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 Office Action is in response to the U.S. Patent Application No. 17/638,009, filed February 24, 2022. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2021/054929, is acknowledged and accepted.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
With respect to claim 1, and similarly with respect to claims 10 and 19, the claim recites:
Claim 1: A method for automatically generating an indoor floor plan, the method comprising:
A) obtaining, by one or more processors, indoor location histories for one or more users within an area of a building based on determined indoor locations of the one or more users over time;
B) clustering, by the one or more processors, the determined indoor locations in the indoor location histories into a plurality of clusters;
C) generating, by the one or more processors, the indoor floor plan by dividing the area into rooms in accordance with the plurality of clusters; and
D) storing, by the one or more processors, the indoor floor plan for use in indoor mapping.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover negotiating a priority between robots , which may be performed in the human mind or by hand by determining which of the two robots should have priority, based upon objectives and constraints.
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
Claim 1: A method for automatically generating an indoor floor plan, the method comprising:
A) obtaining, by one or more processors, indoor location histories for one or more users within an area of a building based on determined indoor locations of the one or more users over time;
B) clustering, by the one or more processors, the determined indoor locations in the indoor location histories into a plurality of clusters;
C) generating, by the one or more processors, the indoor floor plan by dividing the area into rooms in accordance with the plurality of clusters; and
D) storing, by the one or more processors, the indoor floor plan for use in indoor mapping.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “obtaining” and “storing” information, the examiner submits that obtaining information comprises an extra solution activity that is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
With particular reference to claims 1, 10 and 19, the claims additionally recites
a processor and memory storing instruction, wherein the instruction, when executed by a process cause the processor to perform the steps of claim 1, the examiner submits that reciting a generic computer comprises mere instructions to apply an exception, per 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this comprises an extra solution activity that is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “obtaining” information and implementing the method on a “computer,” the examiner submits that reciting a generic computer comprises mere instructions to apply an exception, per 2106.05(f). With respect to the step of storing, the courts noted in Versata and OIP Techs that storing and retrieving data in memory is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here), MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Accordingly, this comprises an extra solution activity that is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities in the field of the particular claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d). In looking at Specification, “obtaining” comprises utilizing a server to obtain data (e.g. see para 0111 and “generating” comprising forming a map based upon accumulated data (e.g. see Figs. 9 and 11). With respect to a “processor” and “memory,” there appears to be nothing in the Specification to indicate that these comprise anything other than generic components, as suggested in para 0048 of the Written Description.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward judicial exceptions, additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0198080, to Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang), in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,356,810, to Akpinar et al. (hereinafter Akpinar).
As per claim 1, and similarly with respect to claims 10 and 19, Wang discloses a method for automatically generating an indoor floor plan (e.g. see Abstract, wherein a method of managing retractable privacy partition to dynamically subdivide spaces in buildings into sub-space/rooms), the method comprising: obtaining, by one or more processors, indoor location histories for one or more users within an area of a building based on determined indoor locations of the one or more users over time (e.g. see para 0052, wherein historical usage patterns for the office spaces are obtained from a database).
Wang fails to disclose all of the features of clustering, by the one or more processors, the determined indoor locations in the indoor location histories into a plurality of clusters; generating, by the one or more processors, the indoor floor plan by dividing the area into rooms in accordance with the plurality of clusters; and storing, by the one or more processors, the indoor floor plan for use in indoor mapping. However, Akpinar teaches generating an overhead heat map comprising a plurality of clusters/regions 1008, 1010, 1012, 1014 and 1020 of mobile devices of an indoor area 1000 (i.e. historical user indoor locations) (e.g. see Fig. 10, and col. 32, lines 10-32). Akpinar further teaches dividing the indoor area, including the cluster/regions, into a plurality of areas/rooms through dividers 1018 (i.e. the indoor floor plan being divided into rooms in accordance to clusters) (e.g. see Fig. 10, and col. 32, lines 10-60). Finally, Akpinar additionally teaches a computer system for performing the forgoing steps, which would be stored at least temporarily, for modification and display 1314 (e.g. see Fig. 13, and col. 38, line 18, to col. 39, line 61). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the indoor floor plan system of Wang to include clustering of historical user presence for the purpose of controlling overcrowding of an area to thereby reduce inefficiencies as well as the spread of contagions, as taught by Akpinar.
As per claim 2, and similarly with respect to claims 11 and 20, Wang, as modified by Akpinar, teaches the features of claims 1, 10 and 19, respectively, and Akpinar further teaches wherein dividing the area into rooms in accordance with the plurality of clusters includes: identifying, by the one or more processors, a different room corresponding to each of the plurality of clusters (e.g. see Fig. 10, and col. 32, lines 10-32, wherein the indoor area is conceptually divided into zones 1002, 1004 and 1006, which each comprise a separate room). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the indoor floor plan system of Wang to include dividing the indoor area into rooms for the purpose of localizing potential contagions.
As per claim 3, and similarly with respect to claim 12, Wang, as modified by Akpinar, teaches the features of claims 1 and 10, respectively, and Akpinar further teaches wherein generating the indoor floor plan includes: generating, by the one or more processors, representations of walls in the indoor floor plan in areas that do not correspond to one of the plurality of clusters (e.g. see Fig. 10, wherein the indoor area defines walls, which correspond to divided zones 1002, 1004 and 1006). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the indoor floor plan system of Wang to include dividing the indoor area into rooms for the purpose of localizing potential contagions.
As per claim 4, and similarly with respect to claim 13, Wang, as modified by Akpinar, teaches the features of claims 1 and 10, respectively, and Wang further discloses further comprising: receiving, at the one or more processors, an identifier for at least one of the rooms in the indoor floor plan; labeling, by the one or more processors, the room according to the received identifier (e.g. see Fig. 9, and para 0059, wherein the system receives unique data indicating the occupant (e.g. O.O., T.T., John, etc.) of the room). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the indoor floor plan system of Wang to include dividing the indoor area into rooms for the purpose of localizing potential contagions.
As per claim 5, and similarly with respect to claim 14, Wang, as modified by Akpinar, teaches the features of claims 4 and 10, respectively, and Wang further discloses further comprising: receiving, at the one or more processors, a request to perform an action based on a condition occurring in a particular room in the building, the request including the identifier for the room; determining, by the one or more processors, that the condition in the particular room has been satisfied; and automatically performing the action based on the condition occurring in the particular room (e.g. see Fig. 9 and para 0046, wherein an individual (e.g. John) provides identification indicating the use of a cubical room (i.e. transmitting a request to use a room and confirmation of the individual) and in response to this request, the system updates a dynamic floorplan, which is displayed (i.e. automatically performing an action)).
As per claim 6, and similarly with respect to claim 15, Wang, as modified by Akpinar, teaches the features of claims 5 and 14, respectively, and Wang further discloses wherein determining that the condition in the particular room has been satisfied includes: determining a boundary of the particular room based on the indoor floor plan (e.g. see Fig. 9, wherein boundaries of the rooms and cubical are defined); identifying an event occurring within the boundary of the particular room (e.g. see para 0046, wherein occupation of the room/cubical occurs); and determining that the identified event satisfies the condition (e.g. see para 0046, wherein the system identifies the occupant).
As per claim 9, and similarly with respect to claim 18, Wang, as modified by Akpinar, teaches the features of claims 1 and 10, respectively, and Wang further discloses further comprising: providing, by the one or more processors, the indoor floor plan to a client device for display on a user interface of the client device (e.g. see para 0045, wherein the floorplan is sent to John Doe’s phone for display).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0198080, to Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang), in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,356,810, to Akpinar et al. (hereinafter Akpinar), and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0137549, to Gupta et al. (hereinafter Gupta).
As per claim 7, and similarly with respect to claim 16, Wang, as modified by Akpinar, teaches the features of claims 1 and 10, respectively, but fails to teach wherein obtaining indoor location histories for the one or more users includes: for the one or more users over a plurality of points in time, obtaining an indoor location of the user determined based on at least one distance between a client device of the user and at least one anchor device having a predetermined location within the building, the at least one distance determined based on a round trip time of an ultra-wideband (UWB) signal communicated between the client device and the at least one anchor device. However, Gupta teaches tracking individuals within an office space (i.e. location history at points in time) based upon UWB communication distance between a user’s device and access point (e.g. see paras 0031 and 0057). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the indoor floor plan system of Wang to include tracking individuals through communication between a user’s device and access point, for the purpose of providing a more accurate location determination.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0198080, to Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang), in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,356,810, to Akpinar et al. (hereinafter Akpinar), and in further view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN104268595, to Gong et al. (hereinafter Gong). For the purpose of examination a machine translation of Gong is being utilized and attached herewith.
As per claim 8, and similarly with respect to claim 17, Wang, as modified by Akpinar, teaches the features of claims 1 and 10, respectively, but fails to teach wherein clustering the determined indoor locations includes: performing, by the one or more processors, graph kernel density fitting on the determined indoor locations to generate distributions of each of the indoor locations; and generating, by the one or more processors, the plurality of clusters based on the distributions. However, Gong teaches localization of objects utilizing graph kernel density fitting (e.g. see at least p. 5). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the indoor floor plan system of Wang to include utilizing graph kernel density fitting for location of an object as a matter of designer’s choice of a limited number of means.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B