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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledged Receipt
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 10 September 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection are based on amendment(s) to the Claim(s).
With respect to independent Claim(s) 1: In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., includes only an RFID beacon) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Claim Objection(s) mailed on 03 June 2025 is/are overcome by the amendment filed on 10 September 2025.
The 112 Rejection(s) mailed on 03 June 2025 is/are overcome by the amendment filed on 10 September 2025.
Status
In the amendment filed 10 September 2025, independent Claim(s) 1 has/have been amended. A Final Rejection is being issued in this paper with regards to Claim(s) 1-15.
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) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton (US 2006/0220955 A1, see reference in its entirety) in view of Porte et al. (US 2008/0136634 A1, see reference in its entirety) and Landt et al. (US 2008/0174436 A1, see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Hamilton disclose(s): Communicating survey nail (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0014]: 101), comprising: an active RFID beacon (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0014]: 102), comprising: a stand-alone electrical power source for powering a transmitter and a storage means (paragraphs [0015-0017]; it is understood the electromagnetic energy and batteries are considered to be a stand-alone electrical power source); the storage means for storing a unique identifier and nail position data (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0014]: data storage 102); and the transmitter of a radiofrequency signal compliant with an RFID protocol comprising said unique identifier and said position data of the nail (paragraph [0014]): transmission of radio waves compliant with RFID protocol), the transmitter comprising a signal broadcast and reception antenna (paragraph [0014]: antenna ); and an activation/deactivation switch of the beacon (paragraphs [0015-0017]; it is understood the microchip may have an activation/deactivation switch since it can change the signal being transmitted).
Hamilton does not specifically disclose: the transmitter being configured to speak first according to a Tag Talk First protocol such that said radiofrequency signal is broadcasted upon detection of a georeferencing device.
However, Porte teach(es) a communicating device (paragraph [056]; it is understood that the active RFID tag is a communicating device) including: the transmitter being configured to speak first according to a Tag Talk First protocol such that said radiofrequency signal is broadcasted upon detection of a georeferencing device (paragraph [0056]: it is understood the transmitter of the active RFID tag provides a TTF protocol that allows for a signal to be broadcasted upon detection a georeferencing device) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hamilton, with the teachings of Porte for the purpose of improving monitoring capabilities (paragraph [0006]).
Hamilton in view of Porte do(es) not specifically disclose: signal is broadcasted with no prior prompt.
However, Landt teach(es): a communicating device (Fig. 1) including: signal is broadcasted with no prior prompt (paragraph [0006]: it is understood that an active RFID tag uses a battery, thus it broadcast radio waves with no prior prompt).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hamilton and Porte, with the teachings of Landt, for the purpose of improving communication capabilities (paragraph [0006]).
With respect to Claim 2, Hamilton, Porte and Landt teach(es) the device of Claim 1.
Hamilton further disclose(s): wherein the activation/deactivation switch comprises two positions, one for activating the beacon and the other for deactivating the beacon (paragraphs [0015-0017]: it is understood the microchip may have an activation/deactivation switch since it can change the signal being transmitted thus comprise two position and it is also understood that transponders may have an activation/deactivation switch since it can “wake up” when detecting a signal thus comprise two position).
With respect to Claim 3, Hamilton, Porte and Landt teach(es) the device of Claim 1.
Hamilton further disclose(s): wherein the activation/deactivation switch is a magnetic switch (paragraphs [0015 and 0017]: it is understood a magnetic switch relates to electromagnetic energy).
With respect to Claim 4, Hamilton, Porte and Landt teach(es) the device of Claim 1.
Hamilton further disclose(s): wherein the activation/deactivation switch is a switch controlled by radiofrequency waves (paragraph [0015]: it is understood the switch is controlled by radiofrequency waves detected and transmitted by the antenna).
With respect to Claim 6, Hamilton, Porte and Landt teach(es) the device of Claim 1.
Hamilton further disclose(s): which comprises a determination means for determining a duration since a signal was last transmitted by the transmitter and, if the determined duration is above a predefined limit value, the beacon is deactivated (paragraph [0016]: it is understood an interrogating device is considered a determination means and a pre-set interval is considered a predefined limit value).
With respect to Claim 7, Hamilton, Porte and Landt teach(es) the device of Claim 1.
Hamilton further disclose(s): which comprises at least three nails (paragraph [0036]: it is understood a plurality of geographic marking devices comprises at least three nails).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, Porte and Landt further in view of Paulsen et al. (US 9,507,979 B2, see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim 5, Hamilton, Porte and Landt disclose(s) the device of Claim 1.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the activation/deactivation switch is a switch controlled by touch.
However, Paulsen teach(es) a device (Fig. 3) including: wherein the activation/ deactivation switch is a switch controlled by touch (Fig. 3: touch sensor 42 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hamilton, Porte and Landt, with the further teachings of Paulsen, for the purpose of allowing for conservation of power (column 1, lines 8-12).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, Porte and Landt further in view of Rushing (US 9,235,823 B2, see reference in its entirety) and Svetlichny (US 3,633,010, see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim 8, Hamilton, Porte and Landt disclose(s) the device of Claim 1.
The combination does not specifically disclose: the georeferencing device, which comprises: a boom, one extremity of which is placed in position near a topographical element; a first communication means for communicating with at least three nails, communicating by the RFID protocol and being configured to receive the radiofrequency signal comprising the unique identifier and the position data of each nail; and a measurement means for measuring at least one physical dimension representative of each radiofrequency signal received; a measuring means that calculates the position of the extremity of the boom with regard to the position of said at least three nails and each physical dimension measured, the calculated position of the georeferencing device being transmitted by a second communication means to a portable communicating terminal; and said second communication means transmitting the calculated position.
However, Rushing teach(es) a device (Fig. 1) including: the georeferencing device which comprises: a boom (Fig. 1: 12), one extremity of which is placed in position near a topographical element (Fig. 1: 30); a first communication means (Fig. 2: receiver 43) for communicating with at least three nails (Fig. 4: 31), communicating by the RFID protocol and being configured to receive the radiofrequency signal (Fig. 1: 26) comprising the unique identifier and the position data of each nail (Fig. 4: 68); and a measurement means for measuring at least one physical dimension representative of each radiofrequency signal received (Fig. 2: 45); a measuring means that calculates the position of the extremity of the boom with regard to the position of said at least three nails and each physical dimension measured (Fig. 4), the calculated position of the georeferencing device being transmitted by a second communication means (Fig. 2: 39) to a portable communicating terminal (Fig. 1: 44); and said second communication means transmitting the calculated position (Fig. 2: 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hamilton, Porte and Landt, with the further teachings of Rushing, for the purpose of allowing for ease of management of topographical elements (column 1, lines 9-12).
The combination also does not specifically disclose: a measuring means is a triangulation means.
However, Svetlichny teach(es) a device (Fig. 2) including: a measuring means is a triangulation means (Fig. 2: it is understood that a computer 18 is capable of providing a measuring means such as a triangulation means).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hamilton, Porte and Landt and Rushing, with the further teachings of Svetlichny, for the purpose of allowing for rapid evaluation of data (column 1, lines 15-16).
Regarding Claim 9, Hamilton, Porte and Landt, Rushing and Svetlichny disclose(s) the device of Claim 8.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the first communication means comprise the measurement means for measuring at least one physical dimension representative of each radiofrequency signal received and the measuring means calculates the position of the extremity of the boom with respect to the position of said at least three nails and at least one measured physical dimension.
However, Rushing further disclose(s): wherein the first communication means (receiver 43 in Fig. 2) comprise the measurement means (Fig. 2: 45) for measuring at least one physical dimension representative of each radiofrequency signal received (Fig. 4) and the measuring means calculates the position of the extremity of the boom with respect to the position of said at least three nails and at least one measured physical dimension (Fig. 4).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 8.
The combination also does not specifically disclose: a measuring means is a triangulation means.
Svetlichny further disclose(s): a measuring means is a triangulation means (Fig. 2; it is understood that a computer 18 is capable of providing a measuring means such as a triangulation means).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 15, Hamilton, Porte and Landt, Rushing and Svetlichny disclose(s) the device of Claim 8.
Rushing further disclose(s): A portable communicating terminal characterized in that it comprises a communication means with the georeferencing device (Fig. 1: 44).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 8.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, Porte and Landt, Rushing and Svetlichny further in view of Braun (US 2009/0128293 A1, see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim 10, Hamilton, Porte and Landt, Rushing and Svetlichny disclose(s) the device of Claim 9.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the measurement means is configured to measure at least one physical dimension among the following physical dimensions: AOA (Angle of Arrival); TDOA (Time Difference Of Arrival); RSSI (Received Signal Strength Indication); SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio).
However, Braun teach(es) a device (Fig. 4) including: wherein the measurement means is configured to measure at least one physical dimension among the following physical dimensions: AOA (Angle of Arrival); TDOA (Time Difference Of Arrival); RSSI (Received Signal Strength Indication); SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio) (paragraph [0017]: it is understood that the RSSI may be measured from each RFID).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hamilton, Porte and Landt, Rushing and Svetlichny, with the further teachings of Braun, for the purpose of allows for increase in precision of measurement when determining distances of the RFIDs (paragraph [0017]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, Porte and Landt, Rushing and Svetlichny further in view of Paulsen.
Regarding Claim 11, Hamilton, Porte and Landt, Rushing and Svetlichny disclose(s) the device of Claim 8.
The combination does not specifically disclose: which also comprises a modification means for changing the position of at least one switch to the activation position.
However, Paulsen teach(es) a device (Fig. 3) including: which also comprises a modification means for changing the position of at least one switch to the activation position (Fig. 3: touch sensor 42 is understood to be a modification means).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hamilton, Porte and Landt, Rushing and Svetlichny, with the further teachings of Paulsen, for the purpose of allowing for conservation of power (column 1, lines 8-12).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, Porte and Landt further in view of Svetlichny.
Regarding Claim 12, Hamilton, Porte and Landt disclose(s) the device of Claim 1.
The combination further disclose(s): A topography recording method (Fig. 3 of Hamilton), comprising the following steps: emission by at least three communicating survey nails of the radiofrequency signal utilizing the RFID protocol (paragraph [0036] & Fig. 3 of Hamilton), comprising each nail's unique identifier and position data; reception of each nail's position data and unique identifier; measuring to calculate the position of a georeferencing device with respect to the position of at least three nails (paragraph [0036] & Fig. 3 of Hamilton).
The combination further disclose(s): wherein each position is being configured to broadcast said radiofrequency signal upon detection of a georeferencing device (paragraph [0056] of Porte : it is understood each position as a signal is configured to be broadcasted) .
The combination does not specifically disclose: a measurement is a triangulation.
However, Svetlichny teach(es) a method (Fig. 2) including: a measurement is a triangulation (Fig. 2; it is understood that a computer 18 is capable of providing a measurement such as a triangulation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hamilton, Porte and Landt, with the further teachings of Svetlichny, for the purpose of allowing for rapid evaluation of data (column 1, lines 15-16).
Regarding Claim 13, Hamilton, Porte and Landt and Svetlichny disclose(s) the method of Claim 12.
The combination further disclose(s): which also comprises a measurement step for measuring at least one physical dimension representative of each radiofrequency signal received and wherein the measurement step calculates the position of the georeferencing device with respect to the position of said at least three nails and at least one measured physical dimension (paragraph [0036] & Fig. 3 of Hamilton).
The combination does not specifically disclose: the measurement step is the triangulation step.
However, Svetlichny teach(es) a method (Fig. 2) including: the measurement step is the triangulation step (Fig. 2: it is understood that a computer 18 is capable of providing the measurement step such as the triangulation step).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 12.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, Porte and Landt and Svetlichny further in view of Rushing.
Regarding Claim 14, Hamilton, Porte and Landt and Svetlichny disclose(s) the method of Claim 12.
The combination does not specifically disclose: which comprises a step of reception by a portable communicating terminal of the calculated position of the georeferencing device, and a step of displaying the position of the georeferencing device with respect to the position of each nail.
However, Rushing teach(es) a method (Fig. 1) including: which comprises a step of reception by a portable communicating terminal of the calculated position of the georeferencing device, and a step of displaying the position of the georeferencing device with respect to the position of each nail (Fig. 1: 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hamilton, Porte and Landt and Svetlichny, with the further teachings of Rushing, for the purpose of allowing for ease of management of topographical elements (column 1, lines 9-12).
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA COURSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7am-3:30pm).
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, Kristina Deherrera, can be reached on (303) 297-4237. 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.
/TC/
21 November 2025
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855