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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on July 30, 2026. Claims 1-16 are now pending in the application. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended and new claims 15 and 16 have been added.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holdcroft et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0086378; hereinafter “Holdcroft”) in view of Larson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0149711; hereinafter “Larson”).
As per claim 1, Holdcroft discloses a gas measuring device (see e.g., Figs. 1, 2, 3A-3B, 10A-10D: gas detector devices 106/221/300/1000) comprising:
a gas sensor (e.g., para. [0055]: “Referring to FIGS. 3A-3B, a gas detector 300 may comprise at least one gas sensor 310 configured to detect gas in the ambient environment.”);
a first display unit (para. [0031]: gas detectors may comprise a display/LED’s for communicating sensed information to a user; para. [0083]: a gas detector 1000 comprises a first/main display 1002 and a second display 1004)
wherein the first display unit (1002) is configured to display information relating to a hazardous situation (e.g., para. [0031] & [0055]: “The main LED indicators use 3 colors to show status: green to represent “safe to proceed”, red to represent “danger, evacuate” and orange to represent maintenance activity…Pulsing LED's provide extra visibility for alerts and warnings to both users and co-workers.”):
a control unit (e.g., para. [0055]: “The gas detector may comprise an internal processor 360 configured to receive and process information from the sensor 310, control the display 302, and control communications to and from the gas detector 300.”);
wherein the control unit is configured to determine the hazardous situation on the basis of a gas measurement value of the gas sensor (e.g., para. [0035], [0043] & [0055]: “The detector devices 106 may comprise gas detector devices operable to detect concentrations of one or more gases in the air. These detector devices 106 may be mobile and carried with a worker in the facility. In some embodiments, the gas detector devices 106 may be operable to trigger alarms when the detected gas concentration moves outside of a predetermined threshold or thresholds.”);
wherein the control unit is configured to determine a status information about an internal device status (e.g., para. [0055] & [0084]: critical status information); and
a second display unit (e.g., para. [0083]: a gas detector 1000 comprises a first display 1002 and a second display 1004):
wherein the second display (1004) unit is configured to display the status information (see e.g., Figs. 10A-10D; para. [0083]-[0084]: “the top surface display 1004 may comprise one or more indicators 1006 (e.g. where the top surface display 1004 may be separate from the main display 1002). Critical status information may be communicated to the user via the indicators 1006. The indicators 1006 may provide basic information at a quick glance for the user, such as a confidence signal that the detector is functioning correctly, battery power is sufficient, and the atmosphere is safe, for example. This may allow a quick reference for the user, where the user may also consult the main (first) display 1002 located on the front surface of the gas detector 1000 if more information is desired.”);
wherein the second display unit (1004) is a bistable display unit (see e.g., para. [0075]: the gas detector may use a color E-ink display for lower power usage; a color E-ink display can potentially function as a bistable display).
Holdcroft does not explicitly disclose wherein the second display unit is configured to display the status information when the gas measuring device is switched off or disconnected from a power supply.
However, Larson teaches: wherein the second display unit is configured to display the status information when the gas measuring device is switched off or disconnected from a power supply (see e.g., para. [0008]-[0009], [0021] & [0032]: describes a circuit breaker having a bistable display that indicates a fault/status condition and continues displaying that condition after power is interrupted; in particular, see para. [0009]: “When the trip condition is triggered, power is cutoff to the circuit breaker for safety reasons. However, the bi-stable display continues to indicate the fault condition thus showing an electrician or homeowner the cause of the trip condition without having to power up the circuit breaker.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second status display of gas detector of Holdcroft by incorporating the teachings of Larson to provide the known use of a bistable display to retain and display device status/fault information after power interruption, thereby facilitating quick identification of the gas detector’s condition without requiring restoration of power.
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination further discloses: wherein the second display unit comprises electronic paper (see Holdcroft, e.g., para. [0075]; Larson, e.g., para. [0034]).
As per claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination further discloses: wherein the control unit is configured to detect a gas sensor configuration, a device identification, a device property, a software version, and compliance with standards, and to determine the status information based thereon (see Holdcroft, e.g., para. [0033], [0039], [0043], [0055] & [0084]: “Information pulled to the detector 106 would include firmware upgrades, detector deployment, settings, set point configuration, permission rights and maintenance reminders”; “Gas detectors 221 may communicate data to the mobile device 202, such as gas level readings, gas identification, exposure data, and any alarms or alert”; “).
As per claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination further discloses: wherein the control unit is configured to determine the status information during a device switch-on process and a device switch-off process (see Holdcroft, e.g., para. [0089]; Larson, e.g., para. [0008]-[0009], [0021] & [0032]).
As per claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination further discloses: wherein the control unit is configured to detect a device configuration change and to determine the status information in the event of a change in the device configuration (see Holdcroft, e.g., para. [0033], [0039] & [0084]).
As per claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination further discloses: wherein the second display unit is configured to display different information alternately at an interval (see Holdcroft, e.g., para. [0033], [0071] & [0085]).
Method claims 8-10 and 12-14 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 1-3 and 5-7. Therefore, method claims 8-10 and 12-14 correspond to apparatus claims 1-3 and 5-7 and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holdcroft in view of Larson, and further in view of Delgrande et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0295959; hereinafter “Delgrande”).
As per claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated and Holdcroft in view of Larson discloses communicating critical status information to the user via indicators/second display (see Holdcroft, para. [0033] & [0084]), but the combination does not explicitly disclose: wherein the control unit is configured to compare the status information with a previously determined status information and, if a difference is determined between the status information and the previously determined status information, the second display unit displays the current status information.
However, Delgrande is reasonably pertinent to the display update problem and teaches: wherein the control unit is configured to compare the status information with a previously determined status information and, if a difference is determined between the status information and the previously determined status information, the second display unit displays the current status information (e.g., para. [0043]-[0044]: “the POCT system can be designed such that content displayed on the auxiliary display of an POCT instrument of the plurality of POCT instruments can be based on data stored in the system control unit and, if this stored data is adjusted in the system control unit, the adjusted data can be automatically transmitted to the POCT instrument and content based on the adjusted data can be displayed on the auxiliary display.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second status display of gas detector of Holdcroft in view of Larson by incorporating the automatic update-on-change concept of Delgrande. Doing so would allow the most current status information to be automatically updated and presented on the second/auxiliary display, as taught by Delgrande (para. [0044]).
Method claim 11 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 4. Therefore, method claim 11 corresponds to apparatus claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holdcroft in view of Larson, and further in view of Phoenix (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0073782).
As per claim 15, claim 1 is incorporated and Holdcroft in view of Larson does not explicitly disclose: wherein the status information comprises a compliance with standards indicating which standards the gas measuring device fulfills, and wherein the control unit is configured to determine the compliance with standards by detecting a current software version and current configuration settings of the gas measuring device and determining, based on a stored assignment of software versions and configuration settings to fulfilled standards, the standards currently fulfilled by the gas measuring device.
However, Phoenix teaches: wherein the status information comprises a compliance with standards indicating which standards the gas measuring device fulfills, and wherein the control unit is configured to determine the compliance with standards by detecting a current software version and current configuration settings of the gas measuring device and determining, based on a stored assignment of software versions and configuration settings to fulfilled standards, the standards currently fulfilled by the gas measuring device (see e.g., para. [0014]-[0030]: describes a repository containing software version information, configuration information, compliance standard information, and mapping data, which is then used to determine compliance; in particular, para. [0029] explains that a capability can exist in some software versions but not others, and that configuration information can specify settings needed to activate a capability and satisfy defined requirements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the compliance-determination technique of Phoenix into the gas detector of Holdcroft in view of Larson because the gas detector already provides a second display for communicating internal and critical device status information, and determining and displaying applicable compliance standards would provide a user with readily accessible information regarding whether the detector is configured and programmed for a particular application. Phoenix teaches determining compliance with standards using software version information and technical configuration information and storing mapping between such application capabilities and compliance controls. Implementing such a known automated compliance determination in the gas detector of Holdcroft in view of Larson would therefore have predictably allowed the detector to identify and communicate the standards applicable to its current software and configuration.
Method claim 16 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 15. Therefore, method claim 16 corresponds to apparatus claim 15 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 30, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14 under 35 USC 102, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment. Holdcroft in view of Larson is demonstrated to meet the amended claims.
Applicant's arguments filed July 30, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 4 and 11 under 35 USC 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding non-analogous art (see Remarks, page 8) is not persuasive. Delgrande is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem addressed by claims 4 and 11, namely, maintaining current status information on a secondary display when the underlying information has changed. Although Delgrande concerns a point-of-care testing (POCT) instrument, its relevant teaching is directed to the display control functionality, not to the particular type of instrument or the hygiene application. Specifically, para. [0043]-[0044] teach automatically transmitting adjusted data to an instrument and displaying content based on the adjusted data on an auxiliary display. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to ensure that the secondary display of Holdcroft presents updated status information would reasonably have considered this known display update technique, regardless of whether the underlying instrument was a gas detector or a POCT instrument. Thus, Delgrande is at least reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by claims 4 and 11 and therefore qualifies as analogous art under the applicable standard.
Applicant’s argument regarding the combination (see Remarks, page 9) is not persuasive. The rejection does not require incorporating Delgrande’s entire POCT system, its label-management functionality, or its particular hygienic implementation into Holdcroft. Rather, Delgrande is relied upon for the specific known technique of automatically updating content on an auxiliary display based on data maintained by a central control unit (see Delgrande, para. [0043]-[0044]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply this known display-update technique to Holdcroft to ensure that information presented on its secondary display remains synchronized with the updated information. The fact that Delgrande implements the technique in a POCT system or used the auxiliary display for static content does not negate the applicability of the display control teaching of Holdcroft. Thus, the proposed combination has a supporting rationale: using a known automatic display-update technique to maintain current information on a secondary display.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Scholl (U.S. Patent No. 6,272,407 B1) discloses a safety/control system having a bistable mechanical display that displays either a fault condition or no-fault condition. When the control system is switched off because of a fault, the display is placed into the fault position and remains there without a power supply.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN AZIZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7536, (Fax: 571-270-8536). The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9am - 6pm Eastern Time).
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, QUAN-ZHEN WANG can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ADNAN AZIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 adnan.aziz@uspto.gov
