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 .
Claim Objections
In claim 18, line 3, “with a of terminals” is not clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14, 16-18, 27-31, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Automatic Distribution of Disposable Self-Deploying Sensor Modules”, hereinafter “MODULES”.
Regarding independent claim 1, MODULES discloses: a method for installing a terminal device ("sensor module", see e.g. Fig. 2) of a wildfire early detection system (MODULES explicitly mentions monitoring forest fires, page 535/last paragraph to 536/second paragraph) with the method steps of loading an dispensing device ("auger mechanism", see Fig. 3) with a plurality of terminal devices ("sensor module") (see in particular page 537/last paragraph), dispensing the terminal devices ("sensor module") through the dispensing device (see e.g. Fig. 5, see in particular page 537/last paragraph to page 538/first paragraph).
Regarding independent claim 27, MODULES discloses: forest fire early detection system installation device (MODULES explicitly mentions monitoring of forest fires, page 535, last paragraph to page 536, second paragraph, see also Fig. 1) comprising: a transport vehicle ("quadrotor", see e.g. Fig. 1) and an dispensing device ("auger mechanism", see Fig. 3), wherein the dispensing device is arranged on the transport vehicle (see Fig. 1 and e.g. also page 539/first paragraph)
Claims 2-4 and 13: The sensor modules in MODULES are dispensed downward, which is therefore in the direction of the intended final position and perpendicular to the movement direction of the dispensing device. Likewise, MODULES also shows how to provide multiple ejections and to target a new position between the ejections (see, e.g., Fig. 4 and corresponding text).
Claims 6 and 28: in MODULES, the dispensing device is positioned in an aircraft (see, e.g., Fig. 1).
Claims 7 and 8: MODULES mentions the dispensing in batches of 10 or 16 sensors (see page 538; or page 539/third paragraph).
Claims 9, 14, 16, and 17: Due to the special single-wing shape of the sensor unit in MODULES, they go after being ejected and a short fall into a controlled self-rotational movement (see e.g., page 539/second-to-last paragraph). This leads to a slowing down and alignment/orientation of the sensor unit.
Claims 10-12: The features of these claims can be derived from Fig. 4 and the corresponding text sections.
Claim 18: Fig. 3 MODULES discloses several sensor units stored for sequential release. From Fig. 4, the tracking of the sensor unit becomes clear.
Claims 29-31, MODULES discloses a corresponding control device (see page 537/last paragraph).
Claim 34 (not new): The output device of D1 also has a reservoir for receiving devices (see Fig. 3).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MODULES.
Regading claim 5: The choice of equidistant dispensing positions is matter of design choice that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who wants to achieve an even distribution of the sensors.
Claims 15, 19-26 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MODULES in view of US2013321149 to Ben-Schmuel Eran et al..
Regarding claim 15, MODULES lacks the specific teaching of a device intended to be caught in a plant. But, Ben-Schmuel Eran et al. teach the limitation.[103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify MODULES to a device intended to get caught in a plant, in view of Ben-Schmuel Eran et al., in order to “stay attached to the branch for years” [103].
Regarding claims 19, 20, 25 and 26, MODULES lacks the specific teaching regarding the ID but Ben-Schmuel Eran et al. explicitly teaches the linking of the sensor ID unit with the output position (see [102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify MODULES to include an ID for tracking purposes and sending only ID signals is a matter of design choice that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in order to limit the amount of data transfer.
Regarding claims 21-24: MODULES lacks the specific teachings, but Ben-Schmuel Eran et al. teach the calculation of the final position based on the output position and the corresponding central storage with assignment to the sensor unit ID (see [102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify MODULES to include position information, as taught by Ben-Schmuel Eran et al., in order to have that data “later used in calculations” [102].
Regarding Claims 32 and 33: coupling the control with a database or the device ID detection system as, for example, in Ben-Schmuel Eran et al. is an obvious design alternative for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Applicant is also directed to the Ben-Shmuel Eran et al. (for all claims) and the Venti LLC reference (both cited in the International Search Report as X references) if amendments to the claims are intended in a future correspondence.
The prior art made of record in the PTO-892 and not necessarily relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. It is advised the applicant review the prior art cited if/when amendments are made to attempt to overcome the rejections above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Florian Zeender whose telephone number is (571)272-6790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30-5:30pm EST.
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.
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.
Florian Zeender
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights