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 Status
Claims 1-25 are currently pending for examination.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,417,191 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are broader than the patented claims.
Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,699,339 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are broader than the patented claims.
Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,125,363 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are broader than the patented claims.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 5, recites an abbreviation “G” in line 2. Please consider to spell it out the on its first appearance.
Regarding claim 8, recites an abbreviation “GPS” in line 2. Please consider to spell it out the on its first appearance.
Regarding claim 11, recites an abbreviation “QR” in line 2. Please consider to spell it out the on its first appearance.
Regarding claim 16, recites the limitation “otherwise” in line 2 of the preamble. Please consider to remove the limitation for clarity.
Regarding claim 17-25, are also objected because they depend on claim 16.
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 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.
Regarding claim 1, recites the limitation “other devices” in the second to the last lime. The limitation is indefinite because the limitation includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "other devices"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable.
Regarding claims 2-15, are also rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, recites the limitation “low power” in line 2. The limitation is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The limitation is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 7, is also rejected because it depends on claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, recites the limitation “the forwarding step” in lines 1-2.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended to amend claim 16, line 3 from “comprising:” to “comprising the steps of:” or similar to overcome the rejection
Regarding claim 24, recites the limitation “other conditions” in line 3. The limitation is indefinite because the limitation includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "other conditions"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable.
Regarding claim 25, recites the limitation “it” in lines 2 and 3. The limitation is indefinite because is unclear what the limitation is referring to.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breed (Pub. No.: US 2003/0165356 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Breed teaches a tracking and management system for roadway traffic safety assets (Fig. 16, roadside barrier monitoring system), comprising:
a sensor module securable to a particular asset (Fig. 16, sensor 342. Para [0176], “A sensor system including the sensors 342 can be situated on the barrier section 300,”), the sensor module comprising a housing which encloses a processor, a communications transmitter, a power supply, and an impact detecting sensor (para [0173], “FIG. 16 illustrates the use of sensors 342 that communicates with a control location such as the local police 344 via a wireless communication system 346 when an impact into the barrier 300 occurs. This communication can be via a cell phone in which case either a direct electrical power or a solar battery is necessary to provide long term uninterrupted service.” and para [0175], “The sensors 342 used with this system can be simple motion sensors such as an inertial switch or deformation sensor or they can be more sophisticated inertial sensors, for example, such as a MEMS accelerometer.”. It is inherent the sensor has a processor to perform the disclosed motion detection and signal transmission functions); and
a communications receiver remote from the sensor module (Fig. 16, remote monitoring station 344), the communications receiver being adapted to receive a signal from the communications transmitter and to log information related to the signals into a database containing identifying information concerning the sensor module and the particular asset to which the sensor module is secured (para [0173], “FIG. 16 illustrates the use of sensors 342 that communicates with a control location such as the local police 344 via a wireless communication system 346 when an impact into the barrier 300 occurs.” and para [0174], “Thus, the remote monitoring and control station can monitor on a daily basis that the sensor(s) 342 is operational and learn within a few minutes or less when an impact has occurred. In addition to permitting a rapid response to an accident where there may be injuries, this system also alerts the authorities to any accident with the barrier 300 permitting them to quickly find the impacting vehicle and assess repair costs.” and para [0177], “It is important to note that now that the sensor systems described herein have been disclosed, there are many other road-mounted structures such as stop signs etc. or other devices that are frequently destroyed long before the police become aware of an event. Now all such structures can be monitored for events and provide immediate notification to the authorities in time to catch the vandal or impacting vehicle or other perpetrator.”. The sensor transmits an alert to the remote monitoring station. The cited paragraphs anticipate the remote monitoring station 344 is configured to identify and to display the barrier location impacted by the vehicle in order to provide rapid response to the accident and to quickly find the impacted barrier);
the communications receiver comprising a host server (Fig. 16, remote monitoring station 344 with a display), the host server having a database for storing information regarding identification and the particular location of the particular asset and the sensor module secured to the particular asset, the communications receiver further being adapted to display a dashboard presenting impact and management information regarding the particular asset and sensor module secured thereto, the dashboard being displayable on a screen directly connected to the host server, and/or being displayable on screens of other devices logged into the host server and having suitable application software installed thereon (“para [0174], “Thus, the remote monitoring and control station can monitor on a daily basis that the sensor(s) 342 is operational and learn within a few minutes or less when an impact has occurred. In addition to permitting a rapid response to an accident where there may be injuries, this system also alerts the authorities to any accident with the barrier 300 permitting them to quickly find the impacting vehicle and assess repair costs.”. The remote monitoring station 344 stores operational status of the sensors and configured to display the impacted barrier to allow rapid dispatch of personnel to the impacted location).
Regarding claim 2, Breed teaches the tracking and management system as recited in claim 1, wherein the signal from the communications transmitter comprises an alarm triggered by an impact above a predetermined level sensed by the impact detecting sensor (para [0175], “The sensors 342 used with this system can be simple motion sensors such as an inertial switch or deformation sensor or they can be more sophisticated inertial sensors, for example, such as a MEMS accelerometer. In the latter case, the authorities can get a feeling for the severity of the accident.”. The sensor transmits an impact signal to the remote monitoring station if a motion or deformation is detected).
Regarding claim 3, Breed teaches the tracking and management system as recited in claim 2, wherein the impact detecting sensor comprises an accelerometer (para [0175], “The sensors 342 used with this system can be simple motion sensors such as an inertial switch or deformation sensor or they can be more sophisticated inertial sensors, for example, such as a MEMS accelerometer.”).
Regarding claim 4, Breed teaches the tracking and management system as recited in claim 2, wherein the predetermined impact level triggering the impact detecting sensor is set to detect a likely damaging impact on the particular asset by a vehicle (para [0175], “The sensors 342 used with this system can be simple motion sensors such as an inertial switch or deformation sensor or they can be more sophisticated inertial sensors, for example, such as a MEMS accelerometer. In the latter case, the authorities can get a feeling for the severity of the accident.”. The MEMS accelerometer generates a severity of the vehicle accident).
Regarding claim 6, Breed teaches the tracking and management system as recited in claim 1, wherein the processor comprises a low power cellular module (para [0174], “In this case, an up to 10 year lifetime battery is used and the sensor communicates once per day to verify that it is operational and additionally whenever an event such as an impact with the barrier 300 occurs.”. The sensor is programmed by the processor to communicate with the remote monitoring station once a day via its cellular transmitter. Therefore, the processor comprises of a low power cellular module).
Regarding claim 7, Breed teaches the tracking and management system as recited in claim 6, wherein the communications transmitter comprises a cellular antenna (para [0173], cellular transmitter).
Regarding claim 9, Breed teaches the tracking and management system as recited in claim 1, wherein the power supply comprises a battery (para [0173], “This communication can be via a cell phone in which case either a direct electrical power or a solar battery is necessary to provide long term uninterrupted service.”).
Regarding claim 16, Breed teaches a method of tracking and managing roadway traffic safety assets using sensor modules secured to or otherwise associated with each asset to be tracked and managed (Fig. 16, roadside barrier monitoring system), comprising:
receiving an activation signal from a sensor module secured to a particular asset at a particular location on a roadway;
logging the sensor module and the particular asset into a database, including information identifying the particular asset, the particular asset's location, and a user responsible for the particular asset (para [0174], “Thus, the remote monitoring and control station can monitor on a daily basis that the sensor(s) 342 is operational and learn within a few minutes or less when an impact has occurred. In addition to permitting a rapid response to an accident where there may be injuries, this system also alerts the authorities to any accident with the barrier 300 permitting them to quickly find the impacting vehicle and assess repair costs.”. The remote monitoring station 344 receives and logs the sensor’s operational data and impact notification received from the sensor. The monitoring station alerts responsible authorities about the barrier’s location to provide repair);
receiving and logging an alarm signal from the sensor module, indicating that an impact above a threshold value has been detected on the particular asset (para [0175], “The sensors 342 used with this system can be simple motion sensors such as an inertial switch or deformation sensor or they can be more sophisticated inertial sensors, for example, such as a MEMS accelerometer. In the latter case, the authorities can get a feeling for the severity of the accident.” and para [0177], “It is important to note that now that the sensor systems described herein have been disclosed, there are many other road-mounted structures such as stop signs etc. or other devices that are frequently destroyed long before the police become aware of an event. Now all such structures can be monitored for events and provide immediate notification to the authorities in time to catch the vandal or impacting vehicle or other perpetrator.”. The remote monitoring station 344 receives alarm signals from the sensor 342 after impact to the barrier); and
forwarding information concerning the alarm signal to the user responsible for the particular asset (para [0032], “Another object of this invention is to provide for an instant signal to be sent to the police or other authorities whenever a roadside barrier is struck.”. The alarm signal is forwarded to the authorities that maintain/repair the barriers).
Regarding claim 17, Breed teaches the method as recited in claim 16, wherein the forwarding step comprises forwarding information to a user's mobile or computer device (para [0174], the remote monitoring system alerts the appropriate user / authority in response to an accident).
Regarding claim 18, Breed teaches the method as recited in claim 16, and further utilizing an accelerometer to detect the impact above a threshold value (para [0175], MEMS accelerometer).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (Pub. No.: US 2003/0165356 A1) in view of Kwak (Pub. No.: US 2015/0052619 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Breed teaches the tracking and management system as recited in claim 4, but fails to teach wherein the predetermined impact level is 0.5G on an X-Y axis and 1.0G on a Z axis.
However, in the same field of MEMS accelerometer, Kwak teaches a three-axis MEMS accelerometer that measures g-force in the X, Y and Z directions. See para [0060], “Furthermore, in the embodiment of the invention as shown in FIG. 3, a three-axis accelerometer sensor may be embedded in a vehicle to generate three-axis (i.e. X, Y, Z) accelerometer readings for the vehicle, as displayed by the accelerometer reading display (313). In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the three-axis accelerometer sensor is a micro electromechanical system (MEMS) device that measures the vehicle's "g-force" or acceleration in various directions during driving.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breed’s MEMS accelerometer with Kwak’s three-axis MEMS accelerometer to measure g-force in the X, Y and Z directions to improve measurement accuracy.
Although Breed fails to expressly teach the specific range the MEMS accelerometer uses to determine an impact but it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the predetermined impact force to be 0.5G on an X-Y axis and 1.0G on a Z axis, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior arts, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (Pub. No.: US 2003/0165356 A1) in view of Gauthier (Pub. No.: US 2018/0247573 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Breed teaches the tracking and management system as recited in claim 1, wherein the remote monitoring station is configured to identify the impacted barrier’s location but fails to expressly teach wherein the sensor module further comprises a GPS locator.
However, in the same field of traffic device, Gauthier teaches a traffic device comprises of a GPS positioning device. See para [0134], “Finally, to show that the device may further incorporate one or several other sensors than the position sensor(s) for the mobile flat support(s), in particular environment, positioning (GPS), safety (impact, inclination, intrusion, theft, displacement, fire . . . ) sensors”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breed’s impact sensor with Gauthier GPS positioning device to accurately determine the barrier’s location.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (Pub. No.: US 2003/0165356 A1) in view of Ganapathi (Pub. No.: US 2012/0234906 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Breed teaches the tracking and management system as recited in claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising a scannable identifier on the sensor module housing for providing a user with immediate information concerning the sensor module and the sensor module’s associated asset.
However, in the same field of traffic device, Ganapathi teaches a scannable QR code is attached to a traffic/parking device to identify the location of the traffic/parking device. See Fig. 2, abstract “The present invention provides for a feature-rich parking system and implements a low-cost, low-technology presence at the parking location. In an embodiment, a parking pole is placed adjacent to a parking space where the parking pole includes a code, including a bar code, QR code, or NFC label that is designed to be identified and processed by a mobile communication device such as a cell phone or smart phone.” and para [0022], “An embodiment of the invention is shown in FIG. 2 that includes a parking location identification label 250 that can be photographed with a camera-equipped mobile communication device 252 that can be wirelessly communicatively coupled to remote server 254. As shown in FIG. 2, where a user 108 desires to park his automobile 106 at parking location 104, the user can photograph identification label 250 with his camera-equipped mobile communication device 252 so as to identify the parking location 104 and then proceed to pay for the right to park.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breed’s impact sensor with Ganapathi’s QR code attached to the impact sensor to quickly identify the location of the sensor and the barrier.
Regarding claim 11, Ganapathi in the combination teaches the tracking and management system as recited in claim 10, wherein the scannable identifier comprises a QR code (Fig. 2, para [0023], “ In an embodiment, identification label 250 is a bar code or QR code.”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (Pub. No.: US 2003/0165356 A1) in view of Taylor (Pub. No.: US 2013/0265153 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Breed teaches the tracking and management system as recited in claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the predetermined level sensed by the impact detecting sensor is adjustable by a user.
However, in the same field of impact sensor, Taylor teaches the threshold level of the impact sensors is adjusted to suit current operating conditions. See para [0048], “Either separately or in any combination, the shock sensor 640, accelerometer 645, and 3D impact sensor 655 are configured to detect and measure the magnitude and direction of movement, velocity, and acceleration in any direction in a three-dimensional space.” and para [0053], “For example, each of impact, movement, and vibration may be associated with different predetermined thresholds or ranges of values. The predetermined thresholds or ranges may be configurable for different environments or different equipment. For example, a movement threshold for shipping or transporting may be different than a movement threshold for machine operation. Further, the sensitivity of each sensor 640-655 can be adjusted to suit current operating conditions or different equipment. For example, the sensors 640-655 could be configured to be more or less sensitive to detect or ignore very small vibrations.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breed’s
impact sensors to be adjustable by a user to result false alarm.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (Pub. No.: US 2003/0165356 A1) in view of Shank (Pub. No.: US 2003/0067385 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Breed teaches the tracking and management system as recited in claim 1, but fails to further comprising a manual power switch enclosed within the housing of the sensor module.
However, in the same field of sensor, teaches a sensor includes a power switch to allow the user to turn on or off the sensor. See para [0006], “Each sensor unit 2 is preferably battery powered and each may include a power switch that allows them to be turned on and off.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breed’s impact sensor with a power switch to allow the user to conveniently turn on or off the sensor.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (Pub. No.: US 2003/0165356 A1) in view of Hourdo (Pub. No.: US 2018/0350239 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Breed teaches the method as recited in claim 16, wherein the remote monitoring system monitors daily activities of the impact sensors (para [0174]) but fails to teach further displaying a status for each of a plurality of assets upon receipt of an inquiry from a logged-in user.
However, in the same field of monitoring system, Hourdo teaches a monitoring system that allows an authorized user to view the status of all the remote sensors. See Fig. 6 and para [0092], “All communications are Ethernet based so any instance of the application that has the right credentials can poll the MVDs for data and produce the warning messages.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breed’s remote monitoring station to display status of each sensor in response to user with right credentials for better security and to improve operation speed.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (Pub. No.: US 2003/0165356 A1) in view of Impero (Pub. No.: US 2018/0282958 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Breed teaches the method as recited in claim 16, but fails to teach further comprising a step of receiving and logging photographs of the particular asset into the database.
However, in the same field of barrier monitoring system, Impero teaches a barrier monitoring system includes a camera to capture videos of the impacted barrier. See para [0039], “The image acquiring means (4) can be arranged for acquiring at least a sequence of images of a registration number of a vehicle nearing the road safety device (2), of the vehicle and of the road safety device (2). This is to say that the image acquiring means (4) acquire a video that advantageously enables comprising the dynamics of the impact (for example, it enables not only capturing the registration number of the vehicle but also the angle of impact of the vehicle).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breed’s barrier sensor with a camera to capture videos of the impact to provide more information.
Regarding claim 22, Impero in the combination teaches the method as recited in claim 21, wherein the step of receiving and logging photographs of the particular asset into the database occurs after receipt of an alarm signal concerning the particular asset, the method further comprising reviewing the logged photographs to ascertain any damage to the particular asset requiring repair or replacement (para [0039], the video shows the impacted area of the barrier after the vehicle collided with the barrier).
Regarding claim 23, Breed in the combination teaches the method as recited in claim 22, and further comprising a step of adding an indicator in the database that a particular asset is damaged, the indicator being displayed to a logged-in user viewing information from the database to advise the logged-in user of a need to repair or replace the particular asset (para [0174], the remote monitoring system indicates which barriers were impacted and require repair).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (Pub. No.: US 2003/0165356 A1) in view of Taylor (Pub. No.: US 2013/0265153 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Breed teaches the method as recited in claim 16, but fails to teach further comprising tuning a sensitivity level of the accelerometer between a low level and a high level responsive to ambient vibration levels and other conditions at the current location of the particular asset.
However, in the same field of impact sensor, Taylor teaches the threshold level of the impact sensors is adjusted to suit current operating conditions. See para [0048], “Either separately or in any combination, the shock sensor 640, accelerometer 645, and 3D impact sensor 655 are configured to detect and measure the magnitude and direction of movement, velocity, and acceleration in any direction in a three-dimensional space.” and para [0053], “For example, each of impact, movement, and vibration may be associated with different predetermined thresholds or ranges of values. The predetermined thresholds or ranges may be configurable for different environments or different equipment. For example, a movement threshold for shipping or transporting may be different than a movement threshold for machine operation. Further, the sensitivity of each sensor 640-655 can be adjusted to suit current operating conditions or different equipment. For example, the sensors 640-655 could be configured to be more or less sensitive to detect or ignore very small vibrations.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breed’s
impact sensors to be adjustable by a user to result false alarm.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed (Pub. No.: US 2003/0165356 A1) in view of Jefferson (Pub. No.: US 2018/0122209 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Breed teaches the method as recited in claim 16, but fails to teach comprising a further step of deactivating a sensor module in the database when it is removed from a particular asset, and re-activating the sensor module in the database when it is installed on a different particular asset.
However, in the same field of sensor management system, Jefferson teaches the sensor management system deactivates the virtual sensor from the list of sensors if the physical sensor is removed from the monitoring environment and activates the virtual sensor if the physical sensor is introduced to the monitoring environment. See para [0028], “For example, the system may periodically determine if one or more virtual sensors can exist (e.g., as physical sensors are added to the monitored environment), and if so, the system automatically adds the virtual sensor to the “subset” list, and starts calculating/determining values for those added. When a particular virtual sensor can no longer exist (e.g., when a physical sensor(s) is removed from the monitored environment or when the logic for determining the virtual sensor value changes and the existing configuration of physical sensors is no longer sufficient), the virtual sensor is deactivated and the system no longer maintains active data reading for that particular virtual sensor.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breed’s barrier monitoring system to automatically activate or deactivate virtual sensors in the sensor list to reduce confusion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sanchez (Pub. No.: US 2019/0234033 A1) teaches a roadside barrier attached with an impact sensor for indicating the location of the impact.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, EST.
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, Hai Phan can be reached on 5712726338. 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685