DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
2. This application, filed June 11, 2024, is a continuation of PCT/DK2022/050277, filed December 13, 2022. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
4. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“detection unit” in claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 16, and 17;
“reference unit” in claim 4;
“power storage unit” in claim 7; and
“charging unit” in claims 7 and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 112
5. 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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 particular, the claim limitation, “reference module” invokes 35 USC. 112(b), but the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed reference. There 1s no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed reader function. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would recognize that such a function could be performed in any number of ways by hardware alone or by a combination of hardware and software. The specification does not provide sufficient details to inform one of ordinary skill in the art which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function. For these reasons, claim 4 is indefinite.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
8. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not descried in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that, at the time the application was filed, the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed reference function. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
10. Claims 1-3, 5, 13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hummer (US 2017/0046938 A1) in view of Koenig (US 2020/0371076 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hummer discloses:
a detection case configured to receive a portable device ([0022]; FIG. 1: 10), the detection case comprising:
a detection system configured to detect hazardous particles and/or gases ([0027], [0028]; FIG. 2: 16, 20, 28),
wherein the detection system is arranged adjacent an inner surface of the detection case ([0023]; FIG. 1: 16, 20),
wherein the detection unit includes a gas scanner function customized with respect to sensitivity ([0028], [0033]).
Hummer does not disclose:
wherein the detection system comprises a detection unit trained to detect the hazardous particles and/or gases using machine learning or artificial intelligence features; and
the detection unit and/or the detection system is trained to a specific customized application using the machine learning or the artificial intelligence features.
Koenig, addressing the same problem of how to train a gas sensor, teaches a method and an apparatus for operating a multi-gas sensor ([0002]), comprising:
wherein the detection system comprises a detection unit trained to detect the hazardous particles and/or gases using machine learning or artificial intelligence features ([0044], [0045], [0046]); and
the detection unit and/or the detection system is trained to a specific customized application using the machine learning or the artificial intelligence features ([0056], [0057]),
for the benefit of ensuring a sufficient measuring accuracy of the multi-gas sensor ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Koenig with the detection case of Hummer because that would have enabled the detection case to ensure a sufficient measuring accuracy of the multi-gas sensor.
Regarding claim 2, Hummer discloses that the detection system is built into a housing of the portable device comprising communication components configured to communicate with other portable devices. ([0036], [0039])
Regarding claim 3, Hummer discloses that
the detection case comprises a protection plate for protecting the detection system (claim 3),
wherein the detection system is arranged between a back part of the detection case and the protection plate (claim 4; FIG. 1: 10, 16; FIG. 3),
wherein the detection system comprises a PCB (claim 1),
Hummer does not explicitly disclose that the PCB comprises a first detection unit that is arranged in a first end of the PCB, and a second detection unit that is arranged in a second end of the PCB, wherein the second end is opposite to the first end, but Hummer does disclose a PCB, and Hummer does disclose that the detection system comprises a plurality of sensors for detecting gases ([0027]), and Hummer does disclose an air flow induction device for ensuring adequate and or continuous flow of air to the sensor ([0026]), which suggests that the sensors are arranged at the ends of the PCB for the benefit of placing the sensors close to the source of the flow of air in order better to detect gases in air from the external environment; then there will be only two alternatives: either the sensors are arranged on the same side of the PCB, or the sensors are arranged on opposite sides of the PCB, which further suggests that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have determined through routine experimentation to arrange a first sensor in a first end of the PCB and a second sensor in a second end of the PCB to enable each sensor to be placed close to a source of the flow of air from an air induction device better to detect gases in air from the external environment;
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have arranged the detection case of Hummer in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the detection case to enable each detection unit to be placed close to a source of the flow of air from an air induction device better to detect gases in air from the external environment.
Regarding claim 5, Hummer does not explicitly disclose that the detection case comprises at least one aperture, wherein at least one detection unit is arranged adjacent to the inner surface of the detection case relative to said aperture, wherein said aperture is configured to provide fluid communication between ambient surroundings and the detection unit, but Hummer does disclose an air flow induction device, comprising fans, micropumps, louvres, vents, etc., that ensure adequate and or continuous flow of air to the detection unit ([0026]), which suggests that the device of Hummer comprises at least one aperture, wherein at least one detection unit is arranged adjacent to the inner surface of the detection case relative to said aperture, wherein said aperture is configured to provide fluid communication between ambient surroundings and the detection unit for the benefit of ensuring adequate or continuous flow of air to the detection unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the detection case of Hummer in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the detection case to ensure adequate or continuous flow of air to detection unit.
Regarding claim 13, Hummer discloses that the detection system is in data communication with the portable device ([0030]; FIG. 2: 22).
Hummer does not explicitly disclose that the detection system receives instructions from the portable device to detect predetermined hazardous particles and/or gases, but Hummer does disclose that the detection system is configured to activate sensors only when connected to a personal communication device ([0047]), which suggests that the detection case of Hummer comprises that the detection system receives instructions from the portable device to detect predetermined hazardous particles and/or gases for the benefit that the detection system activates sensors only when connected to a portable communication device ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the detection case of Hummer in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the detection case enable the detection system to activate sensors only when connected to a portable communication device.
Regarding claim 17, Hummer discloses:
a method for detecting hazardous particles and/or gases using a detection case according to claim 1 ([0002]; and see the citations for the rejection of claim 1), comprising:
detecting at least one of the hazardous particles and/or gases ([0027], [0028]; FIG. 2: 16, 20, 28);
identifying the hazardous particles and/or gases ([0032]); and
sending a warning signal using a transmitter ([0034]).
Hummer does not disclose;
training the detection unit to detect the predetermined hazardous particles and/or gases using machine learning or artificial intelligence;
Koenig, addressing the same problem of how to train a gas sensor, teaches a method and an apparatus for operating a multi-gas sensor ([0002]), comprising:
training the detection unit to detect the predetermined hazardous particles and/or gases using machine learning or artificial intelligence ([0044], [0045], [0046]),
for the benefit of ensuring a sufficient measuring accuracy of the multi-gas sensor ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Koenig with the detection case of Hummer because that would have enabled the detection case to ensure a sufficient measuring accuracy of the multi-gas sensor.
Regarding claim 18, Hummer discloses receiving instructions regarding the hazardous particles and/or gas to detect. ([0032], [0033], [0047])
11. Claims 4, 10-12, and 151 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hummer and Koenig further in view of Fitzgerald et al. (US 2016/0372973 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Hummer discloses that the detection case comprises a detection unit. ([0027]; FIG. 2: 20)
Hummer does not explicitly disclose a reference unit, wherein the detection system is capable of comparing a measured detected value from the detection unit to a measured reference value from the reference unit, but Hummer does disclose adjustable threshold levels, wherein the detection system detects or triggers an alarm when a threshold amount of gas is met or exceeded ([0033]); and Hummer does disclose software that is provided with various “signatures” of chemicals that are compared to the detected data to determine whether the chemical signature was detected by the monitoring system ([0032]), all of which suggests that the device of Hummer comprises a comparison of detected gas levels to the threshold amount, which further suggests that the device of Hummer comprises a reference unit, wherein the detection system is capable of comparing a measured detected value from the detection unit to a measured reference value from the reference unit, for the benefit of detecting or triggering an alarm when a threshold amount of gas is met or exceeded.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the device of Hummer in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the device to detecting or triggering an alarm when a threshold amount of gas is met or exceeded.
Hummer does not disclose that the detection case comprises a reference unit. Hummer discloses that a portable device comprises a reference unit.
Fitzgerald, addressing the same problem of how to arrange a case configured to receive a portable device, teaches protective covers and accessories that are fitted with circuitry and components for transferring power wirelessly ([0002]), wherein a protective cover for a portable electronic device comprises electronic circuitry, including a processor, memory, and a communication device ([0021], [0025], [0026]; FIG. 1: 100; FIG. 2: 212, 214, 230) for the benefit of wirelessly transferring electrical power from the protective cover to the installed portable electronic device ([0007], [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Fitzgerald with the detection case of the above combination because that would have enabled the detection case to wireless transfer electrical power to a portable device installed in the detection case.
In the combination of Fitzgerald with Hummer and Koenig, the detection case comprises the detection unit, the reference unit, and all the circuit devices disclosed by Hummer sufficient for the detection case to compare a measured detected value from the detection unit to a measured reference value from the reference unit.
Regarding claim 10, Hummer discloses that the portable device installed in the detection case comprises a transmitter configured to send at least one warning signal such that when the detection system detects the hazardous particles and/or gases the detection system transmits at least one warning signal. ([0025], [0030], [0034]; FIG. 2: 22)
In the combination of Fitzgerald with Hummer and Koenig, a communication circuit is arranged in the detection case (see the rejection of claim 4), which would enable the detection case to send the claimed warning signal.
Regarding claim 11, Hummer discloses that the portable device installed in the detection case comprises a processor for processing at least one detected hazardous particle and/or gas, wherein the detection system is configured to identify the at least one detected hazardous particle and/or gas and/or a concentration level of the hazardous particle and/or gas. ([0029], [0031], [0033]; FIG. 2: 30)
In the combination of Fitzgerald with Hummer and Koenig, a processor is arranged in the detection case (see the rejection of claim 4), which would enable the detection case to perform the claimed processing functions.
Regarding claim 12, Hummer discloses that the portable device installed in the detection case comprises a processor for processing a plurality of detected hazardous particles and/or gases simultaneously, wherein the detection system is configured to identify the plurality of detected hazardous particles and/or gases and/or a concentration level of the hazardous particles and/or gases. ([0028], [0032], [0033])
In the combination of Fitzgerald with Hummer and Koenig, a processor is arranged in the detection case (see the rejection of claim 4), which would enable the detection case to perform the claimed processing functions.
Regarding claim 15, Hummer discloses that the portable device installed in the detection case comprises predetermined information regarding detection levels related to each of the hazardous particles and/or gases that can be detected by the detection system. ([0032], [0033])
In the combination of Fitzgerald with Hummer and Koenig, a processor and memory are arranged in the detection case (see the rejection of claim 4), which would enable the detection case to comprise the claimed information.
12. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hummer and Koenig further in view of Oman et al. (US 2012/0172010 A1).
Regarding claims 7, Hummer discloses that the detection system comprises a power storage unit, wherein the power storage unit is configured to receive power from a charging unit. ([0025]; FIG. 2: 24)
Hummer does not explicitly disclose that the power storage unit is configured to receive power from a charging unit.
Oman, addressing the same problem of how to charge a power storage unit, teaches [0001] a wireless personal communication device accessory configured to enable communications between a wireless personal communication device such as a smart phone and an in-vehicle telematics unit electrically coupled to the vehicle electrical system ([0001]), wherein a docking station for a smart phone comprises an inductive device capable of generating a charging voltage that is applied to a battery of the docking station ([0016]) for the benefit that the battery of the docking station is inductively charged by proximity to the inductive device ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Oman with the detection case of the above combination because that would have enabled the battery of the detection system to be inductively charged by proximity to the inductive device.
Regarding claim 8, the above combination does not explicitly disclose that the charging unit comprises a wireless charger configured to receive wireless charging, wherein the detection system is configured to be wirelessly charged at a same time as the portable device when using a wireless charging phone case.
Oman further teaches that the charging unit comprises a wireless charger configured to receive wireless charging ([0016]; FIG. 2: 44, 46), wherein the docking station is configured to be wirelessly charged at a same time as a smart phone when using the wireless charging docking station ([0016]; FIG. 2: 40, 44, 46) for the benefit that both the smart phone and the docking station are inductively charged when the smart phone is placed in the docking station ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Oman with the detection case of the above combination because that would have enabled both the detection system and a portable device to be inductively charged when the portable device is placed in a wireless charging phone case.
Regarding claim 9, Oman further teaches that the wireless charger comprises a coil ([0016]; FIG. 2: 46) for the benefit that the coil produces a magnetic field that enables inductive charging of nearby storage devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Oman with the detection case of the above combination because that would have enabled the detection case to employ the coil to produce a magnetic field that enables inductive charging of nearby storage devices.
13. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hummer and Koenig further in view of Lacy (US 2020/0226914 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the above combination does not disclose that the detection case comprises one or more of: a breathalyzer; a date rape drug tester; and a smoke / fire detector.
Lacy, addressing the same problem of how to configure a portable device that communicates with a gas detector, teaches a hazardous condition detector that can interface with an external wireless device ([0002]), wherein the hazardous condition detector comprises sensors that detect smoke and fire ([0016], [0023]) for the benefit that activation of the heat or smoke alarm can cause the device to automatically dial the fire department or 911 ([0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Lacy with the detection case of the above combination because that would have enabled the detection case to automatically dial the fire department or 911 upon activation of the head or smoke alarm.
14. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hummer and Koenig further in view of Aebersold et al. (US 2012/0092176 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the above combination does not disclose that the detection unit comprises pulsed infrared light from an LED that pulses a beam of light in or into a detection cavity at predetermined intervals to check for smoke particles, wherein the beam of light is directed at a light receiving sensor.
Aebersold, addressing the same problem of how to detect smoke, teaches a sensor device optically detecting smoke particles ([0001]), wherein a detection unit ([0058]; FIG. 1: 100) comprises pulsed infrared light from an LED ([0058]; FIG. 1: 120, 120A) that pulses a beam of light in or into a detection cavity ([0058]; FIG. 1: 110, 120A) at predetermined intervals ([0037], [0075]) to check for smoke particles ([0058]; FIG. 1: 130), wherein the beam of light is directed at a light receiving sensor ([0058]; FIG. 1: 130) for the benefit that the detector detects smoke by detecting light that has scattered off smoke particles ([0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Aebersold with the detection case of the above combination because that would have enabled the detection case to detect smoke by detecting light that has scattered off smoke particles.
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claim 6 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F MORTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 ET.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/JOHN F MORTELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689