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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-5, 7-9 and 11 in the reply filed on 03/03/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 6, 10 and 12-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/03/2026 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/21/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim s 7 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 7, line 7, EF17” should read EF17’ In claim 9, line 2, “a user interface” should read “the user interface” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted step is : Outputting the reference position, the location zone Z, the target reference distance, and or the target distance. Regarding the missing step above, the embodiments of the elected invention, Figs. 1 and 2, include step s EF16 for Fig. 1 ( Specification, Page 9, lines 12-18 ) and EF17 /EF17’ for Fig. 2 ( Specification, Page 11 , lines 14-23 ) include the output of the reference position, the location zone Z, the target reference distance, and or the target distance to either a user interface in Fig. 1 or a detection device in Fig. 2 . Claims 2-5, 7-9 and 11 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim s 1 , 3 -5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite a method for a detection device to search for a target beacon emitting a radio signal . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l] aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l , 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice . Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. , Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice , 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos , 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices { Alice , 573 U.S. at 219-20, Bilski , 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas { Parker v. Flook , 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and mental processes { Gottschalk v. Benson , 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” { Diamond v. Diehr , 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden , 56 U.S. 252, 267-68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour { Benson , 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener , 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr , the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr , 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook ); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”). If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” , 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo , 566 U.S. at 77). “[M] erely requiring] generic computer implementation” fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well- understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Analysis Step 1 – Statutory Category Claim 1 (and its dependents) recites a method. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes. As set forth above, claim 1 recite s a judicial exception since the claim set s forth a plurality of mathematical concepts and mental process as defined at least by the claimed steps of: determination of a value of a target distance between the detection device and the target beacon based on a calculation of a propagation time of the radio signal between the target beacon and the detection device; comparison of the target distance value and a reference target distance value; determination of the value of the reference target distance according to the value of the target distance; determination of a reference position as a function of a position of the detection device; determination of a location zone of the target beacon relative to the position of the detection device as a function of the reference position and the reference target distance. The step of “ determination of a value of a target distance … based on a calculation of a propagation time ” may be performed by a series of mathematical operations accomplished through specific mathematical calculations and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts . The step of “ comparison of the target distance value and a reference target distance value ” may be performed by assessing the relative magnitude of the two quantities which may be practically performed in the human mind using judgment, and opinion. The steps of “determination of the value of the reference target distance according to the value of the target distance .” and “ determination of a reference position as a function of a position of the detection devic e” may be performed by observing and evaluating the data received (i.e. distance value, detection device location) which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. The step of “ determination of a location zone of the target beacon relative to the position of the detection device as a function of the reference position and the reference target distance ” may be performed by analyzing the fixed data to estimate a position which may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Therefore, such steps of “ determination ” and “ comparison ” encompasses processes that can be performed mentally; thus, fall within “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas and mathematical calculations . In addition, dependent claims 3-5 and 11 further claiming information gleaned from the mental process. Regarding claim 3, the sole claim element is the construction of a circle with is a mathematical operation. Regarding claim s 4 and 5 , the steps of “determination” may be practically performed in the human mind using different evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Regarding claim 11, the step of “ initialization of a reference position according to the location information of the target beacon ” may be practically performed in the human mind using different evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Therefore, dependent claims 3 -5 and 11 also falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two, we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. The additional element s of claim 1 are “search method being executed by a detection device capable of detecting a target radio signal emitted by the target beacon “ and “ reception of a target radio signal emitted by the target beacon comprising an identification information of the target beacon when said detection device is within the emission range of the target beacon ”. These elements are basic and well known in the art. By themselves and in conjunction with both the recited judicial exceptions and dependent claims, these claim elements do not impose a meaningful limit. Dependent claims 3-5 and 11 do not connect to a practical activity, they simply clarify further details of the mathematical operations and mental processes. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additionally, the totality of mathematical operations and mental processes are not anchored in a specific application, the acts of information processing do not link to or result in affecting an additional system or result in any stated output. Step 2B – Inventive Concept For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. As stated above, claims 1 , 3 - 5 and 1 1 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The hardware elements recited in claims 1 (and its dependents) are at a high level , the device performing the steps is “a detection device” which has the sole limitation of “capable of detecting a target radio signal emitted by the target beacon” beyond the steps recited in the method. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for estimating, analyzing, and evaluating and requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Finally, as noted below receiving and outputting data is well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner as decided by the court. The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i . Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE , Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101. 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 . Claim (s) 1 , 3 -5, 7 -9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kampel ( US 20070013525 ) in view of Karr ( WO 2006/098791 ) . Regarding claim 1, Kampel teaches a method for searching a target beacon attached to an object or living being to be searched ( [0008] The method of the present invention for locating a buried person, in particular one buried by an avalanche, employs a wireless receiver with a directional characteristic and comprises the steps discussed below. ) , said search method being executed by a detection device capable of detecting a target radio signal emitted by the target beacon ( [0010] The wireless receiver receives the signals that have been emitted by the wireless transmitter carried by the buried person. ) , the search method comprising the following steps: reception of a target radio signal emitted by the target beacon when said detection device is within the emission range of the target beacon ( [0010] The wireless receiver receives the signals that have been emitted by the wireless transmitter carried by the buried person. ) ; determination of a value of a target distance between the detection device and the target beacon based on the radio signal between the target beacon and the detection device ( [0020] Generally, the target distance is determined based on the received signals, in particular their intensity. For example, the amplitude of the received signals can be informative regarding the distance between wireless transmitter and wireless receiver. ) ; comparison of the target distance value and a reference target distance value () ; if the target distance value is less than the reference target distance value or if the reference target distance value is not determined: determination of the value of the reference target distance according to the value of the target distance ( [0062] When the current target distance d is smaller than the target-distance threshold value d1, … when the search appliance is located at the distance d1, the value of d1 can be increased when the point-localization phase is implemented, as discussed below with regard to FIG. 11. ) ; determination of a reference position as a function of a position of the detection device ( [0042] A control means 21 drives the display device 20, which presents information relating to the location of the buried person with respect to the search appliance 10. ) ; determination of a location zone of the target beacon relative to the position of the detection device as a function of the reference position and the reference target distance ( [0062] When the current target distance d is smaller than the target-distance threshold value d1, indicating that the searcher is relatively close to the buried person, the discrimination means 22 causes the steps of the point-localization phase to be executed under this condition. ) . Kampel fails to teach that radio signal emitted by the target beacon comprising an identification information of the target beacon when said detection device is within the emission range of the target beacon ; and determination of a value of a target distance between the detection device and the target beacon based on a calculation of a propagation time of the radio signal between the target beacon and the detection device . However, Karr teaches a method ( Page 2, lines 6-9; The present disclosure is related to a system and method of locating an object … for locating a living being. A remote locator (RL) is arranged to communicate with a transponder or micro-transponder (MT) for dete rm ining the location of the MT. That is, a wireless transmitter carried by the buried person sends out signals that are received by a searcher, or a group of searchers, by means of a wireless receiver. ) where that radio signal emitted by the target beacon comprising an identification information of the target beacon when said detection device is within the emission range of the target beacon ( Page 5, lines 31-32; The communication signals from the transmitters are encoded with a unique ID code. ) ; and determination of a value of a target distance between the detection device and the target beacon based on a calculation of a propagation time of the radio signal between the target beacon and the detection device ( Page 2, lines 19-21; The remote locator (RL) 20 correlates the integrated response, determines round-trip Doppler and time-of-flight, and computes the distance and angle to the (micro-transponder) MT. ) . Kampel and Karr are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of radiofrequency methods for beacon locating technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kampel by including the beacon identification transmission and the time based distance measurement of Karr to yield a predictable result of improving the signal to noise for the distance measurement by using a frequency based measurement technique where the beacon identification is integral to the transmitted signal as noted by Karr ( Page 4, line 21-33; In the presently described system, a reply transmission signal is transmitted back to the remote locator ( RL ) from a mobile transponder ( MT ) , where the MT synthesizes timing, frequency, phase, and cadence for the reply transmission from signals that are received by the MT from the RL. … As such, the RL can predict the reply transmission frequency with a very small margin of error … Since noise sums as a square root and signal sums linearly, the signal-to-noise ratio for the captured signal is increased, allowing reception of a much lower level signal than would otherwise be the case without the use of exhaustive computation. ) . Regarding claim 3 , Kampel as modified by Karr teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Kampel further teaches wherein the location zone comprises a circle ( [0046] The two circles (30, 31) have a common center 35, which is situated in the middle of the rectangular display device 20 ) centered on the reference position ( [0042] the display device 20, which presents information relating to the location of the buried person with respect to the search appliance 10 ) and having a radius ( [0049] The examples of displays shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 having one circle representing the current target distance d and a second circle representing a lesser target distance, which in the examples illustrated is the smallest distance dmin , are helpful in interpreting the progress of the search ) defined as a function of the reference target distance ( [0066] it may be most practical to set the initial value of dp the same as d1 and dmin ) . Regarding claim 4, Kampel as modified by Karr teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Kampel further teaches wherein the determination of the value of the target distance as a function of the value of the reference target distance comprises an assignment of the value of the target distance to the value of the reference target distance ( [0066] it may be most practical to set the initial value of dp the same as d1 and dmin ) . Regarding claim 5, Kampel as modified by Karr teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Kampel further teaches wherein the determination of a reference position as a function of a position of the detection device comprises the assignment of the position of the detection device to the reference position ( [0042] the display device 20, which presents information relating to the location of the buried person with respect to the search appliance 10 ) . Regarding claim 7, Kampel as modified by Karr teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Kampel further teaches if the value of the target distance is less than the value of the reference target distance, controlling the displacement of the detection device along a trajectory of displacement in a straight line ( Fig. 4 , [00 50 ] the third representation in FIG. 4 shows a possible display to be seen on the display device 20 in the search phase. In this case, a target direction 50 and a fourth target distance 43 are indicated. The fourth target distance 43 is represented numerically in the form of a number of meters. The target direction 50, which indicates the relative direction of the buried person with respect to the long axis of the search appliance 10, is shown in the form of a directional indication. ) ; if the value of the target distance is greater than the value of the reference target distance, controlling the displacement of the detection device along a trajectory guided on the circle centered on the reference position and having a radius defined as a function of the reference target distance ( [0051] FIGS. 5-9 are a series of illustrations showing information that might be shown on a display 100 in another example of a search conducted in the point-localization phase, with the figures showing several iterations of the search method. In this method, a comparison is provided between the current target distance d and a value for the most recent previously recorded target distance, dp ; such comparison is discussed in greater detail below in the discussion of the method illustrated in FIG. 11. Examiner’s note: The series of figures 5-9 and the method of Fig. 11 are equivalent to the circular trajectory in the claim. Essentially, the searcher overshoots the beacon by approaching slightly parallel to the beacon and thus the signal gets stronger then weaker. Once the signal gets weaker, then the searcher must turn. ) . Regarding claim 8, Kampel as modified by Karr teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Kampel further teaches provision of an indication on a user interface concerning the reference position and the location zone ( Fig. 2; [0046] FIG. 2 illustrates a rectangular display that can be presented on the display device 20, on which a first distance circle 30 and a second distance circle 31 are represented. The two circles (30, 31) have a common center 35, which is situated in the middle of the rectangular display device 20. A first radius, that of the first distance circle 30, and a second radius, that of the second distance circle 31, are respectively proportional to a first target distance 40 from the buried person and a second target distance 41. The first distance circle 30 is represented by a thicker line than is the second distance circle 31, and indicates that the first target distance 40 is the current target distance d. ) . Regarding claim 9, Kampel as modified by Karr teaches the method of claim 8, accordingly the rejection of claim 8 above is incorporated. Kampel further teaches the provision of an indication on a user interface concerning the reference position and the location zone comprises a display of a representation of the reference position and/or the location zone on a viewing device ( Fig. 1, display device 20 ; [004 2 ] A control means 21 drives the display device 20, which presents information relating to the location of the buried person with respect to the search appliance 10. ) . Regarding claim 11 , Kampel as modified by Karr teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Kampel further teaches initialization of a reference position according to the location information of the target beacon ( Fig. 2; [0046] The second distance circle 31 has a smaller radius and symbolizes the smallest target distance (" dmin ") that had previously been stored by the search appliance 10 at a time when the second target distance 41 was the current target distance d. Therefore, the searcher has at some time been closer to the buried person than at present. In the situation illustrated, the current target distance d is greater than a recent one of the previously-stored target distances, and preferably the most recent (which may or may not be the smallest target distance dmin ); this shows that the search appliance 10 is moving further away from the buried person. ) . Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kampel as modified by Karr FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of D ackefjord ( US 20170090010 ) . Regarding claim 2, Kampel as modified by Karr teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Kampel further teaches wherein the detection device is connected to a guidance interface ( Fig. 1 display device; [0042] This search appliance 10 has a display device 20 for displaying at least one item of locality information which aids a user of the search appliance 10 in finding the buried person. ). Kampel as modified by Karr fails to teach that the guidance device is connected to a magnetic compass and to a GPS coordinate receiver. However, D ackefjord teaches a method and system for locating a beacon with a search device ( [0033] In FIG. 1 a general view of a scenario where a locator device 101 is used to locate a device 103. The locator device 101 is provided with a transceiver for transmitting receiving radio signals over an air interface. In a similar manner the device 103 is provided with a transceiver for transmitting radio signals over an air interface. ) w here the guidance device is connected to a magnetic compass ( [0046] In addition the locator device 101 can comprise a compass 508. The compass can be used to provide input regarding directions. ) and to a GPS coordinate receiver ( [0046] The locator device can also comprise a positioning device 512 such as a GPS receiver for keeping track of the position of the locator device 101. ) . Kampel , Karr and D ackefjord are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of radiofrequency methods for beacon locating technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kampel as modified by Karr by including the compass and GPS receiver of D ackefjord to yield a predictable result of a means to maintain a bearing relative to north when moving in a straight line and keep track of where you have been so as to not repeat going over the same ground both of which would result in a more efficient and faster search . For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20160334494 discloses device with a positioning unit to measure and output the current position information , a beacon signal receiver to receive a beacon signal and acquires a beacon ID of a beacon device included in the beacon signal , a processing unit connected to a beacon position database so as to acquire a beacon ID associated with the current position information, and sets the beacon ID to be acquired by the beacon signal receiver in accordance with the acquired beacon ID. US 20110193702 discloses wireless apparatuses, systems, and methods for locating items. According to one embodiment, the apparatus includes a sensor module and an indicator module capable of wireless communication. US 20080024365 discloses an apparatus and method for locating a transmitter. The apparatus comprises an antenna, a receiver and a memory adapted to store the plurality signals received by the receiver and antenna. The plurality of signals represents a plurality of data points relating to the position of the transmitter as measured at a plurality of unique locations. The location of the transmitter is calculated using the plurality data points. The plurality of data points may represent a measured frequency of a signal transmitted by the transmitter a direction of the transmitter or any other type of data. The method may comprise utilizing the Doppler shift rate of change of an assumed transmitted frequency to calculate a conical surface. The calculated intersection of a plurality of conical surfaces to defines the location of the transmitter. US 20050270234 discloses a system and method for locating the direction and distance to a RF signal source from an avalanche beacon to find an avalanche victim. The system and method include a RF signal locator and a graphical display residing on the signal locator. The receiver graphical display provides the searcher with an initial way point reading that includes directional and distance data associated with the beacon RF signal source from the avalanche beacon. The directional and distance data is based upon the received RF signals. A processor within the locator receiver receives and measures RF signals emitted by the RF signal source. The locator advantageously provides continuous subsequent way point readings for the user, where the subsequent way point readings include directional, and distance data associated with the RF signal source. The distance data provided by the subsequent way point readings is based upon a path loss slope of the received RF signals from the avalanche beacon. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOHN BS ABRAHAM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4145 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jack Keith can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6878 . 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. /JBSA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3646 /JACK W KEITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646