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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/24/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claim 1 has been amended to add the following underlined:
PNG
media_image1.png
243
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 15-17 have been added. Claims 1-17 are currently pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1 has been amended as indicated above, and as such, prior art Dobson discloses the amended feature. Specifically, Dobson discloses in Fig. 5 that there are three columns on the display/board. Each column has contents that are illuminated by lights and the third column has lights indicating the following three things: 1) student present at school (green), 2) students who are supposed to be at school but tardy (yellow), and 3) students are not at school/absent (red). Therefore, Dobson teaches the amended limitation as shown above. Furthermore, Thacker discloses at least one transponder, said at least one transponder being tracked for its location wherein said at least one microprocessor is configured to determine whether a person is in a pre-determined region of the tracking board wherein said microprocessor is configured to illuminate said light in response to a presence or absence of a person in said pre-determined region (col. 5, lines 43-57, wherein Thacker discloses a microcomputer, thus microprocessor; col. 6, lines 34-55, wherein Thacker discloses a control module 108 working in tandem with lights 109-111. The lights represent the presence or absence of a person in an area (or region)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to incorporate the teachings of Thacker into the invention of Dobson in order to keep track of the present/absence and condition/status of the targets/people being tracked and report out the current status of the targets/people, thus enhancing the tracking system where the targets are regularly tracked and their status updated and reported.
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.
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, 3-6, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson (PGPUB 2006/0035205) in view of Thacker (US 6587049, hereinafter Thacker).
Consider claim 1, Dobson discloses a system for tracking whether people are present in a predetermined region comprising:
at least one tracking board, the tracking board ([Fig. 5, paragraph 0033] read as a handheld computing device and paragraph 0042, further disclosing the tracking board may also take any form including a desktop) comprising:
at least one identity indicator to indicate the identity of the person being tracked ([Fig. 6a, paragraphs 0033, 0034] read as a handheld computing device, where there is a provisional attendance report, indicating a list of the students' name); and
at least one microprocessor disposed in said tracking board ([Para 0030 and 0043] read as a handheld computing device, wherein the microprocessor is used to process the “raw attendance data”);
at least one presence indicator comprising a light to indicate whether the person being tracked is present in the region wherein the tracking board has at least three
columns of lights with at least one column of lights indicating a presence of a user in a
geo-spatial area, a second column of lights indicating the time that they are supposed to
be present in the area, and a third column indicating when they are not in the area (Fig. 5 that there are three columns on the display/board. Each column has contents that are illuminated by lights. Third column has lights indicating the following 3 statuses: 1) students present at school (green), 2) students who are supposed to be at school but tardy (yellow), and 3) students are absent (red)).
Dobson does not explicitly disclose at least one transponder, said at least one transponder being tracked for its location wherein said at least one microprocessor is configured to determine whether a person is in a pre-determined region of the tracking board wherein said microprocessor is configured to illuminate said light in response to a presence or absence of a person in said pre-determined region.
In a similar endeavor, Thacker discloses at least one transponder, said at least one transponder being tracked for its location wherein said at least one microprocessor is configured to determine whether a person is in a pre-determined region of the tracking board wherein said microprocessor is configured to illuminate said light in response to a presence or absence of a person in said pre-determined region (col. 5, lines 43-57, wherein Thacker discloses a microcomputer, thus microprocessor; col. 6, lines 34-55, wherein Thacker discloses a control module 108 working in tandem with lights 109-111. The lights represent the presence or absence of a person in an area (or region)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date to incorporate the teachings of Thacker into the invention of Dobson in order to keep track of the present/absence and condition/status of the targets/people being tracked and report out the current status of the targets/people, thus enhancing the tracking system where the targets are regularly tracked and their status updated and reported.
Consider claim 3 and as applied to claim 1, Dobson discloses said tracking board further
comprising at least one microprocessor ([Paragraph 0030 and 0043], read as a handheld computing device, wherein the microprocessor is used to process the “raw attendance data”).
Consider claim 4 as applied to claim 1. Dobson discloses the claimed invention but fails
to disclose at least one presence indicator comprises a light.
However, Thacker teaches at least one presence indicator comprising a light ([Col. 4, lines 30-33] read as indicator 107 and lights 109-111.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date to modify the system of Dobson with a presence indicator comprising a
light as taught by Thacker in order to make a presence visibly known, thereby improving
productivity.
Consider claim 5 as applied to claim 1. Dobson discloses the claimed invention but fails
to teach a presence indicator comprising of at least one red light to signify that the person being
tracked is outside of the predetermined region and at least one green light to indicate that the
person being tracked is within the region.
However, Thacker teaches a presence indicator comprising of at least one red
light to signify that the person being tracked is outside of the predetermined region and at least
one green light to indicate that the person being tracked is within the region ([Col. 4, lines 30-46] wherein Thacker discloses a presence indicator 107 comprising red and green lights 109-111, signifying the presence of a person.). Examiner notes that applicant discloses “While the above embodiment mentions green or red lights, any color lights or indicators can be used to signify the presence or absence of a person listed in the name plates or identified.” In paragraph 0022. In addition, the option of using a red light instead of an amber light is merely a design choice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date to incorporate the teachings of Thacker into the invention of Dobson
in order to clearly indicate between a person being tracked within and outside a region (or area), thereby improving productivity.
Consider claim 6 and as applied to claim 1, Dobson discloses the region is a geolocation,
(Read as a location or classroom, Fig. 3, paragraph 0053. Wherein the geolocation is used to
know the location of individuals, or the time when they entered or exited a particular area).
Regarding claim 15, Dobson discloses the system as in claim 1, further comprising at least one nameplate, wherein said at least one nameplate is coupled to said board and is
positioned adjacent to said presence indicator (See Dobson, figure 5).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Dobson and Thacker discloses the system as in claim 1, further comprising a plurality of hooks, wherein said plurality of hooks are coupled to said at least one tracking board (see Thacker, abstract, wall mounted, thus must have hooks). The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17 the combination of Dobson and Thacker discloses the system as in claim 1, wherein said transponder further comprises a housing, a power supply, an identity chip and a transponder chip disposed in said housing (see Dobson, figure 5; see Thacker, col. 6, lines 34-55). The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson (PGPUB 2006/0035205) and Thacker (US 6587049, hereinafter Thacker) in view of Hilo (Title page; Pg. 1).
Consider claim 2 as applied to claim 1. Dobson and Thacker disclose the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein the tracking board further comprises at least one mirror.
However, Hilo teaches a tracking board further comprising at least one mirror (read as a
smart mirror Pg. 1, left paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Hilo
into the invention of Dobson and Thacker in order to provide a user-friendly means for keeping the user connected in different locations.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson (US
PGPUB 2006/0035205, hereinafter Dobson) and Thacker (US 6587049, hereinafter Thacker) in view of Amann (US PGPUB 2017/0041452, hereinafter Amann).
Consider claim 7 as applied to claim 1. Dobson and Thacker disclose the claimed invention but fails to teach the region being defined by GPS coordinates.
However, Amann teaches the region being defined by GPS coordinates ([Para 0087],
read as GPS coordinates from the GPS sensor.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date to incorporate the teachings of Amann into the invention of Dobson and Thacker in order to utilizes GPS coordinates to accurately determine locations and track users.
Consider claim 8 as applied to claim 1. Dobson and Thacker disclose the claimed invention but fails to disclose wherein the region being defined by a connection to a WiFi Signal (a connection is made using a WiFi standard, para 0077).
However, Amann teaches wherein a region being defined by a connection to a WiFi
signal ([Para 0077], read as Wi-Fi standard).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date to incorporate the teachings of Amann into the invention of Dobson and Thacker in order to accurately determine location and track users, using a WiFi signal.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson (US PGPUB
2006/0035205, hereinafter Dobson) and Thacker (US 6587049, hereinafter Thacker) in view of McCracken et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0383172, hereinafter McCracken).
Consider claim 9 as applied to claim 1. Dobson and Thacker disclose the claimed invention but fails to teach a region being defined by a connection to a nearfield transponder.
However, McCracken teaches wherein a region being defined by a connection to a
nearfield transponder ([Para 0254 and 0255], read as an NFC assignment Tag.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date to incorporate the teachings of McCracken into the invention of Dobson and Thacker in order to provide a convenient means for programming information and specific areas/locations into the tag.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson
(US PGPUB 2006/0035205, hereinafter Dobson) and Thacker (US 6587049, hereinafter Thacker) in view of Wessels (US PGPUB 2013/0318469, hereinafter Wessels).
Consider claim 10 as applied to claim 1. Dobson and Thacker disclose the claimed invention but fails to teach a presence indicator further comprises an audible indicator.
However, Wessels teaches a presence indicator further comprises an audible indicator
([Para 0072], read as a notification sound.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date to incorporate the teachings of Wessels into the invention of Dobson and Thacker in order to effectively notify user via an audio component or a notification sound.
Consider claim 13 as applied to claim 1. Dobson and Thacker disclose the claimed invention but fails to teach at least one display screen having at least one area listing the names of users, and at least one area presenting a calendar.
However, Wessels teaches further comprising at least one display screen having at least
one area listing the names of users ([Para 0054], read as the student statistical display box
that provides a list of student names), and at least one area presenting a calendar ([Fig. 6,
para 0044] read as the control board interface that has a second box that displays a
calendar.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date to incorporate the teaching of Wessels into the invention of Dobson and Thacker with a user-friendly display to show students their progress, thus motivating them.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson (PGPUB 2006/0035205) and Thacker (US 6587049, hereinafter Thacker) in view of EZ Automation (Title page; Pg. 1, #1 U.S. Supplier, hereinafter EZ Automation)
Consider claim 11, Dobson and Thacker disclose the claimed invention but fails
to teach a light being an LED light.
However, EZ Automation teaches wherein the light is an LED light ([Pg. 1, #1 U.S.
Supplier], read as an LED light.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date to incorporate the teachings of EZ Automation into the invention of Dobson and Thacker with an LED light in order to display important messages and improving productivity.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson (US Patent
20060035205, hereinafter Dobson) and Thacker (US 6587049, hereinafter Thacker) in view of Savance (Title page; Pg. 1, hereinafter Savance, cited in IDS submitted 2/13/2024) and Declerck (USPGPUB 2017/0116895, hereinafter Declerck).
Consider claim 12 as applied to claim 1. Dobson and Thacker disclose the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein the tracking board has at least three columns of pixels with at least one column of pixels indicating a presence of a user in a geo-spatial area, a second column of pixels indicating the time that they are supposed to be present in the area, and a third column indicating when they are not in the area.
However, Savance teaches wherein the tracking board has at least three columns of pixels with at least one column of pixels indicating a presence of a user in a geo-spatial area, a second column of pixels indicating the time that they are supposed to be present in the area, and a third column indicating when they are not in the area ([Pg. 1, bottom right corner], read as an electronic In/Out board where columns for employees are displayed indicating a user’s presence, time, and presence in a geo-spatial area.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of
Savance into the invention of Dobson and Thacker in order to keep the user connected anywhere in the house.
Dobson, Thacker and Savance disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach three columns of lights (Savance teaches three columns of pixels).
However, Declerck teaches three columns of lights ([Fig. 1, para 0054], read as an
LED board that has 3 columns and 3 rows).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of
Declerck into the invention of Dobson, Thacker and Savance in order to avoid visual artifacts.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson (US
PGPUB 2006/0035205, hereinafter Dobson) and Thacker (US 6587049, hereinafter Thacker) in view of Wessels (US PGPUB 2013/0318469, hereinafter Wessels) in view of Klinkner (US PGPUB 10462611, hereinafter Klinkner).
Consider claim 14 as applied to claim 13. Dobson, Thacker and Wessels disclose the claimed invention but fails to teach sending a signal to a lock to lock a lock when at least one user is detected inside of a geofence location.
However, Klinkner teaches sending a signal to a lock to lock a lock when at least one
user is detected inside of a geofence location ([Col. 36, lines 5 – 13, Col. 39, lines 63 – Col. 40, line 2,] read as when a user crosses a geographic boundary around their school, the attendance
system locks the user's locker.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date to incorporate the teachings of Klinkner into the invention of Dobson, Thacker and Wessels with a tracking system in order to automatically ensure users in the system are safe.
CONCLUSIONAny inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHY W WANG-HURST whose telephone number is (571)270-5371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
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.
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644