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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 5/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Taylor does not disclose the claimed operational relationship in which an attachment cord is first engaged with grooves of the bottom portion in the open configuration and then positively retained by closing the housing.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Taylor clearly teaches an attachment cord (Figs. 10-14, 14) is first engaged with grooves (Figs. 10-14, 70a and 70b) of the bottom portion (Figs. 10-14, 66) in the open configuration (Fig.13 shows an open configuration, and in this configuration the attachment cord 14 is engaged with grooves 70a and 70b) and then positively retained by closing the housing (Paragraph 92, “The upper and lower housing 64 and 66 are configured to be threaded together to trap a strap 14 therebetween…The upper housing 64 includes corresponding threads for engaging the threads of the lower housing such that the upper housing 64 and lower housing can be screwed together for securing about a strap”).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that The Office Action reasons that Taylor's housing "could allow a blast sensor to be securely mounted to a structure and protects the blast sensor from debris." Office Action at 5. This rationale does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify Taylor's strap-tension monitoring architecture, whose structural design is dictated by the requirement to thread and sense a cargo strap, into the claimed blast-sensor housing having grooves in a bottom portion configured to engage and positively retain an attachment cord in an open/closed operational sequence.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner would like to direct Applicant’s attention to MPEP 2144, IV which states “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) (discussed below)”.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the proposed modification would require wholesale redesign of Taylor's core engagement mechanism, not a routine adaptation, and would additionally destroy the purpose of Applicant's claims, as described above. The only template for that redesign is Applicant's own disclosure, and a reconstruction that relies on the applicant's specification as a roadmap constitutes impermissible hindsight.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Taylor fails to teach wherein the top portion of the housing is configured to disengage from the bottom portion of the housing for replacement when the sensor system is in the open configuration, without the attachment cord detaching from the attachment feature.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Taylor teaches wherein the top portion of the housing is configured to disengage from the bottom portion of the housing for replacement when the sensor system is in the open configuration (Fig.13 shows an open configuration), without the attachment cord detaching from the attachment feature (As shown in Fig.1, strap 14 is attached to the attachment feature 12, and the sensor housing 20 can be replaced without detaching the strap 14 from the attachment feature 12).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “means for engaging an attachment cord to a bottom portion of a housing” is interpreted as “a mechanical groove” according to paragraph 18 of the published present application. The limitation “means for positively retaining the attachment cord to the housing” is interpreted as “grooves” according to paragraph 5 of the published present application. The limitation “means for coupling a top portion of the housing to the bottom portion in the closed configuration and at least partially separating the top portion form the bottom portion in the open configuration” is interpreted as “a hinge” according to paragraph 20 of the published present application.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “means for attaching the bottom portion of the housing to an attachment feature” is interpreted as “attachment cord” according to paragraphs 18-19 of the published present application.
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.
Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (U.S. Publication No. 20190001863) in view of AAPA (Applicant admitted prior art, according to the specification from the publication of the present application).
Regarding claim 1, Taylor teaches a sensor system, comprising: a housing comprising a top portion (Figs. 10-14, 64) and a bottom portion (Figs. 10-14, 66), wherein the top portion is coupled to the bottom portion in a closed configuration (As shown in Figs.10-11, closed configuration) and at least partially separated from the bottom portion in an open configuration (Figs. 12-13, open configuration), wherein the bottom portion of the housing comprises grooves (Figs. 10-14, 70a and 70b) at first and second ends configured to engage an attachment cord (Figs. 10-14, 14) in the open configuration, and wherein the housing is configured to positively retain the attachment cord in the closed configuration (As shown in Figs. 10-14 and paragraphs 91-94).
Taylor is silent about the sensor system is a blast sensor system.
AAPA teaches the sensor system is a blast sensor system (Paragraphs 14-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Taylor’s sensor housing for a blast sensor because Taylor’s sensor housing could allow a blast sensor to be securely mounted to a structure and protects the blast sensor from debris.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Taylor and AAPA teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Taylor further teaches wherein the top portion includes a first mechanical feature configured to mechanically engage a second mechanical feature of the bottom portion in the closed configuration (Paragraph 92).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Taylor and AAPA teaches all the features of claim 2 as outlined above, Taylor further teaches wherein the attachment cord is configured to attach the bottom portion of the housing to an attachment feature (Paragraphs 80-81).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Taylor and AAPA teaches all the features of claim 3 as outlined above, Taylor further teaches wherein the top portion of the housing is configured to disengage from the bottom portion of the housing for replacement when the sensor system is in the open configuration, without the attachment cord detaching from the attachment feature (Figs. 10-14 and Paragraphs 91-94).
Taylor is silent about the sensor system is a blast sensor system.
AAPA teaches the sensor system is a blast sensor system (Paragraphs 14-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Taylor’s sensor housing for a blast sensor because Taylor’s sensor housing could allow a blast sensor to be securely mounted to a structure and protects the blast sensor from debris.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Taylor and AAPA teaches all the features of claim 2 as outlined above, Taylor further teaches including a hinge (Figs. 10-14, 67) configured to movably affix a first side of the top portion of the housing to a first side of the bottom portion of the housing (Paragraph 91), wherein the first and second mechanical features (Figs. 10-14, 68) are located on a second side of the top and bottom portions of the housing opposite the first side (Paragraph 92).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Taylor and AAPA teaches all the features of claim 5 as outlined above, Taylor further teaches wherein the attachment cord is configured to attach the bottom portion of the housing to an attachment feature, and wherein the top portion of the housing is configured to disengage from the bottom portion of the housing at the hinge for replacement when the sensor system is in the open configuration, without the attachment cord detaching from the attachment feature (Figs. 10-14 and Paragraphs 91-94).
Taylor is silent about the sensor system is a blast sensor system.
AAPA teaches the sensor system is a blast sensor system (Paragraphs 14-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Taylor’s sensor housing for a blast sensor because Taylor’s sensor housing could allow a blast sensor to be securely mounted to a structure and protects the blast sensor from debris.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Taylor and AAPA teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, AAPA further teaches a blast sensor proximate an upper surface of the top portion of the housing configured to detect or monitor impulse noise or shock wave events at the upper surface (Paragraphs 14-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Taylor’s sensor housing for a blast sensor because Taylor’s sensor housing could allow a blast sensor to be securely mounted to a structure and protects the blast sensor from debris.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Taylor and AAPA teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Taylor further teaches wherein the grooves in the bottom portion are configured to retain the attachment cord within a footprint of the top portion of the housing in the closed configuration (Figs. 10-14 and Paragraphs 91-94).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Taylor and AAPA teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, AAPA further teaches wherein the top portion of the housing is configured to contain electronics of the blast sensor system and to engage and retain a replaceable battery of the blast sensor system (Paragraphs 12-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Taylor’s sensor housing for a blast sensor because Taylor’s sensor housing could allow a blast sensor to be securely mounted to a structure and protects the blast sensor from debris.
Regarding claim 10, Taylor teaches a method, comprising: engaging an attachment cord (Figs. 10-14, 14) to a bottom portion (Figs. 10-14, 66) of a housing of a sensor system using grooves(Figs. 10-14, 70a and 70b) at first and second ends of the bottom portion of the housing in an open configuration (Figs. 12-13, open configuration); and positively retaining the attachment cord to the housing of the sensor system using a top portion of the housing and the bottom portion of the housing in a closed configuration, wherein the top portion is coupled to the bottom portion in the closed configuration and at least partially separated from the bottom portion in the open configuration (As shown in Figs. 10-14 and paragraphs 91-94).
Taylor is silent about the sensor system is a blast sensor system.
AAPA teaches the sensor system is a blast sensor system (Paragraphs 14-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Taylor’s sensor housing for a blast sensor because Taylor’s sensor housing could allow a blast sensor to be securely mounted to a structure and protects the blast sensor from debris.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Taylor and AAPA teaches all the features of claim 10 as outlined above, Taylor further teaches mechanically engaging, using a first mechanical feature of the top portion of the housing, a second mechanical feature of the bottom portion in the closed configuration (Paragraph 92).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Taylor and AAPA teaches all the features of claim 11 as outlined above, Taylor further teaches attaching the bottom portion of the housing to an attachment feature using the attachment cord (Paragraphs 80-81).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Taylor and AAPA teaches all the features of claim 12 as outlined above, Taylor further teaches disengaging the top portion of the housing from the bottom portion of the housing for replacement in the open configuration, without the attachment cord detaching from the attachment feature (Figs. 10-14 and Paragraphs 91-94).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Taylor and AAPA teaches all the features of claim 11 as outlined above, Taylor further teaches movably affixing a first side of the top portion of the housing to a first side of the bottom portion of the housing using a hinge (Figs. 10-14, 67), wherein the first and second mechanical features are located on a second side of the top and bottom portions of the housing opposite the first side (As shown in Figs. 10-14 and paragraphs 91-94).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Taylor and AAPA teaches all the features of claim 14 as outlined above, Taylor further teaches attaching the bottom portion of the housing to an attachment feature, and disengaging the top portion of the housing from the bottom portion of the housing at the hinge for replacement when the sensor system is in the open configuration, without the attachment cord detaching from the attachment feature (Figs. 10-14 and Paragraphs 91-94).
Taylor is silent about the sensor system is a blast sensor system.
AAPA teaches the sensor system is a blast sensor system (Paragraphs 14-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Taylor’s sensor housing for a blast sensor because Taylor’s sensor housing could allow a blast sensor to be securely mounted to a structure and protects the blast sensor from debris.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Taylor and AAPA teaches all the features of claim 10 as outlined above, AAPA further teaches detecting or monitoring impulse noise or shock wave events at an upper surface of the top portion of the housing using a blast sensor proximate the upper surface (Paragraphs 14-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Taylor’s sensor housing for a blast sensor because Taylor’s sensor housing could allow a blast sensor to be securely mounted to a structure and protects the blast sensor from debris.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Taylor and AAPA teaches all the features of claim 10 as outlined above, AAPA further teaches retaining the attachment cord within a footprint of the top portion of the housing using the grooves in the bottom portion of the housing (Paragraphs 12-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Taylor’s sensor housing for a blast sensor because Taylor’s sensor housing could allow a blast sensor to be securely mounted to a structure and protects the blast sensor from debris.
Regarding claim 19, Taylor teaches a sensor system, comprising: means for engaging an attachment cord to a bottom portion of a housing of a sensor system in an open configuration (Figs. 10-14, 70a and 70b and paragraphs 91-94); and means for positively retaining the attachment cord to the housing of the sensor system in a closed configuration (Figs. 10-14, 70a and 70b and paragraphs 91-94), means for coupling a top portion of the housing to the bottom portion in the closed configuration and at least partially separating the top portion from the bottom portion in the open configuration (Figs. 10-14, 67 and paragraphs 91-94).
Taylor is silent about the sensor system is a blast sensor system.
AAPA teaches the sensor system is a blast sensor system (Paragraphs 14-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Taylor’s sensor housing for a blast sensor because Taylor’s sensor housing could allow a blast sensor to be securely mounted to a structure and protects the blast sensor from debris.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Taylor and AAPA teaches all the features of claim 19 as outlined above, Taylor further teaches means for attaching the bottom portion of the housing to an attachment feature (Figs. 10-14, 14 and paragraphs 91-94), and wherein the means for coupling the top portion of the housing to the bottom portion in the closed configuration and at least partially separating the top portion from the bottom portion in the open configuration include means for: movably affixing a first side of the top portion of the housing to a first side of the bottom portion of the housing; and disengaging the top portion of the housing from the bottom portion of the housing for replacement when the blast sensor system is in the open configuration, without the attachment cord detaching from the attachment feature (Paragraphs 91-94).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Taylor and AAPA teaches all the features of claim 1 as outlined above, Taylor further teaches wherein the top portion (Figs. 10-14, 64) of the housing is configured to close at least a portion of the grooves (Figs. 10-14, 70a and 70b) of the bottom portion (Figs. 10-14, 66) in the closed configuration (As shown in Figs. 13-14, the slots 70a and 70b are closed by the top portion 64), forming separate first and second channels at the respective first and second ends in the closed configuration (As shown in Figs. 13-14, the slots 70a and 70b are closed by the top portion 64, only left with channels to allow the strap 14 to pass), to positively retain the attachment cord in the closed configuration (Paragraph 92, “The upper and lower housing 64 and 66 are configured to be threaded together to trap a strap 14 therebetween…The upper housing 64 includes corresponding threads for engaging the threads of the lower housing such that the upper housing 64 and lower housing can be screwed together for securing about a strap”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 XIN Y ZHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3798. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/XIN Y ZHONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights