Notice of Pre-AIA Status
The present application, filed on after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a first Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1, 3, 5-24 as originally filed 18 JUL. 2025, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed 18 JUL. 25 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c).
Claim 2, 4, and 25-36 should be presented without text.
Claim 9 ln. 1: this claim appears to include incomplete markings showing changes, as line 1 of this claim appears to comprise added language. Specifically, ”9” should be underlined.
Amendments to the claims filed onafter July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claimaddition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled”“not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of fivefewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,”“withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
However, rather than mail a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment (37 CFR 1.121), and to facilitate an advancement of prosecution, the Examiner will examine the amended claims as presented 18 JUL. 25. Applicant is cautioned that any future response must present the correct markingsthe Examiner will be forced to send a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment (37 CFR 1.121).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 SEP. 2024 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.831.84 because of the following informalities:
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, therefore the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“extended position” and “collapsed position” (Cl. 1 ln. 7-14; Cl. 6, ln. 4; Cl. 13 ln. 16; Cl. 14 ln. 3; Cl. 18 ln. 4) has/have not been explicitly pointed out
FIG(s) 5A: appears to be two separate figures and should be labeled as suchelse FIG. 5A should have its separated parts embraced by brackets (see 37 CFR 1.84 (h));
FIG(s) 5B: appears to be two separate figures and should be labeled as suchelse FIG. 5B should have its separated parts embraced by brackets (see 37 CFR 1.84 (h));
FIG(s) 6: appears to be two separate figures and should be labeled as suchelse FIG. 6 should have its separated parts embraced by brackets (see 37 CFR 1.84 (h));
FIG(s) 9: appears to be two separate figures and should be labeled as suchelse FIG. 9 should have its separated parts embraced by brackets (see 37 CFR 1.84 (h));
FIG(s) 10: appears to be four separate figures and should be labeled as suchelse FIG. 10 should have its separated parts embraced by brackets (see 37 CFR 1.84 (h));
FIG(s) 7, 8, 10: contain(s) shading which is/are not understood as not being a drawing symbol from the MPEP (see §608.02 IX. DRAWING SYMBOLS; 37 CFR 1.84 (m));
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figurefigure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet”“New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification should include a brief summary section
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6-7, 9, 12, 14, 16, and 22 objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl. 6 ln. 1: after “3, wherein” replace “said” with --a-- as no “user interface” has been heretofore introduced
Cl. 6 ln. 1-2; Cl. 7 ln. 1: after “user interface of” or “wherein” replace [[said]] with --a-- as no “computing entity“ has been heretofore introduced
Cl. 6 ln. 4: after “collapsed position” replace “and” with --or--
Cl. 9 ln. 1: after “6, wherein” replace “said” with --a-- as no “secondary security device” has been heretofore introduced
Cl. 12 ln. 2: after “instruction stored on” replace “said” with --a-- as no “non-transitory…” has been heretofore introduced
Cl. 12 ln. 3: after “by said” replace “said” with --a-- as no processor has been heretofore introduced
Cl. 14 ln. 1: after “further comprising” replace “a” with --the-- to be clear this is referring to the previously introduced “display”
Cl. 16 ln. 1: after “further comprising” replace “a” with --said-- to be clear this is referring to the previously introduced “control board”
Cl. 22 ln. 1: after “instructions stored on” replace “a” with --said-- to be clear this is referring to the previously introduced “non-transitory computer-readable medium”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with onemore claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventora 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 onemore claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6-7, 9, 10, 12, 15-16, 18-19, 21, 22 and 24 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 inventora joint inventor, for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Cl. 6 ln. 2; Cl. 18 ln. 2: after “allows a user to control said hydraulic/pneumatic pack” the phrase “in a way such that said user may cause” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear how “in a way” or “such that” should be interpreted, as it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is suggested to replace “in a way such that said user may” with --to--.
Cl. 7, 19: the recitation of “may present” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24 not particularly referenced in this section are rejected as being dependent upon an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanner US 10364583 B2.
As per claim 13 Tanner teaches a system for a portable pod comprising,
a first framework (plenum 113, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B) operably connected to a first hydraulic/pneumatic arm (“expanding means... pneumatic” 5:7-8),
wherein said first hydraulic/pneumatic arm (“expanding means... pneumatic” 5:7-8) alters a position of said first framework (plenum 113, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B),
a second framework (plenum 114, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B) operably connected to a second hydraulic/pneumatic arm (“expanding means... pneumatic” 5:7-8),
wherein said second hydraulic/pneumatic arm (“expanding means... pneumatic” 5:7-8) alters said position of said second framework (plenum 114, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B),
an exterior shell (external frame 104, 104, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; note core zones 100, 101, 102, 104) connected to said first framework (plenum 113, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B) and said second framework (plenum 114, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B),
wherein said exterior shell (external frame 104, 104, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; note core zones 100, 101, 102, 104) forms an exterior structure,
wherein a shape of said exterior structure is manipulated (see ”adapted to expand to an expanded condition and retract to a retracted condition” Cl. 1; this is recognized as teaching the shape is manipulated, as broadly claimed) by said position of said first framework (plenum 113, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B) relative to said second framework (plenum 114, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B), and
a hydraulic/pneumatic pack (415)(see “integral frame power system 145 provides both on-grid and off-grid power supply options and is the primary power source for the expansion drive mechanism” 8:49) operably connected to at least one of said first hydraulic/pneumatic arm (“expanding means... pneumatic” 5:7-8) said second hydraulic/pneumatic arm (“expanding means... pneumatic” 5:7-8),
wherein said hydraulic/pneumatic pack (see “integral frame power system 145 provides both on-grid and off-grid power supply options and is the primary power source for the expansion drive mechanism” 8:49) causes at least one of said first hydraulic/pneumatic arm (“expanding means... pneumatic” 5:7-8)
said second hydraulic/pneumatic arm (“expanding means... pneumatic” 5:7-8) to move (see ”adapted to expand to an expanded condition and retract to a retracted condition” Cl. 1; this is recognized as teaching “to move” as broadly claimed) said frameworks (plenums 113 and 114, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B) (410Ax) from a collapsed position (see “expanding the frame from a retracted to an expanded state” 5:6) to an extended position (see “expanding the frame from a retracted to an expanded state” 5:6),
wherein a locking mechanism secures (see “the modified worm gear sleeve is forced along the affixed worm gear screw actuator 131 forcing the two sides away or towards one another” 5:35; this is recognized as a locking mechanism because it prevents —or locks— the sides from moving away from one another) said first framework (plenum 113, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B) in said position relative to said second framework (plenum 114, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B),
wherein an opening (see “opening” at lower left and upper right areas bound by frame 104, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B) within said exterior shell (external frame 104, 104, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; note core zones 100, 101, 102, 104) allows for access to an internal cavity (see internal space, FIG. 1, 2A. 2B) created when at least one of said first framework (plenum 113, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B) said second framework (plenum 114, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B) are placed in said extended position (see “expanding the frame from a retracted to an expanded state” 5:6).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 3, 5-12, 14-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanner in view of Rezvani et al. US 12169414 B2 (Rezvani)
As per claim 1 Tanner teaches a system for a portable pod comprising,
a framework (plenums 113 and 114, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B) operably connected to a hydraulic/pneumatic arm (“expanding means... pneumatic” 5:7-8),
wherein said hydraulic/pneumatic arm (“expanding means... pneumatic” 5:7-8) alters a position of said framework (plenums 113 and 114, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B),
an exterior shell (external frame 104, 104, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; note core zones 100, 101, 102, 104) connected to said framework (plenums 113 and 114, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B),
wherein said exterior shell (external frame 104, 104, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; note core zones 100, 101, 102, 104) forms an exterior structure that protects (see “lower nested structural sub-frame 129 is attached between the primary, exterior structural frame members 104” 5:22; this is recognized as teaching the shell protects the internal sub- nested structural sub-frame) an internal cavity (see internal space, FIG. 1, 2A. 2B) created by said framework (plenums 113 and 114, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B) when said hydraulic/pneumatic arm (“expanding means... pneumatic” 5:7-8) causes said framework (plenums 113 and 114, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B) to be placed into an extended position (see “expanding the frame from a retracted to an expanded state” 5:6), and
wherein an opening (see “opening” at lower left and upper right areas bound by frame 104, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B) within said exterior shell (external frame 104, 104, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; note core zones 100, 101, 102, 104) allows for access to said internal cavity (see internal space, FIG. 1, 2A. 2B),
a hydraulic/pneumatic pack (see “integral frame power system 145 provides both on-grid and off-grid power supply options and is the primary power source for the expansion drive mechanism” 8:49) operably connected to said hydraulic/pneumatic arm (“expanding means... pneumatic” 5:7-8),
wherein said hydraulic/pneumatic pack (see “integral frame power system 145 provides both on-grid and off-grid power supply options and is the primary power source for the expansion drive mechanism” 8:49) causes said hydraulic/pneumatic arm (“expanding means... pneumatic” 5:7-8) to move (see ”adapted to expand to an expanded condition and retract to a retracted condition” Cl. 1; this is recognized as teaching “to move” as broadly claimed) said framework (plenums 113 and 114, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B) from a collapsed position (see “expanding the frame from a retracted to an expanded state” 5:6) to said extended position (see “expanding the frame from a retracted to an expanded state” 5:6), but Tanner but fails to explicitly disclose:
a display located within said internal cavity created when said framework is placed in said extended position,
a control board operably connected to at least one of said display said hydraulic/pneumatic pack,
Rezvani teaches a display and control assembly capable of use with the invention of Tanner, specifically:
a display (see “The terminal 372 may render a display to the operator that includes information associated with the alerting event (e.g., the lock sensor data, the motion sensor data, the contact sensor data, etc.) and the operator may handle the alerting event based on the displayed information” 11:65-12:03; this shows a “display” at the terminal) located within said internal cavity created when said framework is placed in said extended position,
a control board (“FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of a home monitoring system 300. The monitoring system 300 includes a network 305, a control unit 310, one or more user devices 340 and 350, a monitoring server 360, and a central alarm station server 370. In some examples, the network 305 facilitates communications between the control unit 310, the one or more user devices 340 and 350, the monitoring server 360, and the central alarm station server 370.“ 4:17-24; this shows a “control board” at the “control unit”) operably connected to at least one of said display (terminal 372, FIG. 3) said hydraulic/pneumatic pack,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner by including the monitoring system as taught by Rezvani in order to control the detecting and navigating of the movements of the shelter.
As per claim 3 Tanner in view of Rezvani teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Rezvani further discloses said display (terminal 372, FIG. 3) is secured (see “workstations” 11:55; this is recognized as teaching “secured”) to at least one of said framework said exterior shell. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner in view of Rezvani by including workstation as taught by Rezvani in order to form a central point at which a transitory user can access the controls of the assembly.
As per claim 6 Tanner in view of Rezvani teaches the limitations according to claim 3, and Rezvani further discloses [[said]] --a-- user interface of [[said]] --a-- computing entity (camera 330, FIG. 3) allows a user to control said hydraulic/pneumatic pack [[in a way such that said user may ]] --to-- cause said hydraulic/pneumatic pack to place said framework in said collapsed position and said extended position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner in view of Rezvani by including the computing entity as taught by Rezvani in order to provide input to the assembly.
As per claim 9 Tanner in view of Rezvani teaches the limitations according to claim 6, and Rezvani further discloses wherein [[said]] --a-- secondary security device (see user devices 340 and 350, FIG. 3) is configured to collect biometric data from a user, wherein said biometric data is used by said control board (control unit 310, FIG. 3) to verify login credentials (integrated security devices 380 FIG. 3) of said user, wherein said login credentials (integrated security devices 380 FIG. 3) allow said user to access a display user interface (“terminals 372 and 374 may include... desktop personal computers, workstations, or laptop computers... display” 11:57) of said display (terminal 372, FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner in view of Rezvani by including the user devices as taught by Rezvani in order to allow user directed information collection. Regarding the limitation of “collect biometric data” or “to verify login credentials”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). A user input is capable of being used “to collect biometric data”.
As per claim 12 Tanner in view of Rezvani teaches the limitations according to claim [[9]] --9--and Rezvani further discloses further comprising additional instructions stored on [[said]] --a-- non-transitory computer-readable medium (“instructions and data from a read-only memory and/or a random access memory” 18:38), which, when executed by [[said]] --a-- processor, cause said processor to perform additional operations comprising :
receiving said computer readable signal (see “general and special purpose microprocessors” 18:36) from said secondary security device (see user devices 340 and 350, FIG. 3),
checking said computer readable signal against said login credentials (integrated security devices 380 FIG. 3; “security devices” are recognized as “checking” as broadly claimed),
activating (see “robotic devices 390 … output devices that allow the robotic devices 390 to communicate information to a nearby user” 8:48) said display (terminal 372, FIG. 3) when said computer readable signal matches said login credentials (integrated security devices 380 FIG. 3), and
displaying an indicia (see “user device 340 may be configured to display a user interface” 12:50) on said display (terminal 372, FIG. 3) to indicate when said computer readable signal does not match said login credentials (integrated security devices 380 FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner in view of Rezvani by including the microprocessors as taught by Rezvani in order to conduct the claimed operations. Regarding the limitation of “checking”, “activating”, of “displaying”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). These processes can be performed by microprocessors.
As per claim 15 Tanner in view of Rezvani teaches the limitations according to claim 12, and Rezvani further discloses wherein said display (terminal 372, FIG. 3) is secured (see “workstations” 11:55; this is recognized as teaching “secured”) to at least one of said first framework, second framework,said exterior shell. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner in view of Rezvani by including workstation as taught by Rezvani in order to form a central point at which a transitory user can access the controls of the assembly.
As per claim 18 Tanner in view of Rezvani teaches the limitations according to claim 15, and Rezvani further discloses wherein said user interface of said computing entity (camera 330, FIG. 3) allows a user to control said hydraulic/pneumatic pack [[in a way such that said user may ]] --to-- cause said hydraulic/pneumatic pack to place said frameworks in said collapsed position and said extended position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner in view of Rezvani by including camera as taught by Rezvani in order to form a central point at which a transitory user can access the controls of the assembly.
As per claim 21 Tanner in view of Rezvani teaches the limitations according to claim 18, and Rezvani further discloses wherein said secondary security device (see user devices 340 and 350, FIG. 3) is configured to collect biometric data from a user, wherein said biometric data is used by said control board (control unit 310, FIG. 3) to verify login credentials (integrated security devices 380 FIG. 3) of said user, wherein said login credentials (integrated security devices 380 FIG. 3) allow said user to access said display user interface (“terminals 372 and 374 may include... desktop personal computers, workstations, or laptop computers... display” 11:57) of said display (terminal 372, FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner in view of Rezvani by including the user devices as taught by Rezvani in order to allow user directed information collection. Regarding the limitation of “collect biometric data” or “to verify login credentials”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). A user input is capable of being used “to collect biometric data”.
As per claim 24 Tanner in view of Rezvani teaches the limitations according to claim 21, and Rezvani further discloses additional instructions stored on said non-transitory computer-readable medium (“instructions and data from a read-only memory and/or a random access memory” 18:38), which, when executed by said processor, cause said processor to perform additional operations comprising:
receiving said computer readable signal (see “general and special purpose microprocessors” 18:36) from said secondary security device (see user devices 340 and 350, FIG. 3),
checking said computer readable signal against said login credentials (integrated security devices 380 FIG. 3; “security devices” are recognized as “checking” as broadly claimed),
activating (see “robotic devices 390 … output devices that allow the robotic devices 390 to communicate information to a nearby user” 8:48) said display (terminal 372, FIG. 3) when said computer readable signal matches said login credentials (integrated security devices 380 FIG. 3), and
displaying an indicia (see “user device 340 may be configured to display a user interface” 12:50) on said display (terminal 372, FIG. 3) to indicate when said computer readable signal does not match said login credentials (integrated security devices 380 FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner in view of Rezvani by including the microprocessors as taught by Rezvani in order to conduct the claimed operations. Regarding the limitation of “checking”, “activating”, of “displaying”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). These processes can be performed by microprocessors.
As per claim 19 Tanner in view of Rezvani teaches the limitations according to claim 15 and Rezvani further discloses said computing entity (camera 330, FIG. 3) allows a user to transmit (“images may be stored or transmitted over a network when needed” 15:2) image data to said display (terminal 372, FIG. 3), wherein said display (terminal 372, FIG. 3) may present said image data within a display user interface (“terminals 372 and 374 may include... desktop personal computers, workstations, or laptop computers... display” 11:57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner in view of Rezvani by including the computers to allow a user to transmit image data as taught by Rezvani in order to provide access to increased levels of visual information.
As per claim 22 Tanner in view of Rezvani teaches the limitations according to claim 19, and Rezvani further discloses instructions stored on [[a ]] --said-- non-transitory computer-readable medium (“instructions and data from a read-only memory and/or a random access memory” 18:38), which, when executed by a processor of said control board (control unit 310, FIG. 3), cause said processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving said biometric data from said secondary security device (see user devices 340 and 350, FIG. 3),
checking said biometric data against said login credentials (integrated security devices 380 FIG. 3; “security devices” are recognized as “checking” as broadly claimed), and
activating (see “robotic devices 390 … output devices that allow the robotic devices 390 to communicate information to a nearby user” 8:48) said display (terminal 372, FIG. 3) when said biometric data matches said login credentials (integrated security devices 380 FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner in view of Rezvani by including the microprocessors as taught by Rezvani in order to conduct the claimed operations. Regarding the limitation of “checking”, “activating”, of “displaying”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). These processes can be performed by microprocessors.
As per claim 16 Tanner in view of Rezvani teaches the limitations according to claim 12, and Rezvani further discloses comprising [[a]] --said-- control board (control unit 310, FIG. 3) operably connected to at least one of said display (terminal 372, FIG. 3) or said hydraulic/pneumatic pack (see “integral frame power system 145 provides both on-grid and off-grid power supply options and is the primary power source for the expansion drive mechanism” 8:49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner in view of Rezvani by including the monitoring system as taught by Rezvani in order to control the detecting and navigating of the movements of the shelter.
As per claim 7 Tanner in view of Rezvani teaches the limitations according to claim 3, and Rezvani further discloses [[said]] --a-- computing entity (camera 330, FIG. 3) allows a user to transmit (“images may be stored or transmitted over a network when needed” 15:2) image data to said display (terminal 372, FIG. 3),
wherein said display (terminal 372, FIG. 3) may present said image data within a display user interface (“terminals 372 and 374 may include... desktop personal computers, workstations, or laptop computers... display” 11:57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner in view of Rezvani by including the computers to allow a user to transmit image data as taught by Rezvani in order to provide access to increased levels of visual information.
As per claim 10 Tanner in view of Rezvani teaches the limitations according to claim 7, and Rezvani further discloses comprising instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium (“instructions and data from a read-only memory and/or a random access memory” 18:38), which, when executed by a processor of said control board (control unit 310, FIG. 3), cause said processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving said biometric data from said secondary security device (see user devices 340 and 350, FIG. 3),
checking said biometric data against said login credentials (integrated security devices 380 FIG. 3; “security devices” are recognized as “checking” as broadly claimed), and
activating (see “robotic devices 390 … output devices that allow the robotic devices 390 to communicate information to a nearby user” 8:48) said display (terminal 372, FIG. 3) when said biometric data matches said login credentials (integrated security devices 380 FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner in view of Rezvani by including the microprocessors as taught by Rezvani in order to conduct the claimed operations. Regarding the limitation of “checking”, “activating”, of “displaying”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). These processes can be performed by microprocessors.
As per claim 5 Tanner in view of Rezvani teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Rezvani further discloses comprising a computing entity (camera 330, FIG. 3) having a user interface and operably connected to said control board (control unit 310, FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner in view of Rezvani by including the computing entity as taught by Rezvani in order to provide input to the assembly.
As per claim 8 Tanner in view of Rezvani teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Rezvani further discloses comprising a secondary security device (see user devices 340 and 350, FIG. 3) operably connected to said control board (control unit 310, FIG. 3),
wherein said secondary security device (see user devices 340 and 350, FIG. 3) is configured to only communicate with said control board (control unit 310, FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner in view of Rezvani by including the user devices as taught by Rezvani in order to provide user directed information collection. Regarding the limitation of “only communicate ”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). A unit is capable of being used to “only communicate”.
As per claim 11 Tanner in view of Rezvani teaches the limitations according to claim 8, and Rezvani further discloses said secondary security device (see user devices 340 and 350, FIG. 3) is configured to send a computer readable signal (see “general and special purpose microprocessors” 18:36) to said control board (control unit 310, FIG. 3), wherein said computer readable signal is used by said control board (control unit 310, FIG. 3) to verify login credentials (integrated security devices 380 FIG. 3) of a user, wherein said login credentials (integrated security devices 380 FIG. 3) allow said user to access said display user interface (“terminals 372 and 374 may include... desktop personal computers, workstations, or laptop computers... display” 11:57) of said display (terminal 372, FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner in view of Rezvani by including the microprocessors as taught by Rezvani in order to conduct the claimed operations. Regarding the limitation of “checking”, “activating”, of “displaying”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). These processes can be performed by microprocessors.
As per claim 14 Tanner in view of Rezvani teaches the limitations according to claim 11, and Rezvani further discloses comprising a display (terminal 372, FIG. 3) located within said internal cavity (see internal space, FIG. 1, 2A. 2B) created when said first framework (plenums 113 and 114, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B) and said second framework (plenums 113 and 114, FIG. 1, 2A, 2B; also “secondary structural frame members... upper secondary structural frame members 105 and lower secondary structural frame member 148” FIG. 1, 2A, 2B) are placed in said extended position (see “expanding the frame from a retracted to an expanded state” 5:6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner in view of Rezvani by including the monitoring system as taught by Rezvani in order to control the detecting and navigating of the movements of the shelter.
As per claim 17 Tanner in view of Rezvani teaches the limitations according to claim 14, and Rezvani further discloses comprising a computing entity (camera 330, FIG. 3) having a user interface and operably connected to said control board (control unit 310, FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner in view of Rezvani by including the computing entity as taught by Rezvani in order to provide input to the assembly.
As per claim 20 Tanner in view of Rezvani teaches the limitations according to claim 17, and Rezvani further discloses comprising a secondary security device (see user devices 340 and 350, FIG. 3) operably connected to said control board (control unit 310, FIG. 3),
wherein said secondary security device (see user devices 340 and 350, FIG. 3) is configured to only communicate with said control board (control unit 310, FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner in view of Rezvani by including the user devices as taught by Rezvani in order to provide user directed information collection. Regarding the limitation of “only communicate ”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). A unit is capable of being used to “only communicate”.
As per claim 23 Tanner in view of Rezvani teaches the limitations according to claim 20, and Rezvani further discloses said secondary security device (see user devices 340 and 350, FIG. 3) is configured to send a computer readable signal (see “general and special purpose microprocessors” 18:36) to said control board (control unit 310, FIG. 3), wherein said computer readable signal (see “general and special purpose microprocessors” 18:36) is used by said control board (control unit 310, FIG. 3) to verify login credentials (integrated security devices 380 FIG. 3) of a user, wherein said login credentials (integrated security devices 380 FIG. 3) allow said user to access said display user interface (“terminals 372 and 374 may include... desktop personal computers, workstations, or laptop computers... display” 11:57) of said display (terminal 372, FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Tanner in view of Rezvani by including the microprocessors as taught by Rezvani in order to conduct the claimed operations. Regarding the limitation of “checking”, “activating”, of “displaying”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). These processes can be performed by microprocessors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communicationearlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM.
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 D MATTEI can be reached on (571)270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this applicationproceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIRPublic PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representativeaccess to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USACANADA)571-272-1000.
/JJS/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635