identification tag. (para(s) [0089], ‘Stress sensor 295 is firmly attached by a user through the use of attachment points 270. Stress sensor 295 may be attached with skews or special glues to areas where possible structural stresses may occur and need to be measured remotely. Typically sensor 260 is composed of a thin film of a material such as a flexible metal strip that may be enclosed in a thin film of plastic (not shown). Any metals that are highly conductive and that can be stretched may be used such as aluminum, gold or copper. Area 290 is not attached and therefore is not subject to the stresses. Conductivity measurements are taken periodically via a remote wireless reader such as a cell phone and stored in memory or on a remote database. Low cost wireless devices such as modified cell phones or RFID tag readers may be mounted close to the sensors and are used to periodically monitor stresses. If stresses occur, the sensor 260 will expand. Since the temperature reference is known, changes in the conductivity or resistance of the strip can be precisely measured. Because this technology is wireless and has no batteries, it is meant for long term monitoring in areas where visual access is difficult or not possible. This includes hidden structural beams in building, bridges, etc. but also any areas of high stresses (airplanes, homes, etc.). Stresses may also be monitored more dynamically with resonating MEMS structures or accelerometers as indicated in FIG. 14. A number of other methods may also be used such as compression measurement using piezoelectric materials, loss of conductivity in leads that break or snap as a result of stresses, etc. Broad market applications exist for the technology, for example insertion of a wireless RFID sensor in windows for "smart" home applications, etc.’, 8, 10, 260, 270, 295 fig(s) 14-18, ‘antenna’, ‘RFID electronic chip’, ‘sensor’, ‘attachment points’, ‘RFID stress sensor’)
In regards to claim 7, Peeters teaches a device of claim 1 (see claim rejection 1) wherein the modular, wireless sensor comprises a sensor array. (para. [0048], 8, 10, 12 fig(s) 1-2, ‘disk 6 may be either a flexible substrate such as a plastic or a rigid disk that includes different types of semiconductor sensors. For example, disk 6 may include a combination of an RFID tag and another low power sensor on a silicon substrate, whereby the RFID tag serves as power and wireless unit and the sensor serves as the sensing element.’)
In regards to claim 8, Peeters teaches a device of claim 7 (see claim rejection 7) wherein the sensor array comprises different types of sensors. (para [0048], 10, 12 fig(s) 1-2, ‘Antenna 8 powers RFID electronic chip 10. In one embodiment RFID electronic chip 10 is passive. Alternatively, as recognized by one of ordinary skill, RFID electronic chip 10 may be active’)
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.
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) 3, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peeters (US 2015/0056099), Potyrailo (US 2019/0043333).
Peeters teaches:
In regards to claim 3, Peeters teaches a device of claim 1 (see claim rejection 1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention of Peeters to provide a passive wireless sensor enabling interrogation of the sensor remotely with a modified cellphone incorporating multi-protocol reader capabilities and the like.
Peeters does not teach:
wherein the modular, wireless sensor comprises a near field communication (NFC) sensor.
Potyrailo teaches:
wherein the modular, wireless sensor comprises a near field communication (NFC) sensor. (para(s) [0038, 0047, 0070, 0093, 0110]; 500, 502, 504, 506, 510, 312, 514, 516, 518, 520, 522, 524, 526, 528 fig 5)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Potyrailo to provide ASIC chips for a passive wireless sensor enabling interrogation of the sensor remotely with a modified cellphone incorporating multi-protocol reader capabilities and the like to provide robust performance and security.
Peters teaches:
In regards to claim 9, Peeters teaches a device of claim 1 (see claim rejection 1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention of Peeters to provide a passive wireless sensor enabling interrogation of the sensor remotely with a modified cellphone incorporating multi-protocol reader capabilities and the like.
Peeters does not teach:
wherein the modular, wireless sensor further comprises an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) chip.
Potyrailo teaches:
wherein the modular, wireless sensor further comprises an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) chip. (para(s) [0038, 0047, 0070, 0093, 0110]; 500, 502, 504, 506, 510, 312, 514, 516, 518, 520, 522, 524, 526, 528 fig 5)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Potyrailo to provide ASIC chips for a passive wireless sensor enabling interrogation of the sensor remotely with a modified cellphone incorporating multi-protocol reader capabilities and the like to provide robust performance and security.
Peeters teaches:
In regards to claim 10, Peeters teaches a device of claim 1 (see claim rejection 1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention of Peeters to provide a passive wireless sensor enabling interrogation of the sensor remotely with a modified cellphone incorporating multi-protocol reader capabilities and the like.
Peeters does not teach:
wherein the wireless reader comprises an ASIC chip reader.
Potyrailo teaches:
wherein the wireless reader comprises an ASIC chip reader. (para(s) [0038, 0047, 0070, 0093, 0110]; 500, 502, 504, 506, 510, 312, 514, 516, 518, 520, 522, 524, 526, 528 fig 5)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Potyrailo to provide ASIC chips for a passive wireless sensor enabling interrogation of the sensor remotely with a modified cellphone incorporating multi-protocol reader capabilities and the like to provide robust performance and security.
In regards to claim 11, Peeters & Potyrailo teach a device of claim 10 (see claim rejection 10) Potyrailo teaches wherein the ASIC chip reader provides power to the ASIC chip through inductive coupling. (Potyrailo: para(s) [0038, 0047, 0070, 0093, 0110]; 500, 502, 504, 506, 510, 312, 514, 516, 518, 520, 522, 524, 526, 528 fig 5)
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.
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 12 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peeters (US 2015/0056099), in view of, Jain et al., (US 2012/0289794).
Peeters teaches:
In regards to claim 12, Peeters teaches a device of claim 1 (see claim rejection 1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention of Peeters to provide a passive wireless sensor enabling interrogation of the sensor remotely with a modified cellphone incorporating multi-protocol RFID reader capabilities and the like.
wherein the modular, wireless sensor is configured to use tuple frequency encoding, such that the modular, wireless sensor communicates a combination of two or more frequencies; and does not require the integration of oscillators, microcontrollers, or other electronics into each sensing pixel.
Peeters does not teach:
wherein the modular, wireless sensor is configured to use tuple frequency encoding, such that the modular, wireless sensor communicates a combination of two or more frequencies; and does not require the integration of oscillators, microcontrollers, or other electronics into each sensing pixel.
Jain teaches:
wherein the modular, wireless sensor is configured to use tuple frequency encoding, such that the modular, wireless sensor communicates a combination of two or more frequencies; and does not require the integration of oscillators, microcontrollers, or other electronics into each sensing pixel. (para(s) [0087, 0095], ‘As an example and not by way of limitation, a first data stream from a first sensor 112 may comprise a tuple (s1, t1) representing a sample s1 with a local timestamp t1 based on a local clock on the first sensor 112. A second data stream from a second sensor 112 may comprise a tuple (s2, t2) representing a sample s2 with a local timestamp t2 based on a local clock on the second sensor 112. If the first sensor 112 and the second sensor 112 are not synchronized with each other, then samples s1 and s2 may have been taken at the same absolute time even though timestamps t1 and t2 are not the same value. In particular embodiments, the data aggregation system may synchronize the first and second data streams by associating a system timestamp with each sample based on a system clock integrated into the data aggregation system’ ; 110, 112, s2, 11, t2 fig. 1 )
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention of Jain to modify the system of Peeters for a passive wireless sensor integrated separate from oscillators which allows the system to stay modular by implementing the required components on separate die.
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.
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 13-14, 16-19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peeters (US 2015/0056099), in view of, Jain et al., (US 2012/0289794).
Peeters teaches:
In regards to claim 13, Peeters teaches a device comprising: (abstract)
a modular, wireless sensor, para [0041]; 2, 4 fig. 1, ‘wireless phone’, ‘patch’)
a wireless reader for receiving input from the modular wireless sensor, ( para [0042]; 2, 4 fig. 1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention of Peeters to provide a passive wireless sensor enabling interrogation of the sensor remotely with a modified cellphone incorporating multi-protocol RFID reader capabilities and the like.
Peeters does not teach:
wherein the modular, wireless sensor is configured to use tuple frequency encoding, such that the modular, wireless sensor communicates a combination of two or more frequencies; and
wherein the wireless reader identifies the frequencies transmitted by the modular, wireless sensor.
Jain teaches:
wherein the modular, wireless sensor is configured to use tuple frequency encoding, such that the modular, wireless sensor communicates a combination of two or more frequencies; and (para(s) [0087, 0095], ‘As an example and not by way of limitation, a first data stream from a first sensor 112 may comprise a tuple (s1, t1) representing a sample s1 with a local timestamp t1 based on a local clock on the first sensor 112. A second data stream from a second sensor 112 may comprise a tuple (s2, t2) representing a sample s2 with a local timestamp t2 based on a local clock on the second sensor 112. If the first sensor 112 and the second sensor 112 are not synchronized with each other, then samples s1 and s2 may have been taken at the same absolute time even though timestamps t1 and t2 are not the same value. In particular embodiments, the data aggregation system may synchronize the first and second data streams by associating a system timestamp with each sample based on a system clock integrated into the data aggregation system’ ; 110, 112, s2, 11, t2 fig. 1 )
wherein the wireless reader identifies the frequencies transmitted by the modular, wireless sensor. (para(s) [0087, 0095], ‘As an example and not by way of limitation, a first data stream from a first sensor 112 may comprise a tuple (s1, t1) representing a sample s1 with a local timestamp t1 based on a local clock on the first sensor 112. A second data stream from a second sensor 112 may comprise a tuple (s2, t2) representing a sample s2 with a local timestamp t2 based on a local clock on the second sensor 112. If the first sensor 112 and the second sensor 112 are not synchronized with each other, then samples s1 and s2 may have been taken at the same absolute time even though timestamps t1 and t2 are not the same value. In particular embodiments, the data aggregation system may synchronize the first and second data streams by associating a system timestamp with each sample based on a system clock integrated into the data aggregation system’ ; 110, 112, s2, 11, t2 fig. 1 )
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention of Jain to modify the system of Peeters for a passive wireless sensor integrated separate from oscillators which allows the system to stay modular by implementing the required components on separate die.
In regards to claim 14, Peeters & Jain teach a device of claim 13 (see claim rejection 13) Peeters teaches wherein the modular, wireless sensor comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) sensor. (Peeters: para [0041, 0042; 2, 4 fig(s) 1-2, ‘cellular phone’, ‘disposable patch’, ‘phone 2 includes a microprocessor and the necessary logic to serve as a power up and read device for a passive RFID tag mounted directly inside a disposable patch 4.’)
In regards to claim 16, Peeters & Jain teach a device of claim 13 (see claim rejection 13) Peeters teaches wherein the sensor event takes the form of pressure applied to the modular, wireless sensor. (Peeters: para [0088], ‘shows a diagnostic application of RFID passive sensors applied to stresses. In this embodiment, an RFID-stress sensor 295 is provided that is composed of two distinct parts. The first one forms a power and communication unit 290 that includes an RFID tag and an antenna 8. Unit 290 is connected to a sensor 260 that includes attachment points 270, typically allowing a rigid mounting, stretchable leads 275 and a connection area 280.‘, 295 fig. 18, ‘stress sensor unit’)
In regards to claim 17, Peeters & Jain teach a device of claim 14 (see claim rejection 14) wherein the RFID sensor comprises an RFID chip and an RFID antenna. (Peeters: para [0041, 0042; 2, 4 fig(s) 1-2, ‘cellular phone’, ‘disposable patch’, ‘phone 2 includes a microprocessor and the necessary logic to serve as a power up and read device for a passive RFID tag mounted directly inside a disposable patch 4.’)
In regards to claim 18, Peeters & Jain teach a device of claim 13 (see claim rejection 13) Peeters teaches: wherein the modular, wireless sensor comprises a sensor array. (Peeters: para. [0048], 8, 10, 12 fig(s) 1-2, ‘disk 6 may be either a flexible substrate such as a plastic or a rigid disk that includes different types of semiconductor sensors. For example, disk 6 may include a combination of an RFID tag and another low power sensor on a silicon substrate, whereby the RFID tag serves as power and wireless unit and the sensor serves as the sensing element.’)
In regards to claim 19, Peeters & Jain teach a device of claim 18 (see claim rejection 18) Peeters teaches wherein the sensor array comprises different types of sensors. (Peeters: para. [0048], 8, 10, 12 fig(s) 1-2, ‘disk 6 may be either a flexible substrate such as a plastic or a rigid disk that includes different types of semiconductor sensors. For example, disk 6 may include a combination of an RFID tag and another low power sensor on a silicon substrate, whereby the RFID tag serves as power and wireless unit and the sensor serves as the sensing element.’)
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.
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peeters (US 2015/0056099), Jain et al., (US 2012/0289794), in view of, Potyrailo (US 2019/0043333).
Peeters & Jain teach:
In regards to claim 15, Peeters & Jain teach a device of claim 13 (see claim rejection 13)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention of Peeters & Jain to provide a passive wireless sensor enabling interrogation of the sensor remotely with a modified cellphone incorporating multi-protocol RFID reader capabilities and the like.
Peeters & Jain don’t teach:
wherein the modular, wireless sensor comprises a near field communication (NFC) sensor.
Potyrailo teaches:
wherein the modular, wireless sensor comprises a near field communication (NFC) sensor. (para(s) [0038, 0047, 0070, 0093, 0110]; 500, 502, 504, 506, 510, 312, 514, 516, 518, 520, 522, 524, 526, 528 fig 5)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Potyrailo to provide ASIC chips for a passive wireless sensor enabling interrogation of the sensor remotely with a modified cellphone incorporating multi-protocol reader capabilities and the like to provide robust performance and security.
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.
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peeters (US 2015/0056099), Jain et al., (US 2012/0289794), in view of, Potyrailo (US 2019/0043333).
Peeters & Jain teach:
In regards to claim 20, Peeters & Jain teach a device of claim 13 (see claim rejection 13)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention of Peeters & Jain to provide a passive wireless sensor enabling interrogation of the sensor remotely with a modified cellphone incorporating multi-protocol RFID reader capabilities and the like.
Peeters & Jain don’t teach:
wherein the modular, wireless sensor further comprises an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) chip.
Potyrailo teaches:
wherein the modular, wireless sensor further comprises an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) chip. . (para(s) [0038, 0047, 0070, 0093, 0110]; 500, 502, 504, 506, 510, 312, 514, 516, 518, 520, 522, 524, 526, 528 fig 5)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Potyrailo to provide ASIC chips for a passive wireless sensor enabling interrogation of the sensor remotely with a modified cellphone incorporating multi-protocol reader capabilities and the like to provide robust performance and security.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited Fink (US 2024/0013019), Forster (US 2020/0151403), Tata et al., (Bio-inspired sensor skins for structural health monitoring 2009), and Nikunen (US 2017/0286820) references further describe a modular, wireless sensor as described by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3973. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Stephanie E Bloss can be reached at (571)272-3555. 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.
/K.C.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852