DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 5/12/2026 is acknowledged.
However, it is the examiner’s belief that claims 1-3 and 5-20 correspond to Species I (figure 7), as the limitations recited in claim 4 in view of Applicant’s Specification are believed to correspond to claim Species IV (figure 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by US 2024/0314706 (Sheppard).
As to claim 1, Sheppard teaches an RF infrastructure sentry system comprising:
one or more sensors configured to detect that an object has entered an area of concern proximate to an RF radiation source (camera 106+proximity sensor 108, fig 1 and paragraphs 16 and 28-30); and
an RF mitigation system (system 101, fig 1) operatively connected to the one or more sensors, the RF mitigation system comprising:
an input operatively connected to power supply or an RF signal source; an output operatively connected to the RF radiation source (antenna system 102 and antennas 104 and paragraphs 18-19);
a variable reducer disposed on a path between the input and the output, the variable reducer configured to reduce power or an RF signal between the input and the output (see paragraphs 16, 20 and 44-46, transmit power is dynamically attenuated); and
a processor operatively connected to the variable reducer and configured, at least in response to detection by the one or more sensors that the object has entered the area of concern, to control the variable reducer to temporarily reduce the power or the RF signal to the RF radiation source (110, fig 1 and paragraphs 16 and 44-46, when object such as human detected by camera+proximity sensor, the transmit power from antennas may be dynamically attenuated).
As to claim 2, Sheppard further teaches wherein the variable reducer comprises a variable power reducer configured to temporarily reduce the power to the RF radiation source (see paragraphs 16 and 44-46, transmit power from antennas is dynamically attenuated).
As to claim 5, Sheppard further teaches wherein the area of concern is a region proximate to the RF radiation source where a power density of the 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 paragraphs 16 and 36-37, MPE used as a threshold for determining if object/human is in danger).
As to claim 6, Sheppard further teaches wherein the variable reducer is configured to reduce the power or the RF signal between the input and the output at a predetermined rate (see paragraphs 44-50, monitoring may be done continuously or periodically and transmit power adjusted accordingly).
As to claim 8, Sheppard further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: receive information about the RF radiation being emitted by the RF radiation source from an RF monitor; and calculate a reduction of the power or the RF signal to reduce the RF radiation below a predetermined level (see paragraphs 31-36, RF emissions associated with object/human determined and compared to a threshold such as MPE so that transmit power can be adjusted).
As to claim 9, Sheppard further teaches wherein the information comprises one or more of a power density within the area of concern or radiation exposure to the object within the area of concern (see paragraphs 31-36, RF emissions associated with object/human determined and compared to a threshold such as MPE so that transmit power can be adjusted).
As to claim 10, Sheppard further teaches wherein the radiation exposure includes a cumulative radiation exposure for the object within the area of concern (see paragraphs 31-36, RF emissions associated with object/human determined and compared to a threshold such as MPE so that transmit power can be adjusted).
As to claim 11, Sheppard further teaches wherein the processor is configured to track the cumulative radiation exposure for each of a plurality of objects detected within the area of concern (see paragraphs 36-43, different objects will have different determined RF emissions and different exposure thresholds based on object types and distances from antenna).
As to claim 12, Sheppard further teaches wherein the predetermined level relates to a maximum permissible exposure (MPE) of the RF radiation for a human (see paragraph 36, MPE used as RF emission threshold).
As to claim 13, Sheppard further teaches wherein the object is a human, and wherein the one or more sensors include an artificial intelligence (AI) camera configured to distinguish the human from other types of objects (see paragraphs 24-27, AI uses camera images to tell if the object is a human).
As to claim 14, Sheppard further teaches wherein the one or more sensors include at least one of a proximity sensor, a motion detector, a barrier tip/move sensor, or a photoelectric beam sensor (see paragraph 18, proximity sensor).
As to claim 15, Sheppard further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to control the variable reducer to automatically restore the power or the RF signal to the RF radiation source to an original level at least in response to the one or more sensors detecting that the object has exited the area of concern (see paragraphs 44-50, monitoring may be done continuously or periodically and transmit power adjusted accordingly. This would result in the transmit power returning to the original level when the objects have left the range of the camera and proximity sensor).
As to claim 17, Sheppard further teaches an RF monitoring system operatively connected to the RF mitigation system, the RF monitoring system configured to monitor a power density of the RF radiation within the area of concern or RF radiation exposure to the object within the area of concern; 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, to temporarily reduce the power or the RF signal to the RF radiation source (see paragraphs 31-36, RF emissions associated with object/human determined and compared to a power density of radiation based threshold such as MPE so that transmit power can be adjusted).
As to claim 20, Sheppard further teaches wherein the processor is configured to initiate at least one of an audible warning or a visual warning to the object that has entered the area of concern (see paragraphs 51-55, various types of visual and/or audible alerts sent when objects determined to be exposed to dangerous RF emissions).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheppard in view of Well Known Prior Art (Official Notice).
As to claim 3, what is lacking from Sheppard is wherein the variable power reducer comprises a variable resistor.
Examiner takes Official Notice that it was well known in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a variable resistor to dynamically attenuate power.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Sheppard so as to provide for a cost effective solution to dynamically attenuating the power from the antennas.
As to claim 16, Sheppard further teaches wherein the input, the output, and the variable reducer are components of a reducer unit disposed from a control unit including the processor (see figure 1)
What is lacking from Sheppard is wherein the input, the output, and the variable reducer are components of a reducer unit disposed remotely from a control unit including the processor.
Examiner takes Official Notice that it was well known in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remotely dispose a control unit from the antenna system it is controlling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Sheppard so as to increase cost effectively by implementing centralized control of antenna systems.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheppard in view of US 2022/0386249 (Meshkati et al.).
As to claim 18, Sheppard further teaches and wherein the RF mitigation system is configured, at least in response to the RF radiation exposure to the object reaching the predetermined threshold, to temporarily reduce the power or the RF signal to the RF radiation source (see paragraphs 31-36, RF emissions associated with object/human determined and compared to a threshold such as MPE so that transmit power can be adjusted).
What is lacking from Sheppard is wherein the RF monitoring system is configured to monitor 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.
In analogous art, Meshkati teaches MPE limits being based at least in part on radiation exposure of a certain amount of time (see Meshkati, paragraph 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Sheppard so as to utilize typical regulatory requirements for MPE (see Meshkati, paragraph 53).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheppard in view of US 2024/0112134 (Khan et al.).
As to claim 19, what is lacking from Sheppard is wherein the RF mitigation system includes a memory configured to store a log of each detected entry of each object into the area of concern, wherein the log includes at least one of a date of entry, a time of entry, date of exit, the 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.
In analogous art, Khan teaches event logs for storing safety hazard events including the time in which they occurred (see Khan, paragraph 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Sheppard so as to facilitate analysis that could be used to improve safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2002/0081978 (Hou et al.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights