RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19-March-2026 has been entered.
This communication is responsive to the amendment filed 19-March-2026 with respect to application 18/589,881 filed 28-February-2024.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 8, 14 and 19, and has cancelled claims 10-12.
Claims 1-9 and 13-20 are currently pending.
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 §103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 9, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Humphrey et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2011/0133927 A1), hereinafter Humphrey, in view of Wade et al. (United States Patent # US 11,113,942 B2 ), hereinafter Wade, Xu et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication # CN 10427126A), hereinafter Xu, and Huang et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication # CN 117352168 A), hereinafter Huang.
Consider claim 1: A system; Humphrey discloses an environmental risk management and system and method [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Para. 0002, 0006-0010]; comprising:
a portable sensing unit, Humphrey discloses mobile equipment (48) comprising a personal risk monitor (41) [Fig. 1-3; Para, 0037], comprising:
a first sensor configured to periodically measure a concentration of a noxious gas; a plurality of environmental multi-detectors (35) with may detect dangerous gases such as methane, carbon monoxide or nitrous oxide located at a plurality of locations, and/or portable sensors that may be attached to individual persons (41/48), which may include measurement of air quality (first sensors), and which may be continuously sent to a processing center (36) [Fig. 1-3; Para. 0006, 0010, 0031, 0035];
a second sensor configured to periodically measure a level of ambient noise; wherein the environmental multi-detectors (35) and personal risk monitors (41) may also detect and monitor ambient noise level (second sensors) [Fig.1-3; Para. 0006, 0010, 0031, 0035];
a first control/monitoring unit in communication with the first and second sensors, and configured to receive from the first and second sensors periodic measurements of the concentration of the noxious gas and the ambient noise level; the fixed and portable sensors communicating with a processing center (36), either directly via cables, or through a mesh wireless network (44) to distributed communication nodes (39) [Fig. 3; Para. 0008, 0020, 0031, 0034, 0037]; and
a first alarm in communication with the first control/monitoring unit; the personal risk monitor (41) comprises a speaker (45) and display (46) which may present various types of warnings and alarms (e.g., audible, visual or vibrating) alerts to the wearer if a hazardous condition exists, and wherein the processing center also comprises a display (53) [Fig. 3; Para. 0011, 0034, 0038];
the first control/monitoring unit further being configured to:
based on the received periodic measurements, calculate a cumulative total exposure to each of:
the noxious gas; and
the ambient noise; wherein the ambient conditions (noise and noxious gas measurements) are monitored, recorded, charted and displayed by the processing center, and cumulative analysis (60) is performed [Fig. 4; Para. 0038];
based on the calculation of the cumulative total exposures, calculate a remaining permissible exposure time using linear or logarithmic prediction for each of:
the noxious gas; and
the ambient noise; wherein a risk assessment unit (61) uses statistical calculations and fuzzy logic determinations to generate preventive directives, warnings, and recommendations, and define future periods of safe activity with an expected ambient condition (incl. noise and noxious gas) [Fig. 4; Para. 0039-0040]; and
based on the calculation of the remaining permissible exposure times, transmit a signal to the first alarm to activate the first alarm; and wherein all directives are immediately and in real-time communicated to the individual workers [Fig. 4; Para. 0038-0040].
Humphrey does not disclose an explicit periodic communication of ambient condition measurements, but this is implicit in the disclosure and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention that periodic communication of measurement parameters is necessary to log and graph exposure of an individual over time as disclosed [Humphrey: Para. 0015, 0018].
Humphrey discloses that a user multi-unit communicates with an external server or processor rather than performing all operations within a single unit. These are obvious variants based on well-established principles of distributed computing. Analogous monitoring systems, operating as a single unit are also known in prior art, and for example:
Wade discloses human awareness telemetry apparatus systems and methods, and which may monitor exposure to both ambient noise and various gasses [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1, 2, 5, 7; Col. 1, 6-15; Col. 3, 13-63] and where the unit operates on a stand-alone basis [Fig. 1-5; Col. 4, 3-16].
Humphrey also does not specifically disclose the use of linear or logarithmic prediction models to calculate exposure times, this was known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Xu discloses a method for selecting a travel route for minimum exposure to air pollutants, and in particular the use of linear regression models to make calculations pertaining to exposure levels [Title: Abstract, Para. 0001, 0004-0005, 0052-0053].
Huang discloses a cumulative noise exposure evaluation method for particular use in an occupational setting, and particularly an estimation index of accumulated noise agent related to occupation, and which uses linear regression model to analyze and compare relation between different types of noise exposure evaluation index and high-frequency hearing loss so as to verify accuracy of a dosage index [Title: Abstract; Content of the invention (Translation: page 2-3)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention to use linear regression models for prediction of exposure levels (and therefore maximum permissible exposure times) for air-borne pollutants and noise levels, as taught by Xu and Huang respectively, and implemented as a stand-alone monitoring unit, as taught by Wade, applied to an environmental risk management and system and method as taught by Humphrey, where the use of such linear models is established and known, with reasonable accuracy using obtainable data, and where operation as a stand-alone unit, allows use in locations and environments where communication with external systems is not possible.
Consider claim 2 and as applied to claim 1: The system according to claim 1, wherein the first control/monitoring unit is configured to transmit the signal when one or more predetermined thresholds, based on the calculation of the remaining permissible exposure times, are reached for either or both of:
the noxious gas; and
the ambient noise.
Humphrey discloses monitoring of ambient conditions, including at least noise and toxic gasses, and particularly that: any condition exceeding safety norms, triggers a warning or alarm (59). The physiological and equipment parameters and the ambient conditions are also subject to a cumulative analysis (60) in which results are recorded and displayed, and if necessary, trigger a warning or alarm. The results of the cumulative analysis (60) and limit comparisons (58) are fed to a risk assessment unit (61), which in turns generates activity directives (62). such as the interdiction of certain high risk areas, an order to put on protective gear, replace or change out worn or ineffective components, or an order for a period of rest and relaxation [Fig. 4; Para. 0008, 0011, 0038, 0040].
Humphrey does not explicitly disclose thresholds with respect to a safety norm or cumulative limit, but this disclosure is implicit because any condition exceeding a safety norm, or exceeds a cumulative limit, such that an alarm or other action is “triggered” must be based on a threshold (triggering value).
Consider claim 3 and as applied to claim 2: The system according to claim 2, wherein the one or more predetermined thresholds include a predetermined discrete time interval prior to a maximum permissible exposure time, for either or both of:
the noxious gas; and
the ambient noise.
Humphrey discloses monitoring of ambient conditions, including at least noise and toxic gasses, and particularly that: any condition exceeding safety norms, triggers a warning or alarm (59). The ambient conditions are also subject to a cumulative analysis (60) in which results are recorded and displayed, and if necessary, trigger a warning or alarm. [Fig. 4; Para. 0008, 0011, 0038, 0040].
Humphrey does not disclose specific thresholds as a time until a cumulative exposure limit is expected to occur, or notification at such time. This is known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Wade discloses human awareness telemetry apparatus systems and methods, and which may monitor exposure to both ambient noise and various gasses [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1, 2, 5, 7; Col. 1, 6-15; Col. 3, 13-63] and particularly that periodic cumulative exposure information may be used to determine trends in exposure, and thus to predict a time interval when each environmental hazard is predicted to exceed applicable limits, and to notify a user how much time he may have before reaching a limit. [Col. 17, 40-61; Col. 18, 48-63]. Wade also discloses that cumulative exposure may be monitored and a user notified if a running total is more than 15% below the applicable limit (steps 840, 842, 844, 846) [Fig. 8B; Col. 18, 63 to Col. 9, 62].
Wade does not specifically disclose a notification at a particular time where the prediction of time remaining drops to a predetermined period. Wade teaches calculation of both a realized proportion of an exposure limit value, and an estimate of time to reach the limit value, and also the notification at the time a particular proportion is reached. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to also provide a notification at a predetermined time prior to reaching the limit, where this information may be more useful and actionable for the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention to monitor trends in exposure level to sensed hazard, and from this information, predict a time at which cumulative exposure will exceed applicable limits, and to provide notification to the user of time available, taught by Wade, and applied to the environmental risk management and system and method as taught by Humphrey and as modified by Wade, Xu and Huang, in order that the user has time to react in advance of reaching the limit [Wade: Col. 5, 13-31].
Consider claim 4 and as applied to claim 2: The system according to claim 2, wherein the one or more predetermined thresholds include a predetermined proportion, less than 100 percent, of a maximum permissible exposure time for either or both of:
the noxious gas; and
the ambient noise.
Humphrey discloses monitoring of ambient conditions, including at least noise and toxic gasses, and particularly that: any condition exceeding safety norms, triggers a warning or alarm (59). The ambient conditions are also subject to a cumulative analysis (60) in which results are recorded and displayed, and if necessary, trigger a warning or alarm. [Fig. 4; Para. 0008, 0011, 0038, 0040].
Humphrey does not disclose specific thresholds as a portion of a cumulative exposure limit, providing notification at particular points. This is known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Wade discloses human awareness telemetry apparatus systems and methods, and which may monitor exposure to both ambient noise and various gasses [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1, 2, 5, 7; Col. 1, 6-15; Col. 3, 13-63] and particularly that cumulative exposure may be monitored and a user notified if a running total is over a threshold limit, and also if the total is more than 15% below the limit (steps 840, 842, 844, 846) [Fig. 8B; Col. 17, 40-61; Col. 18, 48 to Col. 9, 62].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention to monitor trends in exposure level to sensed hazard, and from this information, predict a time at which the how much time a user may have before reaching a limit, and to provide notification at a threshold level which represents a maximum permitted exposure, but also to provide notification at one or more proportionately lower levels as taught by Wade, and applied to the environmental risk management and system and method as taught by Humphrey and as modified by Wade, Xu and Huang, in order that the user has time to react in advance of reaching the limit [Wade: Col. 5, 13-31].
Consider claim 5 and as applied to claim 4: The system according to claim 4, wherein the one or more predetermined thresholds additionally include a predetermined discrete time interval prior to the maximum permissible exposure time, for either or both of: the noxious gas; and the ambient noise. This claim is rejected, based on the same citations and analysis as for claim 3 previously, and as applied to claims 1, 2 and 4.
Consider claim 9 and as applied to claim 1: The system according to claim 1, wherein the first control/monitoring unit is configured to:
determine at least two thresholds, based on the calculation of the remaining permissible exposure times, for each of:
the noxious gas; and
the ambient noise; and
transmit the signal when an earliest one of the determined thresholds is reached.
Humphrey discloses monitoring of ambient conditions, including at least noise and toxic gasses, and particularly that: any condition exceeding safety norms triggers a warning or alarm (59). The physiological and equipment parameters and the ambient conditions are also subject to a cumulative analysis (60) in which results are recorded and displayed, and if necessary, trigger a warning or alarm. The results of the cumulative analysis (60) and limit comparisons (58) are fed to a risk assessment unit (61), which in turns generates activity directives (62). such as the interdiction of certain high-risk areas, an order to put on protective gear, replace or change out worn or ineffective components, or an order for a period of rest and relaxation [Fig. 4; Para. 0008, 0011, 0038, 0040].
Humphrey does not explicitly disclose thresholds with respect to a safety norm or cumulative limit, but this disclosure is implicit because any condition exceeding a safety norm, or exceeds a cumulative limit, such that an alarm or other action is “triggered” must be based on a threshold (triggering value).
Humphrey also does not specifically disclose that the different ambient conditions have different threshold (triggering values) values, but this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since parameters evaluated for the different conditions are entirely different (i.e. sound level measured in dB, and gas concentration measured in PPM).
Consider claim 14: A method, Humphrey discloses an environmental risk management and system and method [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Para. 0002, 0006-0010]; comprising:
periodically measuring a concentration of a noxious gas, with a first sensor; a plurality of environmental multi-detectors (35) with may detect dangerous gases such as methane, carbon monoxide or nitrous oxide located at a plurality of locations, and/or portable sensors that may be attached to individual persons (41/48), which may include measurement of air quality (first sensors) and which may be continuously sent to a processing center (36) [Fig. 1-3; Para. 0006, 0010, 0031, 0035];
periodically measuring a level of ambient noise, with a second sensor; wherein the environmental multi-detectors (35) and personal risk monitors (41) may also detect and monitor ambient noise level (second sensors) [Fig.1-3; Para. 0006, 0010, 0031, 0035];
receiving from the first and second sensors, via a control/monitoring unit, periodic measurements of the concentration of the noxious gas and the ambient noise level; the fixed and portable sensors communicating with a processing center (36), either directly via cables, or through a mesh wireless network (44) to distributed communication nodes (39) wherein (received) measurements are monitored (57), recorded and displayed (53) [Fig. 3-4; Para. 0008, 0020, 0031, 0034, 0037-0038];
based on the received periodic measurements, calculating, using the control/monitoring unit, a cumulative total exposure to each of:
the noxious gas; and
the ambient noise; wherein the ambient conditions (noise and noxious gas measurements) are monitored, recorded, charted and displayed by the processing center, and cumulative analysis (60) is performed [Fig. 4; Para. 0038];
based on the calculation of the cumulative total exposures, calculating, using the control/monitoring unit, a remaining permissible exposure time using linear or logarithmic prediction for each of:
the noxious gas; and
the ambient noise; wherein a risk assessment unit (61) uses statistical calculations and fuzzy logic determinations to generate preventive directives, warnings, and recommendations, and define future periods of safe activity with an expected ambient condition (incl. noise and noxious gas) [Fig. 4; Para. 0039-0040]; and
based on the calculation of the remaining permissible exposure times, transmitting, using the control/monitoring unit, a signal to a first alarm to activate the first alarm; and wherein all directives are immediately and in real-time communicated to the individual workers [Fig. 4; Para. 0038-0040];
wherein a portable sensing unit comprises the first sensor, the second sensor, the control/monitoring unit, and the first alarm; Humprey discloses the display of various types of warnings and alarms (e.g., audible, visual or vibrating) alerts the wearer [of the portable equipment] if a hazardous condition exists [Para. 0010; 0034].
Humphrey does not disclose an explicit periodic communication of ambient condition measurements, but this is implicit in the disclosure and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention that periodic communication of measurement parameters is necessary to log and graph exposure of an individual over time as disclosed by Humphrey [Para. 0015, 0018].
Humphrey discloses that a user multi-unit communicates with an external server or processor rather than performing all operations within a single unit and control/monitoring unit. These are obvious variants based on well-established principles of distributed computing. Analogous monitoring systems, operating as a single unit are also known in prior art, and for example:
Wade discloses human awareness telemetry apparatus systems and methods, and which may monitor exposure to both ambient noise and various gasses [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1, 2, 5, 7; Col. 1, 6-15; Col. 3, 13-63] and where the unit operates on a stand-alone basis [Fig. 1-5; Col. 4, 3-16].
Humphrey also does not specifically disclose the use of linear or logarithmic prediction models to calculate exposure times, this was known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Xu discloses a method for selecting a travel route for minimum exposure to air pollutants, and in particular the use of linear regression models to make calculations pertaining to exposure levels [Title: Abstract, Para. 0001, 0004-0005, 002-0053].
Huang discloses a cumulative noise exposure evaluation method for particular use in an occupational setting, and particularly an estimation index of accumulated noise agent related to occupation, and which uses linear regression model to analyze and compare relation between different types of noise exposure evaluation index and high-frequency hearing loss so as to verify accuracy of a dosage index [Title: Abstract; Content of the invention (Translation: page 2-3)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention to use linear regression models for prediction of exposure levels (and therefore maximum permissible exposure times) for air-borne pollutants and noise levels, as taught by Xu and Huang respectively, and implemented as a stand-alone monitoring unit, as taught by Wade, applied to an environmental risk management and system and method as taught by Humphrey, where the use of such linear models is established and known, with reasonable accuracy using obtainable data, and where operation as a stand-alone unit, allows use in locations and environments where communication with external systems is not possible.
Consider claim 15 and as applied to claim 14: The method according to claim 14, wherein the signal is transmitted when one or more predetermined thresholds, based on the calculation of the remaining permissible exposure times, are reached for either or both of:
the noxious gas; and
the ambient noise.
This claim is rejected based on the same references, citations and analysis as for claim 2, and as applied to claim 14.
Consider claim 16 and as applied to claim 15: The method according to claim 15, wherein the one or more predetermined thresholds include a predetermined discrete time interval prior to a maximum permissible exposure time, for either or both of:
the noxious gas; and
the ambient noise.
This claim is rejected based on the same references, citations and analysis as for claim 3 previously, and as applied to claims 14 and 15.
Consider claim 17 and as applied to claim 15: The method according to claim 15, wherein the one or more predetermined thresholds include a predetermined proportion, less than 100 percent, of a maximum permissible exposure time for either or both of:
the noxious gas; and
the ambient noise.
This claim is rejected based on the same references, citations and analysis as for claim 4 previously, and as applied to claims 14 and 15.
Consider claim 20 and as applied to claim 14: The method according to claim 14, further comprising:
determining at least two thresholds, based on the calculation of the remaining permissible exposure times, for each of:
the noxious gas; and
the ambient noise;
wherein the signal is transmitted when an earliest one of the determined thresholds is reached.
This claim is rejected based on the same references, citations and analysis as claim 9, and as applied to claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Objection is made to claims 6-8, 11-13, 18 and 19, each dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments filed on 19-March-2026 have been carefully and fully considered by the Examiner, and responses are provided as follow:
Consider Applicant remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 9, 10, 16 and 17 under 35 USC §103 over Humphrey (US 2011/0133927 A1), Wade (US 11,113,942 B2 ) Xu (CN 10427126A), and Huang (CN 117352168 A) [Remarks: Page 9-13]:
Regarding independent claim 1, [Remarks: Page 9-13]: Applicant’s first argument is that Humphrey fails to teach a standalone predictive unit, and instead, teaches a networked system in which primary data processing is performed at a remote data processing center. This is admitted in the rejection, and where Wade is presented as an example where monitor and measurement processing functions are performed in a portable standalone unit. The argument asserts that the combination is improper because:
(a) The networked system, capable of operation with a plurality of sensor units, relies on system-wise data to perform its function, and an attempt to perform these functions is “a fundamental and nonsensical architectural change” and “creating an inoperable, or at least inferior, device”. This argument is not persuasive, because the system described by Humphrey may operate with as few as a single portable sensor unit [Claim 1], and where there are no computational or memory requirements that could not be performed by a modern smart phone processing system; and particularly if limited to a single, or limited number of sensor units.
(b) There would be no motivation to combine Humphrey and Wade to perform functions in a portable unit. This argument is not persuasive because there is a clear motivation to perform the functions in a stand-alone system when: (1) communication link (to a central processor) is unavailable or unreliable, as may occur in a mine or rural location, or: (2) the associated project is small, requiring only one or two portable units, and where the infrastructure costs for a remote system may be unnecessary and/or prohibitive.
(c) That Xu and Huang fail to cure this alleged defect. This argument is not persuasive because the use of a self-contained portable unit is already taught by Wade.
Applicant second argument [Page 11-13] is that Xu and Huang do not represent analogous art, because the context for the Xi reference is public health and urban environments, and where the context for Hwang is health problems and population studies, rather than a particular oil-rig environment, as claimed. In fact, Xu and Hwang are directed to determination of accumulated exposure of noxious gas, and noise respectively, and statistical analysis thereof. Clearly the principles are the same, independent of location or context, and for this reason the arguments are also not persuasive. Applicant argument further asserts that Xu fails to teach a remaining period of permissible further exposure time. Xu implicitly discloses this by determining whether a predicted exposure over a particular path, and the time to travel the path, exceeds a permitted cumulative exposure [Para. 0005]. In any case, Humphrey already teaches this feature, except for the particular use of a linear or logarithmic model for the purpose. This combination is, therefore, obvious. Huang similarly discloses use of a linear regression model for estimating cumulative disclosure to noise. Huang additionally teaches that such determination may relate a statistical study and relationship to determine harmful levels. Humphrey also already teaches determining a particular remaining period of noise disclosure. For all these reasons, the rejection is proper and is maintained.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 9 [Page 13]: No separate or additional arguments have been made with respect to these claims, and allowability asserted based on the alleged allowability of base claim 1. The rejections of these claims are maintained based on the continued rejection of the base claim, and on the citations and analysis presented for each in this Office action.
Regarding claim 10: Arguments with respect to this claim are moot; the claim has been cancelled.
Regarding independent claim 14 [Page 13]: This claim has been amended in similar fashion as claim 1, and the same arguments have been made with respect to allowability. These arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons as for that claim. The arguments are also moot in light of a new rejection of the claim under 35 USC §103 over Humphrey, Wade, Xu and Huang, the new rejection necessitated by amendments to the claim.
Regarding claims 16 and 17 [Page 13]: No separate or additional arguments have been made with respect to these claims, and allowability asserted based on the alleged allowability of base claim 14. The rejections of these claims are maintained based on the continued rejection of the base claim, and on the citations and analysis presented for each in this Office action.
Consider Applicant remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 6-8 and 11-13 under 35 USC §103 over Humphrey, Wade, Xu, Huang and Alsahlawi (US 10,959,056 B1) [Remarks: Page 13-15]:
Regarding claims 11 and 12: Arguments with respect to these claims are moot; the claims have been cancelled.
Regarding claims 6-8 and 13: Arguments with respect to these claims have been considered; but are also presently moot. These claims are allowable if presented in independent form including all limitations of their respective base and intervening claims. The individual features of these claims are taught or suggested by discovered and cited references, but the particular aggregation of these limitations as claimed, would not have been obvious to the artisan.
Consider Applicant remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 14, 15 and 20 under 35 USC §103 over Humphrey, Xu and Huang [Remarks: Page 13, 15]:
Regarding independent claim 14 [Page 13, 15]: This claim has been amended in similar fashion as for claim 1, and the same arguments have been made with respect to allowability. These arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons as for that claim. The arguments are also moot in light of a new rejection of the claim under 35 USC §103 over Humphrey, Wade, Xu and Huang, the new rejection necessitated by amendments to the claim.
Regarding claims 15 and 20 [Page 15]: No separate or additional arguments have been made with respect to these claims, and allowability asserted based on the alleged allowability of base claim 14. These claims are now rejected under 35 USC §103 over Humphrey, Wade, Xu and Huang, based on the new rejection of the base claim, and on the citations and analysis presented for each in this Office action.
Regarding claims 18 and 19 [Page 15]: Arguments with respect to these claims have been considered; but are also presently moot. These claims are allowable if presented in independent form including all limitations of their respective base and intervening claims. The individual features of these claims are taught or suggested by discovered and cited references, but the particular aggregation of these limitations as claimed, would not have been obvious to the artisan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
McCleary et al. (U.S. Patent # US 9,858,794 B2) disclosing Detecting and notifying of various potential hazards.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to STEPHEN R BURGDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7328. The Examiner can normally be reached on 11-8 EDT M, T, F.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached on (571)270-73283114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHEN R BURGDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 2684
Prosecution Insights