Ray Milhem

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 3, 2022

2020006804 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/789,661 10/20/2017 Ray Milhem SK13152 7895 44088 7590 01/03/2022 KAUFHOLD DIX PATENT LAW P. O. BOX 89626 SIOUX FALLS, SD 57109 EXAMINER MAHASE, PAMESHANAND ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/03/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): jason@kaufholdlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAY MILHEM Appeal 2020-006804 Application 15/789,661 Technology Center 2600 BEFORE RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ray Milhem. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-006804 Application 15/789,661 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a “safety device for alerting a user to a potential threat.” Spec. 2:2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A portable safety assembly being configured to detect hidden threats thereby alerting a user to the hidden threats, said assembly comprising: a housing being configured to be worn on an article of clothing; a processor being positioned within said housing; a proximity sensor being coupled to said housing, said proximity sensor being configured to detect motion within a trigger distance of said housing; a plurality of light emitters, each of said light emitters being coupled to said outer wall of said housing wherein each of said light emitters is configured to selectively emit light outwardly when said proximity sensor detects motion thereby facilitating said plurality of light emitters to alert a user to a potential threat; and a clip being coupled to an outer wall of said housing wherein said clip is configured to engage the article of clothing, said clip being spaced from said outer wall wherein said clips configured to facilitate the article of clothing to be positioned between said clip and said housing. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Shaffer US 2001/0050612 A1 Dec. 13, 2001 Sharpe US 2006/0012463 A1 Jan. 19, 2006 Addison US 2007/0063851 A1 Mar. 22, 2007 Appeal 2020-006804 Application 15/789,661 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Schaffer, Addison, and Sharpe. Final Act. 3-9. OPINION The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1 and 3-7 over Schaffer, Addison, and Sharpe Appellant presents the following principal arguments: “Sharpe relates to a personal pager device which would be known as potentially having a belt clip. That belt clips exist is not in dispute. However, this does not address or establish obviousness.” Appeal Br. 5. “Absent such consideration or evidence demonstrated to link a device for detecting hidden threats to a belt clip, the rejection is based on an unsupported conclusion insufficient to properly establish a prima facie case for obviousness.” Appeal Br. 7. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Appellant’s arguments raise the issue of whether or not the Examiner’s reasons to combine the teachings of the references have a rational underpinning. The Examiner finds Schaffer teaches the recited processor and plurality of light emitters. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds Addison teaches the recited portable safety assembly and proximity sensor. Final Act. 4. We determine the Examiner’s reasoning to combine the teachings of Schaffer and Addison is rational and supported by evidence drawn from the record. Final Act. 4 (“to create a personal warning device where said device Appeal 2020-006804 Application 15/789,661 4 detects unseen dangers for the user in order [to] prevent the user from being harmed”); Addison ¶ 15 (“[D]evice 12 will initially emit a warning signal when a hidden potential threat T is detected within a certain range of user J.”). Appellant has not presented any particularized arguments as to why the Examiner’s reasoning to combine the teachings of Schaffer and Addison is incorrect. See Appeal Br. 5-7. Thus, we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning as our own. The Examiner further finds Sharpe teaches the recited housing and clip. Final Act. 4-5. We determine the Examiner’s reasoning to combine the teachings of Schaffer, Addison, and Sharpe is rational and supported by evidence drawn from the record. Final Act. 5 (“to create a personal warning device where said device is worn by the user to detect unseen dangers for the user in order [to] prevent the user from being harmed wherein the motivation to combine is to alert a user to a possible threat”); Ans. 4 (“a portable and wearable detection device”); Schaffer, Abstract (“A personal alert device for a user includes a portable housing to be carried by the user.”); Sharpe ¶ 23 (“Pager 10(1) optionally includes a positioning element 38 that may be, for example, a belt clip, a key ring or a stand.”). In particular, we determine a skilled artisan would have found Sharpe’s belt clip, which allows a device to be worn by a user, to be readily- applicable to Schaffer’s personal alert device carried by the user to allow the personal alert device to be worn by the user. Final Act. 5; Ans. 4; Schaffer, Abstract; Sharpe ¶ 23. Regarding Appellant’s arguments and the lack of link to connect a device for detecting hidden threats to a belt clip, the link is that Schaffer Appeal 2020-006804 Application 15/789,661 5 teaches the device is carried by the user, and Sharpe’s belt clip provides a way for the user to carry the device. Schaffer, Abstract; Sharpe ¶ 23. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-7, which are not separately argued with particularity. See Appeal Br. 5-7. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3-7 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-7 103 Schaffer, Addison, Sharpe 1, 3-7 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED