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 amendment filed May 8, 2026, claims 1-10 are pending. The applicant has amended claim 10. The applicant has amended claims 1-9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 10 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), comprising at least one control and evaluation unit ([0048]; FIG. 2: 204), comprising at least one radio location system ([0054]; FIG. 2: 220), and comprising at least one safety controller ([0048], [0064]; FIG. 2: 204),
wherein at least one radio transponder is arranged at the at least mobile object ([0054]; FIG. 2: 220) ;
wherein position data of the at least one radio transponder and the at least one mobile object is determined by the at least one radio location system ([0054]; FIG. 2: 220),
wherein the position data is transmitted from the at least one radio location system to the at least one control and evaluation unit ([0054]; FIG. 2: 204, 220),
wherein the at least one control and evaluation unit is configured to cyclically detect the position data of the at least one radio transponder ([0054], [0085]; FIG. 2: 204, 220);
wherein the at least one control and evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the position data of the at least one 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 at least one radio transponder has at least respective 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 at least one radio transponder has at least respective 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
wherein the safe primary signal outputs are electronically connected to the at least one safety controller ([0081], [0111], [0153]), and
wherein the at least one safe secondary signal output is connected to the safety controller ([0081], [0111], [0153]).
Regarding claim 2, Manci discloses that the at least one radio transponder has at least one safe signal input, with the at least one safe signal input being connected to the at least one safety controller. ([0070], [0081], [0111], [0153])
Regarding claim 3, Manci does not explicitly disclose that the at least one radio transponder has at least one trigger signal input, with the at least one trigger signal input being connected to the at least one 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 at least one radio transponder has at least one trigger signal input, with the at least one trigger signal input being connected to the at least one 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 at least one spatially resolving sensor for 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 at least one control and evaluation unit, and with the inspection unit being configured to check the at least one 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), comprising at least one control and evaluation unit ([0048]; FIG. 2: 204), comprising at least one radio location system ([0054]; FIG. 2: 220), and comprising at least one safety controller ([0048], [0064]; FIG. 2: 204),
wherein at least one radio transponder is arranged at the at least one mobile object ([0054]; FIG. 2: 220),
wherein position data of the at least one radio transponder and the at least one mobile object is determined by the at least one radio location system ([0054]; FIG. 2: 220),
wherein the position data is transmitted from the at least one radio location system to the at least one control and evaluation unit ([0054]; FIG. 2: 204, 220),
wherein the at least one control and evaluation unit is further configured to cyclically detect the position data of the at least one radio transponder ([0054], [0085]; FIG. 2: 204, 220),
wherein the at least one control and evaluation unit is further configured to evaluate the position data of the at least one radio location system ([0048], [0085]; FIG. 2: 204),
Manci does not explicitly disclose that the at least one radio transponder has at least one respective 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 at least one radio transponder has at least one respective 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;
wherein the at least one safe bidirectional interface is electronically connected to the at least one safety controller ([0081], [0111], [0153]),
wherein respective safe primary output signals are transmitted over at least one the safe bidirectional interface ([0081], [0111], [0153]), and
wherein at least one respective safe secondary output signal is transmitted over the at least one safe bidirectional interface ([0081], [0111], [0153]).
Regarding claim 8, Manci does not explicitly disclose that at least one safe input signal is transmitted over the 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 at least one safe input signal is transmitted over the 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.
Regarding claim 9, Manci does not explicitly disclose that at least one trigger signal input signal is transmitted over the 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 that at least one trigger signal input signal is transmitted over the 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.
Regarding claim 10, Manci discloses that the at least one safe secondary signal output indicates to the at least one safety controller whether the safe primary signal outputs control a state of the at least one safety controller or whether a safety sensor controls the state of the at least one safety controller. ([0085], [0142], [0143], [0150]; FIG. 7A: 708; FIG. 7B)
5. 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 at least one radio location system is an ultrawideband radio location system, with a frequency used being in a 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 ([0095]) 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.
Response to Arguments
6. The applicant's arguments filed, May 8, 2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The applicant traverses the rejection of clams 1-9.
The applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights