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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KRAZ (US 20090167313 A1).
Re claim 1. KRAZ discloses (abstract) an electro-static discharge (ESD) alert device (FIG.1) comprising:
circuitry (FIG.17a) including:
an antenna 30 configured for detecting ESD [0048, 78], and a signal processor 1052 communicably coupled with the antenna and configured to identify when a signal [0077-78] received from the antenna is equal to or above a preset threshold ESD reading [0050, 58, 70]; and
an alert device (FIG.9) electrically or communicably coupled to the signal processor, wherein the alert device is configured to alert an operator that the preset threshold ESD reading has been reached or surpassed [0058, 66].
Re claim 5. KRAZ discloses [0066] the ESD alert device of claim 1, wherein the alert device is configured to provide a visual or audible alert when the preset threshold ESD reading has been reached or surpassed. (FIG.9)
Re claim 7. KRAZ discloses (FIG.17a) the ESD alert device of claim 1, further comprising signal conditioning circuitry between the antenna and the signal processor.
Re claim 8. KRAZ discloses (FIG.17a) the ESD alert device of claim 7, wherein the signal conditioning circuitry includes at least one of an amplifier 1000, a filter 1050, and a detector 1030.
Re claim 9. KRAZ discloses [0060, 75] the ESD alert device of claim 1, wherein the signal processor includes an adjustable comparator, wherein the adjustable comparator has an adjustable reference voltage, and the adjustable comparator is configured such that adjustment of the reference voltage adjusts the preset threshold ESD reading.
Re claim 10. KRAZ discloses [0073] the ESD alert device of claim 1, wherein one or more elements of the circuitry are configured to limit a distance range at which ESD detection above the preset threshold ESD reading triggers the alert device.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRAZ (US 20090167313 A1) in view of MEJYR (CN 101939655 B) further in view of JON et al. (US 5903220 A).
However, KRAZ fails to explicitly disclose:
2. The ESD alert device of claim 1, further comprising a substrate supporting the circuitry and the alert device, wherein the substrate has a thickness of less than approximately 0.25 inches, a width of less than approximately 3.5 inches, and a length of less than approximately 3.5 inches.
3. The ESD alert device of claim 2, wherein the dimensions of the ESD alert device include a width and a length approximately the size of a credit card or smaller.
MEJYR teaches in similar field of invention, an ESD alert device, (abstract) an electro-static discharge (ESD) alert device (FIG.1) comprising:
circuitry (FIG.2) including:
an antenna 205 configured for detecting ESD [0050], and a signal processor 203 communicably coupled with the antenna and configured to identify when a signal [0050] received from the antenna is equal to or above a preset threshold ESD reading [0056]; and
an alert device (FIG.2A-2D) electrically or communicably coupled to the signal processor, wherein the alert device is configured to alert an operator that the preset threshold ESD reading has been reached or surpassed (c.4, l.38-40, l.59-62).
Furthermore, MEJYR teaches a substrate [0022, 36, 51] supporting the circuitry and the alert device, wherein the antenna and the signal processor are etched onto the substrate or printed onto the substrate via additive manufacturing.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to pursue the known option of etching antenna and processor onto substrate as taught by MEJYR. It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to use a manufacturing process well known to be used for circuits.
JON teaches in a similar field of invention, (abstract) an electro-static discharge (ESD) alert device (FIG.1 and 17) comprising:
circuitry including:
an antenna 101 configured for detecting ESD (c.2, l.48-55), and a signal processor 117 communicably coupled with the antenna and configured to identify when a signal (c.3, l.37-40) received from the antenna is equal to or above a preset threshold ESD reading (c.2, l.1-6; c.5, l.35-40); and
an alert device (FIG.2A-2D) electrically or communicably coupled to the signal processor, wherein the alert device is configured to alert an operator that the preset threshold ESD reading has been reached or surpassed (c.4, l.38-40, l.59-62).
JON teaches (c.2, l.47-55) it would be desirable to use an antenna of sufficiently small dimensions so that the ESD event detector lends itself to convenient use and/or portability.
KRAZ as modified by MEJYR and JON discloses the claimed invention except for:
the desired size dimensions claimed.
The law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found. It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the Applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 Fo2d 1338 (Fed. Cir.1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art. Absent evidence of unexpected results due to the recited dimensions, the Examiner finds that the recited dimensions were predictable at the time of Applicant's disclosure.
The rationale is as follows:
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to reduce substrate and ESD device dimensions to a size smaller for the purpose of convenient use and/or portability, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (see In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984))
Re claim 12. As applied for claim 3.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRAZ (US 20090167313 A1) in view of STEVENSON et al. (WO 2023245198 A2).
However, KRAZ fails to explicitly disclose:
Re claim 4. the ESD alert device of claim 1, further comprising a substrate supporting the circuitry and the alert device and an article of clothing or a wearable accessory, wherein the substrate is integrated into the article of clothing or the wearable accessory.
STEVENSON teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, an EST alert device [0045] including a substrate for supporting similar circuitry and an article of clothing or wearable accessory which has substrate integrated into it. (FIG.1 – elastic strap 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try adapting the ESD alert device as claimed in either a wearable article of clothing or accessory such as an elastic strap in order to obtain a portable device to detect ESD effects.
Claim(s) 6, 11 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRAZ (US 20090167313 A1) in view of MEJYR (CN 101939655 B).
Re claim 6. However, KRAZ fails to explicitly disclose:
the ESD alert device of claim 1, further comprising a substrate supporting the circuitry and the alert device, wherein the antenna and the signal processor are etched onto the substrate or printed onto the substrate via additive manufacturing.
MEJYR teaches in similar field of invention, an ESD alert device, (abstract) an electro-static discharge (ESD) alert device (FIG.1) comprising:
circuitry (FIG.2) including:
an antenna 205 configured for detecting ESD [0050], and a signal processor 203 communicably coupled with the antenna and configured to identify when a signal [0050] received from the antenna is equal to or above a preset threshold ESD reading [0056]; and
an alert device (FIG.2A-2D) electrically or communicably coupled to the signal processor, wherein the alert device is configured to alert an operator that the preset threshold ESD reading has been reached or surpassed (c.4, l.38-40, l.59-62).
Furthermore, MEJYR teaches a substrate [0022, 36, 51] supporting the circuitry and the alert device, wherein the antenna and the signal processor are etched onto the substrate or printed onto the substrate via additive manufacturing.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to pursue the known option of etching antenna and processor onto substrate as taught by MEJYR. It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to use a manufacturing process well known to be used for circuits.
Re claim 11. KRAZ discloses (as for claim 1) an electro-static discharge (ESD) alert device comprising:
an antenna printed and configured for detecting ESD and a signal processor communicably coupled with the antenna and configured to identify when a signal received from the antenna is equal to or above a preset threshold ESD reading; and
an alert device fixed relative to the substrate and electrically or communicably coupled to the signal processor, wherein the alert device is triggerable by the signal processor to provide a visual or audible alert to an operator that the preset threshold ESD reading has been reached or surpassed.
However, KRAZ fails to explicitly disclose:
a substrate for supporting printed circuitry;
the printed circuitry etched or printed onto the substrate, the printed circuitry including an antenna printed.
MEJYR teaches in similar field of invention, an ESD alert device, (abstract) an electro-static discharge (ESD) alert device (FIG.1) comprising:
circuitry (FIG.2) including:
an antenna 205 configured for detecting ESD [0050], and a signal processor 203 communicably coupled with the antenna and configured to identify when a signal [0050] received from the antenna is equal to or above a preset threshold ESD reading [0056]; and
an alert device (FIG.2A-2D) electrically or communicably coupled to the signal processor, wherein the alert device is configured to alert an operator that the preset threshold ESD reading has been reached or surpassed (c.4, l.38-40, l.59-62).
Furthermore, MEJYR teaches a substrate [0022, 36, 51] supporting the circuitry and the alert device, wherein the antenna and the signal processor are etched or printed onto the substrate or printed onto the substrate via additive manufacturing.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to pursue the known option of etching antenna and processor onto substrate as taught by MEJYR. It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to use a manufacturing process well known to be used for circuits.
Re claim 14. As for claim 10.
Re claim 15. As for claim 7.
Re claim 16. As for claim 9.
Re claim 17. As for claim 9.
Claim(s) 13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRAZ (US 20090167313 A1) in view of MEJYR (CN 101939655 B) further in view of STEVENSON et al. (WO 2023245198 A2).
Re claim 13. However, KRAZ and MEJYR fails to explicitly disclose:
the ESD alert device of claim 11, further comprising an article of clothing or wearable accessory, wherein the substrate is integrated into the article of clothing or wearable accessory.
STEVENSON teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, an EST alert device [0045] including a substrate for supporting similar circuitry and an article of clothing or wearable accessory which has substrate integrated into it. (FIG.1 – elastic strap 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try adapting the ESD alert device as claimed in either a wearable article of clothing or accessory such as an elastic strap in order to obtain a portable device to detect ESD effects.
Re claim 18. KRAZ (as combined for claims 1 and 11) a method of detecting an electro-static discharge (ESD) event, the method comprising:
receiving with an antenna of the ESD alert device ESD signals;
sending to at least one signal processor the ESD signals;
determining via the at least one signal processor if one or more of the ESD signals is equal to or above a preset threshold ESD reading; and
triggering a visual or audible alert, via an alert device, in response to the at least one signal processor determining that the one or more of the ESD signals are equal to or above the preset threshold ESD reading.
However, KRAZ fails to explicitly disclose:
printed onto a substrate,
fixed relative to the substrate.
MEJYR teaches a substrate [0022, 36, 51] supporting the circuitry and the alert device, wherein the antenna and the signal processor are etched or printed onto the substrate or printed onto the substrate via additive manufacturing.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to pursue the known option of etching antenna and processor onto substrate as taught by MEJYR. It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to use a manufacturing process well known to be used for circuits.
However, KRAZ and MEJYR fails to explicitly disclose:
a wearable ESD alert device.
STEVENSON teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, an EST alert device [0045] including a substrate for supporting similar circuitry and an article of clothing or wearable accessory which has substrate integrated into it. (FIG.1 – elastic strap 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try adapting the ESD alert device as claimed in either a wearable article of clothing or accessory such as an elastic strap in order to obtain a portable device to detect ESD effects.
Re claim 19. As for claim 10.
Re claim 20. As for claim 4 and 18 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS E GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1354. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6pm F 9-5pm.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
CARLOS E. GARCIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2686
/Carlos Garcia/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 1/26/2026