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
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claimed, “wherein the sensors” is unclear because only one (single) sensor is required by the claim. The claim should be amended to recite, “wherein the at least one sensor”.
Regarding claim 13, the claimed, “at least one sensors” (2 occurrences), should be amended to recite, “at least once sensor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1–4, 8–11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zmrzli et al. (US Pub. # 20260118840), hereinafter referred to as Zmrzli.
Regarding claim 1, Zmrzli teaches, “A diaper rash prevention system, comprising: an Internet of Things gas detection device equipped with at least one sensor that wirelessly communicates its readings to a communication device in the form of a software application running on a smartphone (Fig. 1–2, ref. # 100, 110; para. [0035–0037, 0062]); wherein the sensors inside the Internet of Things gas detection device analyze the gases in the air to determine when a child has a dirty diaper or underpants providing accurate and real-time notifications to caregivers (see para. [0010, 0032–0034, 0038, 0047, 0054, 0063]).”
Regarding claim 2, Zmrzli teaches, “wherein the Internet of Things gas detection device is plugged into a wall outlet near a child’s crib [0035].”
Regarding claim 3, Zmrzli teaches, “wherein the Internet of Things gas detection device includes a housing supporting an electrical plug for attachment to an external power source (Fig. 1, 2, 8; ref. # 100, 820; para. [0006, 0035, 0070]).”
Regarding claim 4, Zmrzli teaches, “wherein the housing includes a cover and a base (front and back of 100 & Fig. 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, para. [0070, 0099] in combination with Fig. 2, para. [0006, 0037, 0100], showing and discussing sensors within the housing).”
Regarding claim 8, Zmrzli teaches, “wherein the at least one sensor includes a network of sensors (para. [0032, 0047, 0104]).”
Regarding claim 9, Zmrzli teaches, “wherein the network of sensors includes a CH4 (methane) sensor, a VOC (volatile organic compound) sensor, and a H2S (hydrogen sulfide) sensor (para. [0032, 0047, 0104]).”
Regarding claim 10, Zmrzli teaches, “wherein the network of sensors is mounted on a circuit board (ref. # 110; para. [0032–0035]; sensors inherently connected to a PCB).”
Regarding claim 11, Zmrzli teaches, “wherein the circuit board includes a processor, a transceiver, and a power source connection (Abstract; para. [0006, 0035, 0037, 0041–0042, 0071–0073, 0099, 0100]).”
Regarding claim 14, Zmrzli teaches, “wherein the diaper rash prevention system utilizes Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning algorithms to process data collected from the at least one sensors to correlate and determine when a soiled diaper event has taken place (Fig. 4; para. [0020, 0033, 0034, 0042, 0046, 0048, 0061–0063, 0068]).”
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.
Claim(s) 5–7 and 12–13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zmrzli (US Pub. # 20260118840) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. # 20230041557), hereinafter referred to as Lee.
Regarding claim 5, Zmrzli doesn’t necessarily teach, “wherein the cover is connected to the base for selective attachment thereto.” However, Lee teaches the deficiencies of Zmrzli (Fig. 1a, 1b, 1c; ref. # 100, 101, 102; para. [0064–0066]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zmrzli’s invention to include wherein the cover is connected to the base for selective attachment thereto.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zmrzli’s invention for at least the purpose of allowing ease of access to the interior of the device for maintenance purposes (replacement of parts, etc.).
Regarding claim 6, Zmrzli teaches, “wherein the cover is provided with a perforated grill allowing gases to readily pass therethrough such that they may be sensed by the sensors within the IoT gas detection device (Fig. 8c, ref. # 840; para. [0099] in combination with para. [0006, 0037, 0100]; furthermore, perforations exist in cover/housing for interior sensors within housing to be able to detect gases).”
Regarding claim 7, Zmrzli teaches, “wherein the electric plug is mounted along a base wall of the base of the housing (ref. # 820 as seen in Fig. 8b, 8c).”
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Zmrzli does not appear to teach, “wherein the Internet of Things gas detection device includes a fan; wherein the fan is positioned within a housing of the Internet of Things gas detection device such that it accesses the air that it needs to move, and the fan is positioned slightly above the at least one sensors such that the air being drawn in by the fan passes over and around the at least one sensors.” However, Lee teaches the deficiencies of Zmrzli (Fig. 13a, ref. # 1301 with sensors as described throughout [0095, 0096, 0135, 0136, 0144–0146, 0155–0157]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zmrzli’s invention to include wherein the Internet of Things gas detection device includes a fan; wherein the fan is positioned within a housing of the Internet of Things gas detection device such that it accesses the air that it needs to move, and the fan is positioned slightly above the at least one sensors such that the air being drawn in by the fan passes over and around the at least one sensors.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zmrzli’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring the flow of air around the sensor(s) is kept constant while also providing a humidity control means in the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO–892 form. The references cited herewith teach internet connected sensing devices for detecting methane or other gases in a room, with configurations similar to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights