DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-12 are presented for examination on the merits.
Double Patenting
2. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(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-l.jsp.
3. Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of US Patent No. (US 12148280), 1-19 of US Patent No. (US 11676468), 1-19 of US Patent No. (US 10607467) and 1-13 of US Patent No. (US 11030873). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a method comprising: determining, by a computing device, first context data that is based at least in part on one or more of an article of PPE configured to be worn by a user, a first work environment for the article of PPE, or a worker associated with the article of PPE, wherein at least a portion of the first context data comprises positional information determined by at least one of the article of PPE or a data hub configured to be worn by the user and to communicate with the at least one article of PPE; in response to sending the first context data to at least one other computing device at a first time, receiving the first set of programmable safety rules when the worker is within a predefined distance of the first work environment, wherein the first set of programmable safety rules are contextually associated with one or more of the article of PPE, the first work environment for the article of PPE, or the worker associated with the article of PPE; configuring, by the computing device, the first set of programmable safety rules to perform one or more operations based at least in part on PPE data received from the communication component of the article of PPE; and in response to receiving the PPE data of the article of PPE and determining that at least one of the first set of programmable safety rules has been satisfied, performing the one or more operations based at least in part on the PPE data received from the communication component of the article of PPE in response to determining second context data, sending the second context data to at the least one other computing device at a second time and receiving a second set of programmable safety rules when the worker is within a predefined distance of a second work environment; and configuring, by the computing device, the second set of programmable safety rules to perform one or more operations based at least in part on PPE data received from the communication component of the article of PPE; and in response to receiving PPE data of the article of PPE and determining that at least one of the second set of programmable safety rules has been satisfied, performing the one or more operations based at least in part on PPE data received from the communication component of the article of PPE are conventional prior art features and the use of such features in the claims of application 18947466 would have been obvious and would not have involved a patentable invention.
The patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The patent claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Allowable Subject Matter
4. a. As to claims 1-12, there is no prior art to reject claims 1-12. However, applicant should resolve the USC 101 rejection to place the application in condition for allowance. An update search needs to be performed after the next response from applicant.
b. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the related art of record fails to disclose or suggest a combination of a plurality of method for dynamically configuring programmable safety rules for PPE articles e.g. hearing protectors and powered-air purifying respirators, based on detected contextual data of safety officers in a work environment e.g. enterprise and office, by a computing device. Uses include but are not limited to a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a smartphone, a tablet computer, a wearable computer, and a smart TV. The method enables using a personal protection equipment management system (PPEMS) to trigger an alert if certain combinations of conditions are present so as to accelerate examination or service of the safety equipment and prompt the users to intervene and/or perform procedures to improve metrics relative to the benchmarks, thus ensuring compliance and actively managing safety for the workers. The method enables improving operation and effectiveness of the PPE worn by workers and/or improving safety of the workers in different work environments over particular work interval. The data hub can more accurately determine whether the worker can be in the designated area based on risk determination so as to improve safety of the workers. The method involves determining first context data based on an article of personal protective equipment (PPE) configured to be worn by a user, first work environment for the article of PPE, or a worker associated with the article of PPE, and receiving first set of programmable safety rules when the worker is within predefined distance of the first work environment. The first set of programmable safety rules is configured to perform operations based on PPE data. Operations are performed based on the PPE data. Second context data is sent to other computing device at second time, and second set of programmable safety rules is received when the worker is within a predefined distance of second work environment. The second set of programmable safety rules is configured to perform operations based on PPE data. Operations are performed based on the PPE data. Moreover, the related art indicates that this particular device and method is novel and has not been published or patented by other entities. This along with the rest of the claimed limitations is not shown by the related art.
Citation of pertinent Prior Arts
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion
6. If the claimed invention is amended, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification, which dictate(s) the structure/description relied upon to assist the Examiner in proper interpretation of the amended language and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fekadeselassie Girma whose telephone number is (571) 270-5886. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday, 8:30 – 5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta W. Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding 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 PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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 Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fekadeselassie Girma/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2689