DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s 07/13/2026 Amendments/Arguments, which directly amended claim 22, 26, 37-38, 46, 48, 51, 53, 60; cancelled claim 23; added new claims 65-67; and traversed the rejections of the claims of the 07/01/2026 Office Action are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 61 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 61, line 1 – the claim status of “(New)” needs to be changed to “(Previously Presented)”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22 and 24-67 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.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claim fails to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper.
Regarding claim 22, and similarly claim 48, the claims are rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: establishing communication between the alarm device and the first device and between the alarm device and the second device. Such steps are essential because without any communication among the devices, it is unclear of how and in what manner a first distance and a second distance are determined.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
It is Applicant’s responsibility to draft a clear and concise set of claims defining the metes and bounds of Applicant’s invention. Applicant should review all of the outstanding claims in response hereto. All of the claims should be reviewed for issues related to clarity and scope as the errors/issues are not constrained to those listed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Although the amendments overcome other 35 USC 112(b) rejections, they still have not overcome the rejection of being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: establishing communication between the alarm device and the first device and between the alarm device and the second device. Such steps are essential because without any communication among the devices, it is unclear of how and in what manner a first distance and a second distance are determined. It appears that the new claims 65-68 tried and failed to overcome the rejection. As stated, claim 22, and similarly claim 48, fails to show any communication or exchanging information between the alarm device and the first device and between the alarm device and the second device. Regardless of which device(s) determining the first distance or the second distance (i.e. as claimed in claim 65), a device must first know information such as position, GPS position, received signal strength, etc. of the other device(s) through direct or indirect communication in order for the distance between the device and each of the other device(s) to be determined. In the case of the distances are determined by a local device or a remote device as claimed, such information must be sent to the local/remote device for determining distances among the devices. Thus, it is unclear of how and in what manner a first distance and a second distance are determined if there are no communication or exchanging information between the alarm device and the first device and between the alarm device and the second device. Therefore, the rejection for omitting essential steps is still sustained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 24-67 are allowed over prior art. However, 35 USC 112(b) rejection must be overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2026/0003050 discloses systems and methods for generating proximity-based alerts in non-line-of-sight environments. A first device detects a signal from a second device (e.g., via a decentralized mesh network). The first device, using fused sensor data including global navigation satellite system and inertial measurement unit information, determines a collision probability or time-to-impact relative to the second device. An alert is generated based on the collision probability, providing proactive warnings to users of vehicles, astronauts, or other assets to reduce the likelihood of collisions in complex environments.
US 11,971,492 discloses ranging capabilities in RF-opaque environments, such as a jungle, that preclude the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) and/or laser ranging systems, utilizing transponders and Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers located on aerial vehicles. The aerial vehicles operate above the RF-opaque environment, and communicate with a ranging device within the RF-opaque environment on frequencies that propagate in the RF-opaque environment. The ranging device transmits RF signals to the transponders, which are received by the transponders and sent back to the ranging device on a different frequency. The aerial vehicles also provide their coordinates to the ranging device using their GPS receivers. The ranging device uses information about the transmitted and received RF signals and the GPS coordinates of the aerial vehicles to calculate a distance to a property line from the ranging device, and/or to calculate a coordinate location of the ranging device.
US 10,511,951 discloses a tracking and accountability system and apparatus and comprises a command unit and processing unit coupled to a wireless communication network, a first tracking device having a first mobile transceiver in communication with the wireless communication network and coupled to a first set of identification data of a first individual and being operative to transmit signals representing the first individual's location over the wireless communication network to the processing unit, and a second tracking device having a second mobile transceiver and coupled to a second set of identification data of a second individual and being operative to transmit signals representing the second individual's location (i) to the processing unit over the wireless communication network if the second tracking device is within a first distance; and (ii) to the first tracking device if the second tracking device is within the first distance to the first tracking device.
WO 2026/159336 discloses a system and method for real-time tracking of a group of people in a controlled environment, such as a theme park. The system may comprise a plurality of portable devices, each of which may be associated with a person, and a server device. Each portable device may include a housing, a data processing unit, a memory, a data communication unit with a wireless communication module and a GNSS module, and an interface. The portable devices may exchange data with each other and/or with the server device. The data may include location data, identification data, and communication data. The portable devices may be configured to calculate distance or direction based on exchanged data. A categorization of portable devices may be implemented. The system may further support periodic data transmission, group pairing modes, and optional functionalities such as NFC-based interactions. Communication may be implemented via ESP-NOW, Wi-Fi, LoRa, Bluetooth, or Zigbee and similar communication protocols.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
