DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
2. Pursuant to the application filed August 28, 2026, claims 1-7 are pending in the application.
Specification
3. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. In particular, the title is much too general.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to because suitable descriptive legends are necessary for understanding of the drawings: MPEP 608.02, Par. 6.23.01(V)(o). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
6. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In particular, claims 8 and 9 each recite, “the safe bidirectional interface.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 6 nor claim 1, from which both claims 8 and 9 depend, recites “at least one safe bidirectional interface.” Claim 7 recites, “at least one safe bidirectional interface.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manci et al. (US 2016/0347248 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Manci discloses:
a safety system for localizing at least one mobile object that has a variable location ([0054]; FIG. 2: 220), having at least one control and evaluation unit ([0048]; FIG. 2: 204), having at least one radio location system ([0054]; FIG. 2: 220), and having at least one safety controller ([0048], [0064]; FIG. 2: 204),
wherein at least one radio transponder is arranged at the mobile object ([0054]; FIG. 2: 220) ;
wherein position data of the radio transponder and thus position data of the mobile object can be determined by means of the radio location system ([0054]; FIG. 2: 220);
wherein the position data can be transmitted from the radio location system to the control and evaluation unit ([0054]; FIG. 2: 204, 220),
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to cyclically detect the position data of the radio transponder ([0054], [0085]; FIG. 2: 204, 220);
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the position data of the radio location system ([0048], [0085]; FIG. 2: 204), and
Manci does not explicitly disclose that the radio transponder has respective safe primary signal outputs, and the radio transponder has respective at least one safe secondary signal output, but Manci does disclose that the radio transponder is in electrical communication with the controller ([0048], [0054]; FIG. 2: 204, 220); Manci does disclose that the radio transponder detects geo-features ([0085]); and Manci does disclose that upon the detection of a geo-feature, the controller issues multiple alerts ([0064], [0081], 0111], [0153]), which suggests that the system of Manci comprises that the radio transponder has respective safe primary signal outputs, and the radio transponder has respective at least one safe secondary signal output for the benefit of enabling the safety controller to issue multiple alerts after the transponder detects a geo-feature;
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the system of Manci in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the safety controller to issue multiple alerts after the transponder detects a geo-feature;
with the safe primary signal output being electronically connected to the safety controller ([0081], [0111], [0153]); and
the safe secondary signal being connected to the safety controller ([0081], [0111], [0153]).
Regarding claim 2, Manci discloses that the radio transponder has at least one safe signal input, with the safe signal input being connected to the safety controller. ([0070], [0081], [0111], [0153])
Regarding claim 3, Manci does not explicitly disclose that the radio transponder has at least one trigger signal input, with the trigger signal input being connected to the safety controller, but Manci does disclose that the radio transponder is in electrical communication with the controller ([0048], [0054]; FIG. 2: 204, 220); Manci does disclose that the radio transponder detects geo-features ([0085]); and Manci does disclose that upon the detection of a geo-feature, the controller issues an alert ([0064]), which suggests that the system of Manci comprises that the radio transponder has at least one trigger signal input, with the trigger signal input being connected to the safety controller for the benefit of enabling the safety controller to issue an alert after the transponder detects a geo-feature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the system of Manci in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the safety controller to issue an alert after the transponder detects a geo-feature.
Regarding claim 4, Manci discloses that at least one spatially resolving sensor is provided in a detection zone of the spatially resolving sensor for the detection of at least one object. ([0050], [0054], [0109])
Regarding claim 6, Manci discloses that a first inspection unit is provided, with the first inspection unit being connected to the control and evaluation unit, and with the inspection unit being configured to check the control and evaluation unit. ([0048]; FIG. 2: 204)
Regarding claim 7, Manci discloses:
a safety system for localizing at least one mobile object that has a variable location (([0054]; FIG. 2: 220), having at least one control and evaluation unit ([0048]; FIG. 2: 204), having at least one radio location system ([0054]; FIG. 2: 220), and having at least one safety controller ([0048], [0064]; FIG. 2: 204),
wherein at least one radio transponder is arranged at the mobile object ([0054]; FIG. 2: 220);
wherein position data of the radio transponder and thus position data of the mobile object can be determined by means of the radio location system ([0054]; FIG. 2: 220);
wherein the position data can be transmitted from the radio location system to the control and evaluation unit ([0054]; FIG. 2: 204, 220),
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to cyclically detect the position data of the radio transponder ([0054], [0085]; FIG. 2: 204, 220),
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the position data of the radio location system ([0048], [0085]; FIG. 2: 204),
Manci does not explicitly disclose that the radio transponder has respective at least one safe bidirectional interface, but Manci does disclose that the radio transponder is in electrical communication with the controller ([0048], [0054]; FIG. 2: 204, 220); Manci does disclose that the radio transponder detects geo-features ([0085]); and Manci does disclose that upon the detection of a geo-feature, the controller issues an alert ([0064]), which suggests that the system of Manci comprises that the radio transponder has respective at least one safe bidirectional interface for the benefit of enabling the safety controller to issue an alert after the transponder detects a geo-feature;
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the system of Manci in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the safety controller to issue an alert after the transponder detects a geo-feature;
with the safe bidirectional interface being electronically connected to the safety controller ([0081], [0111], [0153]);
with respective safe primary output signals being transmitted over the safe bidirectional interface ([0081], [0111], [0153]); and
with respective at least safe secondary output signals being transmitted over the safe bidirectional interface ([0081], [0111], [0153]).
Regarding claim 8, Manci does not explicitly disclose that at least safe input signals are transmitted over the safe bidirectional interface, but Manci does disclose that the radio transponder is in electrical communication with the controller ([0048], [0054]; FIG. 2: 204, 220); Manci does disclose that the radio transponder detects geo-features ([0085]); and Manci does disclose that upon the detection of a geo-feature, the controller issues an alert ([0064]), which suggests that the system of Manci comprises that at least safe input signals are transmitted over the safe bidirectional interface for the benefit of enabling the safety controller to issue an alert after the transponder detects a geo-feature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the system of Manci in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the safety controller to issue an alert after the transponder detects a geo-feature.
Regarding claim 9, Manci does not explicitly disclose that at least trigger signal input signals are transmitted over the safe bidirectional interface, but Manci does disclose that the radio transponder is in electrical communication with the controller ([0048], [0054]; FIG. 2: 204, 220); Manci does disclose that the radio transponder detects geo-features ([0085]); and Manci does disclose that upon the detection of a geo-feature, the controller issues an alert ([0064]), which suggests that the system of Manci comprises that at least trigger signal input signals are transmitted over the safe bidirectional interface for the benefit of enabling the safety controller to issue an alert after the transponder detects a geo-feature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the system of Manci in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the safety controller to issue an alert after the transponder detects a geo-feature.
9. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manci in view of Hammes (US 2022/0189274 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Manci does not disclose that the radio location system is an ultrawideband radio location system, with the frequency used being in the range from 3.1 GHz to 10.6 GHz.
Hammes, in the same field of safety systems for localizing a mobile object, teaches a safety system for localizing at least one object in a monitored zone ([0001]), comprising a radio location system that is an ultrawideband radio location system, with the frequency used being in the range from 3.1 GHz to 10.6 GHz ( ) for the benefit that the radio location system only transmits radio waves having a low energy, can be used very flexibly, and has no interference ([0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Hammes with the system of Manci because that would have enabled the system only to transmit radio waves having a low energy, to be used very flexibly, and to have no interference.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F MORTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F MORTELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689