DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to reply dated March 11, 2026. Claims 1, 2 and 4-20 are currently pending.
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
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berg (US 2022/0167490 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Berg discloses an electrostatic discharge (ESD) control device alert system (see at least the abstract, note ensuring and tracking electrostatic discharge (ESD) safety and compliance via at least a wrist strap worn by a user | Figure 13D) comprising:
a first sensor configured to detect a person entering an area designated for ESD control (see at least Figures 3E and 13D, items 122 and 1344 | [0129] note the PIR sensor 1344 detects proximity of the user to the workstation 122);
a second sensor configured to detect whether a person in the area is wearing an ESD control device (see at least Figures 13D, item 1310 | [0129] note if the user 99 has not connected his or her wearable ESD device 1310 to the respective ESD interface device 1334 within a preset amount of time and a disconnected-user event is communicated to ESD system monitor 321, the ESD interface unit 1344 outputs a visual and/or audio alarm | [0086] note when strap 117 has sufficient tautness (such as being wrapped around a body limb, such as a wrist or ankle), switch 728 changes state (closed-to-open or open-to-closed) to indicate that strap 117 is a connected to the human user 99, that is a connected-user event, otherwise it is a disconnected-user event | [0082-0083]);
a control system coupled to the first sensor and second sensor configured to determine whether to activate or deactivate an alert to wear an ESD control device based on the detection whether a person in the area is wearing an ESD control device (see at least Figure 13D, item 1334 | [0129] | [0091-0096] | Figure 16 | [0160]); and
an alert system coupled to the control system configured to activate and deactivate the alert in response to input from the control system (see at least Figure 7, item 618 | [0129]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US 2022/0167490 A1) in view of Mallian (US 20080256998 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Berg discloses a method in an electrostatic discharge (ESD) control device alert system (see at least the abstract, note ensuring and tracking electrostatic discharge (ESD) safety and compliance via at least a wrist strap worn by a user | Figure 13D), the method comprising:
detecting, via a first sensor device, a person entering an area designated for ESD control (see at least Figures 3E and 13D, items 122 and 1344 | [0129] note the PIR sensor 1344 detects proximity of the user to the workstation 122);
detecting, via a second sensor device, whether a person in the area is wearing an ESD control device (see at least Figures 13D, item 1310 | [0129] note if the user 99 has not connected his or her wearable ESD device 1310 to the respective ESD interface device 1334 within a preset amount of time and a disconnected-user event is communicated to ESD system monitor 321, the ESD interface unit 1344 outputs a visual and/or audio alarm | [0086] note when strap 117 has sufficient tautness (such as being wrapped around a body limb, such as a wrist or ankle), switch 728 changes state (closed-to-open or open-to-closed) to indicate that strap 117 is a connected to the human user 99, that is a connected-user event, otherwise it is a disconnected-user event | [0082-0083]);
electronically determining whether to activate or deactivate an alert to wear an ESD control device based on the detection whether a person in the area is wearing an ESD control device (see at least [0129] | [0091-0096] | [Figure 16 | [0160]); and
activating or deactivating the alert based on the determination (see at least [0129]), wherein:
the detecting whether a person in the area is wearing an ESD control device includes detecting the person in the area is wearing an ESD control device (see at least (see at least [0129] note if the user 99 has not connected his or her wearable ESD device 1310 to the respective ESD interface device 1334 within a preset amount of time and a disconnected-user event is communicated to ESD system monitor 321, the ESD interface unit 1344 outputs a visual and/or audio alarm | [0086] note when strap 117 has sufficient tautness (such as being wrapped around a body limb, such as a wrist or ankle), switch 728 changes state (closed-to-open or open-to-closed) to indicate that strap 117 is a connected to the human user 99, that is a connected-user event, otherwise it is a disconnected-user event | [0061] note the present invention helps ensure that workers will maintain ESD protection and compliance by directly and continuously monitoring the worker's strap connection to his or her skin and/or to an ESD-grounded work area | [0096] note sensor unit 1010 monitors, determines, and communicates two conditions: strap-connection status, and interface-unit-connection status, wherein the strap-connection status is either “strap connected” or “strap not connected”, and the interface unit (IU)-connection status is either “IU connected with unknown ESD ground status”, “IU connected with validated ESD ground status,” or “IU not connected” | [0082-0083] | Figure 16, items 1664, 1666, 1680 and 1670 | [0160]).
However, Berg does not specifically disclose the determining whether to activate or deactivate an alert to wear an ESD control device includes determining to deactivate the alert to wear an ESD control device in response to detecting an ESD control device RFID tag is present on an area on which the ESD control device is to be worn on the person; and the activating or deactivating the alert based on the determination includes deactivating the alert in response to the determination.
It is known to activate/deactivate alerts in different ways. For example, Mallian teaches a system wherein the determining whether to activate or deactivate an alert to wear an ESD control device includes determining to deactivate the alert to wear an ESD control device in response to detecting an ESD control device RFID tag is present on an area on which the ESD control device is to be worn on the person; and the activating or deactivating the alert based on the determination includes deactivating the alert in response to the determination (see at least Figure 2, item 204 | Figure 3 | [0024-0025] note detection of a person entering an area designated for ESD control | [0026] note monitoring to see if one or more ESD protectors 204 are present | [0027] note ESD protectors 204 have RFID tags | [0028] note an alert can be generated if no ESD protector 204 is detected | [0029] note if the person entering the area is wearing an ESD protector 204 (with an RFID tag) on their wrist, the alert is deactivated | [0031] note the KES 100 can be configured to determine whether ESD protectors 204 are located at expected locations on a user's body, e.g., if a user requests access to the restricted area 200 and wrist strap 204 is required for access, the KES 100 can determine whether the user is wearing the wrist strap 204 by including an RFID reader at the access point 202 to activate and read the RFID tag included in the wrist strap 204).
Thus, 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 features of Mallian into Berg. This provides the ability to differentiate and validate which ESD control devices are required to be worn in the area designated for ESD control before providing access, thus improving system compliance.
Regarding claim 2, Berg in view of Mallian teach wherein: the detecting whether a person in the area is wearing an ESD control device includes detecting the person in the area is not wearing an ESD control device; the determining whether to activate or deactivate an alert to wear an ESD control device includes determining to activate the alert to wear an ESD control device in response to the detection the person in the area is not wearing an ESD control device; and the activating or deactivating the alert based on the determination includes activating the alert in response to the determination (see at least [0129] of Berg | [0086] of Berg).
Regarding claim 4, Berg in view of Mallian teach wherein the detecting, via a first sensor device, a person entering an area designated for ESD control includes: detecting, via a passive infrared (PIR) sensor, a person entering an area designated for ESD control (see at least [0129] of Berg).
Regarding claim 5, Berg in view of Mallian teach wherein the area designated for ESD control is an electronics hardware laboratory work bench area or work station area and the PIR sensor is positioned at or near the work bench or work station area such that the PIR sensor is able to detect a person at the work bench area or work station area (see at least Figure 3E, items 122 and 330 of Berg | Figure 13D, item 1344 of Berg | [0002] of Berg | [0102] of Berg, note the interface unit 330/1344 includes a PIR sensor | [0129] of Berg).
Regarding claim 9, Berg in view of Mallian teach wherein the activating or deactivating the alert includes: activating or deactivating one or more of: a visible and audible alert to wear an ESD control device (see at least [0129] of Berg).
Regarding claim 13, Berg in view of Mallian teach wherein the detecting, via a second sensor device, whether a person in the area is wearing an ESD control device occurs after the detecting the person entering the area (see at least [0101-0102] of Berg, note a work-station proximity sensor 899 is used to sense when a sensor unit 810 and its user are within a given distance of a workstation 122, and includes circuitry and/or programming in microcontroller 812 that, once a user is detected as near a given work area but sensor unit 810 is not connected to interface unit 130 within some preset amount of time, communicates, displays, or indicates that the user 99 is present at work station 122 but is not properly connected to interface unit 930 | [0129] of Berg, note the ESD interface unit 1344 outputs a visual and/or audio alarm when the proximity detector 1344 detects there is a user at the workstation but has not connected his or her wearable ESD device 1310 to the respective ESD interface device within a preset amount of time, and a disconnected-user event is communicated to ESD system monitor 321).
Regarding claim 14, Berg in view of Mallian teach wherein the detecting, via a second sensor device, whether a person in the area is wearing an ESD control device occurs in response to the detecting the person entering the area (see at least [0101-0102] of Berg, note a work-station proximity sensor 899 is used to sense when a sensor unit 810 and its user are within a given distance of a workstation 122, and includes circuitry and/or programming in microcontroller 812 that, once a user is detected as near a given work area but sensor unit 810 is not connected to interface unit 130 within some preset amount of time, communicates, displays, or indicates that the user 99 is present at work station 122 but is not properly connected to interface unit 930 | [0129] of Berg, note the ESD interface unit 1344 outputs a visual and/or audio alarm when the proximity detector 1344 detects there is a user at the workstation but has not connected his or her wearable ESD device 1310 to the respective ESD interface device within a preset amount of time, and a disconnected-user event is communicated to ESD system monitor 321).
Regarding claim 15, Berg does no specifically disclose wherein the detecting, via a second sensor device, whether a person in the area is wearing an ESD control device includes: in response to detecting the person entering the area, detecting, via a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) reader device, whether an ESD control device RFID tag is present on an area on which the ESD control device is to be worn on the person entering the area; and in response to detecting the ESD control device RFID tag is present on an area on which the ESD control device is to be worn on the person entering the area, detecting, that the person entering the area is wearing the ESD control device.
It is known to monitor compliance in different ways. For example, Mallian teaches a system wherein the detecting, via a second sensor device, whether a person in the area is wearing an ESD control device includes: in response to detecting the person entering the area (see at least Figure 3, item 302 | Figure 2, item 100 | [0024] note the approaching person is detected via a wireless transmitter or key card), detecting, via a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) reader device, whether an ESD control device RFID tag is present on an area on which the ESD control device is to be worn on the person entering the area (see at least Figure 3, item 308 | Figure 2, item 204 | [0027] note the ESD protector 204 includes an RFID tag that is read by a RFID reader | [0029] note the type of ESD protector 204 worn by the user can be validated, such as a wrist strap on the user’s wrist and/or an antistatic garment); and in response to detecting the ESD control device RFID tag is present on an area on which the ESD control device is to be worn on the person entering the area, detecting, that the person entering the area is wearing the ESD control device (see at least Figure 3, items 322 and 324 | [0031] note the ESD protector 204 only transmits a signal when it is properly worn, e.g., via a transmitter circuit that closes only when the wrist strap is properly fastened, and further note that the KES 100 can determine whether or not the ESD protectors 204 are located at expected locations on the user’s body, see [0029]).
Thus, 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 features of Mallian into Berg. This provides the ability to ensure that Berg’s user has the correct ESD control device(s) properly worn on the appropriate location(s) of their body, thus improving workplace compliance and tracking.
Regarding claim 16, Berg in view of Mallian teach wherein: the first sensor device is positioned at an entrance to the area designated for ESD control (see at least Figure 3, item 302 of Mallian | Figure 2, item 100 of Mallian | [0024] of Mallian, note the approaching person is detected from signals transmitted by a wireless transmitter at the KES 100’s wireless receiver); the RFID reader device is positioned in the area designated for ESD control in an area in proximity to the area on the person on which the ESD control device is to be worn to receive and RFID signal from the RFID tag (see at least [0101] of Berg, note the workstation can utilize NFC or similar low-power RF signaling means, such as Mallian’s RFID reader | [0031] of Mallian, note the KES 100 can determine whether or not the ESD protectors 204 are located at expected locations on the user’s body via RFID tags read by a RFID reader near the user’s wrist or a RFID reader on the floor | [0027] of Mallian, note the ESD protector 204 includes an RFID tag that is read by a RFID reader near the user’s wrist or a RFID reader on the floor | [0029] of Mallian, note the type of ESD protector 204 worn by the user can be validated, such as a wrist strap on the user’s wrist and/or an antistatic garment); and the RFID reader is set to have a maximum range to cover substantially no more than the area in proximity to the area on the person on which the ESD control device is to be worn as the person entering the area enters the area (see at least [0101] of Berg, note given distance | [0031] of Mallian, note the range of the RFID reader on the floor does not read the RFID tag on the user’s wrist).
Regarding claim 18, Berg in view of Mallian teach wherein the activating or deactivating the alert includes activating or deactivating a remote alert communicated to a location remote from the area designated for ESD control (see at least Figure 3A of Berg | [0122-0124] of Berg).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US 2022/0167490 A1) in view of Mallian (US 20080256998 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Deneau (WO 2009/056593 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Berg discloses wherein the area designated for ESD control is an electronics hardware laboratory work bench area the PIR sensor is positioned near a work bench in the work bench area such that the PIR sensor is able to detect a person at the work bench (see at least Figures 3E and 13D, items 330, 1334 and 1344 | [0002] | [0129]).
However, Berg in view of Mallian do not specifically teach under a work bench.
It is known to arrange sensors in different areas. For example, Deneau teaches a system wherein the area designated for ESD control is an electronics hardware work station area the PIR sensor is positioned under a work station in the work station area such that the PIR sensor is able to detect a person at the work station (see at least Figure 3, item 1 | [0027] note the device is designed symmetrically to allow positioning on or under the workstation | [0040] note Figure 3 shows an exploded view of the device | [0043] | [0004]).
Thus, 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 features of Deneau into Berg in view of Mallian. This provides a known alternative (on/under the workstation) mounting location that can be used in place of Berg’s (on the workstation) mounting location while providing predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Berg in view of Mallian and Deneau teach detecting, via the first sensor, that there is no longer a person in the area designated for ESD control (see at least [0027] of Deneau, note the operator leaves the workstation); and in response to detecting that there is no longer a person in the area designated for ESD control, deactivating any current activation of the alert by deactivating operation of the first sensor that detects a person entering an area designated for ESD control (see at least [0027] of Deneau, note the operator leaves the workstation and the audible alert stops).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US 2022/0167490 A1) in view of Mallian (US 20080256998 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of McIlroy (US 2011/0227738 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Berg discloses wherein the detecting, via a second sensor device, whether a person in the area is wearing an ESD control device includes: detecting, via a capacitive sensor attached to the ESD control device, whether a person in the area is wearing the ESD control device (see at least [0013]).
However, Berg in view of Mallian do not specifically teach a capacitive touch switch.
It is known for capacitive sensors to work in different ways. For example, McIlroy teaches a system that detects via a capacitive touch switch whether a person in the area is wearing the ESD control device (see at least the abstract | Figures 4, 6 and 7, item 28 | [0034]).
Thus, 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 features of McIlroy into Berg in view of Mallian. This provides a known alternative capacitive sensor that can be used in place of, or in addition to, Berg’s capacitive sensor while providing predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Berg in view of Mallian and McIlroy teach wherein the ESD control device is an ESD control wrist strap, an ESD control glove, an ESD control garment, ESD control clothing, ESD control footwear, or an ESD control slipper (see at least Figures 3A, 4 and 5 of Berg | Figure 4 of McIlroy).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US 2022/0167490 A1) in view of Mallian (US 20080256998 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Zahand (US 2015/0228078 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Berg discloses wherein the activating or deactivating the alert includes: activating or deactivating a display visible by a person in the area designated for ESD control that includes a warning or precaution regarding ESD or a warning or precaution regarding wearing an ESD control device (see at least Figures 12 and 13D, item 1218 | [0111] note the display will indicate an unsafe ESD status when it senses/measures/determines a strap disconnection, or a cable disconnection | [0129] note the interface has a visual indicator, i.e., a display).
However, Berg in view of Mallian do not specifically disclose a sign.
It is known to convey information in different ways. For example, Zahand teaches a system with a sign visible by a person in the area designated for ESD control that includes a warning or precaution regarding ESD or a warning or precaution regarding wearing an ESD control device (see at least Figure 3, item 348 | [0038] note that when operators are not wearing their required conductive foot straps, an alert may be issued | [0032] note alerts may include, but are not limited to, textual alerts displayed via a reader board 348 or other sign).
Thus, 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 features of Zahand into Berg in view of Mallian. This provides a known alternative display that can be used in place of, or in addition to, Berg in view of Mallian’s display while providing predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Berg in view of Mallian and Zahand teach wherein the activating the sign includes illuminating the sign and the deactivating the sign includes stopping illuminating the sign (see at least [0111] of Berg | [0129] of Berg, note the visual indicator, such as Berg’s display or Zahand’s sign, would be activated to indicate the warning or precaution, and deactivated otherwise).
Regarding claim 12, Berg in view of Mallian and Zahand teach wherein the sign visible by a person in the area designated for ESD control is on or at a work bench in the area designated for ESD control (see at least Figures 3E and 13D, item 1334 of Berg, note the interface unit 330/1334 has a display 1218, such as Zahand’s sign 348 shown in Figure 3 | [0071] of Berg, note the interface unit 330 is on the workstation in the work area 122 | [0091] of Berg, note the interface unit 1230 includes a display 1218).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US 2022/0167490 A1) in view of McIlroy (US 2011/0227738 A1) and Mallian (US 2008/0256998 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Berg discloses wherein the second sensor is a capacitive sensor switch attached to the ESD control device configured to detect whether a person in the area is wearing the ESD control device (see at least [0013]).
However, Berg does not specifically disclose a capacitive touch switch, and further comprising a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) reader device coupled to the control system configured to detect whether an ESD control device RFID tag is present on an area on the person entering the area on which another ESD control device is to be worn in response to the first sensor detecting the person entering an area designated for ESD control, wherein the control system is further configured to activate another alert in response to the RFID reader device detecting the RFID tag is not present on the area on the person entering the area on which the other ESD control device is to be worn.
It is known to arrange ESD control device alert systems in different ways. For example, McIlroy teaches a system that detects via a capacitive touch switch whether a person in the area is wearing the ESD control device (see at least the abstract | Figures 4, 6 and 7, item 28 | [0034]).
With respect to the other limitations, Mallian teaches a system that further comprises a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) reader device coupled to the control system configured to detect whether an ESD control device RFID tag is present on an area on the person entering the area on which another ESD control device is to be worn in response to the first sensor detecting the person entering an area designated for ESD control, wherein the control system is further configured to activate another alert in response to the RFID reader device detecting the RFID tag is not present on the area on the person entering the area on which the other ESD control device is to be worn (see at least [0024] note the approaching person can be detected via a wireless transmitter | [0031] of Mallian, note the KES 100 can determine whether or not the ESD protectors 204 are located at expected locations on the user’s body via RFID tags read by a RFID reader near the user’s wrist and/or a RFID reader on the floor, and notify the user in case of failure | [0027] of Mallian, note the ESD protectors 204 includes an RFID tag that is read by a RFID reader | [0029] of Mallian, note the types of ESD protectors 204 worn by the user can be validated, such as a wrist strap on the user’s wrist, an antistatic garment, footwear, etc.).
Thus, 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 features of McIlroy and Mallian into Berg. With respect to McIlroy, this provides a known alternative capacitive sensor that can be used in place of, or in addition to, Berg’s capacitive sensor while providing predictable results. With respect to Mallian, this provides the ability to monitor several types of ESD control devices that may be required by Berg in view of McIlroy’s user to enter an area, thus improving safety and compliance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
“Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office that paragraph 129 of Berg teaches ‘electronically determining whether to activate or deactivate an alert to wear an ESD control device based on the detection whether a person in the area is wearing an ESD control device’ as recited in claim 1 and similarly in independent claim 19. Paragraph 129 of Berg states ‘If the user has not connected his or her wearable ESD device 1310 to the respective ESD interface device within a preset amount of time, and a disconnected-user event is communicated to ESD system monitor 321’. Thus, paragraph 129 of Berg teaches that the disconnected-user event and the resulting visual and/or audio alarm are triggered in response to the ESD device not being connected to the ESD interface device (i.e., a cable connection to the interface unit at the workstation), not based on whether the user is wearing the device. A user can be wearing the ESD device on their body without having connected it to the interface unit, and conversely, the failure to connect the device to the interface unit does not indicate whether the user is or is not wearing the device. Accordingly, the alert in Berg is based on whether an electrical ground connection has been established to the interface unit, which is fundamentally different from claim 1, which requires determining whether to activate or deactivate an alert based on ‘the detection whether a person in the area is wearing an ESD control device’.
In response, paragraph [0129] of Berg states in “some embodiments, user-proximity detector 1344 provides information to a microprocessor in interface unit 1334 that detects disconnected-user events associated with a detected presence of a user 99 at his or her respective work station 122 without also detection of the connection of cable 120 to sensor unit 1310. If the user has not connected his or her wearable ESD device 1310 to the respective ESD interface device within a preset amount of time, and a disconnected-user event is communicated to ESD system monitor 321.”
For more context, Berg’s present invention helps ensure that workers will maintain ESD protection and compliance by directly and continuously monitoring the worker’s strap connection to his or her skin and/or to an ESD-grounded work area (see [0061]). Berg’s sensor unit and/or interface unit will sound an audible beeper or voice alarm, an unsafe connection/unacceptable status, if a user is at the work station 122 without connecting their sensor strap to the work station’s interface unit 130 or 1230 within an allotted amount of time, or communicate a safe connection status (see [0091]). More specifically, Berg’s sensor unit 1010 monitors, determines, and communicates two conditions: a strap-connection status, and an interface-unit-connection status (see [0096]). An ESD safe status occurs when the user is at the work station 122, and the sensor unit strap is connected or being worn and a validated ESD ground is sensed as connected within an allotted amount of time. This is also shown below in steps 1650-1680 in Figure 16 of Berg.
PNG
media_image1.png
450
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, an ESD safe status, or deactivated alarm, occurs when the user is at the work station 122, and the sensor unit strap is connected or being worn 1664 and a validated ESD ground is sensed as connected 1666 within an allotted amount of time. An unsafe connection/unacceptable status, or activated alarm, occurs when the user is at the work station 122, and the sensor unit strap is disconnected or not being worn 1664, or the sensor unit strap is connected or being worn 1664 and a validated ESD ground is not sensed as connected 1666 within an allotted amount of time. For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s comments “A user can be wearing the ESD device on their body without having connected it to the interface unit, and conversely, the failure to connect the device to the interface unit does not indicate whether the user is or is not wearing the device. Accordingly, the alert in Berg is based on whether an electrical ground connection has been established to the interface unit, which is fundamentally different from claim 1, which requires determining whether to activate or deactivate an alert based on ‘the detection whether a person in the area is wearing an ESD control device’.”
In response, the interface unit provides power to the ESD device (see [0116]). With respect to Figure 16, the wrist connect/disconnect event and bench connect/disconnect events are transmitted to the system monitor (see [0160]). If the ESD device is worn on the user’s body without having connected it to the interface unit, it would not be able to transmit the wrist connect/disconnect event and bench connect/disconnect events to the system monitor. With respect to “failure to connect the ESD device to the interface unit does not indicate whether the user is or is not wearing the device”, Berg system monitors, determines, and communicates two conditions: a strap-connection status, and an interface-unit-connection status (see [0096]). An ESD safe status occurs when the user is at the work station 122, and the sensor unit strap is connected or being worn and a validated ESD ground is sensed as connected within an allotted amount of time. This is also shown below in steps 1650-1680 in Figure 16 of Berg. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
“Applicant also respectfully disagrees with the Office that paragraph 86 of Berg cures this deficiency. Paragraph 86 describes a switch 728 on strap 117 that changes state when the strap has ‘sufficient tautness (such as being wrapped around a body limb, such as a wrist or ankle)’ to indicate that the strap is connected to the human user 99. However, paragraph 86 describes switch 728 in the context of system 700 (Figure 7), which is a different embodiment than the system 1304 of Figure 13D described in paragraph 129 that the Examiner relies upon for the alert functionality. Notably, paragraph 86 does not describe using the tautness detection of switch 728 to activate or deactivate an alert to wear an ESD control device. Rather, switch 728 is described as indicating a connected-user event for purposes of communicating strap connection status to a system monitor. The Office has not identified any passage in Berg where the tautness-detecting switch 728 of paragraph 86 is used in combination with the proximity detector and alert system of paragraph 129 to electronically determine ‘whether to activate or deactivate an alert to wear an ESD control device based on the detection whether a person in the area is wearing an ESD control device’ as recited in claim 1.”
In response, paragraph [0129] cannot be read in a vacuum. If so, a reader of Berg would refer to paragraph [0129] and not be able to determine the what or how the interface unit 1334, sensor unit 1310 and system monitor 321 are or function, they are simply black boxes. The previous paragraphs of the specification provide context on how the interface unit 1334, sensor unit 1310 and system monitor 321 specifically work. Paragraph [0086] is used to simply show that the sensor unit 1310 can utilize a switch to determine if it is being worn or not. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Furthermore, Berg does not teach ‘the detecting whether a person in the area is wearing an ESD control device includes detecting the person in the area is wearing an ESD control device; the determining whether to activate or deactivate an alert to wear an ESD control device includes determining to deactivate the alert to wear an ESD control device in response to detecting an ESD control device RFID tag is present on an area on which the ESD control device is to be worn on the person; and the activating or deactivating the alert based on the determination includes deactivating the alert in response to the determination’ as recited in claim 1 as amended.”
In response, paragraphs [0082-0083] and [0086] show some of the many ways that detect whether a person in the area is wearing an ESD control device, including detecting the person in the area is wearing an ESD control device. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to “the determining whether to activate or deactivate an alert to wear an ESD control device includes determining to deactivate the alert to wear an ESD control device in response to detecting an ESD control device RFID tag is present on an area on which the ESD control device is to be worn on the person; and the activating or deactivating the alert based on the determination includes deactivating the alert in response to the determination”, these features are taught by Mallian as outlined above in the Office Action. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s remarks concerning claim 19, they are addressed as outlined above. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 BRIAN WILSON whose telephone number is 571-270-5884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, DAVETTA GOINS can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/BRIAN WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689