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 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) 25-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedraza et al. (US20070103319A1; hereinafter “PEDRAZA”) in view of Harmon et al. (US20150019166A1; hereinafter “HARMON”)
Regarding claim 25, PEDRAZA teaches a system, comprising a controller configured to:
receive first sensor data from a first sensor, wherein the first sensor data provides information describing an environmental condition in proximity to a first restoration asse; receive second sensor data from a second sensor, wherein the second sensor provides information describing an environmental condition in proximity to a second restoration asset (PEDRAZA discloses a monitoring system utilizing a controller and a plurality of sensors strategically placed within the room (e.g., temperature, humidity, and airflow sensors) to measure environmental conditions. Restoration assets such as air movers and dehumidifiers are installed in the room. para. 0030-32,57-61);
associate the first sensor with the first restoration asset; associate the second sensor with the second restoration asset (PEDRAZA teaches the technician enters the location of peripheral sensors onto a layout model and identically enters the "actual location and type of equipment installed in the structure," effectively mapping sensor locations relative to the drying equipment (restoration assets));
compare the first sensor data with the second sensor data (PEDRAZA teaches the system is configured to depict "relationships between the various drying procedure data values and other drying procedure data values", para. 02114-117);
determine, based on comparing the first sensor data with the second sensor data, a compared data (PEDRAZA teaches he server uses the sensor data to determine estimated drying times and determines if the drying procedure is complete (based on moisture limits), para. 0086-95);
based on the compared data, determine a drying condition for a building in which the first restoration asset is provided (PEDRAZA teaches he server uses the sensor data to determine estimated drying times and determines if the drying procedure is complete (based on moisture limits), para. 0086-95); and
provide a report of the drying condition, wherein the report comprises one or more of a proposed new location, a change in a quantity, and a change in type for at least one of the first restoration asset and the second restoration asset (PEDRAZA teaches the server calculates and provides a report to the user interface showing "the recommended drying equipment that should be installed and the recommended locations within the building structure to position each piece of drying equipment", para. 0069-72).
PEDRAZA is silent to teaching that wherein the compared data is a vapor pressure differential.
In the same field of endeavor, HARMON teaches a system configured to compare the first sensor data with the second sensor data (HARMON teaches the system records a first set of atmospheric readings and a second set of atmospheric readings taken at various locations (e.g., outside, affected area, unaffected area) and compares them to see if the indicators are higher or lower, para. 0077-82), wherein the compared data is a vapor pressure differential (HARMON teaches the system uses measurements of temperature and relative humidity to calculate the actual vapor pressure for the different locations. By comparing these calculated actual vapor pressures across different readings to determine if the values are lower or higher than a previous reading, the system inherently determines a vapor pressure differential to evaluate the effectiveness of remediation efforts, para. 0077-82).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of PEDRAZA with the teaching of HARMON in order to allow contractors to more easily and efficiently to complete their tasks (HARMON, para. 0003).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of PEDRAZA and HARMON teaches the system of claim 25, wherein the report includes one or more of a layout of the building, a depiction of the first restoration asset in the layout of the building, a depiction of the second restoration asset in the layout of the building, and a determination of whether the drying condition corresponds to a favorable drying condition or an unfavorable drying condition (PEDRAZA teaches the system generates a visual model of the structure including a three-dimensional virtual walkthrough, two-dimensional maps, and schematics. Icons representing each piece of drying equipment are positioned on the map/schematic to show their location. Moisture data (favorable vs. unfavorable conditions) is visually represented, for instance, by showing excessively wet sections as "blue shapes on the virtual walls, ceilings and floors", para. 0105).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of PEDRAZA and HARMON teaches the system of claim 25, wherein the controller is further configured to:
receive third sensor data from a third sensor, wherein the third sensor data provides information describing an environmental condition outside of the building; compare the third sensor data with at least one of the first sensor data and the second sensor data; and provide a notification to a communication device that indicates the environmental condition outside of the building is impacting the drying condition for the building (PEDRAZA teaches the system uses "exterior sensors 204-242 that are placed outside of the structure," such as outdoor humidity and temperature sensors. The system inherently compares this data by generating "line graphs showing... interior temperature and specific humidity vs. time; and exterior temperature and specific humidity vs. time", para. 0105).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of PEDRAZA and HARMON teaches the system of claim 27, wherein the controller is further configured to: provide, as part of the notification, a suggested remedial measure to minimize the impact of the environmental condition outside of the building on the drying condition for the building (PEDRAZA teaches that following from the data collection, the system calculates and provides "maintenance instructions indicating the recommended future actions to be taken" so the technician can adjust the drying procedure, para. 0057).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of PEDRAZA and HARMON teaches the system of claim 25, wherein one or more of the first sensor data and the second sensor data are received via a wireless signal (PEDRAZA The source states that peripheral sensors can be connected using "wireless techniques such as infrared and radio frequency (RF) communication links" and specifically mentions "Bluetooth devices", para. 0033).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of PEDRAZA and HARMON teaches the system of claim 25, wherein one or more of the first sensor data and the second sensor data comprises at least one of temperature data, humidity data, moisture data, vapor pressure data, and air flow data (PEDRAZA explicitly lists the use of "temperature sensors (thermometers), pressure sensors (barometers)... humidity sensors (hygrometers)... and airflow sensors", para. 0019-21).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of PEDRAZA and HARMON teaches the system of claim 25, wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine a change in the first sensor data over a period of time;
determine a change in the second sensor data over the period of time;
based on the change in the first sensor data over the period of time and the change in the second sensor data over the period of time, determine an updated drying condition for the building; and provide a report of the updated drying condition to a communication device (PEDRAZA teaches the monitoring device "continually cycles" through data collection to provide updated sensor data. It tracks data over time, providing graphs of "daily moisture levels," "daily humidity levels," and temperature over time. The server calculates updated "estimated drying time" and "accrued drying time", and transmits HTML messages containing this updated drying procedure information to the user interface, para. 0062,87-95,105).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of PEDRAZA and HARMON teaches the system of claim 25, wherein the controller is further configured to: provide a report of the drying condition to a communication device (PEDRAZA teaches the server transmits the drying procedure information (reports, graphs, tables) through a communication network to a remote user interface, which is implemented as a web browser running on a computer or other remote communication device, para. 0022-24).
Regarding claim 33, PEDRAZA teaches a restoration sensor, comprising:
a transducer to generate first sensor data, the first sensor data providing information describing an environmental condition in proximity to a first restoration asset (PEDRAZA, fig. 2, sensors);
memory to store the first sensor data (see PEDRAZA, fig. 2, memory 216, para. 0066);
a communication interface to receive second sensor data from a sensor, the sensor providing information describing an environmental condition in proximity to a second restoration asset (PEDRAZA, para. 0033); and
a processor to:
associate the transducer with the first restoration asset; associate the sensor with the second restoration asset (PEDRAZA teaches the technician enters the location of peripheral sensors onto a layout model and identically enters the "actual location and type of equipment installed in the structure," effectively mapping sensor locations relative to the drying equipment (restoration assets));
compare the first sensor data with the second sensor data (PEDRAZA teaches the system is configured to depict "relationships between the various drying procedure data values and other drying procedure data values", para. 02114-117);
determine, based on comparing the first sensor data with the second sensor data, a compared data (PEDRAZA teaches the server uses the sensor data to determine estimated drying times and determines if the drying procedure is complete (based on moisture limits), para. 0086-95);
based on the compared data, determine a drying condition for a building in which the first restoration asset is provided; and provide a report of the drying condition (PEDRAZA teaches the server uses the sensor data to determine estimated drying times and determines if the drying procedure is complete (based on moisture limits), para. 0086-95); and,
wherein the report comprises one or more of a proposed new location, a change in a quantity, and a change in type for at least one of the first restoration asset and the second restoration asset (PEDRAZA teaches the server calculates and provides a report to the user interface showing "the recommended drying equipment that should be installed and the recommended locations within the building structure to position each piece of drying equipment", para. 0069-72).
PEDRAZA is silent to teaching that wherein the compared data is a vapor pressure differential.
In the same field of endeavor, HARMON teaches a system configured to compare the first sensor data with the second sensor data (HARMON teaches the system records a first set of atmospheric readings and a second set of atmospheric readings taken at various locations (e.g., outside, affected area, unaffected area) and compares them to see if the indicators are higher or lower, para. 0077-82), wherein the compared data is a vapor pressure differential (HARMON teaches the system uses measurements of temperature and relative humidity to calculate the actual vapor pressure for the different locations. By comparing these calculated actual vapor pressures across different readings to determine if the values are lower or higher than a previous reading, the system inherently determines a vapor pressure differential to evaluate the effectiveness of remediation efforts, para. 0077-82).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of PEDRAZA with the teaching of HARMON in order to allow contractors to more easily and efficiently to complete their tasks (HARMON, para. 0003).
Regarding claims 34-38, the dependent claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above claims 26-29, respectively.
Regarding claim 39, PEDRAZA teaches a system (PEDRAZA, fig. 2), comprising: a processor; and memory storing instructions to cause the processor to:
receive first sensor data from a first sensor, wherein the first sensor data provides information describing an environmental condition in proximity to a first restoration asse; receive second sensor data from a second sensor, wherein the second sensor provides information describing an environmental condition in proximity to a second restoration asset (PEDRAZA discloses a monitoring system utilizing a controller and a plurality of sensors strategically placed within the room (e.g., temperature, humidity, and airflow sensors) to measure environmental conditions. Restoration assets such as air movers and dehumidifiers are installed in the room. para. 0030-32,57-61);
associate the first sensor with the first restoration asset; associate the second sensor with the second restoration asset (PEDRAZA teaches the technician enters the location of peripheral sensors onto a layout model and identically enters the "actual location and type of equipment installed in the structure," effectively mapping sensor locations relative to the drying equipment (restoration assets));
compare the first sensor data with the second sensor data (PEDRAZA teaches the system is configured to depict "relationships between the various drying procedure data values and other drying procedure data values", para. 02114-117);
determine, based on comparing the first sensor data with the second sensor data, a compared data (PEDRAZA teaches the server uses the sensor data to determine estimated drying times and determines if the drying procedure is complete (based on moisture limits), para. 0086-95);
based on the compared data, determine a drying condition for a building in which the first restoration asset is provided (PEDRAZA teaches the server uses the sensor data to determine estimated drying times and determines if the drying procedure is complete (based on moisture limits), para. 0086-95); and
provide a report of the drying condition, wherein the report comprises one or more of a proposed new location, a change in a quantity, and a change in type for at least one of the first restoration asset and the second restoration asset (PEDRAZA teaches the server calculates and provides a report to the user interface showing "the recommended drying equipment that should be installed and the recommended locations within the building structure to position each piece of drying equipment", para. 0069-72).
PEDRAZA is silent to teaching that wherein the compared data is a vapor pressure differential.
In the same field of endeavor, HARMON teaches a system configured to compare the first sensor data with the second sensor data (HARMON teaches the system records a first set of atmospheric readings and a second set of atmospheric readings taken at various locations (e.g., outside, affected area, unaffected area) and compares them to see if the indicators are higher or lower, para. 0077-82), wherein the compared data is a vapor pressure differential (HARMON teaches the system uses measurements of temperature and relative humidity to calculate the actual vapor pressure for the different locations. By comparing these calculated actual vapor pressures across different readings to determine if the values are lower or higher than a previous reading, the system inherently determines a vapor pressure differential to evaluate the effectiveness of remediation efforts, para. 0077-82).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of PEDRAZA with the teaching of HARMON in order to allow contractors to more easily and efficiently to complete their tasks (HARMON, para. 0003).
Regarding claims 40-44, the dependent claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above claims 26-30, respectively.
Regarding claim 45, PEDRAZA teaches a system (PEDRAZA, fig. 2), comprising a controller configured to:
receive first sensor data from a first sensor and second sensor data from a second sensor (PEDRAZA, para. 0022),
wherein the first sensor data describes an environmental condition in proximity to a first restoration asset,
wherein the second sensor data describes an environmental condition in proximity to a second restoration asset,
wherein the first restoration asset and the second restoration asset are provided within a building (PEDRAZA teaches the technician enters the location of peripheral sensors onto a layout model and identically enters the "actual location and type of equipment installed in the structure," effectively mapping sensor locations relative to the drying equipment (restoration assets));
determine, based on the first and second sensor data, one or more of a temperature, a humidity, for a location within the building (PEDRAZA teaches the system is configured to depict "relationships between the various drying procedure data values and other drying procedure data values", para. 02114-117); ; and
determine, based on the one or more of the temperature, the humidity, a drying condition for the location within the building (PEDRAZA teaches the server calculates and provides a report to the user interface showing "the recommended drying equipment that should be installed and the recommended locations within the building structure to position each piece of drying equipment", para. 0069-72).
PEDRAZA is silent to teaching that wherein the compared data comprising a vapor pressure differential.
In the same field of endeavor, HARMON teaches a system configured to compare the first sensor data with the second sensor data (HARMON teaches the system records a first set of atmospheric readings and a second set of atmospheric readings taken at various locations (e.g., outside, affected area, unaffected area) and compares them to see if the indicators are higher or lower, para. 0077-82), wherein the compared data comprising a vapor pressure differential (HARMON teaches the system uses measurements of temperature and relative humidity to calculate the actual vapor pressure for the different locations. By comparing these calculated actual vapor pressures across different readings to determine if the values are lower or higher than a previous reading, the system inherently determines a vapor pressure differential to evaluate the effectiveness of remediation efforts, para. 0077-82).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of PEDRAZA with the teaching of HARMON in order to allow contractors to more easily and efficiently to complete their tasks (HARMON, para. 0003).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of PEDRAZA and HARMON teaches the system of claim 45, wherein the determined drying condition is determined further based on a second vapor pressure differential for a second location within the building (HARMON teaches the system records a first set of atmospheric readings and a second set of atmospheric readings taken at various locations (e.g., outside, affected area, unaffected area) and compares them to see if the indicators are higher or lower, para. 0077-82)
Regarding claim 47, the combination of PEDRAZA and HARMON teaches the system of claim 45, wherein the controller is further configured to receive third sensor data from a third sensor, wherein the third sensor data describes an environmental condition outside of the building (HARMON teaches the system records a first set of atmospheric readings and a second set of atmospheric readings taken at various locations (e.g., outside, affected area, unaffected area) and compares them to see if the indicators are higher or lower, para. 0077-82).
Regarding claim 48, the combination of PEDRAZA and HARMON teaches the system of claim 47 wherein the controller is further configured to determine a remedial measure to minimize an impact of the environmental condition outside of the building on the determined drying condition (PEDRAZA teaches the system calculates and provides "maintenance instructions indicating the recommended future actions to be taken". It also acknowledges that "drying techniques must be adjusted for environmental changes such as changes in temperature and humidity").
Regarding claim 49, the combination of PEDRAZA and HARMON teaches the system of claim 47, wherein the controller is further configured to determine whether the environmental condition outside of the building is negatively or positively impacting the determined drying condition for the location within the building (PEDRAZA teaches the system generates graphs showing "exterior temperature and specific humidity vs. time" alongside interior data).
Regarding claim 50, the combination of PEDRAZA and HARMON teaches the system of claim 47, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a second drying characteristic by comparing the third sensor data with one or more of the first sensor data and the second sensor data; and based on the determined drying characteristic and the second drying characteristic, determine the environmental condition outside of the building impacts the drying of the building (PEDRAZA teaches the controller tracks and graphs both interior and exterior conditions over time).
Regarding claim 51, the combination of PEDRAZA and HARMON teaches the system of claim 47, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a change in one or both of the first sensor data and the second sensor data has occurred; and in response to determining the change in one or both of the first sensor data and the second sensor data has occurred, determine an updated drying condition for the location within the building (PEDRAZA teaches the system continually cycles to receive updated sensor data. It tracks changes by calculating and graphing data over time, such as "daily moisture levels". In response to this data, the controller dynamically computes updated conditions, such as an updated "estimated drying time" and "accrued drying time").
Regarding claim 52, the combination of PEDRAZA and HARMON teaches the system of claim 45, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a change in one or both of the first sensor data and the second sensor data has occurred; and in response to determining the change in one or both of the first sensor data and the second sensor data has occurred, generate a prediction for a future drying condition based on the change in one or both of the first sensor data and the second sensor data (PEDRAZA teaches the controller calculates predicted metrics based on the incoming sensor parameters, specifically calculating an "estimated drying time" and an "estimated rate... for drying time").
Regarding claim 53, the combination of PEDRAZA and HARMON teaches the system of claim 45, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a change in one or both of the first sensor data and the second sensor data; determine a trajectory of the change in one or both of the first sensor data and the second sensor data; and based on the trajectory of the change in one or both of the first sensor data and the second sensor data, determine whether the building will become sufficiently dry (PEDRAZA teaches the system maps and tracks moisture changes over time and computes an "estimated rate" for water removal and drying time. Calculating an estimated drying rate/time based on changing daily moisture levels constitutes evaluating the trajectory to determine when the building will become sufficiently dry).
Regarding claim 54, the combination of PEDRAZA and HARMON teaches the system of claim 45, wherein the controller comprises an antenna configured to receive the first and second sensor data (PEDRAZA teaches the monitoring device 108 includes a communication interface 212 that features an antenna 222. The sensors can transmit data to the controller using wireless links such as Radio Frequency (RF) and Bluetooth).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 25-54 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,060,723. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
System Claims 25–32 vs. Method Claims 1–8
Pending independent Claim 25 is rejected as an obvious architectural variation of issued Claim 1. The software logic and operational steps are completely identical: Claim 25 recites "A system, comprising a controller configured to..." followed by data ingestion, pairing sensors to restoration assets, calculating a vapor pressure differential, determining building drying conditions, and providing optimization reporting. Claim 1 recites "A method for managing restoration assets, the method comprising..." executing those exact functional sequences verbatim. Conclusion: Transforming a patented method into a system claim by simply adding the preamble limit of a generic "controller configured to" perform those steps is an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art. Dependent claims 26–32 explicitly mirror dependent method claims 2–8 (introducing building layouts, external weather sensors, and time-series data changes) and fall alongside Claim 25.
Restoration Sensor Claims 33–38 vs. Sensor Claims 9–14
Pending independent Claim 33 is rejected because it is completely identical in substantive scope to issued Claim 9. Both claims describe a restoration sensor with a transducer, memory, a communication interface, and a processor executing identical sensor association and vapor pressure calculation protocols. The minor phrasing variation (e.g., pending Claim 33 uses "to receive" or "to associate" while patented Claim 9 uses "that receives" or "associates") represents an insubstantial grammatical update rather than a new patentable invention. Dependent claims 34–38 seamlessly track the wireless parameters and weather notifications of patented claims 10–14 and are likewise indistinct.
Instruction-Driven System Claims 39–44 vs. System Claims 15–20
Pending independent Claim 39 is rejected as a duplicate iteration of issued independent Claim 15. Both claims recite a system combining a processor and memory storing instructions to perform the underlying data aggregation, vapor pressure differential calculations, and corrective hardware deployment reporting. Dependent claims 40–44 mirror patented dependent claims 16–20 feature-for-feature (wireless delivery, parsing atmospheric metrics, and external ambient reporting) and provide no separate patentable weight.
Environmental Analytics Claims 45–54 vs. Issued Claims 1–20
Pending claims 45–54 broad-map the identical hardware environments, sensor interactions, and algorithmic trajectories specified throughout the parent patent claims. Independent Claim 45 relies on a controller using two indoor sensors to evaluate temperature, humidity, and vapor pressure differentials to arrive at a localized drying condition. This concept is a core functional building block directly covered by issued claims 1, 6, and 9. Subsequent dependent claims 46–54 add time/trajectory predictive modeling, which is fully anticipated by the predictive data steps of issued claim 7, or physical communication antennas, which represent entirely conventional peripheral components detailed in the parent disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ELLIS (US20210102861A1), MOLL (US20130193220A1), and Kishore (20210311509) teach sensor systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN WU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7852. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/WEN W HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights