Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 1, the applicant argues that even though Hall et al. (US-11,883,159), which was part of the rejection, teaches the transmission of analyzed data, Hall does not teach that the analyzed data is transmitted by a handheld device [see applicant’s arguments pg. 7 L. 1-5]. The applicant argues that Hall teaches a stationary platform that perform the analysis of data, and it does not teach migrating that functionality to a handheld device [see applicant’s arguments pg. 7 L. 6-14]. Also, the applicant argues that it would be redundant to analyze the data at the handheld device because MR et al. (US-10,055,971), which was part of the rejection, teaches that the handheld device transmits raw data for analysis at the server [see applicant’s arguments pg. 7 L. 15-20]. Furthermore, the applicant argues that the other prior art in the rejection does not teach the argued limitations [see applicant’s arguments pg. 7 L. 21-26].
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The applicant appears to be reading each prior art in the rejection individually, and not as a combination. First of all, the MR reference was used to show in general the environment of the claimed invention which comprises a handheld device analyzing data generated by a safety device, and communicating data related to the generated data to a server [see MR col. 6 L. 31-35 L. 39-42 and L. 60-66, col. 8 L. 24-23]. The examiner recognized that MR does not teach the transmission of analyzed data to the server, and introduced Hall to show that a computing device that receives data from a first device and analyzes the received data can transmit the analyzed data to the server [see Hall fig. 2 element 102, col. 7 L. 55-58, col. 10 L. 50-58, col. 11 L. 25-29]. Hall was not used in the rejection to show that the computing device is a handheld device because MR already teaches that a handheld device can be used to perform those functions. Hall was only used to show that the computing device can transmit the analyzed data to a server. Therefore, the combination of MR and Hall teaches that a computing device, which can be a handheld device as taught by MR, can receive data from a first device, analyze the received data and transmit the analyzed data to a server. Furthermore, it is not necessary that the Hall’s teachings explain how to migrate that functionally to a handheld device because the MR reference already teaches that a handheld device can receive data from a first device, analyze the received data and communicate with a server. Also, applicant’s arguments that implementing Hall’s teachings would create unnecessary redundancy are not true because it is inherent that a server has more processing power than a handheld device, and the transmission of analyzed data to the server from the handheld device would not only permit the handheld device to display results of the analysis locally without server intervention, but it will also permit the server to verify the results of the analysis performed by the handheld device and to further analyze the analyzed data to obtain more accurate results regarding the state of the responder. For the reasons provided above, the applicant arguments are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that MR’s and Hall’s teachings are incompatible with the claimed direct to third party path because it would require a whole sale re-architecture [see applicant’s arguments pg. 8 L. 1-9]. Also, the applicant argues that implementing a direct path to a third party server from a handheld device require privacy and regulatory controls that the cited prior art does not teach how to implement [see applicant’s arguments pg. 8 L. 10-20]. The applicant further argues that implementing a direct path to a third party server would undermine MR’s safety design [pg. 8 L. 21-27]. Furthermore, the applicant argues that the API and direct link taught by the cited prior art does not resolve the constraints of establishing a direct link between a handheld device and a third party server [pg. 8 L. 28-31, pg. 9 L. 1-5].
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The applicant appears to interpret the claimed third party server as a special type of server that is different than a regular server. The third party server is no different than any regular server. The only difference between a regular server and a third party server is the entity that manages the server. Therefore, data communication with a third party server have same safety constraints than data communication with a regular server because it is inherent that the third party server is a server that is managed by a trusted third party. For this reason, any communication technology, any communication protocol and any safety communication procedures that are applied for communication with a regular server can be applied for communication with a third party server. Applicant’s arguments regarding that direct communication with a third party server would require a whole sale re-architecture of MR’s system are not persuasive because as explained above, a regular server and a third party server are not different from each other and will function in the same manner. Applicant’s arguments regarding that a direct communication with a third party would require special privacy and regulatory controls and would undermine MR’s safety design are nor persuasive because as explained above, data communication with a third party server have same safety constraints than data communication with a regular server since the third party is party that is trusted party. Furthermore, applicant’s arguments that the API and direct link taught by the cited prior art does not resolve the constraints of establishing a direct link between a handheld device and a third party server are not persuasive because as explained above, any communication technology, any communication protocol and any safety communication procedures that are applied for communication with a regular server can be applied for communication with a third party server since both servers have the same functionality. This is implied by Kristensen et al. (US-12,372,683) which was part of the rejection and teaches that a server for a sensor system can be cloud processing platform or other third party server associated with the user [see Kristensen col. 52 L. 34-36]. For the reasons presented above, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 31, the claim recites in line 1 “The method of claim 1”. Claim 1 does not recite a method. Therefore, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation of line 1. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted line 1 in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “The computer-implemented method as defined in claim 12”
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 12-16, 18, 23, 26-28 and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MR et al. (US-10,055,971) in view of Hall et al. (US-11,883,159), Khanuja et al. (US-7,448,996), Hug (7,949,877) and Kristensen et al. (US-12,372,683).
In regards to claim 1, MR teaches a system comprising at least one safety device configured to generate data [fig. 1 element 120-129, fig. 3 step 302, col. 1 L. 59-61]. Also, MR teaches that the system comprises a handheld computing device communicably coupled to the at least one safety device [fig. 1 element 102, fig. 3 element 302, col. 1 L. 59-61, col. 5 L. 39-46, col. 6 L. 31-35]. Furthermore, MR teaches that the handheld computing device is configured to receive the generated data [col. 6 L. 31-35].
MR teaches that the handheld computing device is configured to analyze the data to generate analyzed data and to transmit the generated data to a server system comprising at least one server [col. 6 L. 31-35, L. 39-42 and L. 60-66, col. 8 L. 24-33]. However, MR does not teach that the computing device transmits the analyzed data. MR also does not teach that the at least one server determine responder information based on the analyzed data.
On other hand, Hall teaches that a computing device configured to receive and analyze data generated data by other device can transmit the analyzed data to the server system [fig. 2 element 102 (computing device), col. 7 L. 55-58, col. 10 L. 50-58, col. 11 L. 25-29]. Also, Hall teaches that the server system comprises at least one server configured to determine user information based on analyzed data received from the computing device [col. 9 L. 9-11 and L. 14-21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Hall’s teachings of transmitting the analyzed data to the server system in the system taught by MR because it will permit the server system to know how the computing device arrived to its conclusion regarding the generated data and to further analyze the data to detect an state of the responder.
The combination of MR and Hall teach that the analyzed data is transmitted to the server system via a communication link [see Hall col. 11 L. 25-29]. However, the combination does not teach that the communication link is a direct communication link. The combination also does not teaches that the at least one server is configured to transmit the responder information to one or more display devices.
On the other hand, Khanuja teaches that a computing device in charge of communications between the device generating the data and the server system can communicate with the server system via a direct communication link [col. 5 L. 36-40 and L. 49-55]. Also, Khanuja teaches that the at least one server permits authorized people to view data belonging to a user [fig. 2 elements 58 and 60]. This teaching means that the at least one server is configured to transmit the user information to one or more display devices for display.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Khanuja’s teachings of having a direct communication link between the computing device and the server system and of permitting access to view the user information in the system taught by MR because it will permit to transmit the analyzed data from the computing device to the server system without establishing a network that will increase the cost of the system and to permit authorized users to view user/responder information.
The combination of MR, Hall and Khanuja teaches that the computing device and the server system communicate via a direct communication link [see Khanuja col. 5 L. 36-40 and L. 49-55]. This teaching means that the system comprises means to establish the direct communication link between the computing device and the server system. However, the combination does not teach that the means to establish the communication link is and API.
On the other hand, Hug teaches that it is well known in the art that and API can be used to establish a communication link between a device and a server [col. 1 L. 50-56]. This teaching means that the system comprises an API for establishing the communication link between the device which in the case of the combination is a handheld computing device and the server system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Hug’s teachings of establishing communication between a computing device and a server using an API in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the computing device to transmit the analyzed sensor data to the third party server/system in a secure manner.
The combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja and Hug teaches that the system comprises a server system comprising at least one server performing the claimed functions [see MR fig. 1 element 140, see Hall col. 9 L. 9-11 and L. 14-21, see Khanuja fig. 2 elements 58 and 60]. However, the combination does not teach that the server system is a third party system.
On the other hand, Kristensen teaches that the functions of a server for a sensor system can be implemented using a third party server [col. 52 L. 34-36]. This teaching means that the server system is a third party server system comprising at least one third party server.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Kristensen’s teachings of using a third party server as the server of the system in the system taught by the combination because it will permit to reduce the cost of the system since a new server does not need to be implemented.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja, Hug and Kristensen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the at least one safety device corresponds to at least one responder [see MR col. 6 L. 9-14].
In regards to claim 3, the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja, Hug and Kristensen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the at least one safety device comprises personal protective equipment (PPE) [see MR fig. 1 elements 120-129, col. 5 L. 39-51].
In regards to claim 4, the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja, Hug and Kristensen, as applied in the rejection of claim 3 above, further teaches that the personal protective equipment comprises a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) [see MR fig. 1 element 122].
In regards to claim 5, the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja, Hug and Kristensen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the at least one safety device comprises at least one sensor configured to generate sensor data [see MR col. 4 L. 23-30, col. 6 L. 9-14].
In regards to claim 6, the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja, Hug and Kristensen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the computing device is communicably coupled with the at least one safety device via at least one communication channel [see MR fig. 1, col. 6 L. 9-14, col. 6 L. 31-35].
In regards to claim 8, the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja, Hug and Kristensen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the application programming interface (API) is included in the computing device [see Hug col. 1 L. 50-56].
In regards to claim 12, the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja, Hug and Kristensen, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches a system performing the claimed functions. Therefore, the combination also teaches the claimed computer implemented method.
In regards to claim 13, the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja, Hug and Kristensen, as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 14, the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja, Hug and Kristensen, as shown in the rejection of claim 3 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 15, the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja, Hug and Kristensen, as shown in the rejection of claim 4 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 16, the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja, Hug and Kristensen, as shown in the rejection of claim 5 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 18, the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja, Hug and Kristensen, as shown in the rejection of claim 8 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 23, the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja, Hug and Kristensen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the generated data comprises environmental conditions data, physiological conditions data and location data [see MR col. 4 L. 23-32, col. 5 L. 52-66, col. 6 L. 9-14 and L. 22-30]. The combination does not explicitly teach that the data is selected from the group consisting of the claimed type of data. However, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have selected the data from the claimed group because it will permit the system to monitor the responder in an efficient and detailed manner.
In regards to claim 26, the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja, Hug and Kristensen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the computing device transmits the analyzed data to the server system [see Hall col. 7 L. 55-58, col. 10 L. 50-58, col. 11 L. 25-29]. Furthermore, the combination teaches that when data from a plurality of safety devices is transmitted from the computing device to the server system, the data of the plurality of device can be combined [see MR col. 7 L. 22-29, col. 8 L. 16-18, col. 9 L. 64-67]. This teaching means that the computing device is configured to merge the data to be transmitted from multiple safety devices, which in the case of the combination is analyzed data, prior to transmitting the portion of the analyzed data to the at least one server.
In regards to claim 27, the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja, Hug and Kristensen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the handheld computing device is configured to generate an alert when at least one value of the generated analyzed data crosses a corresponding threshold [see MR col. 8 L. 24-31 and L. 39-46] and to transmit at least a portion of the analyzed data and the alert to the third party system [see Hall col. 7 L. 55-58, col. 10 L. 50-58, col. 11 L. 25-29].
In regards to claim 28, the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja, Hug and Kristensen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the computing device and the server system communicate via a direct communication link [see Khanuja col. 5 L. 49-55]. This teaching means that the handheld computing device is configured to transmit the analyzed sensor data without requiring that the analyzed sensor data be routed through a separate local computing.
In regards to claim 30, the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja, Hug and Kristensen, as shown in the rejection of claim 27 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 31, the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja, Hug and Kristensen, as applied in the rejection of claim 12 above, further teaches that the method comprises analyzing the sensor data comprises processing the sensor data, via the computing device, to transform the sensor data into an analyzed sensor data that is derived from the sensor data and indicative of at least one of environmental conditions, physiological conditions, location data, or safety-device parameters associated with the responder [see MR col. 4 L. 23-32, col. 5 L. 52-66, col. 6 L. 9-14, L. 22-35, L. 39-42 and L. 60-66, col. 8 L. 24-33]
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MR et al. (US-10,055,971) in view of Hall et al. (US-11,883,159), Khanuja et al. (US-7,448,996), Hug (7,949,877) and Kristensen et al. (US-12,372,683) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Cohen et al. (US-9,730,621).
In regards to claim 24, the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja, Hug and Kristensen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the computing device is configured to transmit the portion of the analyzed data to the at least one third party server [see Hall col. 7 L. 55-58, col. 10 L. 50-58, col. 11 L. 25-29]. However, the combination does not teach that the data is transmitted in response to a request sent by the server.
On the other hand, Cohen teaches that a computing device can transmit data in response to a request transmitted from the server [col. 10 L. 64-67, col. 11. L. 1-5]. This teaching means that the server is configured to transmit an information request signal to the computing device, and wherein the computing device is configured to transmit the requested data to the server in response to the information request signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Cohen’s teachings of transmitting data to the server in response to a request in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the computing device to transmit the analyzed data only when the server needs it thereby using less communication resources when transmitting the analyzed data.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MR et al. (US-10,055,971) in view of Hall et al. (US-11,883,159), Khanuja et al. (US-7,448,996), Hug (7,949,877), Kristensen et al. (US-12,372,683) and Cohen et al. (US-9,730,621) as applied to claim(s) 24 above, and further in view of Herrington et al. (US-10,482,471).
In regards to claim 25, the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja, Hug1 Kristensen and Cohen, as applied in the rejection of claim 24 above, further teaches that the server transmits information request signals to obtain data from the computing device [see Cohen col. 10 L. 64-67, col. 11. L. 1-5]. However, the combination does not teach that the system charges responder information fees based on the number of transmitted information request signals within a predetermined period of time.
On the other hand, Herrington teaches that a system can charge a fee based on the number of submitted requests (request signals) within a predetermined period of time [col. 29 L. 54-57].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Herrington’s teachings of charging a fee based on the number of requests in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the system to make a profit, and to motivate customers to request responder information only when its needed.
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 FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights