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
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: The claim reads “the tag apparatus” and it should say “the wireless-enabled tag” to stay consistent with claim 1 language and avoid 112 rejection. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trivisani et al (US 2010/0211080).
Per claim 1, Trivisani teaches a wireless-enabled tag for use with an umbilical cord clamp, the wireless-enabled tag comprising (0011 teaches umbilical cord clamp containing wireless communication capability): a processor (0042 and 0046 teaches a circuit board 122, receiver 140, transmitter 150 and a memory chip 153); a memory coupled to the processor (0042 and 0046); a wireless data transfer module coupled to the processor (0042, Fig. 7 and 0044 teaches receiver and a transmitter and the sensor may transmit and/or receive variety of wireless communication such as RFID/wireless signals); a tamper-evident mechanism coupled to the processor (0005, 0011 and 0048 teaches tamper detection wherein tampering will set of an external sensor….alert child care monitors in an event that the clamp is broken/cut), wherein the tamper-evident mechanism comprises a switch configured to engage the umbilical cord clamp (0011 teaches a wire that forms a current carrying circuit as soon as terminals within the locking mechanism are linked, which occurs when clamp is closed. 0050 teaches a switch that is formed between the first terminal and second terminal), and wherein the switch is configured to detect a first state and a second state, wherein the first state is when the umbilical cord clamp is engaged with the switch, and wherein the second state is when the umbilical cord clamp is disengaged from the switch (0040 teaches when the clamp is closed…it is detected as clamp intact. 0011 teaches, forms a current carrying circuit as soon as terminals are linked….when the clamp is closed. 0040 and 0048 teaches if the clamp is cut during security incident the sudden disappearance of this electrical current will trigger an alarm, meaning its open state).
Per claim 2, Trivisani teaches wherein the tag further comprises a housing containing the processor, the memory, and the wireless data transfer module (0008, 0038, 0042, 0046 and Fig. 3-5 teaches a cover/housing and further teaches a circuit board, memory and transmitter/receiver for wireless communication).
Per claim 3, Trivisani teaches wherein the tag apparatus includes a rectangular housing containing the tag apparatus processor, the tag apparatus memory, the tag apparatus wireless data transfer module, and the tag apparatus wireless data transfer device (rejection of claim 1 teaches wireless tag/sensor having circuit board, memory, wireless data transfer capability. Fig. 1, 2 and 7 teaches sensor unit 113 in a triangular shape. Further, the housing/cover as shown in paragraph 0042 and Fig. 3-5 also teaches dimensions of large section 45 between .6” and .91” inches and small section 47 being between .3” and .5” in heigh and .24” and .34” in width, hence describing a rectangular prism-like enclosure).
Per claim 7, Trivisani teaches a wireless-enabled tag for use with an umbilical cord clamp, the wireless-enabled tag comprising (0011 teaches umbilical cord clamp containing wireless communication capability): a processor (0042 and 0046 teaches a circuit board 122, receiver 140, transmitter 150 and a memory chip 153); a memory coupled to the processor (0042 and 0046); a wireless data transfer module coupled to the processor (0042, Fig. 7 and 0044 teaches receiver and a transmitter and the sensor may transmit and/or receive variety of wireless communication such as RFID/wireless signals);
a power supply coupled to the processor (0038 and 0042 teaches a power source 120); a housing containing the processor, the memory, the wireless data transfer module, and the power supply (0042-0047 teaches sensor 113 contains a power source…a receiver…transmitter…and a memory chip. Also see Fig. 3-5 that shows the housing containing all the integral parts);
a tamper-evident mechanism coupled to the processor (0005, 0011 and 0048 teaches tamper detection wherein tampering will set of an external sensor….alert child care monitors in an event that the clamp is broken/cut), wherein the tamper-evident mechanism comprises a switch configured to engage a locking mechanism of the umbilical cord clamp (0011 teaches a wire that forms a current carrying circuit as soon as terminals within the locking mechanism are linked, which occurs when clamp is closed. 0050 teaches a switch that is formed between the first terminal and second terminal), and
wherein the switch is configured to be depressed when a male portion of the locking mechanism of the umbilical cord clamp engages a female portion of the locking mechanism of the umbilical cord clamp (paragraph 0050 and Fig. 1-2 teaches locking mechanism 70 with male hooks 73a, latch 74 with inward female hooks 74a…when engaged, the electrical switch closes. 0034-0039 teaches v shaped hooks 73a are forced into the gap 74c between the inwardly facing hooks 74a…once permanently encased…the terminals enable direct current to flow); and wherein the tag is adapted to be wirelessly read by a wireless tag reader (0047-0049 teaches the sensor 113 may transmit and/or receive a variety of signals such as RFID and the external detection device receives signals from the sensor).
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) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivisani et al (US 2010/0211080) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Bingo et al (US 5902933).
Per claim 4, Trivisani does not explicitly teach wherein the housing further comprises a column stem and a column pedestal.
In an analogous art, Bingo teaches a pressure sensor (abstract). Bingo further teaches wherein the housing further comprises a column stem and a column pedestal (Fig. 31-32 teaches a microprocessor 120 in a sensor element 27 that is mounted on a stem 128a through a pedestal 128b to be enclosed within a housing 128). Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to incorporate the stem-and-pedestal support structure of Bingo into the housing of Trivisani because the prior art provides a finite set of known structural support configurations for stabilizing internal electronic components. A person of ordinary skill would have had good reason to use the support geometry of Bingo to achieve predictable stabilization of the circuity taught by Trivisani. Selecting from among known, predictable structural arrangements constitutes an obvious to try modification under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Per claim 5, Trivisani in paragraph 0032 teaches hinge 60 that is used as a sleeve over a conventionally available clamp. But, Trivisani does not explicitly teach wherein the column stem is configured to fit in a hinge cavity of a hinge of the umbilical cord clamp.
Bingo teaches wherein the column stem is configured to fit in a hinge cavity of a hinge of the umbilical cord clamp (the guide tube 129 of the sensor 120 is engaged with the hole 122 of the chamber 25…the guide tube is inserted into the opening 135, in other words, a stem configured to fit into a cavity, see col. 30, lines 1-14). Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to adapt the stem structure of Bingo so that it fits within the hinge cavity of Trivisani because both references disclose projection into recess engagement mechanisms, and the art provides only a limited number of predictable mechanical configuration for achieving alignment and retention. A person of ordinary skill would have naturally applied this known cavity engagement structure to Trivisani’s hinge cavity. Selecting from a finite number of predictable options, it would be an obvious to try modification under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Per claim 6, Trivisani in Fig. 1-3 and paragraph 0050-0051 and 0035 teaches that once the clamp is locked, embedded internal part such as the sensor cannot be removed. But, Trivisani does not explicitly teach wherein the column pedestal is wider than the column stem and prevents the column stem from being removed from the hinge cavity when the umbilical cord clamp is in a locked position.
Bingo teaches wherein the column pedestal is wider than the column stem and prevents the column stem from being removed from the hinge cavity when the umbilical cord clamp is in a locked position (Fig. 30-31 shows the pedestal being wider than the stem and stem 128a goes through a pedestal 128b and then the guide tube 129 is engaged with the hole 122, preventing the stem from being removed once engaged). Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Trivisani to use the known method of clamping structure of Bingo in order to make sure the sensor is not removable once the clamp is locked. The rationale would be to minimize tampering/unauthorized use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Muramoto et al (US 2023/0070528) paragraph 0025 and Fig. 2-3 teaches pedestal and stem.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMEED ALIZADA whose telephone number is (571)270-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am until 5:30 pm.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/OMEED ALIZADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686