DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in GB on 03/29/2018. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB1805323.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in GB on 04/17/2018. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB1805323.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in GB on 04/24/2018. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB1806697.7 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in GB on 08/28/2018. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB1813975.8 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in GB on 10/26/2018. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB1817474.8 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in GB on 03/18/2019. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB1903656.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/19/2023, 12/26/2023, 6/27/2024, 1/9/2025, 6/6/2025 and 7/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/3/2025/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Regarding Double patenting rejection for independent claim 46, the applicant argues that the '464 patent is directed to a location system using light detectors to determine locations of workers. In contrast, present claim 46 recites two distinct location systems, including a second system that determines locations of authorized workers by locating carried worker devices, and a processing system that identifies unauthorized workers as those detected by the first but not by the second system. Neither the '464 patent nor Rice II teaches or suggests the claimed per-worker, area-based selective warning logic dependent on authorization derived from a second location system's device-based detection.
Response 1: The examiner disagrees. The '464 patent present claim 46 discloses two location systems, including a second system that determines locations of authorized workers by locating carried worker devices, and a processing system that identifies unauthorized workers as those detected by the first but not by the second system as shown in the table for Double patenting rejection below. RICE, II et al. (‘923) relates to monitoring in a confined space. RICE, II et al. (‘923) describes verifying that no unauthorized entry or exit of the confined space 102 occurred…movement, recording, and other imaging characteristics of the camera(s) 118(2) may be controlled via the monitoring station 110 including, without limitation, the characteristics described with regard to the camera(s) 118(1) external to the confined space 102…one or more cameras 118 may include infrared or acoustic capabilities….one or more of the cameras 118 or additional sensors associated with the confined space 102 may utilize three-dimensional (3D) sensing…a camera 118 may include a depth camera, a coded aperture camera, a time-of-flight system, an ultrasonic positioning system, a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system, and so forth((paragraph 27); cause generation of an alarm or notification if a user crosses or approaches the entry 104 without first interacting with the access control system 116(1), or if the user crosses the entry 104 and does not provide appropriate credentials to the access control system; paragraph 35: detects that a user 124 has crossed the entry 104 of the confined space 102 without providing appropriate access data 212(1), the access control station 116 or another component of the system 100 may be configured to generate an alarm or notification; paragraph 36: the monitoring station 110 may also transmit one or more of the access data 212, audio data 208, and video data 204 to data storage 206 remote from the monitoring station 110. Stored access data 212 may also include any failed or unauthorized access attempts and any generated alarm s or notifications (paragraph 23). Therefore, RICE, II et al. (‘923) discloses “the processing system is further configured to determine if the location of each worker is within a defined area and in response to each determination that a worker is within the defined area, determine to output a warning signal only if the worker is identified as unauthorized for the defined area such that a warning signal is not output if the worker is identified as authorized for the defined area.”
Argument 2: Regarding claim 46, the applicant argues that none of the references teaches or suggests identifying "unauthorized workers" by comparing a first-system location of all workers against a second-system location of authorized workers via carried devices, nor conditioning warnings on authorization status within defined (including moving) areas.
Response 2: The examiner disagrees. Jones (‘761) describes that the computerized safety tracking and proximity warning system for personnel, plant and equipment operating …there is a central computer 10 adapted to receive and process wireless position information from transponders carried or worn by the personnel 12-20 in helmets and transponders attached to the plant or equipment…the wireless position information is communicated to the computer via one or more wireless communication protocols (paragraph 37); the central computer 10 receives wireless position information from the transponders 32-46 which in turn communicates with GPS satellite 48 wherein wireless position data of personnel and plant or equipment above or underground and moving there between can be monitored and displayed on a visual display in a seamless manner (paragraph 38); Therefore Jones discloses “a first location system configured to determine locations of the workers .”
Jones (‘761) describes that the wireless communication protocols include a mesh network of radio frequency identification (RFID) chips embedded in safety equipment worn by personnel and incorporated in plant and machinery detected by nodes/beacons to enable communication and facilitate location by triangulation between the RFID chips (paragraph 12); Therefore, Jones {‘761) discloses “worker devices to be carried by one or more of the workers who are authorized, each worker device including a wireless transceiver .”
Jones (‘761) describes that a computerized safety tracking and proximity warning system for personnel, plant and equipment…a central computer adapted to receive and process wireless position information from transponders carried or worn by the personnel, and transponders attached to the plant or equipment…the wireless position information communicated to the computer via one or more wireless communication modalities or protocols…the central computer processing the position Information to provide a seamless real time visual display of the relative positions of the personnel and plant or equipment…an alarm is triggered to alert an operator if the relative positions of the personnel and plant or equipment are within a predetermined and unsafe distance of each other (Claim 1). Therefore, Jones {‘761) discloses “a second location system arranged to determine the locations of the worker devices as the locations of authorized workers.”
Jones (‘761) describes that a computerized safety tracking and proximity warning system for personnel, plant and equipment…a central computer adapted to receive and process wireless position information from transponders carried or worn by the personnel, and transponders attached to the plant or equipment…the wireless position information communicated to the computer via one or more wireless communication modalities or protocols…the central computer processing the position Information to provide a seamless real time visual display of the relative positions of the personnel and plant or equipment (Claim 1); Therefore Jones (‘761) discloses “a processing system configured to determine first locations of the workers using the first location system and to determine second locations of the authorized workers using the second location system.”
