Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claims 1 and 12, the applicant argues that Hug (US-7,949,877) does not teach an API included in the handheld device and that establishes a direct communication link between the handheld device and the third party server. The applicant also argues that Hug does not teach that the handheld device transmits analyzed data directly to the third party server via the established communication link. Furthermore, the applicant argues that Hug does not teach a responder information system, a handheld device receiving data from safety devices, and analyzing the data at the handheld device [See applicant’s arguments pages 6-7 section A]. The applicant further argues that Hug teaches a generic API, and does not teach the aforementioned limitations that require an API in the handheld device that receives and analyzed data from safety devices to establish a direct communication link with a third party server [see applicant’s arguments pg. 7 section B, pg. 8-9 section D and E]. Also, the applicant argues that the examiner has not provided a reasoned motivation to combine Hug with the other references in the rejection [see applicant’s arguments pg. 8 section C].
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The applicant appears to be reading the Hug reference individually and not as a combination as required in a 103 rejection because the applicant discusses the Hug reference without taking into account what the other references in the rejection teach. The examiner agrees with the applicant that the Hug reference does not teach a handheld device that receives data from safety devices and analyzes the received data. However, the applicant appears to ignore the fact MR et al (US-10,055,971), which was part of the rejection, teaches the claimed handheld device performing the aforementioned functions [see MR fig. 1, col. 6 L. 31-35]. The examiner also agrees with the applicant that Hug does not teach that he handheld device transmits the analyzed to a third party server by establishing a direct link between the handheld device and the third party server. However, the applicant appears to ignore the fact that the combination of MR in view of Hall et al. (US-11,883,159) and Khanuja et al. (US-7,448,996) teaches that the handheld device can transmit the analyzed data to a server via a direct communication link [see Hall fig. 2 element 102, col. 7 L. 55-58, col. 10 L. 50-58, col. 11 L. 25-29, see Khanuja col. 5 L. 36-40 and L. 49-55]. Furthermore, Kristensen et al. (US-12,372,683), which was part of the rejection, teaches that the server can be a third party server [see Kristensen col. 52 L. 34-36]. Therefore, the prior art used in the rejection of claims 1 and 12 teaches a handheld device that receives and analyzes data from safety devices, and that transmits the analyzed data to a third party server via an established direct communication link between the handheld device and the third party server. The only limitation that the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja and Kristensen does not teach is that the communication link can be established using a API of the handheld device. However, the Hug reference clearly teaches that an API located in a device can be used to establish a communication link between the device and the server [see Hug col. 1 L. 50-56]. The fact that Hug does not teach that the communication link is a direct communication link, that the device is a handheld device receiving safety device data or that the server is a third party server is irrelevant because the other prior art used in the rejection, as shown above, teaches those limitations. The Hug reference was only used to show that an API of a device can be used to establish a link between the device and a server. Therefore, the combination of references used in the rejection of claims 1 and 12 teaches all the argued limitations. In regards to the applicant’s arguments that the examiner has not provided a reason to combine the Hug reference with the other references used in the rejection, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the examiner explicitly stated that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have used Hug’s teachings in the method and system taught by the other references because it will permit the handheld device to transmit data to the server in a secure manner. For the reasons provided above, the applicant arguments are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 24, the applicant argues that Cohen et al. (US-9,730,621) does not teach a third party server transmitting an information request signal because Cohen only teaches the generalized request-response transfer concept, and it is silent about the transmission of analyzed responder related data to a third party server in response to a request signal from the third party server [see applicant’s arguments pg. 11].
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Again, the applicant appears to be reading the prior art individually and not as a combination because the applicant only discusses the Cohen reference without taking into account the other prior art used in the rejection. As explained in the response to the arguments for claims 1 and 12 above, The prior art used in the rejection of claims 1 and 12 teaches a handheld device that receives and analyzes data from safety devices, and that transmits the analyzed data to a third party server via an established direct communication link between the handheld device and the third party server. The only limitation that the combination of MR, Hall, Khanuja and Kristensen does not teach is that the computing device transmits requested data when the server sends a request. Cohen clearly teaches that a server can send a request, and that the computing device receiving the request transmits the requested data [col. 10 L. 64-67, col. 11 L. 1-5]. The fact that Cohen does not teach that the server is a third party server or that the requested data is responder related data is irrelevant because the other prior art, as shown above, already teaches that the server can be a third party server and that the data transmitted in the system is responder related data. The Cohen reference was only used to show the general concept that in a system comprising a computing device and a server, the computing device can transit requested data when a data request is received from the server. Furthermore, 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. For the reasons provided above, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Objections
Claim(s) 30 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 30, the claim recites in line 1 “The method of claim 12”. In order to maintain consistency of the claim language with the claim language of the other claims, line 1 of claim 30 should recite “The computer-implemented method [[of]] as defined in claim 12”. For this reason, the claim is objected. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 12-16, 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 handheld computing device and the server system communicate via a direct communication link [see Khanuja col. 5 L. 36-40 and L. 49-55], and that the handheld device transmits the analyzed data to the server [see Hall col. 7 L. 55-58, col. 10 L. 50-58, col. 11 L. 25-29]. This teaching means that the system comprises means to establish the direct communication link between the handheld computing device and the server system, wherein the handheld device is configured to transmit the at least a portion of the analyzed data directly to at least one server of the server system via the established direct communication link. 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 an 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. Also, Hug teaches that the application programming interface (API) is included in the computing device [see Hug col. 1 L. 50-56].
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 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 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
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