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 .
Status of Claims
The rejections of claims 1-4, 8, 11, 14, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and claims 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn in light of the Applicants’ amendments. Additionally, the objections to claims 5, 12, and 14 have been withdrawn in light of the Applicants’ amendments.
Claims 1, 5, 12, and 14 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-19 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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(s) 1-4, 8, 11, 14, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivelpiece et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0247690] in view of Burnette et al. [U.S. Patent 7,244,946]
With regard to claim 1, Trivelpiece et al. meets the limitations of:
a chip-based sampling point device configured to be attached to a sampling pipe, comprising a device body comprising a chip, an antenna, a connection means and an orifice [an antenna embedded into an RFID chip where the device is placed into a pipe (paragraphs 0045 and 0046 as well as figure 1A, item 160)]
wherein the chip is configured to store sampling data and other data received from various computing sources [an antenna embedded into an RFID chip where the device is placed into a pipe where the chip stores information from detectors onto a memory (paragraph 0046 and 0057 as well as figure 1A, item 160)]
wherein the antenna is communicatively connected to the chip and is configured to transmit data to one or more remote computing devices [an RFID tag in communication with a local processing unit (LPU) where the chip sends data and location information to the unit (paragraph 0045 and figure 3)]
wherein the connection means is configured to secure the chip-based sampling point device to the sampling pipe in a manner that allows for the orifice to align with a hole in the sampling pipe of a particle detector [an antenna embedded into an RFID chip where the device is placed into a pipe where figure 1A shows the chip inside of the device and connected by a wire thereby inferring the production of a hole in the pipe (paragraphs 0045 and 0046 as well as figure 1A, item 160)]
However, Trivelpiece et al. fails to disclose of storing sampling-point-specific documentation data including at least one of: sampling hole size, sampling-point identifier, transport-time data, installation data, or inspection/test history. In the field of sensing devices, Burnette et al. teaches:
storing sampling-point-specific documentation data including at least one of: sampling hole size, sampling-point identifier, transport-time data, installation data, or inspection/test history [the storing of testing by a user onto a memory (column 5, lines 18-36)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Trivelpiece et al. and Burnette et al. to create an NFC sampling device for a pipe where the device where the device is able to store sampling information and testing history information for retrieval by a user to determine the amount of material detected along when the material was detected wherein the motivation to combine is to monitor a pipe system (Trivelpiece et al., paragraph 0003).
With regard to claim 2, Trivelpiece et al. meets the limitation of:
the chip is a Near Field Communication (NFC) chip configured to wirelessly communicate with a mobile device [an antenna embedded into an RFID chip where the device is placed into a pipe (paragraphs 0045 and 0046 as well as figure 1A, item 160), i.e. sensor devices, where it is in communication with a mobile device via a communications network (paragraph 0014)]
With regard to claim 3, Trivelpiece et al. meets the limitation of:
the chip is configured to store data selected from the group comprising: a location of the sampling point, hole size, sampling data and associated detector information [an RFID tag in communication with a local processing unit (LPU) where the chip sends data and location information to the unit (paragraph 0045 and figure 3) thereby inferring the chip storing location data before it is transmitted to the LPU]
With regard to claim 4, Trivelpiece et al. meets the limitation of:
the antenna is an integral part of the chip and is configured to enhance the communication range with remote computing devices [an antenna embedded into an RFID chip where the device is placed into a pipe (paragraphs 0045 and 0046 as well as figure 1A, item 160) where it is in communication with a mobile device via a communications network (paragraph 0014)]
With regard to claim 8, Trivelpiece et al. meets the limitation of:
the orifice is aligned with an alignment window to ensure proper placement over the hole in the sampling pipe [an antenna embedded into an RFID chip where the device is placed into a pipe where figure 1A shows the chip inside of the device and connected by a wire thereby inferring the production of a hole in the pipe for the device to be inserted through where the insertion requires an alignment with the hole in order for the device to enter the pipe (paragraphs 0045 and 0046 as well as figure 1A, item 160)]
With regard to claim 11, Trivelpiece et al. meets the limitation of:
the chip is configured to be read and written by a custom mobile device application [a GUI generation module used to present information relating to equipment being monitored (paragraph 0113)]
With regard to claim 14, Trivelpiece et al. meets the limitation of:
the device body includes an adhesive-free arean [an antenna embedded into an RFID chip where the device is placed into a pipe (paragraphs 0045 and 0046 as well as figure 1A, item 160)]
With regard to claim 16, Trivelpiece et al. meets the limitation of:
the device body is configured to fit various pipe diameters through adjustable connection means [an antenna embedded into an RFID chip where the device is placed into a pipe where figure 1A shows the chip inside of the device and connected by a wire thereby inferring the production of a hole in the pipe being adjusted to accommodate the entrance of the device into the pipe based upon the device’s size (paragraphs 0045 and 0046 as well as figure 1A, item 160)]
With regard to claim 18, meets the limitation of:
the device is configured to transmit data to a cloud-based storage system for remote monitoring and analysis [an operating environment where site sensors transmit data across a communications network to a monitoring platform (paragraph 0093 and figure 14, items 220, 230, and 270)]
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivelpiece et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0247690] in view of Burnette et al. [U.S. Patent 7,244,946] in view of Baba et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0315774]
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Trivelpiece et al. and Burnette et al. fails to disclose of the device body is made of PET material, providing water resistance and durability in various environmental conditions. In the field of wireless tag manufacturing, Baba et al. teaches:
the device body is made of PET material, providing water resistance and durability in various environmental conditions [the placement of a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) over an RFID tag to protect the tag from environmental elements (paragraph 0024 and figure 1, items 1 and 3)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Trivelpiece et al. and Baba et al. to create an NFC sampling device for a pipe where the device is coated with a PET film to protect the device’s circuitry from the media it is sampling in order to prevent it from being damaged by the media wherein the motivation to combine is to monitor a pipe system (Trivelpiece et al., paragraph 0003).
With regard to claim 15, the combination of Trivelpiece et al. and Burnette et al. fails to disclose of the chip and the antenna are over-molded into the device body for enhanced protection against environmental factors. In the field of wireless tag manufacturing, Baba et al. teaches:
the chip and the antenna are over-molded into the device body for enhanced protection against environmental factors [the placement of a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) over an RFID tag to protect the tag from environmental elements (paragraph 0024 and figure 1, items 1 and 3)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Trivelpiece et al., Burnette et al., and Baba et al. to create an NFC sampling device for a pipe where the device is coated with a PET film to protect the device’s circuitry from the media it is sampling in order to prevent it from being damaged by the media wherein the motivation to combine is to monitor a pipe system (Trivelpiece et al., paragraph 0003).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivelpiece et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0247690] in view of Burnette et al. [U.S. Patent 7,244,946] in view of Bakfan et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0342884]
With regard to claim 6, Trivelpiece et al. fails to disclose of the connection means includes an adhesive layer configured to securely attach the device to the sampling pipe. In the field of RFID devices, Bakfan et al. teaches:
the connection means includes an adhesive layer configured to securely attach the device to the sampling pipe [the use of a glue to attach a novel RFID transponder (NRT) to a surface (paragraphs 0008 and 0012)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Trivelpiece et al., Burnette et al., and Bakfan et al. to create an NFC sampling device for a pipe where the device is attached to a pipe using an adhesive to prevent it from moving while in the pipe wherein the motivation to combine is to monitor a pipe system (Trivelpiece et al., paragraph 0003).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivelpiece et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0247690] in view of Burnette et al. [U.S. Patent 7,244,946] in view of Luo [U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0197391]
With regard to claim 13, Trivelpiece et al. fails to disclose of the connection means includes a saddle type pipe clip configured to compression fit onto the sampling pipe. In the field of tag devices, Luo teaches:
the connection means includes a saddle type pipe clip configured to compression fit onto the sampling pipe [a sensor being attached using a clip which applies compressive force to attach to a surface (paragraph 0014)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Trivelpiece et al., Burnette et al., and Luo to create an NFC sampling device for a pipe where the device is attached to a pipe using a clip to prevent it from moving while in the pipe wherein the motivation to combine is to monitor a pipe system (Trivelpiece et al., paragraph 0003).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivelpiece et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0247690] in view of Burnette et al. [U.S. Patent 7,244,946] in view of Bolander et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0025985]
With regard to claim 9, Trivelpiece et al. fails to disclose of the device further comprises an area for text and graphics, providing visual information about the sampling point. In the field of RFID devices, Bolander et al. teaches:
the device further comprises an area for text and graphics, providing visual information about the sampling point [an RFID tag with a label identifying which person the biological sample is from (paragraph 0005)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Trivelpiece et al., Burnette et al., and Bolander et al. to create an NFC sampling device for a pipe where the device has a printed label used for identifying the type of pipe is being sampled by the device in order to inform the user of the pipe type wherein the motivation to combine is to monitor a pipe system (Trivelpiece et al., paragraph 0003).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivelpiece et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0247690] in view of Burnette et al. [U.S. Patent 7,244,946] in view of Kovacic et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0044055]
With regard to claim 10, Trivelpiece et al. meets the limitation of:
the chip includes a unique identifier (UID) [a sensor having an identification as an LPU requests the identification of the sensor device (paragraph 0066)]
However, Trivelpiece et al. fails to disclose of password-protected for secure data access. In the field of RFID devices, Kovacic et al. teaches:
password-protected for secure data access [data on an RFID tag being password-protected to prevent the retrieval of information stored on the tag from unauthorized devices (paragraph 0008)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Trivelpiece et al., Burnette et al., and Kovacic et al. to create an NFC sampling device for a pipe where the device is password-protected to prevent the retrieval of information stored on the tag from unauthorized devices wherein the motivation to combine is to monitor a pipe system (Trivelpiece et al., paragraph 0003).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivelpiece et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0247690] in view of Burnette et al. [U.S. Patent 7,244,946] in view of Burke et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0000340]
With regard to claim 12, Trivelpiece et al. fails to disclose of the connection means includes a tube or hose to distally connect a remote sample point to the sampling pipe. In the field of probe devices, Burke et al. teaches:
the connection means includes a tube or hose to distally connect a remote sample point to the sampling pipe [a hose guiding gas flow to a probe assembly (paragraph 0026)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Trivelpiece et al., Burnette et al., and Burke et al. to create an NFC sampling device for a pipe where the device contains a hose used for diverting some of the media to a sensor for measurement in order to not interfere with the flow of the media in the primary pipe wherein the motivation to combine is to monitor a pipe system (Trivelpiece et al., paragraph 0003).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivelpiece et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0247690] in view of Burnette et al. [U.S. Patent 7,244,946] in view of Malcolm [U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0361159]
With regard to claim 13, Trivelpiece et al. fails to disclose of the chip is configured to store commissioning benchmark data and subsequent test and inspection data. In the field of sampling devices, Malcom teaches:
the chip is configured to store commissioning benchmark data and subsequent test and inspection data [RFID tags used for compare data samples and compare them with preprogrammed thresholds (paragraph 01050)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Trivelpiece et al., Burnette et al., and Malcolm to create an NFC sampling device for a pipe where the device is able to sample data and compare the sample data to a threshold in order to determine if the sampled data is within or outside of the preprogrammed threshold in order to determine if it’s an event requiring attention wherein the motivation to combine is to monitor a pipe system (Trivelpiece et al., paragraph 0003).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivelpiece et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0247690] in view of Burnette et al. [U.S. Patent 7,244,946] in view of van Reenen [U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0060971]
With regard to claim 17, Trivelpiece et al. fails to disclose of the data stored on the chip can be used to validate the proper installation and maintenance of the sampling point within a particle detection system. In the field of monitoring devices, van Reenen teaches:
the data stored on the chip can be used to validate the proper installation and maintenance of the sampling point within a particle detection system [the calibration and set up of a sensor to ensure proper operation (paragraph 0041)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Trivelpiece et al., Burnette et al., and van Reenen to create an NFC sampling device for a pipe where the device is calibrated and set up properly to ensure proper operation of the device at its installation site wherein the motivation to combine is to monitor a pipe system (Trivelpiece et al., paragraph 0003).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivelpiece et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0247690] in view of Burnette et al. [U.S. Patent 7,244,946] in view of Freeman et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0073895]
With regard to claim 19, Trivelpiece et al. fails to disclose of the chip is configured to alert maintenance personnel when the sampling point requires inspection or replacement based on stored performance data. In the field of monitoring devices, Freeman et al. teaches:
the chip is configured to alert maintenance personnel when the sampling point requires inspection or replacement based on stored performance data [the RFID enabled monitoring device issuing an alert to be replaced based upon its performance (paragraph 0063)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Trivelpiece et al., Burnette et al., and Freeman et al. to create an NFC sampling device for a pipe where the device issues an alert when the device requires replacement based upon its performance to ensure proper data measurements of the monitored material wherein the motivation to combine is to monitor a pipe system (Trivelpiece et al., paragraph 0003).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 8, 11, 14, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and claims 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Burnette et al. [U.S. Patent 7,244,946]
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMESHANAND MAHASE whose telephone number is (571) 270-7223. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:00AM - 5:00PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on 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 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.
/PAMESHANAND MAHASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2689
/DAVETTA W GOINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights