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 .
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 22-64 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 claims 37, 48, and 60, what is meant and encompasses “an alarm condition” is unclear and not readily understood. The metes and bound of the claims cannot be ascertained by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Still 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.
Also regarding claim 22, it is also unclear of what exactly the entity, structure, or device performing the determining steps and the transmitting an alert step as claimed. Such matter is essential for clearly and distinctly defining the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter.
Regarding claim 23, and similarly claim 49, what is meant and encompasses “operation mode” is unclear and not readily understood. The metes and bound of the claims cannot be ascertained by one having ordinary skill in the art.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-64 are allowed over prior art. However, 35 USC 112(b) rejections must be overcome.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2025/0312626 discloses an electronically controlled tactile alert system for use in equipment, such as personal protective equipment like respiratory protection systems used in firefighting, comprising one or more sensors, a processor, and an actuator to generate impulses that are tactilely sensed by a user of the equipment.
US 12,199,684 discloses a method and a wireless communication device for managing activation of radar modules in the device. The device comprises a plurality of wireless communication modules, a plurality of radar modules, and a processor. The wireless communication modules comprise one or more antennas that are configured to transmit and receive wireless communication signals, and the radar modules comprise one or more antennas that are configured to transmit and receive radar signals. The processor is configured to determine which of the wireless communication modules are active, obtain spatial information comprising spatial positions within the device of the wireless communication modules and the radar modules, determine one or more transmission characteristics of the active wireless communication modules and the radar modules, determine a set of the plurality of radar modules to activate based on the spatial information and the transmission characteristics, and activate the determined set of radar modules.
US 11,275,181 discloses ranging and location determination 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 re-broadcasted 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 perpendicular distance to a property line from the ranging device, and/or to calculate a coordinate location of the ranging device.
US 7,385,513 discloses a device for monitoring distances having an interrogator and a transponder in wireless communication with the interrogator, the transponder having a signaling device that is activated based on the distance between the interrogator and transponders. The interrogator sends an encoded signal to the transponder and determines the distance to the transponder based on the delay of the transponder's response. The interrogator instructs the transponder to activate a signaling device when the distance exceeds a predetermined setting. The present invention is directed towards applications that require one-foot precision and accuracy.
US 2007/0229350 discloses a system for monitoring objects and individuals. The system includes a first tracking device and a monitoring station to track location information. A user interface provides to remotely access the monitoring station. The user interface includes a graphical rendering to select a series of keystrokes. The graphical rendering prevents unauthorized recording of the series of keystrokes. A first request signal communicated obtains location coordinates of a first tracking device. The first tracking device transmits a first reply signal that comprises a first identification code. A second tracking device receives the first reply signal, compares the first identification code to a stored identification code and communicates to the monitoring station a second reply signal that comprises the location coordinates of the first tracking device.
KR 102926236 discloses an intelligent predictive proximity safety management method and device for preventing stenosis. According to one embodiment of the present disclosure, an intelligent predictive proximity safety management method for preventing stenosis may include the steps of: measuring the distance between a first tag worn by a worker and a second tag attached to equipment using a wireless distance measurement method; extracting a state vector including the measured distance and radio wave quality, a surrounding environment, a geometric structure, dynamic movement, and a power-hardware status; deriving a distance error correction value by applying a pre-learned statistical or machine learning regression model and calculating a correction distance by combining the value with the measured distance; identifying the speed, direction of travel, and behavioral status of the worker and the equipment using a motion sensor of the first tag and a sensor of the second tag or the equipment, respectively; evaluating the possibility of collision using the correction distance and speed information of the worker and the equipment, and calculating a risk score based on a predicted trajectory; outputting an alarm or control signal in a multi-stage or continuously variable intensity according to the calculated risk score to notify the worker and the equipment, or to control the equipment to slow down, stop, and limit output; and transmitting an emergency alarm and transmitting accident-related information to a central server or a control system when a dangerous event occurs.
KR 20220073038 discloses an integrated warning system based on a radar sensor, and the integrated warning system based on a radar sensor according to the present invention includes: a radar sensor module attached or provided to heavy equipment; and a plurality of alarm device modules attached or provided to each of a plurality of objects. The radar sensor module includes a radar sensor unit, a control unit, and a first communication unit, wherein the plurality of warning device modules receive the warning signal transmitted from the first communication unit, and transmit the received warning signal to the warning device. and an output unit for outputting an alarm effect based on the warning signal transmitted from the second communication unit and the second communication unit.
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
Prosecution Insights