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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 March 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 of US Application No. 18/515,708 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 9, and 11.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The previous rejections of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claims 1 and 9. However, new rejections of claims 1-13 under § 103 are set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Upon reviewing the specification, the Examiner has identified the following corresponding structures for performing the claimed function:
means for determining coordinates – transmitter system, which includes a controller and drivers that emit a magnetic field (see ¶ [0012], [0032], [0033]);
warning means for generating a signal – controller (see ¶ [0036]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederick (US 2013/0038320 A1) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2020/0160682 A1, “Johnson”) and Frederick (US 8,710,979 B2, “Frederick ‘979”).
Regarding claim 1, Frederick discloses a proximity detection system with concurrent RF and magnetic fields and teaches:
a transmitter system located on the machine (magnetic field generators 21, 22, 23, 24 mounted on vehicle 20 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0021]);
a locator for being carried by the person (personal alarm devices (PADS) 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0021]);
means for determining coordinates of said locator relative to the transmitter system (system can calculate the distance of the PAD from the generator – see at least ¶ [0054]; generators generate magnetic fields and microcontroller can calculate the distance between generators and PADS and use trilateration to determine spatial location of a PAD – see at least ¶ [0056]-[0057]);
a controller configured to define one or more safety zones [ ] (microcontroller operates magnetic field generators, which can be adjusted in size by increasing or decreasing power to the field generators – see at least ¶ [0021], [0024]; effective size of the magnetic field can be adjusted by changing the magnetic field strength level at which PAD determines it is within the magnetic field – see at least ¶ [0024]);
warning means for generating a signal when said locator enters into any of said one or more safety zones (an alarm may be sent to the vehicle operator and to an affected worker if the microcontroller determines that a worker carrying a PAD has entered a magnetic field warning zone – see at least ¶ [0026]); and
[ ], and one or more [visible alarm] associated with said warning means such that said one or more warning lamps are illuminated when said locator enters said one or more safety zones (an visible alarm may be sent to the vehicle operator and to an affected worker if the microcontroller determines that a worker carrying a PAD has entered a magnetic field warning zone – see at least ¶ [0026]).
Frederick fails to teach define the one or more safety zones of any geometric size shape around the machine based on data input into the controller; a lamp associated with the person, said lamp comprising a spot lamp for illuminating the area around the person. Frederick also fails to teach the visible alarm being one or more warning lamps.
However, Johnson discloses a proximity-based personnel safety system and method and teaches:
a controller configured to define one or more safety zones of any geometric size shape around the machine based on data input into the controller (zoning component 266 of personnel safety management device 260 may be configured to receive input such as user input including instructions to define or vary parameters, e.g., shape, size, volume, perimeter, of any of the virtual zones, e.g., zones, 111, 112, 114 – see at least Figs. 1, 2 and ¶ [0076]);
warning means for generating a signal when [a person] enters into any of said one or more safety zones (position data associated with a wearable sensor within the environment and associated with a human may be compared to the predefined zone within the hazardous environment and an alert may be issued when the position is within the predefined zone – see at least ¶ [0028], [0070], [0089]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the proximity detection system of Frederick to provide a controller to define safety zones, as taught by Johnson, with a reasonable expectation of success, because customized, e.g., user defined, zones may increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of cooperative, human-machine industrial operations and tasks (Johnson at ¶ [0023]).
Further, Frederick ‘979 discloses a personal alarm device for headwear for proximity detection and teaches:
a lamp associated with the person, said lamp comprising a spot lamp for illuminating the area around the person (hat 100 may include a cap light assembly 132 having an LED lamp to illuminate the area in front of the worker – see at least Fig. 6 and 5:58 to 6:17), one or more warning lamps associated with said warning means such that said one or more warning lamps are illuminated when said locator enters said one or more safety zones (sounder/light assembly 138 may include visual indicator 116, which may include light indicators 118, 120, 122 – see at least Fig. 6 and 5:19-40, 6:25-28; personal alarm device provides a warning to the worker when the alarm device detects a magnetic field – see at least 3:15-24).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the proximity detection system of Frederick to provide a lamp and warning lamps, as taught by Frederick ‘979, with a reasonable expectation of success because the warning lamp may warn a worker of their proximity to a particular location (Frederick ‘979 at 2:27-30).
Regarding claim 2, Frederick ‘979 further teaches:
wherein the lamp is affixed to a safety cap worn on the head of the person (hat 100 may include a cap light assembly 132 having an LED lamp to illuminate the area in front of the worker – see at least Fig. 6 and 5:58 to 6:17).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined proximity detection system of Frederick, Johnson, and Frederick ‘979 to affix the lamp to a safety cap, as further taught by Frederich ‘979, with a reasonable expectation of success because the warning lamp may warn a worker of their proximity to a particular location (Frederick ‘979 at 2:27-30).
Regarding claim 3, Frederick ‘979 further teaches:
wherein the lamp is removably affixed to the safety cap by a clip (personal alarm device 110 may be attached to helmet via thumbscrew 114, clip 112, and slot 113 – see at least Fig. 3 and 4:6-37).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined proximity detection system of Frederick, Johnson, and Frederick ‘979 to affix the lamp to a safety cap, as further taught by Frederick ‘979, with a reasonable expectation of success because the lamp may be attached to the worker when the worker is in the operational environment (Frederick ‘979 at 2:6-8).
Regarding claim 5, Frederick further teaches:
wherein said one or more safety zones comprise a first warning boundary zone and a second operation limiting boundary zone (magnetic field zone 25 corresponding to a danger zone and magnetic field zone 2 corresponding to a warning zone – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0026]).
Regarding claim 6, Frederick ‘979 further teaches:
wherein said one or more warning lamps comprises a first warning lamp that is illuminated when said locator enters said first warning boundary zone, and a second warning lamp that is illuminated when said locator enters said second operation limiting boundary zone (yellow and red indicators 120, 122, respectively, where yellow indicates a warning signal and red indicates a danger signal – see at least 5:19-40; equipment may be stopped if the worker enters magnetic field danger zone 25 – see at least ¶ [0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined proximity detection system of Frederick, Johnson, and Frederick ‘979 to provide first and second warning lamps, as further taught by Frederick ‘979, with a reasonable expectation of success because the lamps may be used to distinguish between a warning and danger (Frederick ‘979 at 5:19-40).
Regarding claim 7, Frederick ‘979 further teaches:
wherein said first warning lamp is amber and said second warning lamp is red (yellow and red indicators 120, 122, respectively, where yellow indicates a warning signal and red indicates a danger signal – see at least 5:19-40).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined proximity detection system of Frederick, Johson, and Frederick ‘979 to provide first and second warning lamps having different colors, as further taught by Frederick ‘979, with a reasonable expectation of success because the different colored lamps may be used to distinguish between a warning and danger (Frederick ‘979 at 5:19-40).
Regarding claim 8, the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. The second amber warning lamp and the second red warning lamp perform in the same manner as the respective first amber warning lamp and the first red warning lamp. See specification at ¶ [0072]. Duplication of the lights does not provide a new and unexpected result. Therefore, providing a second amber warning lamp and a second red warning lamp has not patentable significance.
In addition, Frederick ‘979 discloses the claimed invention except for locating the warning lamps on opposing sides of the spot lamp. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to locate the warning lamps on either side of the spot lamp, since applicant has not disclosed that locating the warning lamps on either side of the spot lamp solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the warning lamps located in other relationships to the spot lamp.
Regarding claim 9, Frederick discloses a proximity detection system with concurrent RF and magnetic fields and teaches:
generating and transmitting an encoded signal around the machine from a transmitter system located on the machine (generators transmit RF signal simultaneously with generating magnetic field – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0020]; RF transmitters in generator will transmit a carrier signal and may be begin sending data – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0064]; controller may assign timing slots – see at least ¶ [0074]);
receiving said encoded signal at a locator carried by the object (PAD receives the RF signal – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0020]);
processing said encoded signal at the locator (PAD may provide RF response based on timing slot – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0074]);
transmitting a locator radio frequency signal from the locator in response to the received and processed encoded signal (PAD transmits RF signal – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0020]);
receiving the locator radio frequency signal at the transmitter system (generator receives RF signal – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0020]);
performing an algorithm at the transmitter system based on the encoded signal and locator radio frequency signal to determine coordinates of the locator relative to the transmitter system;
defining, via the controller, one or more safety zones [ ] (microcontroller operates magnetic field generators, which can be adjusted in size by increasing or decreasing power to the field generators – see at least ¶ [0021], [0024]; effective size of the magnetic field can be adjusted by changing the magnetic field strength level at which PAD determines it is within the magnetic field – see at least ¶ [0024]);
determining if the location of said locator relative to the machine is within said one or more safety zones around the machine (system can calculate the distance of the PAD from the generator – see at least ¶ [0054]; generators generate magnetic fields and microcontroller can calculate the distance between generators and PADS and use trilateration to determine spatial location of a PAD – see at least ¶ [0056]-[0057]); and
generating a warning signal when said locator enters into any of said one or more safety zones (an alarm may be sent to the vehicle operator and to an affected worker if the microcontroller determines that a worker carrying a PAD has entered a magnetic field warning zone – see at least ¶ [0026]); and
illuminating a [visible alarm] associated with the person when said locator enters into any of said one or more safety zones (a visible alarm may be sent to the vehicle operator and to an affected worker if the microcontroller determines that a worker carrying a PAD has entered a magnetic field warning zone – see at least ¶ [0026]).
Frederick fails to teach defining the one or more safety zones of any geometric size shape around the machine based on data input into the controller; a lamp associated with the person, said lamp comprising a spot lamp for illuminating the area around the person. Frederick also fails to teach the visible alarm bine one or more warning lamps.
However, Johnson discloses a proximity-based personnel safety system and method and teaches:
defining, via a controller, one or more safety zones of any geometric size shape around the machine based on data input into the controller (zoning component 266 of personnel safety management device 260 may be configured to receive input such as user input including instructions to define or vary parameters, e.g., shape, size, volume, perimeter, of any of the virtual zones, e.g., zones, 111, 112, 114 – see at least Figs. 1, 2 and ¶ [0076]);
generating a warning signal when [a person] enters into any of said one or more safety zones (position data associated with a wearable sensor within the environment and associated with a human may be compared to the predefined zone within the hazardous environment and an alert may be issued when the position is within the predefined zone – see at least ¶ [0028], [0070], [0089]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the proximity detection system of Frederick to provide a controller to define safety zones, as taught by Johnson, with a reasonable expectation of success, because customized, e.g., user defined, zones may increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of cooperative, human-machine industrial operations and tasks (Johnson at ¶ [0023]).
In addition, Frederick ‘979 discloses a personal alarm device for headwear for proximity detection and teaches:
illuminating a warning lamp associated with the person when said locator enters into any of said one or more safety zones (hat 100 may include a cap light assembly 132 having an LED lamp to illuminate the area in front of the worker – see at least Fig. 6 and 5:58 to 6:17; personal alarm device provides a warning to the worker when the alarm device detects a magnetic field – see at least 3:15-24).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the proximity detection system of Frederick to provide warning lamps, as taught by Frederick ‘979, with a reasonable expectation of success because the warning lamp may warn a worker of their proximity to a particular location (Frederick ‘979 at 2:27-30).
Regarding claim 10, Frederick ‘979 further teaches:
wherein the warning lamp is affixed to a safety cap worn on the head of the person (hat 100 may include a cap light assembly 132 having an LED lamp to illuminate the area in front of the worker – see at least Fig. 6 and 5:58 to 6:17).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined proximity detection system of Frederick, Johnson, and Frederick ‘979 to affix the lamp to a safety cap, as further taught by Frederich ‘979, with a reasonable expectation of success because the warning lamp may warn a worker of their proximity to a particular location (Frederick ‘979 at 2:27-30).
Regarding claim 12, Frederick ‘979 further teaches:
wherein the step of illuminating a warning lamp comprises illuminating an amber lamp when the locator enters a first warning boundary zone (yellow and red indicators 120, 122, respectively, where yellow indicates a warning signal and red indicates a danger signal – see at least 5:19-40).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined proximity detection system of Frederick, Johnson, and Frederick ‘979 to provide a colored warning lamps, as further taught by Frederick ‘979, with a reasonable expectation of success because the lamps may be used to distinguish between a warning and danger (Frederick ‘979 at 5:19-40).
Regarding claim 13, Frederick ‘979 further teaches:
illuminating a red lamp when the locator enters a second operation limiting boundary zone (yellow and red indicators 120, 122, respectively, where yellow indicates a warning signal and red indicates a danger signal – see at least 5:19-40).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined proximity detection system of Frederick, Johnson, and Frederick ‘979 to provide a colored warning lamps, as further taught by Frederick ‘979, with a reasonable expectation of success because the lamps may be used to distinguish between a warning and danger (Frederick ‘979 at 5:19-40).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederick in view of Johnson and Frederick ‘979, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Larsen et al. (US 9,513,606 B1, “Larsen”).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Larsen discloses safety systems and methods for production environments and teaches:
wherein said controller defines a corresponding one or more boundaries within a magnetic signal generated by said transmitter system (safety zone 28 may be defined by sensing device 24, e.g., safety zone may correspond to sensing zone of sensing device such that the safety zone corresponds to a subset of the sensing device’s sensing zone – see at least 4:31-43).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined proximity detection system of Frederick, Johnson, and Frederick ‘979 to provide for defining boundaries within the sensor sensing zone, as taught by Larsen, with a reasonable expectation of success because boundaries outside of the sensor sensing range would not be able to detect individuals within the safety zone (Larsen at 1:38-60).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights