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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-27 of US Application No. 18/873,834, filed on 11 December 2024, are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11 December 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 25-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites “the updated set of distance measurements includes one or more” in lines 13-14, but should recite –the updated set of distance measurements includes one or more distance measurements – to be consistent with the terminology of claim 1.
With respect to claim 25, while it is permissible for a claim to make reference to a preceding claim to define a limitation (see MPEP 2173.05(f)), it is preferred to eliminate any potential confusion by positively reciting the limitations of the referenced claim. Claim 25 incorporates claim 1 by reference. Claim 25 recites “A computer readable media storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, the one or more programs” for performing the method of claim 1. However, claim 1 already recites “an electronic device” for performing the method steps of claim 1. It is not clear if the computer readable media executed by the processor of claim 25 is the same as, or distinct from, the electronic device of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required to eliminate any confusion caused by incorporating claim 1 by reference.
With respect to claim 26, while it is permissible for a claim to make reference to a preceding claim to define a limitation (see MPEP 2173.05(f)), it is preferred to eliminate any potential confusion by positively reciting the limitations of the referenced claim. Claim 26 incorporates claim 1 by reference. Claim 26 recites “one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors” for performing the method of claim 1. However, claim 1 already recites “an electronic device” for performing the method steps of claim 1. It is not clear if the processors and memory of claim 26 are the same as, or distinct from, the electronic device of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required to eliminate any confusion caused by incorporating claim 1 by reference.
With respect to claim 27, while it is permissible for a claim to make reference to a preceding claim to define a limitation (see MPEP 2173.05(f)), it is preferred to eliminate any potential confusion by positively reciting the limitations of the referenced claim. Claim 27 incorporates claim 1 by reference. Claim 27 recites “at least one electronic device” for performing the method of claim 1. However, claim 1 already recites “an electronic device” for performing the method steps of claim 1. It is not clear if the processors and memory of claim 27 is the same as, or distinct from, the electronic device of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required to eliminate any confusion caused by incorporating claim 1 by reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
A claim whose broadest reasonable interpretation covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations;
Transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave; and
Subject matter that the statute expressly prohibits from being patented, such as humans per se, which are excluded under The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ), Public Law 112-29, sec. 33, 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011).
Claim 25 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes transitory signals. In this regard, the claim recites a “computer readable media”, which may be interpreted to include transitory signals. The specification does not preclude the computer readable media from being transitory forms of signal transmission.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1-13 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Independent claim 1, 26, and 27 fall within one of the statutory categories. However, independent claim 25 does not fall within one of the statutory categories. See above.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Are the claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, independent claims 1 and 25-27 are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), a claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. The guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. With respect to mental processes, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
Independent claim 1 recites “determining one or more actor location area sets for each respective actor, of the one or more actors, for which the set of distance measurements includes one or more distance measurements, wherein each respective actor location area set determined for a respective actor includes one or more areas each determined based on the relative distance, of a respective distance measurement of the one or more distance measurements associated to the respective actor, together with a safety distance added to the respective distance measurement”, “determining, based on the one or more determined actor location area sets whether one or more risk criteria of a set of risk criteria are met”, “determination that at least one of the one or more risk criteria are met” and “determination that none of the one or more risk criteria are met”. Independent claims 25, 26, and 27 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1. These limitations, i.e., determinations, may be performed in the human mind. Using a computer, e.g., electronic device, processor/memory, to perform these abstract ideas does not take the limitation out of the mental process and/or mathematical groupings. Therefore, the claims and 8 recite an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, claims 1 and 25-27 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. The guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In the instant application, claims 1 and 25-27 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claim 1 recites the additional elements “at an electronic device: receiving data, corresponding to a set of time-of-flight based distance measurements, including one or more distance measurements, each distance measurement being: associated to a respective actor of the one or more actors and a respective other location of one or more other locations; and representative of a measurement of a relative distance, at a point in time, between a location of the respective actor and the respective other location to which the respective distance measurement is associated”, “generating at least one safety action” and “forgoing generating at least one safety action”. Claim 25 also recites the additional element “A computer readable media storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, the one or more programs”. Claim 26 also recites the additional element “one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors”. Claim 26 also recites the additional element “a plurality of communicatively coupled electronic devices including radio ranging functionality; and at least one electronic device”.
As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. The electronic device (claims 1 and 27), computer readable media executed by processors (claim 25), and processors/memory (claim 26), given their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a computer. Using the electronic device, computer readable media, or processor/memory to make the claimed determinations is merely using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas.
Also as noted above, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Using the processor or the combined processor, computer readable medium, and instructions to receive data corresponding to a set of time-of-flight based distance measurements is data gathering. Generating at least one safety action based on the determination of the risk criteria being met, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses issuing a warning. Issuing a warning based on the determination is data outputting. Therefore, these additional elements just add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1 and 25-27 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, claims 1 and 25-27 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1 and 25-27 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons indicated above with respect to Step 2A, prong 2. In addition, claims 1 and 25-27 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions is WURC activity. Generic computing functions include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The electronic device (claims 1 and 27), computer readable media executed by processors (claim 25), and processors/memory (claim 26), given their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a computer. Receiving data corresponding to a set of time-of-flight based distance measurements is simply receiving data. Receiving the data via the electronic device (claims 1 and 27), computer readable media executed by processors (claim 25), and processors/memory (claim 26) is receiving data over a network. Therefore, receiving data corresponding to a set of time-of-flight based distance measurements is using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions. In addition, generating a safety action is known in the art. Slack (US 2012/0098653 A1), for example, discloses proximity warning when vehicle 24 or ground personnel 22 approach or enter safe zone 38. See rejections below. The additional elements perform the same functions in combination as they do individually. Therefore, the additional elements, both individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1 and 25-27 (a) are directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 8 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2 and 3 further define a previously-identified abstract ideas, i.e., determining one or more actor location area sets. However, even as further defined, the previously-identified abstract ideas may still be performed mentally. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 4-8, and 14 recite claim limitations that may be performed mentally. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 9-10 further define a previously-identified abstract ideas, i.e., determining whether risk criteria are met. However, even as further defined, the previously-identified abstract ideas may still be performed mentally. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 11 and 19 further define a previously-identified additional element, i.e., receiving data. However, even as further defined, the previously-identified additional element is still extra-solution activity. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 12-13 further define a previously-identified abstract ideas, i.e., determining whether risk criteria are met. However, even as further defined, the previously-identified abstract ideas may still be performed mentally. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 11.
Claim 15 recites the additional element “wherein the data corresponding to distance measurements is received from one or more other electronic devices and wherein the distance measurements represents measurements obtained via one or more radio ranging devices each associated to a respective actor of the one or more actors and a respective other radio ranging device of one or more other radio ranging devices each associated to a respective other location of the one more other locations”. Receiving distance measurements from other electronic devices is extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering. Further, receiving distance measurements from other electronic devices is WURC activity. See claim 15 rejection under § 102. Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the one or more risk criteria further include a fourth risk criteria that is met when a respective heart-beat message for at least one actor of the one or more actors is detected as absent”, which may be performed mentally. Claim 16 also the additional element “wherein receiving data further includes receiving, repeatedly over time and at a regular time interval, heart-beat messages, for each actor of the one or more actors”. Receiving heart-beat messages repeatedly over time and at a regular time interval is extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering, and is WURC activity. See claim 16 rejection below. Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 17 further defines a previously-identified additional element, i.e., generating a safety action. However, even as further defined, the previously-identified additional element is still extra-solution activity and WURC activity. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 18 recites the additional element “sending instructions associated to the at least one safety action having been generated to one or more external devices”. Sending instructions to another external device is extra-solution activity, i.e., data outputting. Further, an external device, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses a computer. Sending instructions to an external device from an electronic device is transmitting data over a network, which is a generic computing function performed by generic computers. Therefore, the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 19 further defines a previously-identified additional element, i.e., receiving data. However, even as further defined, the previously-identified additional element is still extra-solution activity. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 20 recites “determining for each actor of the one or more actors whether the distance measurements of the primary set matches the distance measurements of the secondary set: for each actor for which the distance measurements of the primary set matches the distance measurements of the secondary set selecting the distance measurements of the primary set for use in determining the one or more actor location area sets; and for each actor for which the distance measurements of the primary set do not match the distance measurements of the secondary set determining whether the difference between the distance measurements of the primary set and the distance measurements of the secondary set exceeds a maximum tolerable difference: in accordance with a determination that the difference exceeds the maximum tolerable difference generating the at least one safety action; and in accordance with a determination that the difference do not exceed the maximum tolerable difference selecting the distance measurements of the primary set for use in determining the one or more actor location area sets each and adding a safety tolerance value to the selected distance measurements”, which may be performed mentally. Claim 20 also further define a previously-identified additional element, i.e., receiving data. However, even as further defined, the previously-identified additional element is still extra-solution activity and is WURC activity, i.e., a generic computer performing generic computing functions. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 21 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 22-24 recite claim limitations that may be performed mentally. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 15, 17-19, 21, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hladik et al. (US 2023/0062514 A1, “Hladik”).
Regarding claims 1 and 25-27, Hladik discloses a person protection system and teaches:
at an electronic device (computing device F-CPU – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0086]):
receiving data, corresponding to a set of time-of-flight based distance measurements, including one or more distance measurements (computing device F-CPU receives final signals F1-F3 from gateways G1-G3 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0085]-[0086]), each distance measurement being:
associated to a respective actor of the one or more actors and a respective other location of one or more other locations; and representative of a measurement of a relative distance, at a point in time, between a location of the respective actor and the respective other location to which the respective distance measurement is associated (poll signals P1-P3 from tag worn by a person and response signals R1-R3 from gateways – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0083]-[0085], [0090]-[0097]);
determining one or more actor location area sets for each respective actor, of the one or more actors, for which the set of distance measurements includes one or more distance measurements, wherein each respective actor location area set determined for a respective actor includes one or more areas each determined based on the relative distance, of a respective distance measurement of the one or more distance measurements associated to the respective actor, together with a safety distance added to the respective distance measurement (circles 101, 102, 103 formed around each gateway based on safe distance measurements – see at least Fig. 9 and ¶ [0155]; safe distance measurement allows for clock drift – see at least ¶ [0127]; i.e., allowable clock drift may increase the distance measurement – see Fig. 9);
determining, based on the one or more determined actor location area sets whether one or more risk criteria of a set of risk criteria are met (protection zone is calculated based on circles 101, 102, 103 – see at least ¶ [0164]-[0170]; if protection zone is encroached, a protective mechanism may be activated – see at least ¶ [0018]; i.e., risk criteria = encroachment of protection zone);
in accordance with a determination that at least one of the one or more risk criteria are met generating at least one safety action (if protection zone is encroached, a protective mechanism may be activated – see at least ¶ [0018]; termination of locomotion when protection zone encroached – see at least ¶ [0056]); and
in accordance with a determination that none of the one or more risk criteria are met forgoing generating at least one safety action (if protection zone is encroached, a protective mechanism may be activated – see at least ¶ [0018]; i.e., if protection zone is not encroached, the protective mechanism is not activated).
Regarding claim 2, Hladik further teaches:
wherein each area, included in a respective actor location area set of the one or more actor location area sets determined for a respective actor, represents a respective area within the environment within which the respective actor is located (see at least Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 4, Hladik further teaches:
determining the one or more areas to be included in a respective actor location area set (circles 101, 102, 103 formed around each gateway based on safe distance measurements – see at least Fig. 9 and ¶ [0155]); and determining a location and a size for each area of the one or more areas determined to be included in the respective actor location area set (G1, G2, G3 coordinates at center of each circle and dTWR for each circle – see at least Figs. 9 and 11).
Regarding claim 5, Hladik further teaches:
wherein the one or more other locations correspond to known locations, each for which the location, within the environment, at the point in time, is known and wherein determining the location for each area, of the one or more areas determined to be included in the respective actor location area set, is based on a respective known location associated to the respective distance measurement based on which the respective area is determined (anchor or gateway transponders arranged at coordinates – see at least Figs. 9, 11 and ¶ [0151]).
Regarding claim 6, Hladik further teaches:
wherein determining the size for each area, of the one or more areas determined to be included in the respective actor location area set, is based on the respective relative distance of the respective distance measurement based on which the respective area is determined together with the safety distance added to the respective distance measurement (circles 101, 102, 103 formed around each gateway based on safe distance measurements – see at least Fig. 9 and ¶ [0155]; safe distance measurement allows for clock drift – see at least ¶ [0127]; i.e., allowable clock drift may increase the distance measurement – see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, Hladik further teaches:
wherein the location determined for each respective area corresponds to a location within the environment of a center location of the respective area, from which center location the respective area extends (G1, G2, G3 coordinates at center of each circle and dTWR for each circle – see at least Figs. 9 and 11).
Regarding claim 8, Hladik further teaches:
wherein each respective area, of each one or more actor location area sets determined for each respective actor, of the one or more actors, for which the set of distance measurements includes one or more distance measurements, corresponds to a circular area having a radius defined by the size determined for the respective area (G1, G2, G3 coordinates at center of each circle and dTWR for each circle – see at least Figs. 9 and 11).
Regarding claim 9, Hladik further teaches:
identifying whether any actor location area set determined for any respective actor, includes a plurality of areas; in accordance with a determination that any actor location area set determined for any respective actor includes a plurality of areas: identifying each respective actor location area set including a plurality of areas; and replacing the plurality of areas, within each respective identified actor location area set, with a merged area including the area of intersection of the plurality of areas originally determined for the respective identified actor location area set; in accordance with a determination that none of the actor location area set determined for any actor includes a plurality of areas: forgoing further determining any actor location area set (a protection area is determined based on a plurality of TWR measurements – see at least Fig. 9 and ¶ [0032]-[0033], [0165]-[0172]).
Regarding claim 15, Hladik further teaches:
wherein the data corresponding to distance measurements is received from one or more other electronic devices and wherein the distance measurements represents measurements obtained via one or more radio ranging devices each associated to a respective actor of the one or more actors and a respective other radio ranging device of one or more other radio ranging devices each associated to a respective other location of the one more other locations (computing device F-CPU receives final signals F1-F3 from gateways G1-G3 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0085]-[0086]; final signals F1-F3 include poll signals from an object transponder T and response signals from gateways G1-G3 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0083]-[0086]).
Regarding claim 17, Hladik further teaches:
wherein the at least one safety action includes one or more safety actions of a group of safety actions including a machine emergency stop action, a warning signal action and a collision avoidance resolution (if protection zone is encroached, a protective mechanism may be activated – see at least ¶ [0018]; termination of locomotion when protection zone encroached – see at least ¶ [0056]).
Regarding claim 18, Hladik further teaches:
wherein generating the at least one safety action further includes: sending instructions associated to the at least one safety action having been generated to one or more external devices (termination of locomotion of robot when protection zone encroached – see at least ¶ [0056]; i.e., termination of robot movement requires a signal sent to the robot to end movement).
Regarding claim 19, Hladik further teaches:
wherein the data corresponding to distance measurements further includes identity information identifying for each respective distance measurement of the one or more distance measurements the respective actor of the one or more actors and the respective other location of the one or more other locations associated to the respective distance measurement (poll messages include a source address MPQA – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0140]).
Regarding claim 21, Hladik further teaches:
receiving updated data, corresponding to an updated set of time-of-flight based distance measurements (two-way data acquisition every 100 ms – see at least ¶ [0253]);
determining one or more updated actor location area sets for each respective actor, of the one or more actors, for which the updated set of distance measurements includes one or more [distance measurements], wherein each respective updated actor location area set determined for a respective actor includes one or more areas each determined based on the relative distance, of a respective distance measurement of the one or more distance measurements, of the updated set of distance measurements, associated to the respective actor, together with a safety distance added to the respective distance measurement; determining, based on the one or more determined updated actor location area sets whether one or more risk criteria of a set of risk criteria are met; in accordance with a determination that at least one of the one or more risk criteria are met generating at least one safety action; and in accordance with a determination that none of the one or more risk criteria are met forgoing generating at least one safety action (see claim 1 rejection).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 10-13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hladik in view of Slack (US 2012/0098653 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Hladik fails to teach but Slack discloses a worksite proximity warning and collision avoidance system and teaches:
wherein the one or more risk criteria include a first risk criteria that is met when any area, of the one or more areas of the one or more actor location area sets determined for any respective actor overlaps at least one geo-fencing area, defined within the environment (hazard zone or electric fence 36 about each obstacle at worksite 10 and safe zone 38 around mobile machine 12 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0020]; proximity warning when vehicle 24 or ground personnel 22 approach or enter safe zone 38 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have modified the protection system of Hladik to provide for determining that a risk criteria is met when an actor overlaps a geo-fencing area, as taught by Slack, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would help to avoid collisions between objects at a worksite (Slack at ¶ [0001]).
Regarding claim 11, Hladik fails to teach but Slack discloses a worksite proximity warning and collision avoidance system and teaches:
wherein each actor of the one or more actors is associated to an actor type of one or more predetermined actor types including a first actor type and a second actor type (obstacles may include ground personnel 22 mobile vehicles 24 – see at least ¶ [0019]; mobile machines 12 – see Fig. 1; e.g., first actor type = ground personnel or mobile vehicle 24 and second actor = mobile machine 12).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have modified the protection system of Hladik to provide for different actor types, as taught by Slack, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would help to avoid collisions between objects at a worksite (Slack at ¶ [0001]).
Regarding claim 12, Slack further teaches:
wherein the one or more risk criteria further include a second risk criteria that is met when any actor location area set determined for any respective actor, associated to the first actor type, overlaps any actor location area set determined for any respective actor, associated to the second actor type (hazard zone or electric fence 36 about each obstacle at worksite 10 and safe zone 38 around mobile machine 12 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0020]; proximity warning when vehicle 24 or ground personnel 22 approach or enter safe zone 38 of mobile machine 12 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined protection system of Hladik and Slack to provide for determining that a risk criteria is met when an actor of one type overlaps a location area of an actor of another type, as further taught by Slack, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would help to avoid collisions between objects at a worksite (Slack at ¶ [0001]).
Regarding claim 13, Slack further teaches:
wherein the one or more risk criteria further include a third risk criteria that is met when the area set determined for any respective actor, associated to the second actor type, overlaps any actor location area set determined for another respective actor, associated to the second actor type (obstacles may include ground personnel 22 mobile vehicles 24 – see at least ¶ [0019]; mobile machines 12; proximity warning when vehicle 24 or ground personnel 22 approach or enter safe zone 38 of mobile machine 12 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0024]; obstacles may include other mobile machines – see at least ¶ [0019]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined protection system of Hladik and Slack to provide for determining that a risk criteria is met when an actor of one type overlaps a location area of an actor of the same type, as further taught by Slack, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would help to avoid collisions between objects at a worksite (Slack at ¶ [0001]).
Regarding claim 22, Hladik further teaches:
identifying each respective actor for which one or more updated actor location area sets have been determined (poll message includes source address MPQA – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0140]);
determining, for each respective identified actor, whether the one or more updated actor location area sets determined for the respective identified actor indicates entry into or exit from a respective [operation] area (protection zone is calculated based on circles 101, 102, 103 – see at least ¶ [0164]-[0170]; if protection zone is encroached, a protective mechanism may be activated – see at least ¶ [0018]; i.e., risk criteria = encroachment of protection zone);
in accordance with a determination that the one or more updated actor location area sets determined for the respective identified actor indicates entry into or exit from a respective [operation] area;
updating a status for one or more of the plurality of [operation] areas including the respective [operation] area (if protection zone is encroached, a protective mechanism may be activated – see at least ¶ [0018]; termination of locomotion of robot when protection zone encroached – see at least ¶ [0056]);
in accordance with a determination that the one or more updated actor location area sets determined for the respective identified actor do not indicate entry into or exit from a respective [operation] area;
forgoing updating the status for one or more of the plurality of [operation] areas (if protection zone is encroached, a protective mechanism may be activated – see at least ¶ [0018]; termination of locomotion of robot when protection zone encroached – see at least ¶ [0056]).
Hladik fails to teach but Slack discloses a worksite proximity warning and collision avoidance system and teaches:
a geo-fencing area of a plurality of geo-fencing areas defined within the environment (hazard zone or electric fence 36 about each obstacle at worksite 10 and safe zone 38 around mobile machine 12 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0020]; proximity warning when vehicle 24 or ground personnel 22 approach or enter safe zone 38 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have modified the protection system of Hladik to provide for determining entry or exit from a geo-fence area, as taught by Slack, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would help to avoid collisions between objects at a worksite (Slack at ¶ [0001]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hladik in view of Kaufmann et al. (US 2019/0129025 A1, “Kaufmann”) and Fellows (US 2022/0092958 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Hladik fails to teach but Kaufmann discloses a personal protection system with RF time-of-flight ranging and teaches:
wherein receiving data further includes receiving, repeatedly over time and at a regular time interval, heart-beat messages, for each actor of the one or more actors (tag 4 may periodically send a BLINK message comprising timing information for TOF determination – see at least ¶ [0053], [0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have modified the protection system of Hladik to provide for receiving data repeatedly at a time interval, as taught by Kaufman, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for repeatedly making time-of-flight, i.e., ranging, determinations for determining proximity warnings (Kaufman at ¶ [0053], [0002]).
Further, Fellows discloses a safety warning system and teaches:
wherein the one or more risk criteria further include a fourth risk criteria that is met when a respective heart-beat message for at least one actor of the one or more actors is detected as absent (heartbeat signal to system controller to establish that the wearable unit is operational or that an issue has occurred with the user or wearable unit – see at least ¶ [0037]; alert issued based on occurrence of abnormal safety situation – see at least ¶ [0013]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have modified the protection system of Hladik to provide for receiving data repeatedly at a time interval, as taught by Kaufman, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for determining that an issue has occurred with the user and issue an alarm (Fellows at ¶ [0037], [0013]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights