DETAILED ACTION
America Invents Act
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 USC §119(a)-(d) and , 35 USC §371, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
This application, filed 3-May-2024, is a national stage entry of WIPO/PCT application PCT/IB2022/050010, filed 3-January-2022.
This application also claims priority from application IN 202141055695, filed 1-December-2021.
This application is therefore accorded a prima facie effective filing date of 1-December-2021
Claim Objections
Objection is made to claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12 and 13 because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites: “A crime prevention, monitoring and alerting device….” [line 1] comprising multiple independent devices (personal protection device, central server) and is more correctly categorized as a system.
Claim 1 recites: “required flow rate” [line 9], “loud sound” [line 16], “central serval“ [line 19], “of crime“ [line 24, 25, 29], “with geo location“ [line 26], “from communication channel“ [line 34], “receive request“ [line 41] and “identify safest route“ [line 41], all of which lack definite or indefinite articles.
Claim 1 recites: “central serval“ [line 19], which appears to be a misspelling, and assumed to be “central server”.
Claim 2 recites: “…. the audio-visual capturing device….” [line 3], presented in the base claim as an audio-visual capturing module.
Claim 3 recites: “…. and deactivate spray.” [line 3-4], which lacks a definite or indefinite article.
Claim 5 recites: “…. The plurality of sensor….” [line 1], which should be presented as plural.
Claim 6 recites: “…. Generates loud sound….” [line 1], which lacks a definite or indefinite article.
Claim 8 recites: “central serval“ [line 20], which appears to be a misspelling, and assumed to be “central server”.
Claim 8 recites: “required flow rate” [line 10], “loud sound” [line 15], “central serval“ [line 20], “of crime“ [line 25, 26, 31], “with geo location“ [line 27], “presence of security group” [line 35], “from communication channel“ [line 36], “informing security group” [line 39], “receive request“ [line 43] and “safest route“ [line 43, 44], all of which lack definite or indefinite articles.
Claim 8 recites: “configuring….so as to:” [line15, 16] followed by “regulating” [line 17] properly expressed as “regulate”. See also “sending” [line 19, 44], “generating” [line 22], “verifying” [line 25], “categorizing” [line 26], “tagging”, [line 27], “attaching” [line 28], “identifying” [line 31, 33, 41], “informing” [line 39] and “receiving” [line 43].
Claim 9 recites: “…. the audio-visual capturing device….” [line 3], presented in the base claim as an audio-visual capturing module.
Claim 10 recites: “…. and deactivate spray.” [line 4], which lacks a definite or indefinite article.
Claim 12 recites: “…. the plurality of sensor….” [line 1], which should be presented as plural.
Claim 13 recites: “…. generates loud sound….” [line 1], which lacks a definite or indefinite article.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 USC §112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC §112(a), as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention:
Consider independent claim 1: The claim includes a plurality of features and capabilities for which the specification provides little more than a list of the features and without virtually now explanation of the structures, methods and/or parameters by which they are achieved. A non-exhaustive list of these capabilities include:
For the personal protection device:
Calculation of a required spray flow rate and regulation thereof: [Fig. 3; Para. 0010-0011, 0022, 0028, 0030]
Refill of a spray ampule unit: [Fig. 1-2; Para. 0024-0025, 0044-0045]
For the central server:
Verification of crime validity: [Fig. 3; Para. 0037, 0074]
Categorization of crime type: [Fig. 3; Para. 0037-0038, 0074-0075]
Determination of crime intensity [Fig. 3; Para. 0038-0039, 0075-0076]
Identification of persons present [no specific disclosure]
Determination of presence of a security group [Fig. 3; Para. 0039-0040, 0076-0077]
Determination and evaluation of route safety [Fig. 3; Para. 0039-0040, 0076-0077]
The specification provides little or no guidance on how these features are implemented in the invention, and would not allow one of ordinary skill in the art to practice or use the claimed invention.
Consider claims 2-7: These claims are rejected, at least because each depends from a rejected claim.
Consider independent claim 8: This claim recites features equivalent to those for claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claims 9-14: These claims are rejected, at least because each depends from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC §112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: “a central server” [line 22], wherein a central server has been previously introduced [line19] and where it is unclear whether these are the same element, rendering the limitation and claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites: “and notify about….” [line 39] where the intended recipient is unclear.
Claims 2-7 are rejected, at least because each depends from a rejected claim.
Claim 8 recites: “…the push button;” [line 7] where a push button has no specific antecedent. This will be assumed to be “the button” [line 5]. The claim similarly recites “…the personal device….” [line 9] where “a personal protection device was previously recited.
Claim 8 recites: “a central server” [line 23], wherein a central server has been previously introduced [line19] and where it is unclear whether these are the same element, rendering the limitation and claim indefinite.
Claim 8 recites: “and notify about….” [line 41] where the intended recipient is unclear.
Claims 9 and 10 as presented depend from claim 1, but are presented as process steps, but where these replicate the limitations of claims 2 and 3, and where the base claim is not directed to a method. It is assumed by the Examiner that it was intended that these depend from claim 9.
Claims 11-14 as presented depend from claim 1, but are duplicates of claims 4-7. It is assumed by the Examiner that it was intended that these depend from claim 9.
Claims 9-14 are rejected, at least because each depends from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC §102 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 USC §102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC §102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over DiPerna et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # (US 2013/0337875 A1), hereinafter DiPerna, in view of Langner et al. (WIPO/PCT International Patent Application Publication # WO 2021/090234 A1), hereinafter Langner, Shah et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # (US 2017/0229004 A1), hereinafter Shah, and Jafri et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2021/0407273 A1), herein Jafri.
Consider claim 1: A crime prevention, monitoring and alerting device, wherein the crime prevention, monitoring and alerting device, DiPerna discloses an emergency personal protection system integrated with a mobile device [Title Abstract; Fig. 1 (A-E); Para. 0003, 0014-0016]; is characterized by:
a personal protection device, a self-defense device which may be attached to, or integrated into, a mobile phone [Fig. 1; Para. 0033-35], wherein the personal protection device comprises:
a refillable ampule unit with a button configured to carry a human irritant chemical so that the refillable ampule unit sprays the human irritant chemical on an attacker with a push of the push button; wherein the device may comprise a self-defense mechanism, such as a refillable vial of pepper spray (14, 16) which may be activated by a panic (20) button [Fig. 1; Para. 0034-0035, 0046];
a plurality of sensors configured to detect behavioral changes, movement rate, distance of the attacker and geo location of the personal device so as to calculate required flow rate of spray of the human irritant chemical; wherein device location may be determined by a GPS or other sensor [Para. 0041];
an audio-visual capturing module configured to capture images, audios and videos; a camera (22) capturing audio and image data [Para. 0023, 0025, 0027, 0035];
a storage device configured to store output of the audio-visual capturing module; wherein images may be communicated using a store-and forward system [Para. 0039];
a sound unit configured to generate loud sound; a speaker [Para. 0039];
a microcontroller configured to:
regulate flow of spray of the human irritant chemical at the rate calculated by the plurality of sensors;
send files stored in the storage device along with the geo-location of the personal protection device to central serval via a communication channel in real-time; wherein location, audio and image information may be automatically forwarded to authorities such as police and/or dispatch center [Para. 0035, 0039-0041]; and
generate sound through the sound unit; [Para. 0042];
a central server, wherein the central server comprises:
a machine learning unit configured to:
verify validity of crime;
categorize type of crime;
tag the crime with geo location;
attach files received from the storage device to the tagged crime;
an artificial intelligence unit configured to:
identify intensity of crime by evaluating category, attached files and output of the plurality of sensors;
identify if anyone else is at the geo location;
provide a safest route for a user based on time and presence of security group; and
send and receive information to and from communication channel; and
a communication unit configured to:
inform security group and emergency contacts about the crime, image of criminal, geo location and time; and
identify presence of anyone at the geo location and notify about the crime;
receive request to identify safest route by the user;
send the request to the artificial intelligence unit to provide safest route based on time, location, crime, presence of security group;
receive the safest route from the artificial intelligence unit; and
provide the safest route to the user.
DiPerna does not disclose a processor and sensors to monitor the movement and distance to an attacker, and to adjust the display of the repellant or irritant accordingly. This was known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Langer discloses an irritant display dispenser, and specifically to detect distance and motion of an attacker using one or more cameras and a processor, and to control or adjust a spray based on determined location and distance [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1; Page 2, 10 to Page 5, 6].
DiPerna discloses communication with, and forwarding of information to a remote site, but does not disclose activity at such remote site, but where this is also known in analogous prior art:
Shah discloses a wearable multi-sensory personal safety and tracking device [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-2; Para. 0031], wherein an emergency events of various types are determined [Para. 0035-0044, 20048-0048], receives location information, event information and audio/video information, evaluates and categorizes the information [Fig. 2], and based on the event type and information communicates information and alerts a rescue team and/or predetermined contacts [Fig. 2; Para. 0060-0062; claim 1-4].
Shah discloses that many functions are performed by the user device, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that these may be performed by the remote server as well, according to well-known principles of distributed computing, and in order to reduce complexity and cost of the user device.
Shah does not specifically disclose the determination of a route to the user, or the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) or machine learning tools to perform various tasks. These were well known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Jafri discloses a responder network [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1 A-B, 2 A-D; Para. 0002, 0009-0013], and particularly application to emergency networks and response to emergencies and in which an emergency is characterized [Para. 0174-0176]; wherein one or more responders may be identified based at least in part on their location and distance from the emergency and where maps may be provided as guides for users and responders [Fig; 2-3, 5A-C; Para. 0055-0061; 0116-0119]; and where various operations may be facilitated using Artificial Intelligence and machine learning tools and algorithms [Para. 0113, 0140].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention to for a multi-sensory personal safety tracking device include features including sensors and cameras to assess a threat, user condition, movement and location, and to communicate this information to an emergency network and server for characterization and assistance as taught by Shah; where the network and server may receive audio, video, position and sensor data to characterize the event, determine a response, alert users and responders according to the type of event, availability and proximity of responders, and tools and maps indicating appropriate paths to the event, using tools and algorithms including machine learning and artificial intelligence, as taught by Jafri; where the personal safety device provides a capability to spray a deterrent substance controlled based in part on a determined distance to a perpetrator as taught by Langer, and applied to an emergency personal protection system integrated with a mobile device as taught by DiPerna, in order to provide a comprehensive system to accurately assess, effectively deter, and provide timely assistance to a criminal attack.
Consider 2 and as applied to claim 1: The personal protection device as claimed in claim 1, wherein, the personal protection device comprises a power source so as to provide power to the plurality of sensors, the audio-visual capturing device, the storage device, the sound unit and the microcontroller. Shah discloses use of a battery to supply power in the protection device [Fig. 1, 2; Para. 0057-0058, 061-0062].
Consider 4 and as applied to claim 1: The crime prevention, monitoring and alerting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the crime prevention, monitoring and alerting device can be configured through a mobile application. DiPerna discloses the protection device may be attached to, or integrated in, a mobile phone, and may be configured by the user [Fig. 1A-E: Para. 0041-0045].
Consider 5 and as applied to claim 1: The plurality of sensors as claimed in claim 1, wherein, the plurality of sensor comprises sensors of a wearable device that can be configured to provide behavioral or health data to the microcontroller. Shah discloses a multi-sensory device capable of detecting a health emergency such a heart attack or trauma, and specific sensors for monitoring parameters such as pulse and voice quality [Fig. 1; Para. 0035-0048, 0055].
Consider 6 and as applied to claim 1: The sound unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein, the sound unit generates loud sound in case threat is not neutralized within a specific time.
DiPerna discloses a loud alert that may be activated by switch, or by separation from a lanyard [Para. 0011, 0042].
Shah, moreover discloses that the protection device may determine a potential emergency, and illuminate an LED to warn the user, and if not deactivated before a predetermined time period, that a siren will sound [Para. 0059].
Consider claim 8: A method to prevent, monitor and alert crime, DiPerna discloses an emergency personal protection system integrated with a mobile device, and method of its operation [Title Abstract; Fig. 1 (A-E); Para. 0003, 0014-0017]; wherein the method to prevent, monitor or alert crime is characterized by steps of:
configuring a personal protection device, comprising a self-defense device configured to be attached to, or integrated into, a mobile phone [Fig. 1; Para. 0033-35],wherein the personal protection device comprises steps of:
configuring a refillable ampule unit with a button so as to carry a human irritant chemical and spray the human irritant chemical on an attacker with a push of the push button; wherein the device is configured to comprise a self-defense mechanism, such as a refillable vial of pepper spray (14, 16) which may be activated by a panic (20) button [Fig. 1; Para. 0034-0035, 0046];
configuring a plurality of sensors so as to detect behavioral changes, movement rate, distance of the attacker and geo location of the personal device to calculate required flow rate of spray of the human irritant chemical; wherein the device may be configured such that location is determined by a GPS or other sensor [Para. 0041];
configuring an audio-visual capturing module so as to capture images, audios and videos; using a camera (22) for capturing audio and image data [Para. 0023, 0025, 0027, 0035];
configuring a storage device so as to store output of the audio-visual capturing module; configured to allow images to be communicated using a store-and forward system (storing for communication) [Para. 0039];
configuring a sound unit so as to generate loud sound; providing a speaker [Para. 0039];
configuring a microcontroller so as to regulating flow of spray of the human irritant chemical at the rate calculated by the plurality of sensors;
sending files stored in the storage device along with the geo-location of the personal protection device to central serval via a communication channel in real-time; wherein location, audio and image information may be automatically forwarded to authorities such as police and/or dispatch center [Para. 0035, 0039-0041]; and
generating sound through the sound unit; [Para. 0042];
setting a central server, wherein setting of the central server comprises steps of:
configuring a machine learning unit so as to:
verifying validity of crime;
categorizing type of crime;
tagging the crime with geo location;
attaching files received from the storage device to the tagged crime;
configuring an artificial intelligence unit so as to:
identifying intensity of crime by evaluating category, attached files and output of the plurality of sensors;
identifying if anyone else is at the geo location;
provide a safest route for a user based on time and presence of security group; and
sending and receiving information to and from communication channel; and
configuring a communication unit so as to:
informing security group and emergency contacts about the crime, image of criminal, geo location and time; and
identifying presence of anyone at the geo location and notify about the crime;
receiving request to identify safest route by the user;
sending the request to the artificial intelligence unit to provide safest route based on time, location, crime, presence of security group;
receiving the safest route from the artificial intelligence unit; and
providing the safest route to the user.
DiPerna does not disclose a processor and sensors to monitor the movement and distance to an attacker, and to adjust the display of the repellant or irritant accordingly. This was known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
DiPerna does not disclose a processor and sensors to monitor the movement and distance to an attacker, and to adjust the display of the repellant or irritant accordingly. This was known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Langer discloses an irritant display dispenser, and specifically to detect distance and motion of an attacker using one or more cameras and a processor, and to control or adjust a spray based on determined location and distance [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1; Page 2, 10 to Page 5, 6].
DiPerna discloses communication with, and forwarding of information to a remote site, but does not disclose activity at such remote site, but where this is also known in analogous prior art:
Shah discloses a wearable multi-sensory personal safety and tracking device and method of its operation [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-2; Para. 0031], wherein an emergency events of various types are determined [Para. 0035-0044, 20048-0048], receives location information, event information and audio/video information, evaluates and categorizes the information [Fig. 2], and based on the event type and information communicates information and alerts a rescue team and/or predetermined contacts [Fig. 2; Para. 0060-0062; claim 1-4].
Shah discloses that many functions are performed by the user device, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that these may be performed by the remote server as well, according to well-known principles of distributed computing, and in order to reduce complexity and cost of the user device.
Shah does not specifically disclose the determination of a route to the user, or the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) or machine learning tools to perform various tasks. These were well known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Jafri discloses a responder network and methods of operation [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1 A-B, 2 A-D; Para. 0002, 0009-0013], and particularly application to emergency networks and response to emergencies and in which an emergency is characterized [Para. 0174-0176]; wherein one or more responders may be identified based at least in part on their location and distance from the emergency and where maps may be provided as guides for users and responders [Fig; 2-3, 5A-C; Para. 0055-0061; 0116-0119]; and where various operations may be facilitated using Artificial Intelligence and machine learning tools and algorithms [Para. 0113, 0140].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention to for a multi-sensory personal safety tracking device include features including sensors and cameras to assess a threat, user condition, movement and location, and to communicate this information to an emergency network and server for characterization and assistance as taught by Shah; where the network and server may receive audio, video, position and sensor data to characterize the event, determine a response, alert users and responders according to the type of event, availability and proximity of responders, and tools and maps indicating appropriate paths to the event, using tools and algorithms including machine learning and artificial intelligence, as taught by Jafri; where the personal safety device provides a capability to spray a deterrent substance controlled based in part on a determined distance to a perpetrator as taught by Langer, and applied to an emergency personal protection system integrated with a mobile device, and methods of operation, as taught by DiPerna, in order to provide a comprehensive system to accurately assess, effectively deter, and provide timely assistance to a criminal attack.
Consider 9 and as applied to claim 1: The personal protection device as claimed in claim 1, wherein, the personal protection device comprises steps of configuring a power source so as to provide power to the plurality of sensors, the audio-visual capturing device, the storage device, the sound unit and the microcontroller. Shah discloses use of a battery to supply power in the protection device [Fig. 1, 2; Para. 0057-0058, 061-0062].
Consider 11 and as applied to claim 1: . The crime prevention, monitoring and alerting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein, the crime prevention, monitoring and alerting device can be configured through a mobile application. DiPerna discloses the protection device may be attached to, or integrated in, a mobile phone, and may be configured by the user [Fig. 1A-E: Para. 0041-0045].
Consider 12 and as applied to claim 1: The plurality of sensors as claimed in claim 1, wherein, the plurality of sensor comprises sensors of a wearable device that can be configured to provide behavioral or health data to the microcontroller. Shah discloses a multi-sensory device capable of detecting a health emergency such a heart attack or trauma, and specific sensors for monitoring parameters such as pulse and voice quality [Fig. 1; Para. 0035-0048, 0055].
Consider 13 and as applied to claim 1: The sound unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein, the sound unit generates loud sound in case threat is not neutralized within a specific time.
DiPerna discloses a loud alert that may be activated by switch, or by separation from a lanyard [Para. 0011, 0042].
Shah, moreover discloses that the protection device may determine a potential emergency, and illuminate an LED to warn the user, and if not deactivated before a predetermined time period, that a siren will sound [Para. 0059].
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over DiPerna et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # (US 2013/0337875 A1), hereinafter DiPerna, Langner et al. (WIPO/PCT International Patent Application Publication # WO 2021/090234 A1), hereinafter Langner, Shah et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # (US 2017/0229004 A1), hereinafter Shah, Jafri et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2021/0407273 A1), hereinafter Jafri, and further in view of Bowes (United States Patent # US 5,361,525).
Consider 3 and as applied to claim 1: The personal protection device as claimed in claim 1, wherein, the personal protection device comprises a chain with a sensor to carry the personal protection device configured to notify microcontroller in case of any damage in the chain and deactivate spray.
DiPerna discloses devices which may produce a loud alarm when activated by a button or separation of a strap [Para. 0011], but does not disclose inhibition or deactivation of an anti-attack spray based on such separation. Such devices are known in analogous art, however, and for example:
Bowes discloses a gun safety lock in which a lanyard (broadly a chain) attaches to the firearm and a user, and where firing of the weapon is disabled if the lanyard is disconnected [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-2; Col. 1, 52-62; Col. 2; 43-59].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to use a lanyard or strap connected to a user and a weapon, and to disable firing of the weapon if the lanyard connection is interrupted applied to an emergency personal protection system integrated with a mobile device as taught by DiPerna, as modified by Langner, Shah and Jafri, to prevent firing of the spray, in order to prevent an attacker from using the weapon against the user
Consider 10 and as applied to claim 1: The personal protection device as claimed in claim 1, wherein, the personal protection device comprises step of configuring a chain with a sensor to carry the personal protection device so as to notify microcontroller in case of any damage in the chain and to deactivate spray. This claim is rejected based on the same grounds, references, citations, and analysis as for claim 3 previously, and as applied to either claim 1 or claim 9.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over DiPerna et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # (US 2013/0337875 A1), hereinafter DiPerna, Langner et al. (WIPO/PCT International Patent Application Publication # WO 2021/090234 A1), hereinafter Langner, Shah et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # (US 2017/0229004 A1), hereinafter Shah, Jafri et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2021/0407273 A1), hereinafter Jafri, and further in view of King (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2019/0272733 A1).
Consider 7 and as applied to claim 1: The human irritant chemical as claimed in claim 1, wherein, the human irritant chemical comprises a fluorescent dye configured to mark the attacker for easy identification.
DiPerna discloses the use of spray containing dye, so as to identify an attacker [Para. 0016, 0020-0021], but does not specifically disclose a fluorescent dye. This is known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
King discloses a portable siren and emergency call device [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1A-C; Para. 0006-0007] and particularly the use of a fluorescent dye to identify an attacker [Fig. 6; Para. 0019, 0063].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to use a spray comprising a fluorescent dye to mark a perpetrator as taught by King, and applied to an emergency personal protection system integrated with a mobile device as taught by DiPerna, as modified by Langner, Shah and Jafri, in order to mark a perpetrator without his specific knowledge that he had been marked.
Consider 14 and as applied to claim 1: The human irritant chemical as claimed in claim 1, wherein, the human irritant chemical comprises a fluorescent dye configured to mark the attacker for easy identification. This claim is rejected based on the same grounds, references, citations, and analysis as for claim 7 previously, and as applied to either claim 1 or claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Rafferty et al. (U.S. Patent # US 10,452,822 B2) disclosing wearable devices and associated security apparatus.
Murray (U.S. Patent # US 5,654,867 A) disclosing an immobilization weapon.
Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2009/0127283 A1) disclosing a smart self-defense apparatus.
Sizemore (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2011/0205057 A1) disclosing a personal security backpack and method.
Agrawal et al. (India. Patent Application Publication # IN 2020/11015064 A) disclosing a personal protection device e.g., smart-watch along with a mobile application used for instant self-defense system particularly for women in danger, has book cab that facilities for preferred destination and current location of victim.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to STEPHEN R BURGDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7328. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Friday at 11:00 AM to 8:00 PM EST/EDT.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571)272-3114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/STEPHEN R BURGDORF/ Examiner, Art Unit 2685