DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears that “a fall event”, in line 7, refers back to “a fall event” in claim 23, lines 10-11. It should be amended to --the fall event--.
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 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.
(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 1, 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thompson et al. (US 11,009,532).
Regarding claim 1: Thompson discloses an energy detection warning device comprising a detector unit (102, 700) wearable (hat, 702) by a user (col. 12, lines 2-14), including: a status indicator (802); and a controller (CPU, 106) in electronic communication with the status indicator, the controller including a memory (col. 9, lines 4-11; col. 19, lines 19-29) configured to store instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: detect whether a voltage is active in an environment in a vicinity of the user; and including measuring capacitance at different amplifications; and change at least one characteristic of the status indicator in response to detecting the voltage (col. 8, line 59-col. 9, line 29; col. 12, line 1-col. 13, line 7), and wherein the detector unit is configured to receive power (1102) from a lighting device to which the detector unit is coupleable (col. 12, line 58-col. 13, line 7; Figs. 10, 11).
Regarding claim 2: Thompson discloses the memory is configured to store further instructions the at least one processor (106) configured to execute the further instructions to: detect whether an electrical current is active in the environment in a vicinity of the user; and change at least one characteristic of the status indicator in response to detecting the current (col. 8, line 59-col. 9, line 29; col. 12, lines 1-30; col. 19, lines 19-27).
Regarding claim 10: Thompson discloses the communication with the lighting device, and wherein the memory is configured to store further instructions, the at least one processor configured to execute the further instructions to: change at least one characteristic of the lighting device in response to detecting the voltage is active (col. 8, line 59-col. 9, line 29; col. 12, lines 1-30; col. 19, lines 19-27).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 12 and 23-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 11,009,532) in view of Santarone et al. (US 2020/0380178).
Regarding claim 3: Thompson does not disclose the detection of a fall event. Santarone discloses an automated tracking of safety aspects of a person within a defined area comprising sensors (214-236) which includes fall detection for evaluation of a condition of the person and trigger an alarm when such condition/event occurred [0148, 0329-0030]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a fall detector as taught by Santarone in a system disclosed by Thompson to detect additional safety event in the environment of the person.
Regarding claim 12: Thompson discloses an energy detection warning device comprising a detector unit (102, 700) wearable (hat, 702) by a user (col. 12, lines 2-14), including: a status indicator (802); and a controller (CPU, 106) in electronic communication with the status indicator, the controller including a memory (col. 9, lines 4-11; col. 19, lines 19-29) configured to store instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: detect whether a voltage is active in an environment in a vicinity of the user; detect whether an electrical current is active in the environment in the vicinity of the user; and change at least one characteristic of the status indicator in response to the detection of detecting at least one of the voltage being active, the electrical current being active (col. 8, line 59-col. 9, line 29; col. 12, line 1-col. 13, line 7), and wherein the detector unit is configured to receive power (1102) from a lighting device in communication with the detector unit (col. 12, line 58-col. 13, line 7; Figs. 10, 11).
Thompson does not disclose the detection of a fall event. Santarone discloses an automated tracking of safety aspects of a person within a defined area comprising sensors (214-236) which includes fall detection for evaluation of a condition of the person and trigger an alarm when such condition/event occurred [0148, 0329-0030]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a fall detector as taught by Santarone in a system disclosed by Thompson to detect additional safety event in the environment of the person.
Regarding claim 23: Thompson discloses an energy detection warning device comprising a detector unit (102, 700) wearable (hat, 702) by a user (col. 12, lines 2-14), including: a power input coupleable to a lighting device (col. 12, line 1-col. 13, line 7); a status indicator (802) associated with the detector unit (700); and a controller (CPU, 106) in electronic communication with the status indicator, the controller including a memory (col. 9, lines 4-11; col. 19, lines 19-29) configured to store instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: detect whether a voltage is active in an environment in a vicinity of the user; detect whether an electrical current is active in the environment in the vicinity of the user; and change at least one characteristic of the status indicator in response to the detection of detecting at least one of the voltage being active, the electrical current being active (col. 8, line 59-col. 9, line 29; col. 12, line 1-col. 13, line 7), and wherein the detector unit is configured to receive power (1102) from a lighting device in communication with the detector unit (col. 12, line 58-col. 13, line 7; Figs. 10, 11).
Thompson does not disclose the detection of a fall event. Santarone discloses an automated tracking of safety aspects of a person within a defined area comprising sensors (214-236) which includes fall detection for evaluation of a condition of the person and trigger an alarm when such condition/event occurred [0148, 0329-0030]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a fall detector as taught by Santarone in a system disclosed by Thompson to detect additional safety event in the environment of the person.
Regarding claim 24: Thompson discloses the memory is configured to store further instructions, the at least one processor configured to execute the further instructions to: detect whether the voltage is active in the environment in the vicinity of the user; detect whether the electrical current is active in the environment in the vicinity of the user (col. 8, line 59-col. 9, line 29; col. 12, line 1-col. 13, line 7). Thompson does not disclose the detection of a fall event. Santarone discloses an automated tracking of safety aspects of a person within a defined area comprising sensors (214-236) which includes fall detection for evaluation of a condition of the person and trigger an alarm when such condition/event occurred [0148, 0329-0030]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a fall detector as taught by Santarone in a system disclosed by Thompson to detect additional safety event in the environment of the person.
Regarding claim 25: Thompson discloses the memory is configured to store further instructions, the at least one processor configured to execute the further instructions to: measure capacitance of the voltage at different amplifications (col. 9, lines 1-51).
Regarding claim 26: Thompson does not disclose the housing comprising a receiver having a detector unit slot, wherein the detector unit is provided in the form of a functional detector cartridge that is removably insertable in the detector unit slot of the receiver. Thompson discloses the energy detection warning device (700) include a compact housing (800) with sensors for measuring the electric field and is removably attached to the brim of the hat (col. 12, lines 15-49; Figs. 7-12, 15). Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skilled in the art to recognized that the housing of Thompson includes a slot for receiving or house the detector/sensor (Figs. 10-12).
Regarding claim 27: Thompson discloses the receiver (housing, 800) is configured to be removably coupleable to headgear (hat) or other equipment worn by the user of the detector unit, the receiver including a latching device within the detector unit slot to selectively secure the functional detector cartridge within the detector unit slot of the receiver. Thompson discloses the energy detection warning device (700) include a compact housing (800) with sensors for measuring the electric field and is removably attached to the brim of the hat (col. 12, lines 15-49; Figs. 7-12, 15). Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skilled in the art to recognized that the housing of Thompson includes a slot for receiving or house the detector/sensor (Figs. 10-12).
Regarding claim 28: Thompson discloses the receiver is provided in the form of an adapter that is removably coupleable to the lighting device to enable the functional detector cartridge to interface with the lighting device. Thompson discloses the energy detection warning device (700) include a compact housing (800) with sensors for measuring the electric field and is removably attached to the brim of the hat (col. 12, lines 15-49; Figs. 7-12, 15). Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skilled in the art to include the housing in different forms to house the detector cartridge with the lighting device.
Regarding claim 29: Thompson discloses the compact housing (800) with the electrical interface and connections including the battery (1102) for providing power to the lighting device (Figs. 7-12).
Regarding claim 30: See claim 23 above.
Regarding claim 31: Thompson discloses the status indicator includes a plurality of light emitting diodes and/or a speaker (col. 9, lines 15-19).
Regarding claim 32: Thompson discloses the memory is configured to store further instructions, the at least one processor configured to execute the further instructions to:
change a color of the plurality of light emitting diodes in response to detecting the at least one of the voltage, and the electrical current; and/or emit different sounds with the speaker in response to detecting the at least one of the voltage, the electrical current, and the fall event, including emitting sounds at different volumes corresponding to a strength of the voltage, a strength of the electrical current (col. 5, lines 40-67; col. 6, lines 30-64; col. 12, lines 15-30). Thompson does not disclose the detection of a fall event. Santarone discloses an automated tracking of safety aspects of a person within a defined area comprising sensors (214-236) which includes fall detection for evaluation of a condition of the person and trigger an alarm when such condition/event occurred [0148, 0329-0030]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a fall detector as taught by Santarone in a system disclosed by Thompson to detect additional safety event in the environment of the person.
Regarding claim 33: See claim 23 above.
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 11,009,532).
Regarding claim 4: Thompson does not disclose the housing comprising a receiver having a detector unit slot, wherein the detector unit is provided in the form of a functional detector cartridge that is removably insertable in the detector unit slot of the receiver. Thompson discloses the energy detection warning device (700) include a compact housing (800) with sensors for measuring the electric field and is removably attached to the brim of the hat (col. 12, lines 15-49; Figs. 7-12, 15). Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skilled in the art to recognized that the housing of Thompson includes a slot for receiving or house the detector/sensor (Figs. 10-12).
Regarding claim 5: Thompson discloses the receiver (housing, 800) is configured to be removably coupleable to headgear (hat) or other equipment worn by the user of the detector unit, the receiver including a latching device within the detector unit slot to selectively secure the functional detector cartridge within the detector unit slot of the receiver. Thompson discloses the energy detection warning device (700) include a compact housing (800) with sensors for measuring the electric field and is removably attached to the brim of the hat (col. 12, lines 15-49; Figs. 7-12, 15). Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skilled in the art to recognized that the housing of Thompson includes a slot for receiving or house the detector/sensor (Figs. 10-12).
Regarding claim 6: Thompson discloses the receiver is provided in the form of an adapter that is removably coupleable to the lighting device to enable the functional detector cartridge to interface with the lighting device. Thompson discloses the energy detection warning device (700) include a compact housing (800) with sensors for measuring the electric field and is removably attached to the brim of the hat (col. 12, lines 15-49; Figs. 7-12, 15). Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skilled in the art to include the housing in different forms to house the detector cartridge with the lighting device.
Regarding claims 7 and 8: Thompson discloses the compact housing (800) with the electrical interfaces and connections including the battery (1102) for providing power to the lighting device. (Figs. 7-12).
Regarding claim 9: Thompson discloses the communication with the lighting device, and wherein the memory is configured to store further instructions, the at least one processor configured to execute the further instructions to: change at least one characteristic of the lighting device in response to detecting the voltage is active (col. 8, line 59-col. 9, line 29; col. 12, lines 1-30; col. 19, lines 19-27).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Givens et al. (US 8,477,027) discloses a wireless sensor system for detecting electrical power lines in proximity to equipment and operator.
-Lindsey et al. (US 8,009,055) discloses systems for detecting and indicating high-voltage presences on a machine.
-Nickerson (US 2007/0018841) discloses a system comprises a radio linked proximity antenna that is mounted on heavy equipment for detecting the electric field strength of high voltage lines in the vicinity of the heavy equipment.
-Nickerson (US 6,853,307) discloses a high voltage proximity warning system.
-Sacks et al. (US 6,600,426) discloses an alarm system for detecting hazards due to power transmission lines.
-Mcnulty (US 6,329,924) discloses a wearable electric field detector has a housing mountable on a user's person and including a sensing circuit responsive to an electric field to generate a signal which varies in proportion to the strength of the sensed field, and an alarm circuit coupled to the sensing circuit for producing an intermittent audible alarm signal, which has a repetition rate varying in proportion to the strength of the field, and a visible alarm signal.
-Thompson et al. (US 2023/0353975) discloses a system for issuing emergency alerts for detected life-threatening events involving power systems.
-Potyrailo et al. (US 11,280,814) discloses a system for wearable voltage sensing devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN NGOC PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2967. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (7 AM - 3:30 PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TOAN N PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 1/22/26