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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
As to claim 4: The claim recites in part “means for transforming the user interface of the main unit between a first mode and a second mode” and is interpreted in the above noted manner. In other words, the cap member 900 disclosed in page 11, lines 25-27 (as well as any equivalents of such a cap) is considered to be the structure that corresponds to such a means.
As to claims 6-12: Each of said claims depend ultimately from claim 4 and accordingly each is also indicated in the same manner as claim 4 for the reasons noted previously above.
As to claim 6: The claim additionally recites “means for receiving a signal wirelessly” and is also interpreted in the above manner. In other words, the disclosed “Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or other wireless standards” (and their equivalents) disclosed in page 7, lines 14-16 is considered to be the structure that corresponds to such a means.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fadell et al. US PG-PUB 2016/0161138 A1 (hereafter Fadell), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 1 October 2024.
As to claim 1: Fadell discloses an environmental sensor system (see fig. 5 and 8A-8C) comprising a plurality of sensor assemblies (100, 100’; see figs. 8A-8C and ¶ 63) which include one or more base units (702; see fig. 5 and ¶ 47) and one or more main units (108; see fig. 5 and ¶ 34), where the main unit (108) is selectively engageable by hand with the base unit (see fig. 4 and ¶ 45).
As to claim 2: Fadell discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the base unit (702) comprises a first set of environmental sensors (not labeled but see ¶ 50 regarding the disclosed sensors), and the main unit (108) comprises a second set of environmental sensors (not labeled but see ¶ 34 regarding the disclosed sensors).
As to claim 3: Fadell discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the main unit comprises a display screen (102; see fig. 1A and ¶ 34) and user interface (see ¶ 41).
As to claim 4: Fadell discloses the system of claim 1, comprising actuation means (106; see ¶ 36) for transforming the user interface of the main unit between a first mode and a second mode (see ¶ 36).
As to claim 5: Fadell discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the first mode comprises detailed information for display which is targeted at an adult or sophisticated user of the system, while the second mode displays a subset of the information shown in the first mode (see ¶ 45).
As to claim 6: Fadell discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the actuation means (106; see ¶ 36) comprises means for receiving a signal wirelessly from an associated computing device or web service (see ¶ 50).
As to claim 7: Fadell discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the actuation means (106; see ¶ 36) comprises a physical or capacitive switch provided at the body of the main unit (see ¶ 35).
As to claim 8: Fadell discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the actuation means (106; see ¶ 36) comprises a selectively attachable physical actuator member (see ¶ 35 and 36).
As to claim 9: Fadell discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the selectively attachable physical actuator member comprises a cap member (104; see fig. 1A and ¶ 35) which is selectively attachable to an upper portion of the main unit (see ¶ 35 and 36).
As to claim 14: Fadell discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the main unit (108; see fig. 5 and ¶ 34) and the base unit (702; see fig. 5 and ¶ 47) are each provided with cooperating electrical actuators which enable communication of power and data between them (see ¶ 36).
As to claim 15: Fadell discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the base unit (702; see fig. 5 and ¶ 47) and/or the main unit (108; see fig. 5 and ¶ 34) are configured to communicate with a remote data platform (see ¶ 50).
As to claim 16: Fadell discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a base unit (702; see fig. 5 and ¶ 47) is provided with a location identifier and the base unit and main unit are configured to share this location identifier when they are connected (see ¶ 63; each base and main unit has a unique identifier regarding its designation as a master or slave unit).
As to claim 17: Fadell discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the location ID is stored at a remote platform (see fig. 10 and ¶ 72).
As to claim 18: Fadell discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the base unit (702; see fig. 5 and ¶ 47) and main unit (108; see fig. 5 and ¶ 34) are configured to exchange network credentials upon connection, such that the main unit may automatically join a network when coupled with a base unit (see ¶ 72).
As to claim 19: Fadell discloses the system of claim 1, being coupled with other devices with can affect air quality, and can generate control signals for these devices based on the air quality readings and/or recommended actions (see figs. 8A-8C and ¶ 61).
As to claim 20: Fadell discloses a method of sensing environmental parameters (see ¶ 34), comprising providing a plurality of sensor assemblies (100, 100’; see figs. 8A-8C and ¶ 63) which comprise one or more base units (702; see fig. 5 and ¶ 47) and one or more main units (108; see fig. 5 and ¶ 34), where the main unit (108) is selectively engageable by hand with the base unit (see fig. 4 and ¶ 45).
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.
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 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadell et al. US PG-PUB 2016/0161138 A1 (hereafter Fadell), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 1 October 2024 in view of Crescini et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0184560 A1 (hereafter Crescini).
As to claim 10: Fadell teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 8, including a main unit (108; see fig. 5 and ¶ 34) and a selectively attachable physical actuator member (see ¶ 35 and 36), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the main unit and the selectively attachable physical actuator member are each provided with cooperating magnetic members for urging the members together and to ensure correct alignment when the members are placed together.
However, Crescini teaches that a main unit (38; see fig. 1 and ¶ 23) and another component (20) may be each provided with cooperating magnetic members for urging the members together and to ensure correct alignment when the members are placed together (see ¶ 23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fadell such that the main unit and the selectively attachable physical actuator member are each provided with cooperating magnetic members for urging the members together and to ensure correct alignment when the members are placed together because such a construction is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of attaching parts that separate one another as suggested in Crescini ¶ 23 and allows for each of said components to be attached to a variety of locations depending on the desired application such as further suggested in ¶ 24 and 25 of Crescini which thus improves the flexibility of Fadell’s device by allowing it to be applied in a variety of locations.
As to claim 13: Fadell teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a main unit (108; see fig. 5 and ¶ 34) and a base unit (702; see fig. 5 and ¶ 47), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the main unit and the base unit are each provided with cooperating magnetic members for urging the members together and to ensure correct alignment when the members are placed together.
However, Crescini teaches that a main unit (38; see fig. 1 and ¶ 23) and another component (20) may be each provided with cooperating magnetic members for urging the members together and to ensure correct alignment when the members are placed together (see ¶ 23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fadell such that the main unit and the base unit are each provided with cooperating magnetic members for urging the members together and to ensure correct alignment when the members are placed together because such a construction is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of attaching parts that separate one another as suggested in Crescini ¶ 23 and allows for each of said components to be attached to a variety of locations depending on the desired application such as further suggested in ¶ 24 and 25 of Crescini which thus improves the flexibility of Fadell’s device by allowing it to be applied in a variety of locations.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadell et al. US PG-PUB 2016/0161138 A1 (hereafter Fadell), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 1 October 2024 in view of Sim et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0170716 A1 (hereafter Sim).
As to claim 11: Fadell teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 8, including a main unit (38; see fig. 1 and ¶ 23) and the selectively attachable physical actuator member (see ¶ 35 and 36), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the main unit and the selectively attachable physical actuator member are provided with proximity air gap radio communication means, most preferably with a cooperating near field communication (NFC) tag and reader.
However, Sim teaches that components of a sensor unit may be provided with proximity air gap radio communication means, most preferably with a cooperating near field communication (NFC) tag and reader (see ¶ 90).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fadell such that the main unit and the selectively attachable physical actuator member are provided with proximity air gap radio communication means, most preferably with a cooperating near field communication (NFC) tag and reader because such a construction is an art recognized means of achieving both the useful and predictable results of either wirelessly receiving charging for power purposes and/or communicating over distance, such as suggested in ¶ 90 in Sim, which would thus allow Fadell’s device to be remotely powered or receive and send information to and from a remote site for further processing.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadell et al. US PG-PUB 2016/0161138 A1 (hereafter Fadell), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 1 October 2024 in view of Sim et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0170716 A1 (hereafter Sim) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Iyer US PG-PUB 2019/0249896 A1 (hereafter Iyer).
As to claim 12: Fadell teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 11, including a selectively attachable physical actuator member (see Fadell ¶ 35 and 36), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the selectively attachable physical actuator member comprises a tag provided with a unique ID, and the user interface mode is selected based on the ID.
However, Iyer teaches that a sensing member may comprise a tag provided with a unique ID (see ¶ 28), and the user interface mode is selected based on the ID (see ¶ 29).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Fadell’s system such that the selectively attachable physical actuator member comprises a tag provided with a unique ID, and the user interface mode is selected based on the ID because such a construction allows for a unique ID identifier to allow only for certain authorized personnel to access the sensor system in the event of altering conditions that can affect the operation of the sensing system, such as suggested in ¶ 29 of Iyer and thus prevents a user from inadvertently altering conditions that could negatively impact the operation of Fadell’s device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights