DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 has a period in the middle of the claim in line 10. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 recites duplicate claim limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 18 ends with a colon and not a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiler (Pub. No.: 2013/0109375 A1) in view of Lunner (Pub. No.: 2021/0264762 A1) and Wiker (Pub. No.: 2021/0394326 A1).
1) In regard to claim 1, Zeller discloses the claimed electronic component (fig. 1: 105) comprising a fall detection device (fig. 1: 155), said fall detection device comprising:
an acceleration sensor configured to determine an acceleration of the electronic component to acquire an acceleration signal (fig. 1: 155 and ¶0059);
a processor (fig. 1: 145) configured to determine a fall event and/or fall event parameter based on the acceleration signal and the further signal (¶0059);
wherein the electronic component is a battery pack or a tool comprising a battery pack (¶0058).
Zeiler does not explicitly disclose a further sensor configured to determine a further physical parameter to acquire a further signal, and the battery pack is configured to be deactivated when a fall or a fall with a certain height is detected or wherein the battery pack is configured to be discharged when a fall or a fall with a certain height is detected.
However, Lunner discloses it has been known for a fall detection device to deactivate a battery pack in the event of a fall or fall with a certain height is detected or wherein the battery pack is configured to be discharged when a fall or a fall with a certain height is detected (¶0130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the device of Zeiler to deactivate the tool in the event of a fall, as taught by Lunner.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zeiler as described above in order to reduce the risk of the tool to cause damage, as taught by Lunner (¶0130).
In addition, Wiker discloses it is known for a fall detection device to include a further sensor configured to determine a further physical parameter to acquire a further signal (¶0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the device of Zeiler to have an additional sensor to determine a fall, as taught by Wiker.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zeiler as described above in order to provide redundancy of detecting a fall, thereby, reducing the chance of a false alarm.
2) In regard to claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Zeiler, Lunner and Wiker further disclose the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine a centripetal acceleration based on the further signal and wherein the processor is configured to compensate the acceleration signal based on the determined centripetal acceleration (Wiker ¶0023).
3) In regard to claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), Zeiler, Lunner and Wiker further disclose the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein the acceleration sensor is configured to determine a gravity acceleration and/or further acceleration; and/or
wherein the acceleration sensor is configured as three-dimensional sensor;
and/or wherein the processor is configured to analyze a three-dimensional acceleration signal or an absolute value of a three-dimensional acceleration signal (Wiker ¶0023).
4) In regard to claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), Zeiler, Lunner and Wiker further disclose the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein the further sensor is as formed by a gyroscope; or wherein the further sensor is as formed by a gyroscope and wherein the gyroscope is configured to determine an angular velocity signal (Wiker ¶0023).
Claims 5, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiler (Pub. No.: 2013/0109375 A1) in view of Lunner (Pub. No.: 2021/0264762 A1) and Wiker (Pub. No.: 2021/0394326 A1) and further in view of Chen (Pub. No.: 2012/0173189 A1).
1) In regard to claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), Zeiler, Lunner and Wiker disclose the electronic component according to claim 1.
Zeiler, Lunner and Wiker do not explicitly disclose the processor is configured to determine the absolute centripetal acceleration as w² * r, where W is the absolute value of the angular velocity and r the distance between the further sensor and a rotational axis of the electronic component.
However, Chen discloses it has been known to determine a centripetal acceleration using the equation w² * r, where W is the absolute value of the angular velocity and r the distance between the further sensor and a rotational axis of the electronic component (¶0010 and Equation 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the device of Zeiler to use a known equation to determine a centripetal acceleration, as taught by Chen.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zeiler as described above in order to use a known equation to determine a value.
2) In regard to claim 15, claim 15 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 5 and the references applied.
3) In regard to claim 16, claim 16 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 5 and the references applied.
4) In regard to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 5 and the references applied.
5) In regard to claim 20, claim 20 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 5 and the references applied.
Claims 6-7, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiler (Pub. No.: 2013/0109375 A1) in view of Lunner (Pub. No.: 2021/0264762 A1) and Wiker (Pub. No.: 2021/0394326 A1) and further in view of Abbott (Pub. No.: 2024/0347286 A1).
1) In regard to claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), Zeiler, Lunner and Wiker disclose the electronic component according to claim 1.
Zeiler, Lunner and Wiker do not explicitly disclose the further sensor is configured to determine a pressure and/or to monitor a pressure difference and/or is formed by a barometer; or wherein the further sensor is configured to determine a pressure and/or to monitor a pressure difference and wherein the processor is configured to determine the fall event or a falling height as the fall event parameter based on the determined pressure or pressure difference.
However, Abbott discloses it is known for a monitoring device for a tool to have a sensor formed by a barometer to determine a pressure difference and determine a fall event (¶0108-¶0109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the device of Zeiler to determine a fall using a barometer, as taught by Abbott.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zeiler as described above in order to use a known technique for determining a tool has dropped.
2) In regard to claim 7 (dependent on claim 6), Zeiler, Lunner, Wiker and Abbott further disclose the electronic component according to claim 6, further comprising another sensor which is formed by a gyroscope and outputs another sensor signal and/or wherein the processor is configured to determine a centripetal acceleration or rotational position based on the another sensor signal (Abbott ¶0108).
3) In regard to claim 14 (dependent on claim 6), Zeiler, Lunner, Wiker and Abbott further disclose the electronic component according to claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to determine a freefall height based on the further sensor signal (Wiker ¶0023).
4) In regard to claim 18 (dependent on claim 16), claim 18 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 6 and the references applied.
Claims 8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiler (Pub. No.: 2013/0109375 A1) in view of Lunner (Pub. No.: 2021/0264762 A1) and Wiker (Pub. No.: 2021/0394326 A1) and further in view of Goyal (Pub. No.: 2022/0239139 A1).
1) In regard to claim 8 (dependent on claim 1), Zeiler, Lunner and Wiker disclose the electronic component according to claim 1.
Zeiler, Lunner and Wiker do not explicitly disclose the processor is configured to determine an impact orientation based on the determination of an impact and based on a rotational position during the impact, wherein the impact is determined based on the acceleration signal and wherein the rotational position is determined based on the another sensor signal or the further sensor signal output by the gyroscope, and/or wherein the processor is configured to output an impact orientation as the fall event parameter.
However, Goyal discloses it is known for a fall detection device to have a processor to be configured to determine an impact orientation based on the determination of an impact and based on a rotational position during the impact, wherein the impact is determined based on the acceleration signal and wherein the rotational position is determined based on the another sensor signal or the further sensor signal output by the gyroscope, and/or wherein the processor is configured to output an impact orientation as the fall event parameter (¶0043-¶0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the device of Zeiler to determine an impact orientation, as taught by Goyal.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zeiler as described above in order to consider the location of the center of gravity of the device, as taught by Goyal (¶0047).
2) In regard to claim 11 (dependent on claim 1), Zeiler, Lunner and Wiker further disclose the electronic component according to claim 1
Zeiler, Lunner and Wiker do not explicitly disclose the processor is configured to determine an impact and/or a deflection of the electronic component, and/or the processor is configured to determine an impact and/or a deflection of the electronic component based on a change in the acceleration signal and/or in case the acceleration signal exceeding a threshold and/or based on a characteristic pattern of the acceleration signal.
However, Goyal discloses it is known for a fall detection device processor to be configured to determine an impact and/or a deflection of the electronic component, and/or the processor is configured to determine an impact and/or a deflection of the electronic component based on a change in the acceleration signal and/or in case the acceleration signal exceeding a threshold and/or based on a characteristic pattern of the acceleration signal (¶0043-¶0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the processor of Zeiler to determine an impact based on an acceleration signal, as taught by Goyal.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zeiler as described above in order to use a known technique for detecting a device which has fell.
3) In regard to claim 12 (dependent on claim 1), Zeiler, Lunner and Wiker further disclose the electronic component according to claim 1
Zeiler, Lunner and Wiker do not explicitly disclose the processor is configured to classify a ground impacted by the electronic component based on the acceleration signal received during impact and/or a pattern of the acceleration signal during impact.
However, Goyal discloses it is known for a fall detection device processor to be configured to classify a ground impacted by the electronic component based on the acceleration signal received during impact and/or a pattern of the acceleration signal during impact (¶0043-¶0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the processor of Zeiler to determine an impact based on an acceleration signal, as taught by Goyal.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zeiler as described above in order to use a known technique for detecting a device which has fell.
4) In regard to claim 13 (dependent on claim 1), Zeiler, Lunner and Wiker further disclose the electronic component according to claim 1
Zeiler, Lunner and Wiker do not explicitly disclose the processor is configured to determine a height, height motion portion, an impact orientation, or another motion parameter as the fall event parameter based on the acceleration signal taking into account a rotational motion portion acquired based on another sensor signal output by a gyroscope or the further sensor signal output by the gyroscope.
However, Goyal discloses it is known for a fall detection device processor to be configured to determine a height, height motion portion, an impact orientation, or another motion parameter as the fall event parameter based on the acceleration signal taking into account a rotational motion portion acquired based on another sensor signal output by a gyroscope or the further sensor signal output by the gyroscope (¶0043-¶0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the processor of Zeiler to determine an impact orientation based on an acceleration signal, as taught by Goyal.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zeiler as described above in order to use a known technique for detecting a device which has fell.
Claims 9, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiler (Pub. No.: 2013/0109375 A1) in view of Lunner (Pub. No.: 2021/0264762 A1) and Wiker (Pub. No.: 2021/0394326 A1) and further in view of Traub (Pub. No.: 2024/0342877 A1).
1) In regard to claim 9 (dependent on claim 1), Zeiler, Lunner and Wiker disclose the electronic component according to claim 1.
Zeiler, Lunner and Wiker do not explicitly disclose the processor comprises a device for determining a freefall situation as the fall event and/or a freefall height as the fall event parameter.
However, Traub discloses it is known for a fall detection device processor to include a device for determining a freefall situation as the fall event and/or a freefall height as the fall event parameter (¶0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the device of Zeiler to detect an object is falling based on a freefall event, as taught by Traub.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zeiler as described above in order to use a known technique of detecting whether an object is falling from a height.
2) In regard to claim 10 (dependent on claim 9), Zeiler, Lunner, Wiker and Traub further disclose the electronic component according to claim 9, wherein a freefall is determined when a gravity acceleration of 0 g or substantially 0 g is determined based on the acceleration signal; or a freefall is determined when a gravity acceleration of 0 g or substantially 0 g is determined based on the acceleration signal; wherein the processor is configured to determine the freefall height or a freefall time or a freefall height based on a freefall time (Traub ¶0018).
3) In regard to claim 17 (dependent on claim 16), claim 17 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 10 and the references applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685