Jones (‘761) describes that the central computer processes the position information to provide a seamless visual display of the relative positions of the personnel and plant or equipment above and/or below ground level or moving therebetween, and wherein, a visual and auditory alarm is triggered to alert a worker wearing the helmet and/or a supervisor if the relative positions of the personnel 12, 14-20 and plant or equipment 22, 24 are within a predetermined and unsafe distance of each other…the distance can be predetermined or preset to a preferred spherical safety radius…the system is embodied in the form of a smart device application or app implemented system operated on a smart tablet, smart phone or any other specially adapted smart device 26, 28, 30…the wireless communication protocols include a wireless personal area network e.g. Bluetooth…the wireless communication protocols includes a radio frequency mesh network of nodes/beacons 32-46 and transponder radio frequency identification (REID) chips embedded in safety equipment worn by personnel 12, 14-20 and incorporated in plant and machinery 22, 24 to enable communication and facilitate location by triangulation between the RFID chips when operating underground, above ground or in the open; paragraph 38: an alarm is triggered and alerted to a supervisor 50 and/or personnel 12-20 of plant or equipment 22, 24 within the predetermined unsafe distance through a visual and/or audible response unit carried by the personnel or affixed to the plant or equipment 20, 22…there are sensors in the helmets of personnel 12-20 to detect any sudden deceleration or change in direction indicating the possibility of personnel sustaining a fall or being struck or if there has been no movement over a predetermined period of time such as if personnel have fallen asleep or removed or the helmet has been discarded or dislodged which also triggers the alarm…there is preferably real time video imaging means to record the movements of personnel, plant and equipment…the recorded positions of the mining personnel, plant and equipment can then be stored as a log of events which can be accessed by an operational supervisor 50 either on site or remotely located for historical and/or analytical purposes; claim 7: the alarm is triggered and alerted to personnel of plant or equipment within the predetermined unsafe distance through a visual and/or audible response unit carried by the personnel or affixed to the plant or equipment 8; claim 8: detect any sudden deceleration or change in direction or if there has been no movement over a Predetermined period of time to also trigger the alarm (Paragraph 37: Figure 1).Therefore, Jones (‘761) discloses “the processing system is further configured to identify as unauthorized workers any workers whose location is determined using the first location system who are not authorized workers whose location is determined using the wireless signal transmissions from the worker devices.”
RICE, II et al. (‘923) describes verifying that no unauthorized entry or exit of the confined space 102 occurred…movement, recording, and other imaging characteristics of the camera(s) 118(2) may be controlled via the monitoring station 110 including, without limitation, the characteristics described with regard to the camera(s) 118(1) external to the confined space 102…one or more cameras 118 may include infrared or acoustic capabilities….one or more of the cameras 118 or additional sensors associated with the confined space 102 may utilize three-dimensional (3D) sensing…a camera 118 may include a depth camera, a coded aperture camera, a time-of-flight system, an ultrasonic positioning system, a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system, and so forth((paragraph 27); cause generation of an alarm or notification if a user crosses or approaches the entry 104 without first interacting with the access control system 116(1), or if the user crosses the entry 104 and does not provide appropriate credentials to the access control system; paragraph 35: detects that a user 124 has crossed the entry 104 of the confined space 102 without providing appropriate access data 212(1), the access control station 116 or another component of the system 100 may be configured to generate an alarm or notification; paragraph 36: the monitoring station 110 may also transmit one or more of the access data 212, audio data 208, and video data 204 to data storage 206 remote from the monitoring station 110. Stored access data 212 may also include any failed or unauthorized access attempts and any generated alarm s or notifications (paragraph 23). Therefore, RICE, II et al. (‘923) discloses “the processing system is further configured to determine if the location of each worker is within a defined area and in response to each determination that a worker is within the defined area, determine to output a warning signal only if the worker is identified as unauthorized for the defined area such that a warning signal is not output if the worker is identified as authorized for the defined area.”
Therefore, Jones (‘761)/Denenberg et al. (‘482)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) discloses all the claimed features of claim 46.
Argument 3: Regarding claim 49, the applicant argues that, claim 49 requirements that locations of authorized workers are determined by combining the locations determined using the first and second systems is not taught or suggested by Jones'. The seamless display of Jones (‘761) does not evidence data fusion or combination of two independent systems' locations for a given worker in the claimed sense.
Response 3: The examiner disagrees. Jones (‘761) provides visual display to show combined data. Jones (‘761) describes that the wireless communication protocols include a mesh network of radio frequency identification (RFID) chips embedded in safety equipment worn by personnel and incorporated in plant and machinery detected by nodes/beacons to enable communication and facilitate location by triangulation between the RFID chips (paragraph 12); a computerized safety tracking and proximity warning system for personnel, plant and equipment…a central computer adapted to receive and process wireless position information from transponders carried or worn by the personnel, and transponders attached to the plant or equipment…the wireless position information communicated to the computer via one or more wireless communication modalities or protocols…the central computer processing the position Information to provide a seamless real time visual display of the relative positions of the personnel and plant or equipment…an alarm is triggered to alert an operator if the relative positions of the personnel and plant or equipment are within a predetermined and unsafe distance of each other (Claim 1). Jones (‘761) further describes that the central computer processes the position information to provide a seamless visual display of the relative positions of the personnel and plant or equipment above and/or below ground level or moving therebetween, and wherein, a visual and auditory alarm is triggered to alert a worker wearing the helmet and/or a supervisor if the relative positions of the personnel 12, 14-20 and plant or equipment 22, 24 are within a predetermined and unsafe distance of each other…the distance can be predetermined or preset to a preferred spherical safety radius…the system is embodied in the form of a smart device application or app implemented system operated on a smart tablet, smart phone or any other specially adapted smart device 26, 28, 30…the wireless communication protocols include a wireless personal area network e.g. Bluetooth…the wireless communication protocols includes a radio frequency mesh network of nodes/beacons 32-46 and transponder radio frequency identification (REID) chips embedded in safety equipment worn by personnel 12, 14-20 and incorporated in plant and machinery 22, 24 to enable communication and facilitate location by triangulation between the RFID chips when operating underground, above ground or in the open (paragraph 37). Therefore Jones (;761) discloses “the processing system is configured to determine locations of the authorized workers by combining the locations of the authorized workers determined using the first location system and the locations of the authorized workers determined using the second location system.”
Cancellation of claims 31-, 33-45 has been acknowledged.
Cancellation of claims 31 and 33-45 overcomes corresponding Double Patenting rejections.
Cancellation of claims 31 and 33-45 overcomes corresponding 103 rejections.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 46-47, 49 and 51-64 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,079,464, in view of RICE, II et al. (US 2017/0351923 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Current application 18/157,039
Patent (US 11,079,464)
(16/659,366)
46.A system for locating workers comprising:
a first location system configured to determine locations of the workers; and worker devices to be carried by one or more of the workers who are authorized, each worker device including a wireless transceiver;
a second location system arranged to determine the locations of the worker devices as the locations of authorized workers; and
a processing system configured to determine first locations of the workers using the first location system and to determine second locations of the authorized workers using the second location system;
wherein the processing system is further configured to identify as unauthorized workers any workers whose location is determined using the first location system who are not authorized workers whose location is determined using the wireless signal transmissions from the worker devices;
the processing system is further configured to determine if the location of each worker is within a defined area; and in response to each determination that a worker is within the defined area, determine to output a warning signal only if the worker is identified as unauthorized for the defined area such that a warning signal is not output if the worker is identified as authorized for the defined area.
14. A location system for locating workers comprising:
a plurality of light detectors mounted at known locations and configured to detect light from one or more workers;
wearable devices to be worn by one or more of the workers who are authorized workers, the wearable device including a wireless transceiver;
a plurality of wireless receivers mounted at known locations and configured to detect wireless signal transmissions from the wearable devices; and
a processing system configured to: determine locations of the workers using the light detected by the light detectors;
determine locations of the authorized workers using the wireless signal transmissions from the wearable devices detected by the wireless receivers;
and based on the comparison,
identify as unauthorized workers any workers whose location is determined using the light detected by the light detectors who are not authorized workers whose location is determined using the wireless signal transmissions from the wearable devices.
Claim 46 of the current application (‘039) is disclosed by Claim 14 of US patent #11,079,464, in view of RICE, II et al. (US 2017/0351923 A1).
Claim 14 of the reference patent (‘464) discloses al the limitations of claim 46 of instant application, except for “the processing system is further configured to determine if the location of each worker is within a defined area; and in response to each determination that a worker is within the defined area, determine to output a warning signal only if the worker is identified as unauthorized for the defined area such that a warning signal is not output if the worker is identified as authorized for the defined area.”
RICE, II et al. (‘923) relates to monitoring in a confined space. RICE, II et al. (‘923) teaches “the processing system is further configured to determine if the location of each worker is within a defined area (paragraph 27: verify that no unauthorized entry or exit of the confined space 102 occurred…movement, recording, and other imaging characteristics of the camera(s) 118(2) may be controlled via the monitoring station 110 including, without limitation, the characteristics described with regard to the camera(s) 118(1) external to the confined space 102…one or more cameras 118 may include infrared or acoustic capabilities….one or more of the cameras 118 or additional sensors associated with the confined space 102 may utilize three-dimensional (3D) sensing…a camera 118 may include a depth camera, a coded aperture camera, a time-of-flight system, an ultrasonic positioning system, a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system, and so forth); and in response to each determination that a worker is within the defined area, determine to output a warning signal only if the worker is identified as unauthorized for the defined area such that a warning signal is not output if the worker is identified as authorized for the defined area (paragraph 23: cause generation of an alarm or notification if a user crosses or approaches the entry 104 without first interacting with the access control system 116(1), or if the user crosses the entry 104 and does not provide appropriate credentials to the access control system; paragraph 35: detects that a user 124 has crossed the entry 104 of the confined space 102 without providing appropriate access data 212(1), the access control station 116 or another component of the system 100 may be configured to generate an alarm or notification; paragraph 36: the monitoring station 110 may also transmit one or more of the access data 212, audio data 208, and video data 204 to data storage 206 remote from the monitoring station 110. Stored access data 212 may also include any failed or unauthorized access attempts and any generated alarm s or notifications).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Patent (US 11,079,464) with the teaching of RICE, II et al. (‘923) for securing safety of worksite (RICE, II et al. (‘923) – paragraph 67).
Claims 47, 49 and 51-64 depends on independent claim 46 and therefore are also rejected.
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.
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 46-47 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 2017/0270761 A1), and further in view of RICE, II et al. (US 2017/0351923 A1).
Regarding independent claim 46, Jones (‘761) discloses “a system for locating workers (Abstract: systems and methods for warning of proximity in a worksite; paragraph 37: safety tracking and proximity warning system for personnel, plant and equipment) comprising:
a first location system configured to determine locations of the workers (paragraph 37: the computerized safety tracking and proximity warning system for personnel, plant and equipment operating …there is a central computer 10 adapted to receive and process wireless position information from transponders carried or worn by the personnel 12-20 in helmets and transponders attached to the plant or equipment…the wireless position information is communicated to the computer via one or more wireless communication protocols; paragraph 38: the central computer 10 receives wireless position information from the transponders 32-46 which in turn communicates with GPS satellite 48 wherein wireless position data of personnel and plant or equipment above or underground and moving there between can be monitored and displayed on a visual display in a seamless manner);
worker devices to be carried by one or more of the workers who are authorized, each worker device including a wireless transceiver (paragraph 12: the wireless communication protocols include a mesh network of radio frequency identification (RFID) chips embedded in safety equipment worn by personnel and incorporated in plant and machinery detected by nodes/beacons to enable communication and facilitate location by triangulation between the RFID chips);
a second location system arranged to determine the locations of the worker devices as the locations of authorized workers (Claim 1: a computerized safety tracking and proximity warning system for personnel, plant and equipment…a central computer adapted to receive and process wireless position information from transponders carried or worn by the personnel, and transponders attached to the plant or equipment…the wireless position information communicated to the computer via one or more wireless communication modalities or protocols…the central computer processing the position Information to provide a seamless real time visual display of the relative positions of the personnel and plant or equipment…an alarm is triggered to alert an operator if the relative positions of the personnel and plant or equipment are within a predetermined and unsafe distance of each other); and
a processing system configured to determine first locations of the workers using the first location system and to determine second locations of the authorized workers using the second location system (Claim 1: a computerized safety tracking and proximity warning system for personnel, plant and equipment…a central computer adapted to receive and process wireless position information from transponders carried or worn by the personnel, and transponders attached to the plant or equipment…the wireless position information communicated to the computer via one or more wireless communication modalities or protocols…the central computer processing the position Information to provide a seamless real time visual display of the relative positions of the personnel and plant or equipment);
wherein: the processing system is further configured to identify as unauthorized workers any workers whose location is determined using the first location system who are not authorized workers whose location is determined using the wireless signal transmissions from the worker devices (Paragraph 37: Figure 1: the central computer processes the position information to provide a seamless visual display of the relative positions of the personnel and plant or equipment above and/or below ground level or moving therebetween, and wherein, a visual and auditory alarm is triggered to alert a worker wearing the helmet and/or a supervisor if the relative positions of the personnel 12, 14-20 and plant or equipment 22, 24 are within a predetermined and unsafe distance of each other…the distance can be predetermined or preset to a preferred spherical safety radius…the system is embodied in the form of a smart device application or app implemented system operated on a smart tablet, smart phone or any other specially adapted smart device 26, 28, 30…the wireless communication protocols include a wireless personal area network e.g. Bluetooth…the wireless communication protocols includes a radio frequency mesh network of nodes/beacons 32-46 and transponder radio frequency identification (REID) chips embedded in safety equipment worn by personnel 12, 14-20 and incorporated in plant and machinery 22, 24 to enable communication and facilitate location by triangulation between the RFID chips when operating underground, above ground or in the open; paragraph 38: an alarm is triggered and alerted to a supervisor 50 and/or personnel 12-20 of plant or equipment 22, 24 within the predetermined unsafe distance through a visual and/or audible response unit carried by the personnel or affixed to the plant or equipment 20, 22…there are sensors in the helmets of personnel 12-20 to detect any sudden deceleration or change in direction indicating the possibility of personnel sustaining a fall or being struck or if there has been no movement over a predetermined period of time such as if personnel have fallen asleep or removed or the helmet has been discarded or dislodged which also triggers the alarm…there is preferably real time video imaging means to record the movements of personnel, plant and equipment…the recorded positions of the mining personnel, plant and equipment can then be stored as a log of events which can be accessed by an operational supervisor 50 either on site or remotely located for historical and/or analytical purposes; claim 7: the alarm is triggered and alerted to personnel of plant or equipment within the predetermined unsafe distance through a visual and/or audible response unit carried by the personnel or affixed to the plant or equipment 8; claim 8: detect any sudden deceleration or change in direction or if there has been no movement over a Predetermined period of time to also trigger the alarm).”
Jones (‘761) describes the central computer processes the position information to provide a seamless visual display of the relative positions of the personnel and plant or equipment above and/or below ground level or moving therebetween, and wherein, a visual and auditory alarm is triggered to alert a worker wearing the helmet and/or a supervisor if the relative positions of the personnel 12, 14-20 and plant or equipment 22, 24 are within a predetermined and unsafe distance of each other…the distance can be predetermined or preset to a preferred spherical safety radius…the system is embodied in the form of a smart device application or app implemented system operated on a smart tablet, smart phone or any other specially adapted smart device 26, 28, 30…the wireless communication protocols include a wireless personal area network e.g. Bluetooth…the wireless communication protocols includes a radio frequency mesh network of nodes/beacons 32-46 and transponder radio frequency identification (REID) chips embedded in safety equipment worn by personnel 12, 14-20 and incorporated in plant and machinery 22, 24 to enable communication and facilitate location by triangulation between the RFID chips when operating underground, above ground or in the open (Paragraph 37: Figure 1); an alarm is triggered and alerted to a supervisor 50 and/or personnel 12-20 of plant or equipment 22, 24 within the predetermined unsafe distance through a visual and/or audible response unit carried by the personnel or affixed to the plant or equipment 20, 22…there are sensors in the helmets of personnel 12-20 to detect any sudden deceleration or change in direction indicating the possibility of personnel sustaining a fall or being struck or if there has been no movement over a predetermined period of time such as if personnel have fallen asleep or removed or the helmet has been discarded or dislodged which also triggers the alarm…there is preferably real time video imaging means to record the movements of personnel, plant and equipment…the recorded positions of the mining personnel, plant and equipment can then be stored as a log of events which can be accessed by an operational supervisor 50 either on site or remotely located for historical and/or analytical purposes (paragraph 38). Jones (‘761) does not explicitly disclose “the processing system is further configured to determine if the location of each worker is within a defined area; and in response to each determination that a worker is within the defined area, determine to output a warning signal only if the worker is identified as unauthorized for the defined area such that a warning signal is not output if the worker is identified as authorized for the defined area.”
RICE, II et al. (‘923) relates to monitoring in a confined space. RICE, II et al. (‘923) teaches “the processing system is further configured to determine if the location of each worker is within a defined area (paragraph 27: verify that no authorized entry or exit of the confined space 102 occurred, and so forth…movement, recording, and other imaging characteristics of the camera(s) 118(2) may be controlled via the monitoring station 110 including, without limitation, the characteristics described with regard to the camera(s) 118(1) external to the confined space 102…one or more cameras 118 may include infrared or acoustic capabilities….one or more of the cameras 118 or additional sensors associated with the confined space 102 may utilize three-dimensional (3D) sensing…a camera 118 may include a depth camera, a coded aperture camera, a time-of-flight system, an ultrasonic positioning system, a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system, and so forth); and
in response to each determination that a worker is within the defined area, determine to output a warning signal only if the worker is identified as unauthorized for the defined area such that a warning signal is not output if the worker is identified as authorized for the defined area (paragraph 23: cause generation of an alarm or notification if a user crosses or approaches the entry 104 without first interacting with the access control system 116(1), or if the user crosses the entry 104 and does not provide appropriate credentials to the access control system; paragraph 35: detects that a user 124 has crossed the entry 104 of the confined space 102 without providing appropriate access data 212(1), the access control station 116 or another component of the system 100 may be configured to generate an alarm or notification; paragraph 36: the monitoring station 110 may also transmit one or more of the access data 212, audio data 208, and video data 204 to data storage 206 remote from the monitoring station 110. Stored access data 212 may also include any failed or unauthorized access attempts and any generated alarm s or notifications).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Beaulieu et al. (‘872)/Denenberg et al. (‘482) with the teaching of RICE, II et al. (‘923) for securing safety of worksite (RICE, II et al. (‘923) – paragraph 67). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Beaulieu et al. (‘872), Denenberg et al. (‘482) and RICE, II et al. (‘923)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, positioning sensor devices in the filed or worksite, determining location of the sensor device and worker.
Regarding independent claim 47, which is dependent on independent claim 46, Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) discloses the system of claim 46. Jones (‘761) further discloses “the worker devices each comprise a GPS transceiver (paragraph 38: there is also a global positioning (GPS) system 48 when operating above ground communication with central computer 10, smart device 28 on machinery 22 and helmet worn by worker 12).”
Regarding independent claim 49, which is dependent on independent claim 46, Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) discloses the system of claim 46. Jones (‘761) further discloses “the processing system is configured to determine locations of the authorized workers by combining the locations of the authorized workers determined using the first location system and the locations of the authorized workers determined using the second location system (Paragraph 37: Figure 1: the central computer processes the position information to provide a seamless visual display of the relative positions of the personnel and plant or equipment above and/or below ground level or moving therebetween, and wherein, a visual and auditory alarm is triggered to alert a worker wearing the helmet and/or a supervisor if the relative positions of the personnel 12, 14-20 and plant or equipment 22, 24 are within a predetermined and unsafe distance of each other…the distance can be predetermined or preset to a preferred spherical safety radius…the system is embodied in the form of a smart device application or app implemented system operated on a smart tablet, smart phone or any other specially adapted smart device 26, 28, 30…the wireless communication protocols include a wireless personal area network e.g. Bluetooth…the wireless communication protocols includes a radio frequency mesh network of nodes/beacons 32-46 and transponder radio frequency identification (REID) chips embedded in safety equipment worn by personnel 12, 14-20 and incorporated in plant and machinery 22, 24 to enable communication and facilitate location by triangulation between the RFID chips when operating underground, above ground or in the open).”
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 2017/0270761 A1)/RICE, II et al. (US 2017/0351923 A1), and further in view of Self et al. (US 2006/0271263 A1).
Regarding claim 51, which is dependent on independent claim 46, Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) discloses the system of claim 46. Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) does not explicitly disclose “the processing system is configured to control the activity of machinery based on the location of the workers identified as unauthorized workers.”
Self et al. (‘263) relate to controlling operation and movement of the work machine based upon the position of an operator or observer relative to the work machine. Self et al. (‘263) teaches “the processing system is configured to control the activity of machinery based on the location of the workers identified as unauthorized workers (paragraph 57: the machine controller 22 calls upon the directional antenna assembly 44 to interrogate the operator's tag 38 (Figure 1) and verifies the operator 30 is an authorized operator at step 1010…if the operator 30 is not authorized, the machine controller 22 shuts down the work machine engine at step 1120--or other appropriate action is taken).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) with the teaching of Self et al. (‘263) for more reliable worker proximity detection (Self et al. (‘263 – paragraph 3). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Jones (‘761), RICE, II et al. (‘923) and Self et al. (‘263) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, positioning sensor devices in the filed or worksite, detecting reflected beam, determining location of the sensor device and worker.
Claims 52, 54-55, 57-60 and 62-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 2017/0270761 A1)/RICE, II et al. (US 2017/0351923 A1), in view of Beaulieu et al. (US 2015/0161872 A1).
Regarding claim 52, which is dependent on independent claim 46, Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) discloses the system of claim 46. Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) does not explicitly disclose “mountable devices to be mounted on machinery, wherein the second location system is configured to determine locations of the mountable devices as the locations of the machinery.”
Beaulieu et al. (‘872) relates to worksite proximity warning system. Beaulieu et al. (‘872) teaches “mountable devices to be mounted on machinery (paragraph 50: one or more object identifiers 102 that may be coupled to objects in a working area of lifting device 120; paragraph 52: in Figure 1A, object identifiers 102A and 102B are coupled to load 104 and identify information about load 104), wherein the second location system is configured to determine locations of the mountable devices as the locations of the machinery (paragraph 187: at 2704, a distance is calculated, at the base station, in three dimensions between the first transceiver and the second transceiver based on the detecting the first transceiver and second transceiver…the base station may employ computer memory and processors to perform the calculations in a three dimensional co-ordinate system; paragraph 136: the antenna reflects the incident signal from the interrogator back to the interrogator with the tag data modulated onto the reflected signal….tags 1601, 1602, and 1603 send a reply to positioning transceiver 1501 comprising a unique identifier…using this unique identifier, position determining component 1505 can identify, and determine the knowable location, of each of tags 1601, 1602, and 1603 and determines the distance from lifting device sensor unit 1500 to each of the RFID tags from which it has received a response).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) with the teaching of Beaulieu et al. (‘872) for more efficient worksite proximity monitoring (Beaulieu et al. (‘872) – paragraph 47). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Jones (‘761), RICE, II et al. (‘923) and Beaulieu et al. (‘872)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, positioning sensor devices in the filed or worksite, detecting reflected beam, determining location of the sensor device and worker.
Regarding claim 54, which is dependent on independent claim 46, Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923)/Beaulieu et al. (‘872) discloses the system of claim 46. Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) does not explicitly disclose “the first location system comprises a plurality of light detectors mounted at known locations and configured to detect light from the workers, and the processing system configured to determine locations of the workers using the light detected by the light detectors.”
Beaulieu et al. (‘872) relates to worksite proximity warning system. Beaulieu et al. (‘872) teaches “the first location system comprises a plurality of light detectors mounted at known locations and configured to detect light from the workers (Figure 1A; paragraph 60: a load monitor may be a camera, a plurality of cameras, an ultrasonic sensor, a laser scanner, a bar code scanner, a radio frequency identification device transceiver, or some combination of these…load monitor(s) 214 typically face downward from sensor unit 110 toward load hook 111 to attain a field of view 218 (218A, 218B illustrated) that encompasses at least a portion of load 104 and typically some area in the surrounding vicinity of load 104; paragraph 166: with reference to Figure 25, a block diagram of person 2500 in a worksite…person 2500 may also be referred to as personnel or person associated with a worksite; paragraph 47: paragraph 52: Figure 1A: object identifier 102C is located on the cap of person 117A and object identifier 102D is located on the helmet of person117B…in various embodiments object identifiers may comprise mechanisms such as: Radio Frequency Identifiers (RFIDs), reflectors, bar codes or some mix or combination thereof; paragraph 160: each of transceiver 2204, transceiver 2208, and transceiver 2212 are associated with, coupled to, or otherwise attached to object 2206, object 2210, and object 2214 respectively…object 2206, object 2210, and object 2214 may be a person, a wearable object worn by a person such as a helmet, a belt, a vest, a shoe, a belt, a headset, or article of clothing, or may be a structure, a building, a tree, a piece of requirement, a vehicle, a crane, etc. and may be referred to as worksite objects…object 2206, object 2210, and object 2214, as well as their associated transceiver, may be mobile or stationary; paragraph 166: various accessories or articles of clothing of person 2500 may be employed for mounting a clipping a proximity warning device to…helmet 2502 is a helmet that has a proximity warning device mounted to it or built into it…belt 2506 is a belt that has a proximity warning device mounted to it or built into it…vest 2504 is a vest that has a proximity warning device mounted to it or built into it…the proximity warning device may be built into, mount to, or clip to the shoulder of a vest, jacket or other article of clothing…helmet 2502 is an example application in which the battery operated transceiver of FIG. 23 or 24 is mounted on a helmet), and the processing system configured to determine locations of the workers using the light detected by the light detectors (paragraph 136: tags 1601, 1602, and 1603 send a reply to positioning transceiver 1501 comprising a unique identifier. Using this unique identifier, position determining component 1505 can identify, and determine the knowable location, of each of tags 1601, 1602, and 1603 and determines the distance from lifting device sensor unit 1500 to each of the RFID tags from which it has received a response. Alternatively, tags 1601, 1602, and 1603 can be active tags which have a source of power available when generating a reply to the interrogation signal; paragraph 52: object identifier 102C is located on the cap of person 117A and object identifier 102D is located on the helmet of person 117B…object identifiers may comprise mechanisms such as: Radio Frequency Identifiers (RFIDs), reflectors, bar codes, or some mix or combination thereof…object identifiers facilitate identification, location, and/or tracking of one or more objects in the vicinity of a load in the viewing region beneath sensor unit 110….due to the nature of the components (e.g., positioning and communications technology) typically found on modern "smart" cellular telephones and Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), the capability of providing an object identifier (e.g., object identifier 102C and 102D of FIG. 1A) can be provided using a cellular telephone, PDA, or similarly configured portable electronic having a suitable software application loaded onto it which enables it to be a part of, or communicatively coupled with, lifting device sensor system 100; paragraph 62: a load related hazard that may be monitored for is the loss of view, in or near the blind spot, of an object identifier (e.g., 102C, 102D as illustrated in FIG. 1A) associated with a person 117 or other object, or the loss of view of a person 117 that has been identified and monitored by other means).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) with the teaching of Beaulieu et al. (‘872) for more efficient worksite proximity monitoring (Beaulieu et al. (‘872) – paragraph 47). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Jones (‘761), RICE, II et al. (‘923) and Beaulieu et al. (‘872)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, positioning sensor devices in the filed or worksite, detecting reflected beam, determining location of the sensor device and worker.
Regarding claim 55, which is dependent on claim 54, Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923)/Beaulieu et al. (‘872) discloses the system of claim 54. Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) does not explicitly disclose “the light from the workers is light reflected from the workers.”
Beaulieu et al. (‘872) relates to worksite proximity warning system. Beaulieu et al. (‘872) teaches “the light from the workers is light reflected from the workers (paragraph 52: Figure 1A: object identifier 102C is located on the cap of person 117A and object identifier 102D is located on the helmet of person117B…in various embodiments object identifiers may comprise mechanisms such as: Radio Frequency Identifiers (RFIDs), reflectors, bar codes or some mix or combination thereof).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) with the teaching of Beaulieu et al. (‘872) for more efficient worksite proximity monitoring (Beaulieu et al. (‘872) – paragraph 47). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Jones (‘761), RICE, II et al. (‘923) and Beaulieu et al. (‘872)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, positioning sensor devices in the filed or worksite, detecting reflected beam, determining location of the sensor device and worker.
Regarding claim 57, which is dependent on claim 55, Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923)/Beaulieu et al. (‘872) discloses the system of claim 55. Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) does not explicitly disclose “the system further comprises at least one reflective element to be mounted on respective workers, the light reflected from the workers being light reflected from the reflective element.”
Beaulieu et al. (‘872) relates to worksite proximity warning system. Beaulieu et al. (‘872) teaches “the system further comprises at least one reflective element to be mounted on respective workers, the light reflected from the workers being light reflected from the reflective element (paragraph 52: Figure 1A: object identifier 102C is located on the cap of person 117A and object identifier 102D is located on the helmet of person117B…in various embodiments object identifiers may comprise mechanisms such as: Radio Frequency Identifiers (RFIDs), reflectors, bar codes or some mix or combination thereof).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) with the teaching of Beaulieu et al. (‘872) for more efficient worksite proximity monitoring (Beaulieu et al. (‘872) – paragraph 47). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Jones (‘761), RICE, II et al. (‘923) and Beaulieu et al. (‘872)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, positioning sensor devices in the filed or worksite, detecting reflected beam, determining location of the sensor device and worker.
Regarding claim 58, which is dependent on claim 57, Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923)/Beaulieu et al. (‘872) discloses the system of claim 57. Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) does not explicitly disclose “the light reflected from the reflective element is modulated light.”
Beaulieu et al. (‘872) relates to worksite proximity warning system. Beaulieu et al. (‘872) teaches “the light reflected from the reflective element is modulated light (paragraph 136: tags 1601, 1602, and 1603 are RFID tags…positioning transceiver 1501 generates an interrogation command which activates or "wakes up" any of tags 1601, 1602, and 1603 which are in range of the signal from positioning transceiver 1501…tags 1601, 1602, and 1603 can be passive tags which use the interrogation signal power to activate and operate a circuit that accesses stored information…once activated, RFID tags modulate a reflection coefficient of the tag antenna with a suitable data information signal read out from tag memory…the antenna reflects the incident signal from the interrogator back to the interrogator with the tag data modulated onto the reflected signal).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) with the teaching of Beaulieu et al. (‘872) for more efficient worksite proximity monitoring (Beaulieu et al. (‘872) – paragraph 47). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Jones (‘761), RICE, II et al. (‘923) and Beaulieu et al. (‘872)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, positioning sensor devices in the filed or worksite, detecting reflected beam, determining location of the sensor device and worker.
Regarding claim 59, which is dependent on claim 58, Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923)/Beaulieu et al. (‘872) discloses the system of claim 58. Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) does not explicitly disclose “the modulated light is spatially modulated in intensity, and/or modulated in wavelength.”
Beaulieu et al. (‘872) relates to worksite proximity warning system. Beaulieu et al. (‘872) teaches “the modulated light is spatially modulated in intensity, and/or modulated in wavelength (paragraph 134: positioning transceiver 1501 can utilize a variety of signal frequencies including, but not limited to: the 2.4 GHz band used under the 802.11 standard, 303 MHz, 315 MHz, 418 MHz, 433 MHz, 868 MHz, and 915 MHz. The signal from positioning transceiver 1501 can be of various forms. Additionally, positioning transceiver 1501 can generate a continuous transmission modulated in frequency, phase, amplitude, or a combination of these…such modulations are commonly referred to as amplitude modulation (AM), frequency modulation (FM), on-off keying (OOK), continuous phase modulation (CPM), multiple frequency shift keying (MFSK), binary phase shift keying (BPSK), quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), frequency shift keying (FSK), quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM), phase shift keying (PSK), orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM), and chirping. Another radio signal used in accordance with various embodiments is short pulses, commonly referred to as ultra-wide band (UWB)).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) with the teaching of Beaulieu et al. (‘872) for more efficient worksite proximity monitoring (Beaulieu et al. (‘872) – paragraph 47). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Jones (‘761), RICE, II et al. (‘923) and Beaulieu et al. (‘872)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, positioning sensor devices in the filed or worksite, detecting reflected beam, determining location of the sensor device and worker.
Regarding claim 60, which is dependent on claim 58, Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923)/Beaulieu et al. (‘872) discloses the system of claim 58. Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) does not explicitly disclose “the modulated light encodes a unique identifier.”
Beaulieu et al. (‘872) relates to worksite proximity warning system. Beaulieu et al. (‘872) teaches “the modulated light encodes a unique identifier (paragraph 136: tags 1601, 1602, and 1603 send a reply to positioning transceiver 1501 comprising a unique identifier. Using this unique identifier, position determining component 1505 can identify, and determine the knowable location, of each of tags 1601, 1602, and 1603 and determines the distance from lifting device sensor unit 1500 to each of the RFID tags from which it has received a response).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) with the teaching of Beaulieu et al. (‘872) for more efficient worksite proximity monitoring (Beaulieu et al. (‘872) – paragraph 47). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Jones (‘761), RICE, II et al. (‘923) and Beaulieu et al. (‘872)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, positioning sensor devices in the filed or worksite, detecting reflected beam, determining location of the sensor device and worker.
Regarding claim 62, which is dependent on claim 54, Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923)/Beaulieu et al. (‘872) discloses the system of claim 54. Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) does not explicitly disclose “the first location system is further configured to determine locations of machinery using light from the machinery detected by the light detectors.”
Beaulieu et al. (‘872) relates to worksite proximity warning system. Beaulieu et al. (‘872) teaches “the first location system is further configured to determine locations of machinery using light from the machinery detected by the light detectors (paragraph 50: one or more object identifiers 102 that may be coupled to objects in a working area of lifting device 120; paragraph 52: in Figure 1A, object identifiers 102A and 102B are coupled to load 104 and identify information about load 104).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) with the teaching of Beaulieu et al. (‘872) for more efficient worksite proximity monitoring (Beaulieu et al. (‘872) – paragraph 47). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Jones (‘761), RICE, II et al. (‘923) and Beaulieu et al. (‘872)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, positioning sensor devices in the filed or worksite, detecting reflected beam, determining location of the sensor device and worker.
Regarding claim 63, which is dependent on independent claim 46, Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) discloses the system of claim 46. Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) does not explicitly disclose “the second location system comprises a plurality of wireless receivers mounted at known locations and configured to detect wireless signal transmissions from the worker device, and the processing system is configured to determine locations of the authorized workers using the wireless signal transmissions from the worker device detected by the wireless receivers.”
Beaulieu et al. (‘872) relates to worksite proximity warning system. Beaulieu et al. (‘872) teaches “the second location system comprises a plurality of wireless receivers mounted at known locations and configured to detect wireless signal transmissions from the worker device (paragraph 185: at 2702, a first transceiver and a second transceiver are detected at a base station, wherein the first transceiver is a mobile wearable device, and wherein the first transceiver, the second transceiver, and the base station are located at a worksite…the base station may be 2202, the first transceiver may be transceiver 2204 and the second transceiver may be transceiver 2208 of Figure 22…the base station may be a stationary hardware device that is located in the worksite and has components of a computer system such as a memory and processor…portions of the base station may be located remote to the worksite and may employ techniques such as cloud computing to carry out process 2700…the base station may detect a transceiver via receiving a wireless signal. The signal may be sent over wideband, 900 Mhz or using another frequency or technique…the first and second transceivers may be associated with or coupled to an object such as object 2206 of Figure 22), and
the processing system is configured to determine locations of the authorized workers using the wireless signal transmissions from the worker device detected by the wireless receivers (paragraph 187: at 2704, a distance is calculated, at the base station, in three dimensions between the first transceiver and the second transceiver based on the detecting the first transceiver and second transceiver…the base station may employ computer memory and processors to perform the calculations in a three dimensional co-ordinate system; paragraph 136: the antenna reflects the incident signal from the interrogator back to the interrogator with the tag data modulated onto the reflected signal….tags 1601, 1602, and 1603 send a reply to positioning transceiver 1501 comprising a unique identifier…using this unique identifier, position determining component 1505 can identify, and determine the knowable location, of each of tags 1601, 1602, and 1603 and determines the distance from lifting device sensor unit 1500 to each of the RFID tags from which it has received a response).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923) with the teaching of Beaulieu et al. (‘872) for more efficient worksite proximity monitoring (Beaulieu et al. (‘872) – paragraph 47). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Jones (‘761), RICE, II et al. (‘923) and Beaulieu et al. (‘872)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, positioning sensor devices in the filed or worksite, detecting reflected beam, determining location of the sensor device and worker.
Regarding claim 64, which is dependent on claim 63, Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923)/Beaulieu et al. (‘872) discloses the system of claim 63. Jones (‘761) further discloses “the wireless signal transmissions comprise radio-frequency signal transmissions (Paragraph 37: Figure 1: the central computer processes the position information to provide a seamless visual display of the relative positions of the personnel and plant or equipment above and/or below ground level or moving therebetween, and wherein, a visual and auditory alarm is triggered to alert a worker wearing the helmet and/or a supervisor if the relative positions of the personnel 12, 14-20 and plant or equipment 22, 24 are within a predetermined and unsafe distance of each other…the distance can be predetermined or preset to a preferred spherical safety radius…the system is embodied in the form of a smart device application or app implemented system operated on a smart tablet, smart phone or any other specially adapted smart device 26, 28, 30…the wireless communication protocols include a wireless personal area network e.g. Bluetooth…the wireless communication protocols includes a radio frequency mesh network of nodes/beacons 32-46 and transponder radio frequency identification (REID) chips embedded in safety equipment worn by personnel 12, 14-20 and incorporated in plant and machinery 22, 24 to enable communication and facilitate location by triangulation between the RFID chips when operating underground, above ground or in the open; paragraph 38: an alarm is triggered and alerted to a supervisor 50 and/or personnel 12-20 of plant or equipment 22, 24 within the predetermined unsafe distance through a visual and/or audible response unit carried by the personnel or affixed to the plant or equipment 20, 22. There are sensors in the helmets of personnel 12-20 to detect any sudden deceleration or change in direction indicating the possibility of personnel sustaining a fall or being struck or if there has been no movement over a predetermined period of time such as if personnel have fallen asleep or removed or the helmet has been discarded or dislodged which also triggers the alarm…there is preferably real time video imaging means to record the movements of personnel, plant and equipment…the recorded positions of the mining personnel, plant and equipment can then be stored as a log of events which can be accessed by an operational supervisor 50 either on site or remotely located for historical and/or analytical purposes; claim 7: the alarm is triggered and alerted to personnel of plant or equipment within the predetermined unsafe distance through a visual and/or audible response unit carried by the personnel or affixed to the plant or equipment 8; claim 8: detect any sudden deceleration or change in direction or if there has been no movement over a Predetermined period of time to also trigger the alarm).”
Claims 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 2017/0270761 A1)/RICE, II et al. (US 2017/0351923 A1)/Beaulieu et al. (US 2015/0161872 A1), in view of Self et al. (US 2006/0271263 A1).
Regarding claim 53, which is dependent claim 52, Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923)/Self et al. (‘263)/Beaulieu et al. (‘872) discloses the system of claim 52. Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923)/Beaulieu et al. (‘872) does not explicitly disclose “the processing system is further configured to: compare the determined locations of workers to the determined locations of machinery; and output a warning signal and/or control the activity of machinery based on the comparison of the locations of workers and the locations of machinery.”
Self et al. (‘263) relate to controlling operation and movement of the work machine based upon the position of an operator or observer relative to the work machine. Self et al. (‘263) teaches “the processing system is further configured to: compare the determined locations of workers to the determined locations of machinery (paragraph 57: at step 1070 the directional antenna assembly 44 scans the local work area to locate the operator 30 and any tag wearing authorized workers or observers…first, the operator/worker location calculation module 76 determines whether the operator is positioned a proper distance R from the machine 10 and its work tool 16 (Steps 1070-1090)); and
output a warning signal and/or control the activity of machinery based on the comparison of the locations of workers and the locations of machinery (paragraph 57: if the operator 30 and thus the remote controller 12 or ID tag 38 are within the operational boundary of the work tool 16 and work machine 10 (i.e., R.ltoreq.R.sub.min), the operator is notified by a warning light or sound activated at the remote controller 12 and certain pre-designated machine functions are disabled or able to function only at a reduced level).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923)/Beaulieu et al. (‘872) with the teaching of Self et al. (‘263) for more reliable worker proximity detection (Self et al. (‘263 – paragraph 3). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Jones (‘761), RICE, II et al. (‘923), Self et al. (‘263) and Beaulieu et al. (‘872)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, positioning sensor devices in the filed or worksite, detecting reflected beam, determining location of the sensor device and worker.
Claim 56 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 2017/0270761 A1)/RICE, II et al. (US 2017/0351923 A1)/Beaulieu et al. (US 2015/0161872 A1), and further in view of Williams et al. (US 2013/0038856 A1).
Regarding Claim 56, which is dependent on claim 55, Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923)/Beaulieu et al. (‘872) discloses the system of claim 46. Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923)/Beaulieu et al. (‘872) does not explicitly disclose “the system further comprises illuminating light sources adjacent to respective light detectors, the light reflected from the workers being light from the illuminating light sources.”
Williams et al. (‘856) relates to monitoring an area using sensors. Williams et al. (‘856) teaches “the system further comprises illuminating light sources adjacent to respective light detectors, the light reflected from the workers being light from the illuminating light sources (paragraph 26: the system can include one or more reflectors...the reflector can be positioned near to the sensor device…the reflector may be physically attached to the sensor device, removably or otherwise, or may be on a worker or an article of clothing worn by the worker or on a device carried by the worker…(For example, FIG. 1 shows a reflector 125 attached to a belt of a worker…the reflector may be any suitable type of reflector capable of reflecting the rotating optical beams back towards the detectors. For example, the reflector may comprise an article of clothing or a device with a retro- reflector. The retro- reflector can be configured to reflect light back to the light source with a minimum scattering of light. In other words, an electromagnetic wave front is reflected back along a vector that is parallel to but opposite in direction from the wave's source, even when an angle of incidence is greater than zero. This is unlike a planar mirror, which reflects light back to the source only if the mirror is exactly perpendicular to the wave front, having a zero angle of incidence. Some types of retro-reflectors which may be used include corner cube reflectors, embedded glass bead reflectors (also known as "cat's eye" reflectors), phase conjugation reflectors, etc. The reflector can be configured to reflect optical beams from multiple base stations back toward detectors at the respective stations. Thus, light from multiple stations may be incident on and reflectored by the reflector and be detected by a detector associated with the source of the light…the system can then use the detected light to triangulate a position of the reflector).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923)/Beaulieu et al. (‘872) with the teaching of Williams et al. (‘856) for more precise location determination (Williams et al. (‘856) – paragraph 3). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Jones (‘761), RICE, II et al. (‘923), Beaulieu et al. (‘872) and Williams et al. (‘856)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, positioning sensor devices in the filed or worksite, detecting reflected beam, determining location of the sensor device and worker.
Regarding Claim 61, which is dependent on claim 57, Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923)/Beaulieu et al. (‘872) discloses the system of claim 57. Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923)/Beaulieu et al. (‘872) does not explicitly disclose “the reflective element is a retroreflector.”
Williams et al. (‘856) relates to monitoring an area using sensors. Williams et al. (‘856) teaches “the reflective element is a retroreflector (paragraph 26: the reflector may be any suitable type of reflector capable of reflecting the rotating optical beams back towards the detectors…the reflector may comprise an article of clothing or a device with a retro-reflector).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jones (‘761)/RICE, II et al. (‘923)/Beaulieu et al. (‘872) with the teaching of Williams et al. (‘856) for more precise location determination (Williams et al. (‘856) – paragraph 3). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Jones (‘761), RICE, II et al. (‘923), Beaulieu et al. (‘872) and Williams et al. (‘856)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, positioning sensor devices in the filed or worksite, detecting reflected beam, determining location of the sensor device and worker.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yanson et al. (US 2018/0197052 A1) describes tag forms an angle or orientation sensor and said at least one optical element is a retro-reflector, said at least one photonic structure being disposed on a surface of said retro-reflector (claim 26).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUZHAT PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William J Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
/NUZHAT PERVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648