Detailed Action
Objections
Claim(s) 8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 8, the claim recites in line 2 “in response to least one of”. The phrase “least one of” must be preceded by the word “at” in order to make the sentence grammatically correct. For this reason, the claim is objected. Appropriate correction is required. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “in response to at least one of”.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to paragraph 0068, the elements described as being part of figure 5 of the drawings are actually part of figure 6, and the elements described as being part of figure 6 are actually part of figure 7. For example, line 3 recites “range 142 in FIG. 5”. Figure 5 does not show a range 142 because range 142 is shown in figure 6. The examiner recommends the applicant to review the entire specification in order to make sure that the specification refers to the correct figures when reciting elements shown in the figures. 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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 1, the claim recite sin lines 3-4 “a plurality of electrodes coupled to the housing comprising a first electrode and a second electrode”. By the way the aforementioned is written, it is unclear if the plurality of electrodes is the component comprising the first and second electrodes or if the housing is the component comprising the first and second electrodes. If the housing is the component comprising the electrodes, the limitation would lack of antecedent basis because the claim did not previously define that the housing comprises a first electrode and a second electrode. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “a plurality of electrodes coupled to the housing and comprising a first electrode and a second electrode”.
In regards to claim(s) 2-10, the claim(s) is/are indefinite due to its/their dependency on indefinite claim 1.
In regards to claim 4, the claim recites in line 2 “wherein the interface between the aperture and the projection”. The word “the” in front of the limitation(s) “interface between the aperture and the projection” means that the limitation(s) was/were previously defined. However, the limitation(s) was/were not previously defined. For this reason, the limitation(s) lack of antecedent basis and the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “wherein [[the]] an interface between the aperture and the projection”.
In regards to claim 11, the claim recites in line 12 “in response to comparing the direction”. The claim previously defines a direction to the nearby object and a range of directions. It is unclear if the limitation of line 12 is referring to the direction to the nearby object or to one of the directions of the range of directions. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “in response to comparing the direction to the nearby object to the target range of directions”.
In regards to claim(s) 12-16, the claim(s) is/are indefinite due to its/their dependency on indefinite claim 11.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In regards to claim 15, the claim recites that the second range of directions is distinct from the first range of directions. Claim 14 already recites that the second range of directions is different/distinct than the first range of direction. Therefore, claim 15 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 6, 9-11, 14-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maus et al. (US-2023/0366919) in view of McNulty (US-6,329,924).
In regards to claim 1, Maus teaches a safety device comprising a housing configured to couple to a shell of a safety headwear [fig. 2A element 200]. Maus further teaches that the safety device comprises a plurality of sensors coupled to the housing [fig. 6 and 7 elements 730 and 732, par. 0020 L. 1-5, par. 0024]. Also, Maus teaches that the plurality of sensors comprises a first sensor and a second sensor, the first sensor configured to generate a first detection signal in response to detecting a nearby object having an electrical current, and the second sensor configured to generate a second detection signal in response to detecting the nearby object having the electrical current [fig. 6 and 7 elements 730 and 732, par. 0004 L. 2-5, par. 0005 L. 1-4, par. 0020 L. 1-5, par. 0024]. Furthermore, Maus teaches that the safety device comprises a controller coupled to the housing and in electrical communication with the plurality of sensors [fig. 8 element 830, par. 0032]. Maus further teaches that the controller is configured to receive the first detection signal and the second detection signal; analyze the first detection signal and the second detection signal to determine at least one of a distance to the nearby object or a direction to the nearby object [par. 0024 L. 5-8, par. 0025 L. 13-16, par. 0028, par. 0029 L. 5-8, par. 0030 L. 1-5, par. 0032]. Maus also teaches that the controller is configured to generate a controller signal in response to analyzing the first detection signal and the second detection signal [par. 0028, par. 0029 L. 5-8, par. 0030 L. 1-5, par. 0032]. Furthermore, Maus teaches that the safety device comprises a notification device coupled to the housing and in electrical communication with the controller, the notification device configured to generate an alarm in response to receiving the controller signal from the controller [fig. 8 elements 736 and 814, par. 0028, par. 0029 L. 5-8, par. 0030 L. 1-5].
Maus teaches that the plurality of sensors comprises a first sensor and a second sensor that are implemented as a first antenna and a second antenna [fig. 8 elements 730 and 732]. However, Maus does not teach that the antennas can be implanted with electrodes.
On the other hand, McNulty teaches that antennas used to sense nearby objects having electrical current can be implemented with electrodes [col. 1 L. 5-10, col. 3 L. 15-20, col. 4 L. 65-67].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use McNulty’s teachings of using electrodes to implement the antennas in the safety device taught by Maus because electrodes used as antennas provide reliable means to sense nearby objects having electrical current.
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Maus and McNulty, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the electrodes can be positioned at opposite sides of the front of the device and can be curved antennas [see Maus fig. 7 elements 730 and 732, par. 0023 L. 1-7]. Tis teaching means that when the safety device is coupled to the headwear, the first electrode and the second electrode will be circumferentially spaced in front of a person wearing the safety headwear.
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Maus and McNulty, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that alarm indicates at least one of the distance to the nearby object and the direction to the nearby object [see Maus par. 0028-0030].
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Maus and McNulty, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the alarm indicates the distance to the nearby object [see Maus par. 0029-0030].
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Maus and McNulty, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches the claimed safety device. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the antennas/electrodes senses electric fields towards different directions in order to determine the direction of the nearby device [see Maus par. 0024]. This teachings means that the device analyzes the one or more detection signals to determine a direction to the nearby object with respect to the housing. Also, teaches that the controller outputs an alarm indicating the direction of the nearby device [see Maus par. 0028]. This teaching means that the controller compares the determined direction with all the possible directions in order to determine how to output the alarm. In other words, the controller is configured to compare the direction to a target range of directions; and generate a controller signal in response to comparing the direction to the target range of directions.
In regards to claims 14 and 15, the combination of Maus and McNulty, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the controller is configured to output an alert that gives the illusion of movement, and permits the safety device to indicate the user the direction (leftward or rightward) of the nearby object in relation to the user [see Maus par. 0028]. This teachings means that the controller can indicate the direction of the nearby object as the user moves around the environment. This teaching means that the controller is configured to, in response to receiving input (movement of the user based on detected electric fields), toggle the target range of directions from a first range of directions (leftward or rightward) to a second range of directions (rightward or leftward), wherein the second range of directions is different than the first range of directions.
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Maus and McNulty, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches the claimed safety device. Furthermore, the combination teaches the antennas/electrodes sense electric field (voltage), and the sensed electric fields (voltage) is compared to thresholds in order to determine the proximity/distance of the nearby object and output an alarm [see Maus par. 0029 L. 5-15]. This teaching means that the controller is configured to analyze the one or more detection signals to determine an estimated voltage of the electrical current, compare the estimated voltage to a threshold level of voltage and generate a controller signal in response to comparing the estimated voltage to the threshold level of voltage.
Claim(s) 2-4, 12-13 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maus et al. (US-2023/0366919) in view of McNulty (US-6,329,924) as applied to claim(s) 1, 11 and 17 above, and further in view of Meola et al. (US-11,384,865).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Maus and McNulty, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the housing comprises as spring loaded clip that permits attachment of the safety device to the sell of the safety headwear [see Maus fig. 2A, par. 0019]. This teaching means that the housing configured to couple to the shell of the safety headwear comprises a body and arms extending from the body towards a person wearing the safety headwear.
The combination does not teach that the clip comprises tongues extending from the arms towards each other, the tongues configured to engage with the safety headwear to couple the housing to the safety headwear.
On the other hand, Meola teaches that a clip can comprise tongues extending from the arms towards each other, the tongues configured to engage with a structure where the clip will be mounted in order to couple the clip to the structure [fig. 5 elements 18 (tongues), fig. 7 elements 18, col. 3 L. 65-67, col. 4 L. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Meola’s teachings of including tongues in the safety device taught by the combination because it will permit the safety device to be better mounted onto the safety headwear and avoid the safety device to fall when in use with the safety headwear.
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Maus, McNulty and Meola, as applied in the rejection of claim 2 above, further teaches that the housing defines a central axis that extends through a front and a rear of the housing, wherein each of the tongues extends from the arms towards the central axis [see Maus fig. 2A, see Meola fig. 7 elements 18].
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Maus, McNulty and Meola, as applied in the rejection of claim 3 above, further teaches that the safety device defines an aperture that receives a projection extending from the safety headwear, wherein an interface between the aperture and the projection biases the safety device from being removed from the safety headwear [see Maus fig. 2A and par. 0019 (brim of the headwear is the claimed projection), see Maus par. 0019 and see Meola fig. 7 elements 18, col. 3 L. 65-67, col. 4 L. 1 (resilient clip opens to define an aperture that interfaces with the brim of the headwear, wherein the interface biases the safety device from being removed)].
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Maus, McNulty and Meola, as shown in the rejections of claims 2 and 3 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Maus, McNulty and Meola, as shown in the rejection of claim 4 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Maus, McNulty and Meola, as shown in the rejections of claims 2 and 3 above, teaches the claimed limitations. Also, the combination teaches that the tongues define a recess between the tongue and the body [see Meola fig. 5 elements 18].
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Maus, McNulty and Meola, as applied in the rejection of claim 18 above, further teaches that the recesses defined by the tongues are configured to receive the brim of the headwear (a rib) extending from the safety headwear [see Maus fig. 2A, par. 0019, see Meola fig. 7].
Claim(s) 5, 7, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maus et al. (US-2023/0366919) in view of McNulty (US-6,329,924) as applied to claim(s) 1, 11 and 17 above, and further in view of Thompson et al. (US-11,009,532).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Maus and McNulty, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the plurality of antennas/electrodes comprises two antennas/electrodes each of which are configured to generate a detection signal in response to detecting a nearby object having an electrical current [see Maus fig. 7 elements 730 and 732, par. 0024].
The combination does not teach that the safety device comprises a third antenna.
On the other hand, Thompson teaches that the safety device can comprises three antennas each configured to generate a detection signal in response to detecting a nearby object having an electrical current [fig. 13, col. 13 L. 50-66].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Thompson’s teachings of including a third antenna in the safety device taught by the combination because it will permit the safety device to be better determine the direction of the nearby object.
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Maus and McNulty, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the alarm generated by the notification device is a visual alarm and an audio alarm [see Maus par. 0025 L. 7-9, par. 0029 L. 1-5, par. 0030 L. 1-5].
The combination does not teach that the alarm can also be an haptic alarm.
On the other hand, Thompson teaches that the safety device can include an haptic alarm in addition to the visual alarm and the audio alarm [fig. 1 elements 116, 118 and 120, col. 9 L. 12-19].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Thompson’s teachings of including am haptic alarm in the safety device taught by the combination because it will permit the safety device to alert the user even when the user is not able to see the visual alert or hear the audio alert.
The combination of Maus, McNulty and Thompson teaches that the alarms can be a visual alarm, an audio alarm and an haptic alarm [see Maus see Maus par. 0025 L. 7-9, par. 0029 L. 1-5, par. 0030 L. 1-5, see Thompson fig. 1 elements 116, 118 and 120, col. 9 L. 12-19]. However, the combination does not explicitly teach that the alarms are selected from a group consisting of a visual alarm, an audio alarm, and a haptic alarm. However, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have selected the alarms from the claimed group because it will permit the safety device to alert a user via three out of the five senses that a user has.
In regards to claims 16 and 20, the combination of Maus, McNulty and Thompson, as shown in the rejection of claim 5 above, teaches the claimed limitations
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maus et al. (US-2023/0366919) in view of McNulty (US-6,329,924) and Thompson et al. (US-11,009,532) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Jenkins et al. (US-9,165,447).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Maus, McNulty and Thompson, as applied in the rejection of claim 7 above, further teaches that the alarms can include a visual alarm and an audio alarm [see Maus see Maus par. 0025 L. 7-9, par. 0029 L. 1-5, par. 0030 L. 1-5, see Thompson fig. 1 elements 116, 118 and 120, col. 9 L. 12-19]. However, the combination does not teach that the alarms are adjusted in response to least one of ambient light and ambient sound.
On the other hand, Jenkins teaches that a device that provides a visual alarm and an audio alarm can adjust the alarms in response to ambient light and sound [col. 11 L. 30-37]. This teaching means that the alarm generated by the notification device is adjusted in response to least one of ambient light and ambient sound.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Jenkins’ teachings of adjusting the alarms based on ambient light an audio in the safety device taught by the combination because it will permit the device to make sure that the user can see and hear the alarms in different environmental conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, CURTIS KUNTZ can be reached on (571)272-7499. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2687