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
This is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 19/100,283, with an effective filing date of January 31, 2025. Claims 1-13, 17-24, and 30-33 are currently pending. Claims 14-16 and 25-19 were previously canceled.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated July 14, 2026, Examiner withdraws the previous specification objections; withdraws the previous claim objections; withdraws the previous claim objections; withdraws the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); and maintains the previous prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed July 14, 2026, have been fully considered but they
are moot regarding claim 1 and not persuasive regarding claims 22 and 31.
Regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claims 1, 4-10, 12-13, 17-19, 22-24, 31, and 33 as being unpatentable over Frederick et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0128932 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Frederick/932], in view of Frederick et al. (US Pat. No. 7,420,471 B2) [hereinafter referred to as Frederick/471], the Applicant has elected to amend the claims. However, due to said amendments, new reference Frederick et al. (US Pat. No. 8,232,888 B2) [hereinafter referred to as Frederick/888] has been necessitated Therefore, a new rejection based on 35 USC § 103 has been made and is discussed in detail below.
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant argues (see pages 14-15 ) that claim 1 is amended to embrace an advantageous feature of the facility marker module (FMM) in that the FMM can be dormant until an object, such as a vehicle, approaches it and that it is the personal alarm device, not the field generator, that allegedly corresponds to the recited FMM, that receives the low frequency magnetic field. The Applicant amended the limitation to illustrate this point by stating that the FMM is configured to send a signal using the processor, the UHF transceiver and the antenna only in response to receiving, by the tuned circuit, a pulse of a low frequency magnetic field. Examiner reminds the Applicant that arguments made regarding a 103 rejection must be made toward the combination of references and not solely toward one reference. Furthermore, the Examiner contends that based on how magnetic fields work that one of ordinary skill would have understood that the device that is emitting/sending/transmitting the signal and the one accepting/obtaining/receiving the signal may be switched based on the specific scenario in order to avoid a collision. Further, Frederick/888 teaches in column 6 lines 38-44 that in FIG. 1, as seen below, there is illustrated a simplified example of a work site where an embodiment of the invention 40 is implemented. FIG. 1 shows two vehicles 20, 40, and three Marker Field Generators (MFGs) 22, 44, 46. FIG. 1 also shows three personal alarm devices (PADs) 30, 32, 34, that are carried by workers A, B, C. FIG. 1 also shows worker D, carrying PAD 36, who is an operating or driving the vehicle 20. This is construed as, the PAD being dormant until the vehicle approaches emitting the low magnetic field signal which triggers an alert (i.e., a signal) to be sent.
Therefore, this argument is moot.
Regarding claim(s) 22 and 31, Applicant argues, see pg. 15, that, while differing in scope, this/these claim(s) recite(s) similar features to claim 1 and its/their rejection(s) should likewise be withdrawn. However, as discussed above regarding claim 1, the Examiner submits that based on the prior art and how magnetic fields work that one of ordinary skill would have understood that the device that is emitting/sending/transmitting the signal and the one accepting/obtaining/receiving the signal may be switched based on the scenario in order to avoid a collision.
Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument, see pp.15-16, that doorway structures do not have a device mounted to them that transmits information about the structure. The Examiner submits that, as acknowledged by the Applicant on pg. 16, that Jacobus may teach that a vehicle can evaluate doorway dimensions in [0090] (c) which states doorways are characterized by having an approximate vertical (v) and horizontal (h) width that is correct for the doorway (i.e. since we know approximately where we and therefore approximately what doorway we are looking at, the height or vertical clearance and the width should also approximately match the expected sizes for that doorway). The Examiner also submits that the mere presence of a door/structure is construed as structure information. Furthermore, as discussed above regarding claim 1 one of ordinary skill would have understood that a device that is emitting/sending/transmitting a signal corresponding to predetermined structure information and the one accepting/obtaining/receiving the signal corresponding to predetermined structure information may be switched based on the specific scenario in order to avoid a collision (e.g., Frederick/932 discusses in [0030] that dimensions and spacing of aisles are precise and generally fixed and utilize aisle alignment guidance (i.e., structure information) to automate steering in between racks and the signal necessarily may emanate from the rack structure which provides dimension and spacing information to the vehicle).
Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency. This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected for the reasons as given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10, 12-13, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederick et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0128932 A1), hereinafter referred to as Frederick/932, in view of Frederick et al. (US Pat. No. 7,420,471 B2), hereinafter referred to as Frederick/471, and Frederick et al. (US Pat. No. 8,232,888 B2), hereinafter referred to as Frederick/888.
Regarding claim 1, Frederick/932 discloses:
A point of interest (POI) vehicular control system, comprising:
a fixed-position facility marker module (FMM) associated with the POI and mounted to a fixed structure at or near the POI ([0031] sentence (s.) 3, magnetic field generators (MFG) is placed of affixed on or near the stationary object such that the axes of the MFG are appropriately aligned with the aisle such that nearby vehicles may determine if there is a risk of collision, where the MFG are construed as an FMM and the aisle is a POI), the FMM including:
a processor ([0065] s. 3 incorporated into the storage or memory of an MFG, MFD, or respective vehicle and executed by each respective processor/controller);
a tuned circuit configured to receive magnetic frequency fields ([0043 s. , sensing circuits are tuned circuits]), the tuned circuit including a capacitor and an inductor (it is ubiquitous in the art that a tuned circuit, also often known as an LC circuit, includes an inductor (L) and a capacitor (C));
an antenna (antennae of magnetic field detectors (MFD) on the vehicles),
but Frederick/932 does not explicitly disclose:
a UHF transceiver;
receive low magnetic frequency fields.
However, Frederick/471 teaches in column (col) 6 lines (ln)36-39 that a predictable magnetic marker field can best be produced with frequencies below 100 kHz. One reason is that oscillating low frequency magnetic fields, which have long wavelengths, do not readily propagate. Furthermore, in col 9 ln 18-23 the reference regards as a novel and important aspect of this invention that the field generator is used to generate oscillating magnetic marker fields at frequencies in the range of 73 kHz, which do not propagate, and also to radiate signals at medium frequencies in the range of 345 kHz. Further, in col 10 ln 18-22 teaches that some locations within a mining operation are considered to be unsafe zones for some or all personnel. These zones can be marked by use of a field generator so that any worker, outfitted with a Personal Alarm Device, will be warned if approaching such a zone. This is construed as the FMM transmitting a signal only when a pulse of a low frequency magnetic field is received as that is the type of signal being emanated from the field generator. Lastly, the reference teaches the use of UHF transmitters in col 19 ln 45 and Fig. 8 (see below) and a UHF receivers in col 16 ln 53 which is interpreted as a UHF transceiver as both operate through a UHF antenna 70.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls, traffic controls and warehouse management before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the point-of-interest vehicle control system of Frederick/932, by incorporating the UHF and low magnetic fields teachings of Frederick/471, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of, as acknowledged by Frederick/471 (see above), to minimize propagation and to alert workers of unsafe zones.
PNG
media_image1.png
630
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, although Frederick/932 discloses magnetic field generators, tuned circuits, and antennae, and Frederick/471 teaches a UHF transceiver and receiving low magnetic field signals, the references do not explicitly disclose:
the FMM is configured to send transmit a signal using the processor, the UHF transceiver and the antenna only in response to receiving, by the tuned circuit, a pulse of a low frequency magnetic field.
However, Frederick/888 teaches in column 6 lines 38-44 that in FIG. 1, as seen below, there is illustrated a simplified example of a work site where an embodiment of the invention 40 is implemented. FIG. 1 shows two vehicles 20, 40, and three Marker Field Generators (MFGs) 22, 44, 46. FIG. 1 also shows three personal alarm devices (PADs) 30, 32, 34, that are carried by workers A, B, C. FIG. 1 also shows worker D, carrying PAD 36, who is an operating or driving the vehicle 20. This is construed as, the PAD being dormant until the vehicle approaches emitting the low magnetic field signal which triggers an alert (i.e., a signal) to be sent. Furthermore, the Examiner contends that based on how magnetic fields work that one of ordinary skill would have understood that the device that is emitting the signal and the one receiving the signal may be switched based on the scenario in order to avoid a collision.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls, traffic controls and warehouse management before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the point-of-interest vehicle control system of Frederick/932, as already modified by the UHF and low magnetic fields teachings of Frederick/471, by incorporating the vehicle signal emission teachings of Frederick/888, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of improving safety by aiding in collision avoidance.
PNG
media_image2.png
582
866
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Frederick/932, as modified by Frederick/471 and Frederick/888, discloses:
The POI vehicular control system of claim 1, wherein the signal includes a command to stop, to slow down, or to redirect a moving vehicle, or a command to reduce a low frequency magnetic field strength ([0003] s.2, prevent damage to facility elements that can be damaged by mobile machines, and control the actions and movements of vehicles and pedestrians, [0027] s.2, may even initiate actions to stop the vehicles from moving, [0030] truck senses the signal and automatically controls the steering mechanism, and [0059] control system to automatically slow the vehicle or limit a maximum speed while the conditions that lead to the determination persist, ).
Regarding claim 5, Frederick/932, as modified by Frederick/471 and Frederick/888, discloses:
The POI vehicular control system of claim 4, wherein receipt of the signal by a controller of the moving vehicle automatically causes the moving vehicle to stop, to slow down, or to change direction (see claim 4 above regarding [0030] and [0059] control system to automatically slow the and control steering).
Regarding claim 6, Frederick/932, as modified by Frederick/471 and Frederick/888, discloses:
The POI vehicular control system of claim 1, wherein receipt of the signal by a controller of the moving vehicle automatically causes an alarm of a vehicle to activate ([0025] vector components of a magnetic field to better differentiate between true safety threats and non-threats that give the appearance of being a threat and which could result in a nuisance alarm).
Regarding claim 7, Frederick/932, as modified by Frederick/471 and Frederick/888, discloses:
The POI vehicular control system of claim 1, wherein the signal is configured
based on at least one of:
a speed of a vehicle detected by the FMM ([0041] Composite Voltage (“CV”) is the vector summation of all vector field strength magnitudes detected by the magnetic field detector and [0049] the actual CV values for the first and second thresholds depend on the required safety criteria (type, speed, and relative danger of the harm) (i.e., fast, more hazardous vehicles that can result in greater physical and economic harm may require longer stopping distances and thus and second threshold with a lower CV);
a height of the vehicle detected by the FMM (see above regarding more hazardous vehicles that can result in greater physical and economic harm which is construed as the size, type and identification of the vehicle which may necessarily be related to the height of the vehicle);
an identification of the vehicle detected by the FMM (see above regarding more hazardous vehicles that can result in greater physical and economic harm which is construed as the size, type and identification of the vehicle);
a type of the vehicle detected by the FMM (see above regarding more hazardous vehicles that can result in greater physical and economic harm which is construed as the size, type and identification of the vehicle);
an operator of the vehicle detected by the FMM; and
a type of the POI (see above regarding more hazardous vehicles that can result in greater physical and economic harm which is construed as the size, type and identification of the vehicle which may necessarily be related to the height of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 8, Frederick/932, as modified by Frederick/471 and Frederick/888, discloses:
The POI vehicular control system of claim 1, wherein the signal transmitted by the FMM is received by a proximity detection system (PDS) of a vehicle ([0010] s.1, a proximity detection system is disclosed where a first location is one of a vehicle).
Regarding claim 9, Frederick/932, as modified by Frederick/471 and Frederick/888, discloses:
The POI vehicular control system of claim 1, wherein the pulse is generated by a proximity detection system (PDS) of a vehicle (see claim 8 regarding [0010] and also [0009] a proximity detection system is disclosed having at least one magnetic field generator associated with a first location configured to generate at least one magnetic field).
Regarding claim 10, Frederick/932, as modified by Frederick/471 and Frederick/888, discloses:
The POI vehicular control system of claim 1, wherein vehicular traffic data provided by the FMM about a vehicle detected by the FMM is transmitted to a backend computing system ([0064] where additional systems are detailed regarding a mechanized area controller (MAC) which can be placed over the side of the roadway nearest to the aisles control traffic as trucks on a side of the roadway and trucks within the aisles are programmed to alter their operation within the operating zone of the MAC, which is construed as a backend computing system where vehicular traffic data is transmitted to).
Regarding claim 12, Frederick/932, as modified by Frederick/471 and Frederick/888, discloses:
The POI vehicular control system of claim 10,wherein the vehicular traffic data includes one or more of:
a speed of the vehicle (see claim 7 regarding speed of vehicles);
a serial number of the vehicle;
a height of the vehicle (see claim 7 regarding size of vehicles);
a time that the vehicle was detected by the FMM;
a direction of motion of the vehicle ([0037] direction providing systems such as solid state compasses, GPS receivers, gyrocompasses, and/or accelerometers are used in the PDS/CAS system to account for the direction of the vehicle); and
a type of the POI.
Regarding claim 13, Frederick/932, as modified by Frederick/471 and Frederick/888, discloses:
The POI vehicular control system of claim 1, wherein the POI is one of:
a corner or intersection between vehicle roadways;
an end of an aisle of storage racks (see claim 1 regarding the end of an aisle as a POI);
a portal of a loading dock; and
a doorway.
Regarding claims 14-16, Applicant has elected to cancel said claims and subsequently these claims are no longer under consideration.
Regarding claim 17, Frederick/932, as modified by Frederick/471 and Frederick/888, discloses:
The POI vehicular control system of claim 1, wherein the FMM includes a dedicated housing configured to be mounted to the fixed structure, the housing supporting the processor, the tuned circuit, the UHF transceiver and the antenna.
However, Frederick/471 teaches in col 7 ln 47-49 tuning capacitors that complete the tuned circuit need to be contained within a shielded housing to minimize the effects of stray capacitance.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls, traffic controls and warehouse management before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the point-of-interest vehicle control system of Frederick/932, as already modified by the UHF and low magnetic fields teachings of Frederick/471 and the vehicle signal emission teachings of Frederick/888, by further incorporating the housing teachings of Frederick/471, such that as he UHF and low magnetic fields teachings of Frederick/471are considered within Frederick/932, the housing teachings of Frederick/471 are also considered.
Regarding claim 18, Frederick/932, as modified by Frederick/471 and Frederick/888, discloses:
The POI vehicular control system of claim 17, wherein the housing houses a battery that powers the FMM (see Fig. 8 above regarding the batteries).
Regarding claim 19, Frederick/932, as modified by Frederick/471 and Frederick/888, discloses:
The POI vehicular control system of claim 1, wherein the FMM includes an amplifier operatively coupled to the tuned circuit (see Fig. 8 above regarding incorporating an amplifier).
Regarding claims 25-29, Applicant has elected to cancel said claims and subsequently these claims are no longer under consideration.
_______________________________________
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederick et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0128932 A1), hereinafter referred to as Frederick/932, in view of Frederick et al. (US Pat. No. 7,420,471 B2), hereinafter referred to as Frederick/471, Frederick et al. (US Pat. No. 8,232,888 B2), hereinafter referred to as Frederick/888, and Kirtley (US Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0303035 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Frederick/932, as modified by Frederick/471 and Frederick/888, discloses:
The POI vehicular control system of claim 1, wherein the FMM is fixed to a doorway.
However, Kirtley teaches in [0027] s.1, of a fixed signal transmitter mounted above a doorway for providing proximity warnings to a forklift truck.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls, traffic controls and warehouse management before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the point-of-interest vehicle control system of Frederick/932, as already modified by the UHF and low magnetic fields teachings of Frederick/471, by incorporating the mounting teachings of Kirtley, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of simply substituting a radio wave for a low magnetic field signal.
_______________________________________
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederick et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0128932 A1), hereinafter referred to as Frederick/932, in view of Frederick et al. (US Pat. No. 7,420,471 B2), hereinafter referred to as Frederick/471, Frederick et al. (US Pat. No. 8,232,888 B2), hereinafter referred to as Frederick/888, and Jacobus et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0089616 A1) ), hereinafter referred to as Jacobus
Regarding claim 3, Frederick/932, as modified by Frederick/471 and Frederick/888, discloses [0030] of Frederick/932 that dimensions and spacing of aisles are precise and generally fixed and utilize aisle alignment guidance (i.e., structure information) to automate steering in between racks, the reference des not explicitly disclose:
wherein the signal includes information about a clearance at the fixed structure.
However, Jacobus teaches in [0090] letter (c), that among other things, doorways are characterized by having an approximate vertical (v) and horizontal (h) width that is correct for the doorway (i.e. since we know approximately where we and therefore approximately what doorway we are looking at, the height or vertical clearance and the width should also approximately match the expected sizes for that doorway).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls, traffic controls and warehouse management before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the point-of-interest vehicle control system of Frederick/932, as already modified by the UHF and low magnetic fields teachings of Frederick/471, by incorporating the clearance information teachings of Jacobus, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of improved safety for the operator, the facility, and any pedestrians.
________________________________________
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederick et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0128932 A1), hereinafter referred to as Frederick/932, in view of Frederick et al. (US Pat. No. 7,420,471 B2), hereinafter referred to as Frederick/471, Frederick et al. (US Pat. No. 8,232,888 B2), hereinafter referred to as Frederick/888, and Gauger et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2011/0279261 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gauger.
Regarding claim 11, Frederick/932, as modified by Frederick/471 and Frederick/888, discloses:
The POI vehicular control system of claim 10, wherein the backend computing system (see claim 10 regarding the MAC),
but the Frederick references do not explicitly disclose:
generate a vehicle traffic report for the POI based on the vehicular traffic data.
However, Gauger in [0117] teaches a driver's habits reporting system (driver-by-driver) for number of zone alerts, over speed/rate of turn issues, etc.. Further, in [0124-125] the visual reporting of areas of frequent incidents and high traffic and congestion area with the ability to overlay a particular area and receive statistical reports about it which is construed as generating a vehicle traffic report for a POI.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls, traffic controls and warehouse management before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the point-of-interest vehicle control system of Frederick/932, as already modified by the UHF and low magnetic fields teachings of Frederick/471, by incorporating the traffic report teachings of Gauger, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of improved safety associated with a POI.
___________________________________________
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederick et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0128932 A1), hereinafter referred to as Frederick/932, in view of Frederick et al. (US Pat. No. 7,420,471 B2), hereinafter referred to as Frederick/471, Frederick et al. (US Pat. No. 8,232,888 B2), hereinafter referred to as Frederick/888, and Fredericks et al. (WIPO Pat. Pub. No. 2021/194904 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fredericks/904
Regarding claim 20, Frederick/932, as modified by Frederick/471 and Frederick/888, discloses:
The POI vehicular control system of claim 1 (see claim 1), and Frederick/471 further teaches the limitation switching an operational mode of the FMM in col 8 ln 41-43 of different operational modes for a TramGuard™ that are decided upon based on a Logic Module and switched from an active mode to a monitor mode. However, based on the Applicant’s disclosure in [0094] where the mode configuration switch is performed by a wireless UHF configuration tool that switches from an active mode to a traffic management mode, it appears the references do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the FMM includes one or more switches.
However, Fredericks/904 teaches in [0050] adjustments to the parameters in the dock area controller electronics module( DEM) can be made with the UHF wireless configuration tool 224 and small adjustments can be made with a magnetic switch. Further, in [0016] Fredericks/904 teaches different operating modes including a roadway or standard mode and a portal mode which are respectively activated via a switch ([0068] s.1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls, traffic controls and warehouse management before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the point-of-interest vehicle control system of Frederick/932, as already modified by the UHF and low magnetic fields teachings of Frederick/471, by incorporating the switch teachings of Gauger, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of improved safety when nearing a portal or doorway as opposed to a general traffic area.
Regarding claim 21, Frederick/932, as modified by Frederick/471 and Frederick/888, discloses:
The POI vehicular control system of claim 1, further comprising a UHF wireless configuration tool for configuring an operating aspect of the FMM (see claim 20 regarding a wireless UHF configuration tool).
______________________________________________
Claim(s) 22-24, 31, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederick et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0128932 A1), hereinafter referred to as Frederick/932, in view of Frederick et al. (US Pat. No. 7,420,471 B2), hereinafter referred to as Frederick/471.
Regarding claim 22, Frederick/932,
A facility marker module (FMM) ([0031] sentence (s.) 3, magnetic field generators (MFG) is placed of affixed on or near the stationary object such that the axes of the MFG are appropriately aligned with the aisle such that nearby vehicles may determine if there is a risk of collision, where the MFG are construed as an FMM and the aisle is a POI), comprising:
a processor ([0065] s. 3 incorporated into the storage or memory of an MFG, MFD, or respective vehicle and executed by each respective processor/controller);
a tuned circuit configured to receive low magnetic frequency fields ([0043 s. , sensing circuits are tuned circuits]), the tuned circuit including a capacitor and an inductor (it is ubiquitous in the art that a tuned circuit, also often known as an LC circuit, includes an inductor (L) and a capacitor (C)); and
an antenna(antennae of magnetic field detectors (MFD) on the vehicles).
However, Frederick/932 does not explicitly disclose:
a housing;
a UHF transceiver; and
wherein the FMM is configured to transmit signals using the processor, the UHF transceiver and the antenna only in response to receiving, by the tuned circuit, a pulse of a low frequency magnetic field; and
wherein the housing is configured to be mounted to a structure associated with a point-of-interest of a facility.
However, Frederick/471 teaches in column (col) 6 lines (ln)36-39 that a predictable magnetic marker field can best be produced with frequencies below 100 kHz. One reason is that oscillating low frequency magnetic fields, which have long wavelengths, do not readily propagate. Furthermore, in col 9 ln 18-23 the reference regards as a novel and important aspect of this invention that the field generator is used to generate oscillating magnetic marker fields at frequencies in the range of 73 kHz, which do not propagate, and also to radiate signals at medium frequencies in the range of 345 kHz. Further, in col 10 ln 18-22 teaches that some locations within a mining operation are considered to be unsafe zones for some or all personnel. These zones can be marked by use of a field generator so that any worker, outfitted with a Personal Alarm Device, will be warned if approaching such a zone. This is construed as the FMM transmitting a signal only when a pulse of a low frequency magnetic field is received as that is the type of signal being emanated from the field generator. Lastly, the reference teaches the use of UHF transmitters in col 19 ln 45 and Fig. 8 (see above in claim 1) and a UHF receivers in col 16 ln 53 which is interpreted as a UHF transceiver as both operate through a UHF antenna 70. Furthermore, Frederick/471 teaches in col 7 ln 47-49 tuning capacitors that complete the tuned circuit need to be contained within a shielded housing to minimize the effects of stray capacitance. Furthermore, as discussed above regarding claim 1, the Examiner submits that based on the prior art and how magnetic fields work that one of ordinary skill would have understood that the device that is emitting/sending/transmitting the signal and the one accepting/obtaining/receiving the signal may be switched based on the scenario in order to avoid a collision.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls, traffic controls and warehouse management before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the point-of-interest vehicle control system of Frederick/932, by incorporating the UHF and low magnetic fields teachings of Frederick/471, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of, as acknowledged by Frederick/471 (see above), to minimize propagation and to alert workers of unsafe zones.
Claim 31 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 22 above, therefore claim 31 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 22.
Claim 23 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 18 above, therefore claim 23 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 18.
Regarding claim 24, Frederick/932, as modified by Frederick/471, discloses:
The FMM of claim 23, wherein the FMM operatively coupled to the battery, Frederick/471 further appears to teach the limitation that the FMM includes a hibernation circuit as stated in claim 33 wherein the micro-controller will activate the marker field generator if a worker using a safety alarm device is within range of the RF receiver. This is based on the Applicant’s disclosure, in [0041] s.2, that the hibernation circuit enables the FMM remain in a hibernated condition until a vehicle, equipped with a pulsed, low frequency, magnetic field, approaches close enough to the FMM for the magnetic field from the vehicle to "wake up" (e.g., activate) the FMM so that it can send signal containing relevant information to the PDS of the approaching vehicle.
Claim 33 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 7 above, therefore claim 33 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
_____________________________________________
Claim(s) 30 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederick et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0128932 A1), hereinafter referred to as Frederick/932, in view of Frederick et al. (US Pat. No. 7,420,471 B2), hereinafter referred to as Frederick/471, and Jacobus et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0089616 A1) ), hereinafter referred to as Jacobus
Regarding claim 30, Frederick/932, as modified by Frederick/471 and Frederick/888, discloses:
The FMM of The FMM of claim 22, wherein the housing is mounted to the structure (Frederick/471 teaches in col 7 ln 47-49 tuning capacitors that complete the tuned circuit need to be contained within a shielded housing to minimize the effects of stray capacitance); and
wherein the FMM is configured to transmit a signal that includes information about the structure (Jacobus teaches in [0090] letter (c), that among other things, doorways are characterized by having an approximate vertical (v) and horizontal (h) width that is correct for the doorway (i.e. since we know approximately where we and therefore approximately what doorway we are looking at, the height or vertical clearance and the width should also approximately match the expected sizes for that doorway)).
Claim 32 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 3 above, therefore claim 32 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see:
Ali et al. article titled “Systematic review of dynamic multi-object identification and localization: Techniques and technologies” is directed toward techniques and methods used in positioning technologies comprising state-of-the-art localization technologies that are classified into range-based, range-free and AI-based categories. An in-depth analysis of localization approaches based on laser range finder, radio-frequency identification, ultra-wideband, inertial measurement unit, etc., are presented by providing a detailed comparison based on range, accuracy, measurement method, advantages, disadvantages, and their applications.
Conclusion
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 KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights