DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The two information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/05/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2 and 19: “wherein at least one gas sensor is at least one of Nox, O3 and SOx” should read “wherein at least one gas sensor is at least one of a Nox, O3, and SOx gas sensor” (note that the comma should be added to avoid ambiguity regarding O3 or SOx vs. O3 and SOx), or otherwise be corrected.Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite a mental-process-type abstract idea. Claim 8 recites “at least one server configured to process received data according to preconfigured instructions and to generate alerts based on a ruleset using the processed data and then to transmit the alerts, wherein the received data is associated with at least one of air pollution, chemical gasses in air and wildfires”. Claim 9 recites “wherein the preconfigured instructions and the ruleset can be updated to reflect a change in the generated alerts”. Claim 10 recites “wherein the preconfigured instructions and the ruleset are configured generate alerts based on a quantity of SOx, wherein x is an integer”. Claim 11 recites “wherein the preconfigured instructions and the ruleset are updated to generate alerts based on a quantity of NOx, wherein x is an integer”. This fits well within the USPTO-recognized “mental process” / information-analysis line of cases. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. The courts do not distinguish “between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.” The claims merely recite the abstract idea of collecting/receiving information, analyzing/evaluating the information according to rules, and presenting/transmitting the results. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it merely uses a generic computer/server to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of a “server” is merely implementation of the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f), first paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 7, 10-11, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2, 10-11, 13, and 20: The scope of these claims is unclear as 0 is an integer and negative numbers are also integers, but it appears the instant specification intended x to be an integer ≥ 1. For the purposes of examination, prior art teaching the limitations using any integer is/are interpreted as reading upon the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 7: There are multiple instances of “the device”, the first instance of “the device” lacks antecedent basis, and it is unclear what is meant by “the device”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 8-13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Balaji et al. (US 20190287363 A1).Regarding claim 8:Balaji teaches at least one server configured to process received data according to preconfigured instructions and to generate alerts based on a ruleset using the processed data and then to transmit the alerts, wherein the received data is associated with at least one of air pollution, chemical gasses in air and wildfires(title, abstract, [0042], [0058]-[0065], [0073]-[0076], [0079]-[0080]; FIGS. 7-10)
Regarding claim 9:Balaji teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Balaji also teaches:
wherein the preconfigured instructions and the ruleset can be updated to reflect a change in the generated alerts ([0042], [0058]-[0065])
Regarding claim 10:Balaji teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as mentioned above.Balaji also teaches:
wherein the preconfigured instructions and the ruleset are configured to generate alerts based on a quantity of SOx, wherein x is an integer(See 112 rejection above. Zero is an integer. SO0 = S = sulfur. [0050])
Regarding claim 11:Balaji teaches all the limitations of claim 10, as mentioned above.Balaji also teaches:
wherein the preconfigured instructions and the ruleset are updated to generate alerts based on a quantity of NOx, wherein x is an integer([0050])
Regarding claim 12:Balaji teaches an integrated sensor suite configured to collect and transmit information associated with atmospheric conditions, the integrated sensor suite comprising:
a plurality of sensors ([0048]-[0049], [0026], [0050], [0073]; FIG. 8 - 452, 454, 456, 458, 460, 462) configured to capture the information associated with the atmospheric conditions, wherein the atmospheric conditions include air temperature (abstract, [0026], [0045]-[0046]; FIG. 8 - 454), at least one gas concentration ([0026], [0050], [0073]; FIG. 8 - 460) and a particulate matter count ([0049]; FIG. 8 - 458)
Regarding claim 13:Balaji teaches all the limitations of claim 12, as mentioned above.Balaji also teaches:
wherein the gas concentration is at least one of NOx, O3 and SOx, wherein x is an integer(e.g., [0050])
Regarding claim 15:Balaji teaches all the limitations of claim 12, as mentioned above.Balaji also teaches:
at least one solar panel configured to generate power for the plurality of sensors (e.g., FIG. 8 - 425; [0007], [0027], [0043]-[0044])
Regarding claim 17:Balaji teaches all the limitations of claim 12, as mentioned above.Balaji also teaches:
a communications interface configured to transmit the information associated with the atmospheric conditions to at least one server configured to process the received information associated with the atmospheric conditions according to preconfigured instructions and to generate alerts based on a ruleset using the processed data and then to transmit the alerts to a user device(title, abstract, [0042], [0058]-[0065], [0073]-[0076], [0079]-[0080]; FIGS. 7-10)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-7, 16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balaji et al. (US 20190287363 A1) in view of Brogi et al. (US 5734335 A).Regarding claim 1:Balaji teaches a device configured to collect and transmit information associated with conditions in an environment around the device, the device comprising:
at least one infrared light collector to collect IR light around the device ([0048]; FIG. 8 - 452);
at least one gas sensor configured to collect gas concentration data of at least one gas (e.g., [0026], [0050], [0073]; FIG. 8 - 460);
at least one particulate matter detector configured to collect particulate matter concentrations in the environment around the device ([0049]; FIG. 8 - 458), wherein the at least one infrared light collector, the at least one gas sensor and the at least one particulate matter detector forward their respective collected data to a radio (e.g., FIG. 8 - 440; [0071], [0073]);
at least one solar panel (e.g., FIG. 8 - 425; [0007], [0027], [0043]-[0044]) configured to generate power for at least one of the at least one IR collector, the at least one gas sensor and the at least one particulate matter detector; and
the radio configured to transmit the collected data (e.g., FIG. 8 - 440; [0058]-[0065], [0071], [0073])Balaji fails to explicitly teach:
at least one infrared camera configured to collect IR data of the environment around the device;Brogi teaches:
at least one infrared camera configured to collect IR data of the environment around the device(Col. 5, Lines 3-33)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mobile infrared camera and mobile visible-spectrum video camera of Brogi in the device of Balaji to yield enhanced monitoring. Brogi is provided as Balaji only vaguely recites that the flame sensor may detect the presence of flame or fire by collecting infrared light. Brogi provides a more robust teaching of an infrared camera and how it’s used. Brogi also teaches using both an infrared camera in addition to a video camera so that an operator may see live, visible-spectrum video/images to confirm the fire or any conditions of interest.
Regarding claim 2:Balaji and Brogi teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Balaji also teaches:
wherein the at least one gas sensor is at least one of NOx, O3 and SOx, wherein x is an integer(e.g., [0050])
Regarding claim 3:Balaji and Brogi teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Balaji also teaches:
a stand or mount which is configured to have the at least one gas sensor, at least one solar panel and the radio attached to the stand or mount, wherein the stand or mount can be placed on or mounted to a surface([0053]-[0056])Balaji fails to explicitly teach:
a tripod
However, the examiner takes Official notice that using a tripod to place or mount a device such as a camera and/or sensor(s) is extremely well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 4:Balaji and Brogi teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Balaji also teaches:
a battery connected to the solar panel (e.g., [0043]-[0044])
Regarding claim 5:Balaji and Brogi teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Brogi teaches:
a second camera, wherein the second camera is configured to capture images in a visible light spectrum (Col. 5, Lines 3-33)
Regarding claim 6:Balaji and Brogi teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Balaji also teaches:
wherein the information collected from the environment around the device is information associated with at least one of air pollution, chemical gasses in air and wildfires (e.g., title, abstract)
Regarding claim 7:Balaji teaches a system for collecting data, processing the data, generating alerts and displaying the alerts in a real-time or near real-time basis associated with atmospheric content testing, the system comprising:
at least one infrared light collector to collect IR light around the device ([0048]; FIG. 8 - 452);
at least one gas sensor configured to collect gas concentration data of at least one gas (e.g., [0026], [0050], [0073]; FIG. 8 - 460);
at least one particulate matter detector configured to collect particulate matter concentrations in the environment around the device ([0049]; FIG. 8 - 458), wherein at least one infrared light collector, at least one gas sensor and at least one particulate matter detector forward their respective collected data to a radio (e.g., FIG. 8 - 440; [0071], [0073]), wherein the radio is configured to transmit the collected data to at least one server ([0071]-[0073], [0079]);
at least one solar panel (e.g., FIG. 8 - 425; [0007], [0027], [0043]-[0044]) configured to generate power for at least one IR light collector, at least one gas sensor and at least one particulate matter detector;
at least one server configured to process the received data according to preconfigured instructions and to generate alerts based on a ruleset based on the processed data then to transmit the alerts ([0042], [0058]-[0065], [0075]-[0076], [0079]-[0080]); and
a user interface configured to receive and display the alerts ([0058]-[0066], [0084]-[0085], [0088], FIGS. 11-13)Balaji fails to explicitly teach:
at least one infrared (IR) camera configured to collect IR data of the environment around the deviceBrogi teaches:
at least one infrared (IR) camera configured to collect IR data of the environment around the device(Col. 5, Lines 3-33)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mobile infrared camera and mobile visible-spectrum video camera of Brogi in the device of Balaji to yield enhanced monitoring. Brogi is provided as Balaji only vaguely recites that the flame sensor may detect the presence of flame or fire by collecting infrared light. Brogi provides a more robust teaching of an infrared camera and how it’s used. Brogi also teaches using both an infrared camera in addition to a video camera so that an operator may see live, visible-spectrum video/images to confirm the fire or any conditions of interest.
Regarding claim 16:Balaji teaches all the limitations of claim 12, as mentioned above.Balaji fails to teach:
a camera, wherein the camera is configured to capture images in a visible light spectrumBrogi teaches:
a camera, wherein the camera is configured to capture images in a visible light spectrum(Col. 5, Lines 3-33)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the visible-spectrum video camera of Brogi in the device of Balaji to yield enhanced monitoring. Brogi teaches using both an infrared camera in addition to a video camera so that an operator may see live, visible-spectrum video/images to confirm the fire or any conditions of interest.
Regarding claim 18:Balaji teaches a method for collecting and transmitting information associated with conditions in an environment around a device, the method comprising:
collecting, using at least one infrared light collector, IR data of the environment around the device ([0048]; FIG. 8 - 452);
collecting, using at least one gas sensor, gas concentration data of at least one gas (e.g., [0026], [0050], [0073]; FIG. 8 - 460);
collecting, using at least one particulate matter detector, particulate matter concentrations in the environment around the device ([0049]; FIG. 8 - 458), wherein the at least one infrared light collector, at least one gas sensor and at least one particulate matter detector forward their respective collected data to a radio (e.g., FIG. 8 - 440; [0071], [0073]);
generating, using at least one solar panel (e.g., FIG. 8 - 425; [0007], [0027], [0043]-[0044]), power for at least one IR light collector, at least one gas sensor and at least one particulate matter detector; and
transmitting, using the radio, the collected data ([0058]-[0065], [0071]-[0073], [0079])Balaji fails to explicitly teach:
infrared cameraBrogi teaches:
infrared camera (Col. 5, Lines 3-33)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mobile infrared camera and mobile visible-spectrum video camera of Brogi in the method of Balaji to yield enhanced monitoring. Brogi is provided as Balaji only vaguely recites that the flame sensor may detect the presence of flame or fire by collecting infrared light. Brogi provides a more robust teaching of an infrared camera and how it’s used. Brogi also teaches using both an infrared camera in addition to a video camera so that an operator may see live, visible-spectrum video/images to confirm the fire or any conditions of interest.
Regarding claim 19:Balaji and Brogi teach all the limitations of claim 18, as mentioned above.Balaji also teaches:
wherein at least one gas sensor is at least one of NOx, O3 and SOx, wherein x is an integer(e.g., [0050])
Regarding claim 20:Balaji and Brogi teach all the limitations of claim 18, as mentioned above.Balaji also teaches:
a stand or mount which is configured to have the device attached to the stand or mount, wherein the stand or mount can be placed on or mounted to a surface and space the device off the ground at a given height
([0053]-[0056])Balaji fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the device is attached to a tripod
However, the examiner takes Official notice that using a tripod to place or mount a device such as a camera and/or sensor(s) is extremely well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 21:Balaji and Brogi teach all the limitations of claim 18, as mentioned above.Balaji also teaches:
connecting a battery to the solar panel (e.g., [0043]-[0044])
Regarding claim 22:Balaji and Brogi teach all the limitations of claim 18, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 18 rejection above, Brogi teaches:
capturing, using a second camera, images in a visible light spectrum(Col. 5, Lines 3-33)
Regarding claim 23:Balaji and Brogi teach all the limitations of claim 18, as mentioned above.Balaji also teaches:
wherein the information collected from the environment around the device is information associated with at least one of air pollution, chemical gasses in air and wildfires (e.g., title, abstract)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balaji et al. (US 20190287363 A1).Regarding claim 14:Balaji teaches all the limitations of claim 12, as mentioned above.Balaji also teaches:
wherein the plurality of sensors is attached to a stand or mount that can be attached to a surface or on the ground and that spaces the plurality of sensors off the ground at a given height([0053]-[0056])Balaji fails to explicitly teach:
a tripod
However, the examiner takes Official notice that using a tripod to place or mount a device such as a camera and/or sensor(s) is extremely well-known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights