DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant’s communication filed 17 September 2026. In view of this communication, claims 1-5 are pending in the application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 4-5 of the Remarks, filed 17 September 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 USC §102 and §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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Howard et al. and Capodilupo et al.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Capodilupo et al (US 2023/0106450 A1), hereinafter referred to as Capodilupo et al
Regarding claim 1, Capodilupo et al. teaches a system for communication of information related to emergency situations (abstract), wherein the system has a first printed circuit board (78), a second printed circuit board (80) and a third printed circuit board (para 0076)), and wherein the first printed circuit board (para 0076), the second printed circuit board (para 0076) and the third printed circuit board (para 0076) plug into each other to form a communication relay (para 0076 states the circuit boards are coupled together) and furthermore wherein the system comprises wearable IoT units (abstract states it is a wearable unit).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Howard et al (US 20090227887 A1), hereinafter referred to as Howard et al., in view of Capodilupo et al.
Regarding claim 1, Howard et al. teaches a system for communication of information related to emergency situations, wherein the system comprises a first printed circuit board (78), a second printed circuit board (80) and a third module (28), and wherein the first printed circuit board (78), the second printed circuit board (80) and the third module (28) plug into each other to form a communication relay (Fig. 6 and paragraphs 17 and 52: circuit boards 78 and 80 are disposed on the base 28 and the base 28 comprises a wireless communication link), and furthermore wherein the system comprises wearable IoT units (paragraph 40: the monitor is wearable).
However, Howard et al. does not teach that this third module is a circuit board. Capodilupo et al. does teach that this third module may be a circuit board (Capodilupo et al. paragraphs 64 and 76: the processors, communication components, and sensors may be provided on three circuit boards).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the third module of Howard et al. could be a circuit board as taught by Capodilupo et al. because such an arrangement enables a higher processing capacity in a smaller volume (Capodilupo et al. paragraph 76).
Regarding claim 3, Howard et al. in view of Capodilupo et al. teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second printed circuit board is a weather station comprising humidity and barometric pressure sensors (Howard et al. paragraphs 52, 57, and 71: the circuit board 78 may comprise a barometric pressure sensor 98 and humidity sensor 100).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard et al. in view of Capodilupo et al., in further view of Armitage (US 20200232959 A1), hereinafter referred to as Armitage.
Regarding claim 2, Howard et al. teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first printed circuit board (78) is a communication platform comprising an AirTemp sensor and a CO2 sensor (paragraph 52: the circuit board 78 has an air temperature sensor and a carbon dioxide sensor), but does not teach that the first circuit board comprises GPS, Cellular, and LoraWan.
Armitage does teach that the first circuit board may comprise GPS (paragraph 100), Cellular (paragraph 85), and LoraWan (paragraph 101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first circuit board of Howard et al. with GPS, Cellular, and LoraWan as taught by Armitage because the GPS, Cellular, and LoraWan of Armitage enhance the device’s ability to communicate with a variety of devices that Howard et al. envisions the user using to monitor the parameters measured by the device (see Howard et al. paragraph 102 and Armitage paragraphs 100-101).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capodilupo et al (US 2023/0106450 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Capodilupo et al discloses Capodilupo et al the printed circuit board is a communication platform comprising GPS(para 0072). Capodilupo et al. does not disclose the printed circuit board is the first circuit board, since the numbering of the three circuit boards is random and can be assigned and number desired, it would have been obvious to number the circuit board with the GPS as the first circuit board.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard et al. in view of Capodilupo et al., in further view of Hou (CN 218198813 U), hereinafter referred to as Hou.
Regarding claim 4, Howard et al. teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach that the third printed circuit board is a wind sensor comprising ultrasonic wind sensors.
Hou does teach that the third printed circuit board is a wind sensor comprising ultrasonic wind sensors (Hou page 4, paragraph 4: ultrasonic wind sensor 24 is mounted to circuit board 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the third circuit board of Howard et al. with a wind sensor as taught by Hou because Howard et al. teaches that measuring the airflow of the subject is desirable but does not teach that the airflow sensor is on a separate board. Hou et al. shows that this modification would comprise mere rearrangement of the parts already present in Howard et al., which involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard et al. in view of Capodilupo et al. and Armitage, in further view of Howard et al. and Hou.
Regarding claim 5, Howard et al. teaches the system of claim 2, but does not teach that the second printed circuit board is a weather station comprising humidity and barometric pressure sensors, and that the third printed circuit board is a wind sensor comprising ultrasonic wind sensors.
Howard et al. does teach a circuit board that is a weather station comprising humidity and barometric pressure sensors (Howard et al. paragraphs 52, 57, and 71: the circuit board 78 may comprise a barometric pressure sensor 98 and humidity sensor 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second circuit board (80) of Howard et al. with the humidity and barometric pressure sensors as taught by Howard et al. because the barometric pressure and humidity sensors of Howard et al. are already present on the first circuit board (78) of Howard et al. and providing them on the second circuit board instead of the first would constitute mere rearrangement of parts already present in the device, which involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Hou does teach that the third printed circuit board is a wind sensor comprising ultrasonic wind sensors (Hou page 4, paragraph 4: ultrasonic wind sensor 24 is mounted to circuit board 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the third circuit board of Howard et al. with a wind sensor as taught by Hou because Howard et al. teaches that measuring the airflow of the subject is desirable but does not teach that the airflow sensor is on a separate board. Hou et al. shows that this modification would comprise mere rearrangement of the parts already present in Howard et al., which involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Braiman (US 20190051134 A1)
Relle Jr. (US 20080281528 A1)
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 John B Freal whose telephone number is (571)272-4056. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-3:00.
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, Timothy J Thompson can be reached at (571)272-2342. 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 B FREAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
