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 arguments filed 12/08/2025 with regards to restriction requirement are persuasive and claims 23-30 have been reinstated.
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 1-12, 16-17 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheppard (US Pub 2024/0314706) in view of Yumuk (US Pub 2020/0263828).
As of claim 1, Sheppard discloses a method for mitigating RF radiation exposure in an area of concern proximate to an RF radiation source (see abstract), the method comprising:
operatively connecting one or more sensors to a processor (via connecting camera 106 and proximity sensor 108 to a controller 110; see fig. 1);
operatively connecting the processor to the RF radiation source (via connecting the controller 110 to antenna system 102 (see fig. 1);
detecting, via the one or more sensors, that an object has entered the area of concern; and, via the processor, to temporarily interrupt power to the RF radiation source at least in response to detection by the one or more sensors that the object has entered the area of concern (a video stream is received from a camera associated with an antenna system. An object is detected in a video frame of the video stream. A separation distance between the object and a location associated with the antenna system is determined. A transmitter power of the antenna system is controlled and/or an alert is transmitted based upon the separation distance; see fig. 2; also see paragraph [0045] and [055]).
Sheppard discloses the method for mitigating RF radiation for safety of people by dynamically lower the radio frequency radiation or disabling the antenna system 102 (see paragraph [0055]). However it does not explicitly disclose operatively connecting the processor to a relay disposed on an electrical path between an electrical input and an electrical output, the relay configured to selectively connect or disconnect the electrical input and the electrical output through the electrical path under control of the processor; operatively connecting the electrical input to a power supply for the RF radiation source; operatively connecting the electrical output to the RF radiation source.
Yumuk discloses a method for safeguarding a hazardous area wherien a controller 18 is operatively connected to a relay 34 disposed on an electrical path between an electrical input and an electrical output, the relay configured to selectively connect or disconnect the electrical input and the electrical output through the electrical path under control of the processor (see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0086]). Yumuk discloses operatively connecting the electrical input to a power supply 36 for an installation or machine 14 and operatively connecting the electrical output to the installation or machine (see paragraph [0086]). Yumuk further discloses opening the relay 34, via the controller18, to temporarily interrupt power to the installation or machine 14 at least in response to detection by the sensor 16 that the object (person) has entered the area of concern (safety area 12; see paragraphs [0084]-[0088]).
Form the teaching of Yumuk it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Sheppard to include the function of a relay as taught by Yumuk in order to increase safety of people in an hazardous area.
As of claim 2, Sheppard discloses detecting that the object has entered the area of concern comprises detecting that the object has entered a region proximate to the RF radiation source where a power density of RF radiation within the area of concern or RF radiation exposure to the object within the area of concern exceeds a predetermined threshold when the RF radiation source is in operation (see fig. 2; also see paragraph [0036], “…the first measure of RF emissions may be compared (by the controller 110, for example) with a threshold measure of RF emissions. In some examples, the threshold measure of RF emissions may correspond to a measure of RF emissions that is deemed potentially unsafe for an object (e.g., at least one of a person, an animal, a vehicle, etc.) to be exposed to.”).
As of claim 3, Sheppard discloses detecting that the object has entered the area of concern includes determining by an artificial intelligence (AI) camera that the object is a human (see fig. 3B; also see paragraph [0024] “the object detection may be performed using an object detection model (e.g., an Artificial Intelligence (AI) model used for object detection”).
As of claim 4, Sheppard discloses detecting that the object has entered the area of concern includes: capturing one or more images via a camera (via camera 106); transmitting the one or more images captured by the camera via a network to a machine learning system configured to distinguish humans from other types of objects; and receiving an indication from the machine learning system whether the object is a human (via using a machine learning system to determine that the object is a human; see paragraphs [0024]-[0027]).
As of claim 5, Sheppard discloses transmitting the one or more images captured by the camera via the network to the machine learning system includes transmitting the one or more images to a trained neural network (via machine learning model being a neural network model; see paragraph [0026]).
As of claim 6, Sheppard discloses that detecting that the object has entered the area of concern includes that the object has entered the area of concern using at least one of a proximity sensor, a motion detector, a barrier tip/lift sensor, or a photoelectric beam sensor (via camera 106 and proximity sensor 108; see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0019] and [0029]).
As of claim 7, Sheppard discloses the step of restoring the power to the RF radiation source at least in response to the one or more sensors detecting that the object has exited the area of concern (via disclosing that when the person moves away from the antenna system (and thus the separation distance increases), the transmitter power of the antenna system is increased; see paragraph [0016]).
As of claim 8, Yumuk discloses that the electrical input, the electrical output, and the relay are components of a relay unit disposed remotely from a control unit including the processor, the method further comprising: operatively connecting the processor of the control unit to the relay of the relay unit (via connecting 18 to relay 34; see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0086]).
As of claim 9, Yumuk discloses that the control unit includes a first communication interface configured to communicate with a second communication interface included in the relay unit, wherein the second communication interface is operatively connected to the relay, the method further comprising: operatively connecting the first communication interface to the second communication interface (Yumuk discloses that the controller 18 is connected to relay 34 to communicate control signal to the relay hence comprising a first and second communication interface as claimed; see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0086]).
As of claim 10, Yumuk discloses that the controller 18 is connected to relay 34, however it does not explicitly disclose that the connection is wireless such that the first communication interface and the second communication interface are wireless interfaces. The Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art that a processor and relay module could be connected via wired or wireless connection (Graves et al. (US Pub 2018/0136625, paragraphs [0038]-[0039]).
As of claim 11, operatively connecting the processor to an RF monitoring system; and monitoring, via the RF monitoring system, a power density of RF radiation within the area of concern or RF radiation exposure to the object within the area of concern; wherein opening the relay to temporarily interrupt the power to the RF radiation source includes opening the relay at least in response to the power density of the RF radiation within the area of concern or the RF radiation exposure to the object within the area of concern exceeding a predetermined threshold (see fig. 2; also see paragraph [0036], “…the first measure of RF emissions may be compared (by the controller 110, for example) with a threshold measure of RF emissions. In some examples, the threshold measure of RF emissions may correspond to a measure of RF emissions that is deemed potentially unsafe for an object (e.g., at least one of a person, an animal, a vehicle, etc.) to be exposed to.”, hence comprising an RF monitoring system).
As of claim 12, Sheppard discloses that the RF monitoring system is configured to monitor the RF radiation exposure to the object based, at least in part, on an amount of time that the object is within the area of concern, and wherein opening the relay to temporarily interrupt the power to the RF radiation source includes opening the relay at least in response to the RF radiation exposure to the object exceeding the predetermined threshold (Sheppard discloses that the threshold measure of RF emissions may correspond to a regulatory limit (e.g., a predefined limit), such as a Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limit for RF emissions (provided by the FCC) and it is well known in the art that the FCC limits for 30 minutes for public and 6 minutes for occupational; see paragraph [0036]; also see FCC 47CFR 1.1310).
As of claim 16, Sheppard discloses displaying a warning sign at least in response to the power density of the RF radiation within the area of concern or the RF radiation exposure to the object within the area of concern exceeding the predetermined threshold when the one or more sensors detect that the object has entered the area of concern (via displaying RF emission overexposure alert; see paragraph [0052]).
As of claim 17, Sheppard discloses the step of displaying the warning sign includes displaying the warning sign using a sign projector configured for projecting the warning sign onto a surface in or proximate to the area of concern (see paragraph [0052], “… an alert of the one or more RF emission overexposure alerts may comprise a graphical object sent to and/or displayed on a display (e.g., a television, a projector, or other type of display) viewable to the first object 310”).
As of claim 19, Sheppard discloses emitting an audible warning at least in response to the power density of the RF radiation within the area of concern or the RF radiation exposure to the object within the area of concern exceeding the predetermined threshold when the one or more sensors detect that the object has entered the area of concern (see paragraph [0053], “an alert of the one or more RF emission overexposure alerts may comprise an audio message sent to and/or output via a speaker proximal the first object 310”).
As of claim 20, Sheppard discloses displaying an alert to at least in response to the power density of the RF radiation within the area of concern or the RF radiation exposure to the object within the area of concern exceeding the predetermined threshold (see paragraph [0052]). However, it does not explicitly disclose that the alert is a color-coded alert light. The Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art to alert or notify a person using color coded lights (see Takeshima (US Pub 2018/0349654 paragraphs [0075], Nelson (US Pub 2011/0309936, paragraphs [0022])
As of claim 21, Sheppard discloses the step of sending an electronic alert at least in response to the power density of the RF radiation within the area of concern or the RF radiation exposure to the object within the area of concern exceeding the predetermined threshold when the one or more sensors detect that the object has entered the area of concern (see paragraph [0054], “ an alert of the one or more RF emission overexposure alerts may comprise a text message, a graphical object and/or an audio message sent as a mobile alert to a mobile device of the first object 310 (e.g., the first person 302) and/or one or more mobile devices determined to be proximal to and/or within a threshold distance of the first object 310 (e.g., the first person 302) and/or the antenna system 102).
As of claim 22, Sheppard discloses sending the electronic alert includes sending one or more of an email, a text message, or a push notification (via disclosing that alert comprise a text message; see paragraph [0054]).
Claims 13-15, 18 and 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheppard (US Pub 2024/0314706) in view of Yumuk (US Pub 2020/0263828) and further in view of Weinberg et al. (US Pub 2015/0009044).
As of claims 13-14, 23-26, 28 and 30,combination of Sheppard and Yumuk discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claims 1, 11, 16-17 and 21-22 above, however it does not explicitly disclose the step of storing, in a memory, a log of each detected entry of each object into the area of concern, wherein storing the log of each detected entry of each object into the area of concern comprises storing, in the log, at least one of a date of entry, a time of entry, a date of exit, a time of exit, and the power density of the RF radiation within the area of concern or the RF radiation exposure to the object within the area of concern as determined by the RF monitoring system.
Weinberg discloses a system, for protecting a person from RF radiation, disclosing the function of recording, in a memory, RF radiation exposure to a person, time and date when the RF exposure occurred and the site where the exposure occurred (see paragraph [0046], [0048] and [0054]).
From the teaching of Weinberg, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Sheppard and Yumuk to include the function logging entry as taught by Weinberg in order to monitor whenever a user is inside a restricted and/or controlled RF radiation area where the user may be exposed to RF radiation.
As of claims 15 and 27, Weinberg discloses the step of capturing an image or video of the object; and storing the image or the video in the log (via capturing and storing image; see paragraph [0060]).
As of claims 18 and 29, Sheppard discloses that the threshold measure of RF emissions may correspond to a regulatory limit (e.g., a predefined limit), such as a Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limit for RF emissions (provided by the FCC) and it is well known in the art that the FCC limits for 30 minutes for public and 6 minutes for occupational; see paragraph [0036]; also see FCC 47CFR 1.1310. Sheppard further discloses the step of projecting the warning (see paragraph [0052]). Weinberg discloses the step of displaying total exposure time within a given monitoring period to a user (see paragraph [0043]) and based on the FCC limit it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the time remaining to MPE could be calculated and displayed (see paragraph [0046]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,394,303. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Present Application (18/614,413) Claim 1:
A method for mitigating RF radiation exposure in an area of concern proximate to an RF radiation source, the method comprising: operatively connecting one or more sensors to a processor; operatively connecting the processor to a relay disposed on an electrical path between an electrical input and an electrical output, the relay configured to selectively connect or disconnect the electrical input and the electrical output through the electrical path under control of the processor; operatively connecting the electrical input to a power supply for the RF radiation source; operatively connecting the electrical output to the RF radiation source; detecting, via the one or more sensors, that an object has entered the area of concern; and opening the relay, via the processor, to temporarily interrupt power to the RF radiation source at least in response to detection by the one or more sensors that the object has entered the area of concern.
Conflicting Patent (12,394,303) Claim 1:
An RF infrastructure sentry system comprising: a processor; one or more sensors configured to detect that an object has entered an area of concern proximate to an RF radiation source, wherein the one or more sensors includes a camera, and wherein the object is a human; and an RF mitigation system operatively connected to the one or more sensors, the RF mitigation system comprising: a communication interface operatively connected to the camera and configured to transmit images or video captured by the camera to a machine learning system configured to distinguish the human from other types of objects; an electrical input operatively connected to a power supply for the RF radiation source; an electrical output operatively connected to the RF radiation source; and a relay disposed on an electrical path between the electrical input and the electrical output and configured to selectively connect or disconnect the electrical input and the electrical output through the electrical path; and an RF monitoring system operatively connected to the RF mitigation system, the RF monitoring system configured to monitor a power density of RF radiation within the area of concern or an RF radiation exposure to the object within the area of concern for a predetermined amount of time, wherein the RF mitigation system is configured, at least in response to the power density of the RF radiation within the area of concern or the RF radiation exposure to the object within the area of concern exceeding a predetermined threshold for the predetermined amount of time, to open the relay to automatically interrupt power to the RF radiation source.
Present Application 18/614,413
Conflicting Patent (12,394,303)
2
2
3
3
4
1
5
4
6
5
7
6
8
7
9
8
10
9
11
1
12
1
13, 23, 30
10
14, 26
11
15, 27
12
16
13
17, 28
14
18, 29
15
19
16
20
17
21, 24
18
22, 25
19
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/NABIL H SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686