DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
2. Pursuant to the Examiner-Initiated Interview conducted on February 23, 2026, the applicant has elected Group 1, claims 28-34 and 49-52, without traverse. This restriction is hereby made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. Claims 28, 49, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swift (US 2018/0060831 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Swift discloses:
a system ([0002]), comprising:
one or more smart badges that include a control circuit ([0057; FIG. 3: 302), a display device ([0062]; FIG. 3: 318, 320, 324), and a location finding circuit configured to interact with a remote location finding system to determine a location of the smart badge ([0047], [0054], [0062], [0150]; FIG. 1: 112; FIG. 2: 222);
Swift discloses a location tracking device on an industrial vehicle ([0046],[0047]) that determines position; Swift further discloses that a badge comprises a device analogous to the location tracking device on the industrial vehicle ([0062]); and Swift further discloses that geo-based information can be obtained from a detected badge ([0125]), which suggests that the analogous device on the badge determines location for the benefit of enabling geo-based information to be obtained from a detected badge ([0125]);
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the system of Swift in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the system to obtain geo-based information from a detected badge;
a management system that includes one or more processors of one or more computers, the management system in communication with the one or more smart badges via one or more communication links between the management system and the smart badges ([0039], [0058]; FIG. 1: 112);
wherein the one or more smart badges are configured to provide badge location information to the management system indicating the location of a first badge of the one or more smart badges via the one or more communication links ([0046], [0054], [0125]; FIG. 2: 222);
wherein the management system is configured to:
receive event location information indicating the location of an event ([0054], [0117]);
use the badge location information and the event location information to determine a distance between the first badge and the event ([0005], ([0152], [0153]);
send an alert to the first badge when the badge location information of the first badge matches predetermined criteria maintained by the management system ([0063], [0111], [0112]); and
wherein the one or more smart badges are configured to display the alert using the display device ([0111]).
Regarding claim 49, Swift discloses that the remote location finding system includes a Global Position System (GPS) system. ([0035], [0047], [0066]; Swift discloses that the location finding system complements a GPS system by providing location tracking indoors, while a GPS system is applied to location tracking outdoors.)
Regarding claim 50, Swift discloses that the remote location finding system includes one or more beacons positioned nearby to the smart badge. ([0047]; Swift discloses a local awareness system that utilizes beacons to allow spatial awareness within the industrial environment (e.g., a warehouse, a commercial facility, a manufacturing plant, a retail facility, etc.))
5. Claims 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swift in view of Wilson et al. (US 2014/0218202 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Swift does not disclose that the management system is configured to use the one or more processors to determine a shortest path between the event and the first badge.
Wilson, addressing the same problem of how to determine the distance between badges and events, teaches an event notification system that is able to identify and send an alert to an appropriate individual that is also closest to an event ([0001]), wherein the system is configured to use the one or more processors to determine a shortest path between the event and the first badge ([0028]) for the benefit of sending an alert to an appropriate individual that is also closest to an event ([0001]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Wilson because that would have enabled the system to send an alert to an appropriate individual that is also closest to an event.
Regarding claim 30, Swift does not disclose that the management system is configured to determine the shortest path between each of the one or more smart badges and the event.
Wilson, addressing the same problem of how to determine the distance between badges and events, teaches an event notification system that is able to identify and send an alert to an appropriate individual that is also closest to an event ([0001]), wherein the system is configured to determine the shortest path between each of the one or more smart badges and the event ([0028]) for the benefit of sending an alert to an appropriate individual that is also closest to an event ([0001]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Wilson because that would have enabled the system to send an alert to an appropriate individual that is also closest to an event.
Regarding claim 31, Swift does not disclose that the management system is configured to send the alert to a badge of the one or more smart badges with the shortest path between the badge and the event.
Wilson, addressing the same problem of how to determine the distance between badges and events, teaches an event notification system that is able to identify and send an alert to an appropriate individual that is also closest to an event ([0001]), wherein the system is configured to
send the alert to a badge of the one or more smart badges with the shortest path between the badge and the event ([0028]) for the benefit of sending an alert to an appropriate individual that is also closest to an event ([0001]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Wilson because that would have enabled the system to send an alert to an appropriate individual that is also closest to an event.
Regarding claim 32, Swift does not disclose that the management system is configured to: determine a closest badge of the one or more smart badges to the event; and send an alert to the closest badge.
Wilson, addressing the same problem of how to determine the distance between badges and events, teaches an event notification system that is able to identify and send an alert to an appropriate individual that is also closest to an event ([0001]), wherein the system is configured to determine a closest badge of the one or more smart badges to the event and send an alert to the closest badge ([0028]) for the benefit of sending an alert to an appropriate individual that is also closest to an event ([0001]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Wilson because that would have enabled the system to send an alert to an appropriate individual that is also closest to an event.
6. Claims 51 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swift in view of Hua (US 2014/0279476 A1).
Regarding claim 51, Swift does not disclose that the display device includes an e-ink screen that is optionally touch or pressure sensitive.
Hua, addressing the same problem of how to configure a display on an electronic card, teaches an electronic transaction card ([0020]), wherein the card comprises a display device that includes an e-ink screen that is optionally touch or pressure sensitive ([0020]) for the benefit of enabling the display of changeable alpha-numeric information ([0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Hua with the system of Swift because that would have enabled the system to employ an electronic card that displays changeable alpha-numeric information.
Regarding claim 52, Swift does not disclose that the display device includes a multi-function graphic display that is optionally touch or pressure sensitive.
Hua, addressing the same problem of how to configure a display on an electronic card, teaches an electronic transaction card ([0020]), wherein the card includes a multi-function graphic display that is optionally touch or pressure sensitive ([0020], [0064]) for the benefit of enabling the card to store and display information for multiple users ([0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Hua with the system of Swift because that would have enabled the system to employ an electronic card that stores and displays information for multiple users.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 33 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 34 is objected to for the same reasons as claim 33 because claim 341 depends from claim 33.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F MORTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 ET.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/JOHN F MORTELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689