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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzog et al. (US 2010/0225541) in view of Richards et al. (US 2006/0145853) and Brunner et al. (US 2021/0156951).
Regarding claim 1, Hertzog discloses a safety system for safeguarding a technical installation (paragraph 16, lines 2-3: “invention can be applied in sensor network applications, such as environmental monitoring of water in the soil or chemicals in the air”), the safety system comprising: a safety controller (paragraph 34, line 4: “laptop computer”); and a radio location system 100 in FIG. 1 including:
a first radio unit 20; a second radio unit 12; and a reference radio unit 14, wherein:
the radio location system is configured to determine a first defined characteristic (a first range measurement 24) between the first radio unit 20 and the second radio unit 12 using radio location, and
the radio location system is further configured to determine a second defined characteristic (a second range measurement 26) between the first radio unit 20 and the reference radio unit 14 using radio location (paragraph 34, lines 6-8: “a first range measurement 24 and a second range measurement 26, produced by wireless communication statistically analyzed time-of flight data (denoted by d) … to calculate … a position estimate of receiver 20”).
Hertzog fails to disclose a testing device and that the second defined characteristic is continuously variable according to a pattern known to the testing device, and the testing device is configured to generate a confirmation of the first defined characteristic only when the radio location system detects the second defined characteristic changing according to the pattern.
However, in an analogous art, Richards discloses a testing device (feed point of an antenna) and that a second defined characteristic is continuously variable (paragraph 19, line 2: “the reflective properties of an antenna are modulated by a switch device coupled to the feed point of the antenna”; paragraph 158, line 13: “the load may be varied in an analog manner”; the antenna reflection/impedance state corresponds to the second defined characteristic, and the time-varying impedance modulation corresponds to being continuously variable) according to a pattern known to a testing device (paragraph 157, lines 2-3: “an antenna … is caused to vary its properties in accordance with a predefined time sequence pattern that is associated with the object”; paragraph 159, lines 1-2: “The switch 910 is controlled by a controller 920 that sets the state of the switch 910 (open or closed) according to a predetermined time pattern”), and the testing device is configured to generate a confirmation of a first defined characteristic only when a radio location system detects the second defined characteristic changing according to the pattern (paragraph 157, lines 4-6: “a wide band radar device is utilized to transmit a probe signal and receive and analyze the return signal to identify the predefined pattern and determine the range to the antenna and thus determine the range to the associated object”; the radar device receiving and analyzing the return signal to identify the predefined pattern corresponds to detecting the second defined characteristic changing according to the pattern; and determining the range to the antenna and the range to the associated object corresponds to generating a confirmation of a first defined characteristic). 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 in Hertzog by incorporating these features taught in Richards for the purpose of increasing the reliability and security of the radio location measurement.
The combination of Hertzog and Richards fails to disclose that the safety controller is configured to execute or adjust a safety configuration only when the testing device confirms the radio location.
However, in an analogous art, Brunner discloses that a safety controller is configured to execute or adjust a safety configuration only when the testing device confirms the radio location (claim 1, lines 5-9: “position data of the movable machine being able to be determined by means of the radio location system … position data of the movable machine being able to be determined by means of the sensor; and with the safety controller being configured to compare the position data of the radio location system and the position data of the sensor and to form checked position data on an agreement.”; forming checked position data on an agreement corresponds to executing a safety configuration when the testing device confirms the radio location). 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 in Hertzog and Richards by incorporating this feature taught in Brunner for the purpose of ensuring that safety actions are only taken after the radio location result is verified.
Regarding claim 5, Richards further discloses that the reference radio unit (antenna or similar device) is configured to transmit and vary a signal representing the second defined characteristic to change the second defined characteristic according to the pattern (paragraph 9, line 1: “A further system utilizes an active tag that transmits periodically conveying a serial number or other information.”; paragraph 157, lines 1-4: “an antenna or similar device … is caused to vary its properties in accordance with a predefined time sequence pattern that is associated with the object.”). 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 in Hertzog, Richards and Brunner by incorporating this feature further taught in Richards for the purpose of improving robustness of detection by distinguishing the signal from noise and interference.
Regarding claim 7, Richards further discloses that the reference radio unit is configured to change the second defined characteristic only in a defined test interval (paragraph 157, lines 1-4: “an antenna or similar device … is caused to vary its properties in accordance with a predefined time sequence pattern that is associated with the object.”; this corresponds to the tag modifying its RF characteristic only during specific time intervals). 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 in Hertzog, Richards and Brunner by incorporating this feature further taught in Richards for the purpose of preventing interference with normal operation and reducing false detections.
Regarding claim 8, Hertzog discloses that the first defined characteristic 24 and the second defined characteristic 26 each include at least one of a signal propagation time, a signal propagation time difference, a signal round trip time, a signal incidence angle, a signal strength, a combination thereof, or values derived therefrom (paragraph 34, lines 6-8: “a first range measurement 24 and a second range measurement 26, produced by wireless communication statistically analyzed time-of flight data (denoted by d) … to calculate … a position estimate of receiver 20”; paragraph 47, line 4: “Range estimate is the round-trip time of flight (TOF)”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzog et al. (US 2010/0225541) in view of Richards et al. (US 2006/0145853) and Brunner et al. (US 2021/0156951), and further in view of Lawitzky (US 2019/0250242).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hertzog, Richards and Brunner fails to disclose that the reference radio unit is arranged at a reference object that changes the second defined characteristic according to the pattern by a change in position.
However, in an analogous art, Lawitzky discloses that a reference radio unit is arranged at a reference object that changes the second defined characteristic (corresponding to one or more measured characteristics of the received radio signal) according to the pattern (corresponding to a radiation pattern) by a change in position (or orientation) (paragraph 73, lines 1-3: “an orientation of the object 130 is determined based on a radiation pattern and/or a spatial absorption pattern associated with the first transceiver as attached to the object, and the one or more measured characteristics of the received radio 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 in Hertzog, Richards and Brunner by incorporating this feature taught in Lawitzky for the purpose of allowing the receiving system to detect and confirm movement through a known variation pattern.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzog et al. (US 2010/0225541) in view of Richards et al. (US 2006/0145853) and Brunner et al. (US 2021/0156951), and further in view of Lawitzky (US 2019/0250242) and Kuzbari et al. (US 2019/0302231).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hertzog, Richards, Brunner and Lawitzky fails to disclose a sensor couplable to the testing device, wherein the sensor detects the change in position of the reference object to make the pattern known to the testing device.
However, in an analogous art, Kuzbari discloses a sensor couplable to the testing device, wherein the sensor detects the change in position of the reference object (or tag reader) (paragraph 53, lines 1-2: “one or more tag readers may further comprise one or more sensors configured to generate data indicating a location or movement of the tag reader”) to make the pattern known to the testing device (paragraph 13, line 5: “The space is interrogated using test signals.”; paragraph 189, lines 3-4: “measurement patterns may be matched with calibration patterns using a special or particular distance metric.”). 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 in Hertzog, Richards, Brunner and Lawitzky by incorporating this feature taught in Kuzbari for the purpose of allowing synchronization between sensed movement and signal variation for reliable testing.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzog et al. (US 2010/0225541) in view of Richards et al. (US 2006/0145853) and Brunner et al. (US 2021/0156951), and further in view of Lawitzky (US 2019/0250242), Kuzbari et al. (US 2019/0302231) and Balarajashetty et al. (US 2023/0222674).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hertzog, Richards, Brunner, Lawitzky and Kuzbari fails to disclose that the reference object randomly changes its position.
However, in an analogous art, Balarajashetty discloses that a reference object randomly changes its position (paragraph 73, lines 5-6: “a portable item 102 (or other object), in one or more randomly varying positions, with respect to a given surface”). 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 in Hertzog, Richards, Brunner and Lawitzky by incorporating this feature taught in Kuzbari for the purpose of testing system performance under non-deterministic movement conditions.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzog et al. (US 2010/0225541) in view of Richards et al. (US 2006/0145853) and Brunner et al. (US 2021/0156951), and further in view of See et al. (US 2018/0331714).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hertzog, Richards and Brunner fails to disclose that the reference radio unit includes a first antenna unit and a second antenna unit, and the reference radio unit transmits the signal selectively with the first antenna unit or the second antenna unit to modify the signal according to the pattern.
However, in an analogous art, See discloses that a reference radio unit 100 in FIG. 1 includes a first antenna unit 110 and a second antenna unit 112, and the reference radio unit transmits a signal selectively with the first antenna unit or the second antenna unit to modify the signal according to a pattern (paragraph 28, lines 1-9: “As further depicted in FIG. 1, connected to each of the antennas at each of the top and bottom ends of a housing 101 of the wireless device 100, are antenna-front-end circuits 120 and 122 … the antenna front-end circuits may include … at least one antenna diversity switch … Each antenna diversity switch may thus be configured to controllably establish conductive paths between the at least one transceiver and the multiple antennas (e.g., the antennas 110, 112, 114, and/or 116) such that the antenna diversity switch can route a wireless signal (to or from) either of at least two of the multiple antennas”; paragraph 44, lines 12-16: “a first conductive path is established at a first time instance between the at least one transceiver and a first of the two antennas located in the particular area of the wireless device to carry signals from a particular frequency band, and a second conductive path is established at a subsequent time instance between the at least one transceiver and a second of the two antennas located in the particular area of the wireless device to carry the signals from the particular frequency band.”; because each antenna radiates differently, the signal pattern changes when switching antennas. This modifies the transmitted signal characteristics.). 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 in Hertzog, Richards and Brunner by incorporating this feature taught in See for the purpose of varying signal properties in a controlled manner and enabling reliable identification for pattern recognition.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzog et al. (US 2010/0225541) in view of Richards et al. (US 2006/0145853) and Brunner et al. (US 2021/0156951), and further in view of Chaudhary et al. (US 2023/0038212).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hertzog, Richards and Brunner fails to disclose that the first radio unit is an anchor station of the radio location system having a fixed position within a reference system underlying the radio location system.
However, in an analogous art, Chaudhary discloses that a first radio unit 13 is an anchor station (or anchor node) of the radio location system having a fixed position within a reference system underlying the radio location system (paragraph 47, lines 1-3: “Position computation unit 12 is configured to determine a position of mobile network devices 14, 15 based on time-of-flight (ToF) of messages that are communicated between the anchor nodes 13-13′″ and the respective mobile network devices 14, 15.”; paragraph 51, line 1: “The anchor nodes 13-13′″ can be mounted at fixed positions, e.g. in a building or other indoor or semi-indoor area.”). 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 in Hertzog, Richards and Brunner by incorporating this feature taught in Chaudhary for the purpose of supporting triangulation based on predefined anchor positions.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzog et al. (US 2010/0225541) in view of Richards et al. (US 2006/0145853) and Brunner et al. (US 2021/0156951), and further in view of Duncan et al. (US 2004/0008120).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hertzog, Richards and Brunner fails to disclose that the second radio unit is a mobile transponder that picks up incoming signals and responds automatically.
However, in an analogous art, Duncan discloses that a second radio unit 20 in FIG. 1 is a mobile transponder that picks up incoming (interrogator) signals and responds automatically (by an alert signal) (paragraph 15, lines 2-5: “the detector system, generally described as 10, includes a transponder 20, in discontinuous radio frequency communication 21 with a machine-mounted RF transponder detection system … The machine-mounted RF transponder detection system is composed of an RF interrogator 40 connected to at least one antenna 50”; paragraph 41, line 1: “An alert signal coming from the transponder is received by the antenna, routed through the RF interrogator”). 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 in Hertzog, Richards and Brunner by incorporating this feature taught in Duncan for the purpose of reducing latency and ensuring reliable bidirectional communication for continuous localization of the mobile unit.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzog et al. (US 2010/0225541) in view of Richards et al. (US 2006/0145853) and Brunner et al. (US 2021/0156951), and further in view of Rajab et al. (US 2020/0200892).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the combination of Hertzog, Richards and Brunner fails to disclose that the first defined characteristic represents at least one of a position information or location information defined between the first radio unit and the second radio unit and that the second defined characteristic represents at least one of a position information or location information defined between the first radio unit and the reference radio unit.
However, in an analogous art, Rajab discloses that a first defined characteristic represents at least one of a position information or location information defined between a first radio unit 101 in FIG. 1 and a second radio unit 104 and that a second defined characteristic represents at least one of a position information or location information defined between the first radio unit 101 and a reference radio unit 105 (FIG. 1 and paragraph 96, lines 1-2: “Multiple anchors (101, 102, 103) are used to detect the positions and movements of objects (104-109)”). 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 in Hertzog, Richards and Brunner by incorporating this feature taught in Rajab for the purpose of improving position accuracy and robustness by combining peer-to-peer measurements with reference-based localization.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzog et al. (US 2010/0225541) in view of Richards et al. (US 2006/0145853) and Brunner et al. (US 2021/0156951), and further in view of Hammes et al. (US 2021/0227372)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hertzog, Richards and Brunner fails to disclose that the testing device is configured to output an enable signal to the safety controller to confirm the radio location by the radio location system.
However, in an analogous art, Hammes discloses that a testing device (corresponding to a control and evaluation unit 3) is configured to output an enable signal (output signal) to the safety controller (corresponding to a drive) to confirm the radio location by the radio location system (paragraph 92, lines 1-4: “FIG. 1 shows a safety system 1 for localizing a person 2 having a control and evaluation unit 3, having at least one radio location system 4”; paragraph 47, line 1: “The outputs of the control and evaluation are connected to functional units such as the drive”; paragraph 92, lines 7-9: “the control and evaluation unit 3 is configured to compare the position data of the radio location system 4 and the position data of the spatially resolving sensor 7 and to form tested position data on an agreement”). 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 in Hertzog, Richards and Brunner by incorporating this feature taught in Hammes for the purpose of ensuring that operation is permitted only when the correct location is confirmed.
Regarding claim 14, Hammes further discloses that the safety controller is configured to put a technical installation into a safe state if the safety controller does not receive the enable signal (paragraph 97, lines 1-2: “The outputs of the safety control and evaluation unit 3 can in particular be redundant safety outputs. They are here, for example, semiconductor-controlled switching outputs to safely shut down a drive of a machine, for example.”). 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 in Hertzog, Richards, Brunner and Hammes by incorporating this feature further taught in Hammes for the purpose of ensuring fail-safe operation when the required control signals are not received.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzog et al. (US 2010/0225541) in view of Richards et al. (US 2006/0145853) and Brunner et al. (US 2021/0156951), and further in view of Hammes et al. (US 2021/0227372) and Hutt et al. (US 2016/0252891).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Hertzog, Richards, Brunner and Hammes fails to disclose that the safety controller is configured to switch the technical installation off if the safety controller does not receive the enable signal.
However, in an analogous art, Hutt discloses that a safety controller is configured to switch a technical installation (or robot) off if the safety controller does not receive an enable signal (corresponding to an input signal being absent) (paragraph 52, lines 1-2: “If the input signal from one of the two safety transmitters 16, 18 is absent, the safety control system may deactivate the robot 14 or bring it into a non-hazardous state”). 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 in Hertzog, Richards, Brunner and Hammes by incorporating this feature taught in Hutt for the purpose of protecting against signal loss or faults by shutting the system down in the absence of an enable signal.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzog et al. (US 2010/0225541) in view of Richards et al. (US 2006/0145853) and Brunner et al. (US 2021/0156951), and further in view of Hammes et al. (US 2021/0227372) and Frevert (US 2010/0207720).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hertzog, Richards, Brunner and Hammes fails to disclose that the safety controller is configured with multi-channel redundancy in order to evaluate the enable signal in a fail-safe manner.
However, in an analogous art, Frevert discloses that a safety controller is configured with multi-channel redundancy (corresponding to controlling) in order to evaluate an enable signal (corresponding to a monitoring signal) in a fail-safe manner (claim 1, lines 1-4: “Safety device for multichannel controlling of a safety-related unit (40), with a first microprocessor-controlled control unit (70) having a signal generation unit (71) for generating a first monitoring signal that … can turn on the safety-related unit (30, 40) or run it into a secured state”). 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 in Hertzog, Richards, Brunner and Hammes by incorporating this feature taught in Frevert for the purpose of preventing unsafe operation in the event of a single-channel fault.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzog et al. (US 2010/0225541) in view of Richards et al. (US 2006/0145853) and O’Shea et al. (US 2021/0190896).
Regarding claim 17, Hertzog discloses a method for operating a radio location system I FIG. 1 having a first radio unit 20, a second radio unit 12 and a reference radio unit 14, the method comprising:
determining a first defined characteristic (a first range measurement 24) defining a relationship between the first radio unit 20 and the second radio unit 12 using radio location; and
determining a second defined characteristic (a second range measurement 26) defining a relationship between the first radio unit 20 and the reference radio unit 14 using radio location (paragraph 34, lines 6-8: “a first range measurement 24 and a second range measurement 26, produced by wireless communication statistically analyzed time-of flight data (denoted by d) … to calculate … a position estimate of receiver 20”).
Hertzog fails to disclose at testing device and varying the second defined characteristic according to a pattern known to the testing device.
However, Richards discloses a testing device (feed point of an antenna) and varying a second defined characteristic (paragraph 19, line 2: “the reflective properties of an antenna are modulated by a switch device coupled to the feed point of the antenna”; paragraph 158, line 13: “the load may be varied in an analog manner”; the antenna reflection/impedance state corresponds to the second defined characteristic, and the time-varying impedance modulation corresponds to being continuously variable) according to a pattern known to the testing device (paragraph 157, lines 2-3: “an antenna … is caused to vary its properties in accordance with a predefined time sequence pattern that is associated with the object”; paragraph 159, lines 1-2: “The switch 910 is controlled by a controller 920 that sets the state of the switch 910 (open or closed) according to a predetermined time pattern”). 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 in Hertzog by incorporating these features taught in Richards for the purpose of allowing the system to distinguish valid signals from noise or unintended changes.
The combination of Hertzog and Richards fails to disclose in response to the radio location system detecting the second defined characteristic changing according to the pattern, confirming the first defined characteristic by the testing device.
However, in an analogous art, O’Shea discloses in response to the radio location system detecting the second defined characteristic changing according to the pattern, confirming the first defined characteristic by the testing device (paragraph 95, lines 1-2: “At 306, system 100 determines that a known pattern is present in each of the first information and the second information”; the pattern can include, for example, signal repeats; paragraph 97, lines 1-3: “At 308, conditioned on determining that the known pattern is present in each of the first information and the second information, a first relationship between the candidate location and the sensing device at the first location, and a second relationship between the candidate location and the sensing device at the second location are determined.”; paragraph 89, lines 5-6: “the process 300 also can be performed by other suitable devices or systems”; determining that a known pattern is present corresponds to detecting the second defined characteristic changing according to a pattern; determining a first and second relationship by a device or system corresponds to confirming a first defined characteristic by a testing device). 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 in Hertzog and Richards by incorporating this feature taught in O’Shea for the purpose of ensuring that the detected signal or condition is authentic, thereby improving reliability and safety.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzog et al. (US 2010/0225541) in view of Richards et al. (US 2006/0145853).
Regarding claim 18, Hertzog discloses a radio location system 100 in FIG. 1 comprising: a first radio unit 20; a second radio unit 12; and a reference radio unit 14, wherein:
the radio location system is configured to determine a first defined characteristic (a first range measurement 24) between the first radio unit 20 and the second radio unit 12 using radio location and to determine a second defined characteristic (a second range measurement 26) between the first radio unit 20 and the reference radio unit 14 using radio location (paragraph 34, lines 6-8: “a first range measurement 24 and a second range measurement 26, produced by wireless communication statistically analyzed time-of flight data (denoted by d) … to calculate … a position estimate of receiver 20”).
Hertzog fails to disclose a testing device and that the second defined characteristic is continuously variable according to a pattern known to the testing device, and the testing device is configured to generate a confirmation of the first defined characteristic only when the radio location system detects the second defined characteristic changing according to the pattern.
However, Richards discloses a testing device (feed point of an antenna) and that a second defined characteristic is continuously variable (paragraph 19, line 2: “the reflective properties of an antenna are modulated by a switch device coupled to the feed point of the antenna”; paragraph 158, line 13: “the load may be varied in an analog manner”; the antenna reflection/impedance state corresponds to the second defined characteristic, and the time-varying impedance modulation corresponds to being continuously variable) according to a pattern known to a testing device (paragraph 157, lines 2-3: “an antenna … is caused to vary its properties in accordance with a predefined time sequence pattern that is associated with the object”; paragraph 159, lines 1-2: “The switch 910 is controlled by a controller 920 that sets the state of the switch 910 (open or closed) according to a predetermined time pattern”), and the testing device is configured to generate a confirmation of a first defined characteristic only when a radio location system detects the second defined characteristic changing according to the pattern (paragraph 157, lines 4-6: “a wide band radar device is utilized to transmit a probe signal and receive and analyze the return signal to identify the predefined pattern and determine the range to the antenna and thus determine the range to the associated object”; the radar device receiving and analyzing the return signal to identify the predefined pattern corresponds to detecting the second defined characteristic changing according to the pattern; and determining the range to the antenna and the range to the associated object corresponds to generating a confirmation of a first defined characteristic). 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 in Hertzog by incorporating these features taught in Richards for the purpose of increasing the reliability and security of the radio location measurement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jung et al. (US 2015/0200784) discloses that a terminal input unit 200 generates a signal enabling an access to the security platform installed in the terminal device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM BHATTACHARYA whose telephone number is (571)272-7917. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays, 9-5:30.
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, Matthew D. Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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.
/SAM BHATTACHARYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646