DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 29 September 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the travel case" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what travel case is intended, as well as if the travel case is required. For this reason, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the travel case is not positively required.
Claims 2-12 are rejected as depending from claim 1 and therefore incorporating the indefinite scope.
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) 1-7 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giacoletto et al. (US 9,241,248 B2)(Giacoletto) in view of Wang (CN 109243142 A).
Giacoletto discloses a mobile device (102/202) comprising, at least one of a cell phone and a tablet computer having an output signal, having, a locator beacon (noting the function of the device acts as a locator beacon in response to sensor inputs, automatically, and Col. 3; Ll. 22-34), including a communications transmitter capable of signaling a remote party and a geo-locating apparatus, sensors producing sensor outputs indicative of plural environmental parameters of the mobile device, the sensors including at least two from a list including an altimeter, an accelerometer, a magnetometer, and a microphone (Col. 6; Ll. 45-58); and a processor (Col. 6; Ll. 45-50) having outputs for communication (Col. 17; Ll. 34-41) with the locator beacon including a locator beacon trigger and a signal capable of communicating (Col. 8; Ll. 54-61) with an inflator through a processor output, the processor combining the sensor outputs to apply to the processor output a trigger signal causing the locator beacon and the inflator to operate automatically responsive to plural environmental parameters of the travel case indicative of a catastrophic event during air travel.
To the degree that it can be argued that Giacoletto does not specifically disclose positively having an inflator trigger output capable when in communication with the inflator of triggering the inflator, the processor combining the sensor outputs to apply to the inflator trigger output an inflator trigger signal capable of causing the inflator to operate, the inflator trigger signal being generated by the processor.
Wang demonstrates a device having an inflator (11/27) and a mobile device (20) remote from the inflator as well as a processor (23) that processes inputs from at least one sensor (30) and creating an inflator trigger output causing the inflator to operate (Page 5, 3rd paragraph of the translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Giacoletto and have the processor create and send a controlling signal to an inflator to allow the device to cause a device to inflate in a case of an emergency in order to help avoid adverse effects from said emergency as demonstrated by Wang.
Regarding claims 2-3, modified Giacoletto discloses one of the sensors is the accelerometer, and the processor determines a catastrophic event responsive to sudden changes in accelerometer output (Col. 6-7, Ll. 59-10) consistent with changes in vehicle motion preceding and during a catastrophic failure of the vehicle, wherein the sudden changes in accelerometer output include sudden changes in a rate of change of accelerometer output consistent with an abnormal change in an aircraft performance parameter.
Regarding claims 4, modified Giacoletto discloses one of the sensors is the microphone (Col. 8; Ll. 42-53), and the processor determines a catastrophic event further responsive to microphone sound output consistent with environmental and travel conditions causing uncontrolled movement of the vehicle.
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Giacoletto discloses one of the sensors is the magnetometer (Col. 6; Ll. 45-58), and the processor determines a catastrophic event further responsive to sudden changes in a rate of change of magnetometer output wherein one of the sensors is the magnetometer, and the processor determines a catastrophic event responsive to sudden changes in magnetometer output.
Regarding claim 7, modified Giacoletto discloses one of the sensors is the microphone (Col. 8; Ll. 42-53), and the processor determines a catastrophic event further responsive to microphone sound output.
Regarding claim 10-12, modified Giacoletto discloses a device including a locator beacon that includes at least one component communicating over channels incorporated in the mobile device, as well as the capability to send a signal via a SARS satellite radio link and a terrestrial radio link (Col. 10-11; Ll. 21-6) and includes the inflator (taught by Wang) as well as output signals controlling the inflator, and communication links.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giacoletto et al. (US 9,241,248 B2)(Giacoletto) in view of Wang (CN 109243142 A) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Russ et al. (US 2016/0094953 A1)(Russ).
Regarding claims 8-9, modified Giacoletto does not specifically disclose one of the sensors is the altimeter, and the processor determines a catastrophic event responsive to changes in altimeter output consistent with an uncontrolled descent.
Russ teaches an emergency signaling device including a mobile device 10 including an altimeter to trigger an event based on rapid downward acceleration (Paragraph 0019).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the mobile device of modified Giacoletto and use the teaching of Russ and include an altimeter to further aid in the detection of an emergency situation (i.e., falling directly downward an unexpected amount) thereby helping to gather additional data have more accurate emergency event triggers and help reduce the chances of false triggers.
Regarding claim 9, modified Giacoletto discloses the sudden changes in altimeter output include changes in a rate of change of altimeter output consistent with an uncontrolled descent, and is silent with respect to an ascent. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the device trigger by rapid ascent or rapid decent because such a change would have required the mere choice of a finite options and would have been obvious to try.
Alternatively, Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giacoletto et al. (US 9,241,248 B2)(Giacoletto) in view of McGlynn et al. (US 20200340268 A1)(McGlynn).
Giacoletto discloses a mobile device (102/202) comprising, at least one of a cell phone and a tablet computer having an output signal, having, a locator beacon (noting the function of the device acts as a locator beacon in response to sensor inputs, automatically, and Col. 3; Ll. 22-34), including a communications transmitter capable of signaling a remote party and a geo-locating apparatus, sensors producing sensor outputs indicative of plural environmental parameters of the mobile device, the sensors including at least two from a list including an altimeter, an accelerometer, a magnetometer, and a microphone (Col. 6; Ll. 45-58); and a processor (Col. 6; Ll. 45-50) having outputs for communication (Col. 17; Ll. 34-41) with the locator beacon including a locator beacon trigger and a signal capable of communicating (Col. 8; Ll. 54-61) with an inflator through a processor output, the processor combining the sensor outputs to apply to the processor output a trigger signal causing the locator beacon and the inflator to operate automatically responsive to plural environmental parameters of the travel case indicative of a catastrophic event during air travel.
To the degree that it can be argued that Giacoletto does not specifically disclose positively having an inflator trigger output capable when in communication with the inflator of triggering the inflator, the processor combining the sensor outputs to apply to the inflator trigger output an inflator trigger signal capable of causing the inflator to operate, the inflator trigger signal being generated by the processor.
McGlynn discloses a system for use in an emergency including a seismic detection device including a smartphone (Paragraph 0011) the detection device sending a trigger signal that triggers an inflator, causing the inflator to operate (Paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Giacoletto and have the processor create and send a controlling signal to an inflator to allow the device to cause a device to inflate in a case of an emergency in order to help avoid adverse effects from said emergency as demonstrated by McGlynn.
Regarding claims 2-3, modified Giacoletto discloses one of the sensors is the accelerometer, and the processor determines a catastrophic event responsive to sudden changes in accelerometer output (Col. 6-7, Ll. 59-10) consistent with changes in vehicle motion preceding and during a catastrophic failure of the vehicle, wherein the sudden changes in accelerometer output include sudden changes in a rate of change of accelerometer output consistent with an abnormal change in an aircraft performance parameter.
Regarding claims 4, modified Giacoletto discloses one of the sensors is the microphone (Col. 8; Ll. 42-53), and the processor determines a catastrophic event further responsive to microphone sound output consistent with environmental and travel conditions causing uncontrolled movement of the vehicle.
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Giacoletto discloses one of the sensors is the magnetometer (Col. 6; Ll. 45-58), and the processor determines a catastrophic event further responsive to sudden changes in a rate of change of magnetometer output wherein one of the sensors is the magnetometer, and the processor determines a catastrophic event responsive to sudden changes in magnetometer output.
Regarding claim 7, modified Giacoletto discloses one of the sensors is the microphone (Col. 8; Ll. 42-53), and the processor determines a catastrophic event further responsive to microphone sound output.
Regarding claim 10-12, modified Giacoletto discloses a device including a locator beacon that includes at least one component communicating over channels incorporated in the mobile device, as well as the capability to send a signal via a SARS satellite radio link and a terrestrial radio link (Col. 10-11; Ll. 21-6) and includes the inflator (taught by Wang) as well as output signals controlling the inflator, and communication links.
Alternatively, Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giacoletto et al. (US 9,241,248 B2)(Giacoletto) in view of McGlynn et al. (US 20200340268 A1)(McGlynn) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Russ et al. (US 2016/0094953 A1)(Russ).
Regarding claims 8-9, modified Giacoletto does not specifically disclose one of the sensors is the altimeter, and the processor determines a catastrophic event responsive to changes in altimeter output consistent with an uncontrolled descent.
Russ teaches an emergency signaling device including a mobile device 10 including an altimeter to trigger an event based on rapid downward acceleration (Paragraph 0019).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the mobile device of modified Giacoletto and use the teaching of Russ and include an altimeter to further aid in the detection of an emergency situation (i.e., falling directly downward an unexpected amount) thereby helping to gather additional data have more accurate emergency event triggers and help reduce the chances of false triggers.
Regarding claim 9, modified Giacoletto discloses the sudden changes in altimeter output include changes in a rate of change of altimeter output consistent with an uncontrolled descent, and is silent with respect to an ascent. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the device trigger by rapid ascent or rapid decent because such a change would have required the mere choice of a finite options and would have been obvious to try.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because in view of the new grounds of rejection.
It is noted that Giacoletto is considered to positively teach a beacon triggering signal as the sensors provide information to the processor and the transmitter that communicates with other devices is considered a locator beacon as it relays location information therefrom. Wang and McGlynn are individually relied on to teach the ability of a remote device sending a trigging signal to an inflator in the case of an emergency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T THEIS whose telephone number is 571-270-5700. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday - Thursday.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734