Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
2. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,986,377 to Li in view of 2011/0199917 to Karagouz and either one of 2015/0319568 to Haro or 2015/0213497 to Jain and 2019/0102726 to Ushiki.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Li (as described in the written opinion) teaches an electronic device comprising: a location sensor; memory; communication circuitry; and a processor operatively connected to the location sensor, the memory, and the communication circuitry (see the structures of the mobile device 200 in Fig. 2, as described in column 5, lines 38-65), wherein the processor is configured to:
control the communication circuitry, to receive, from a plurality of external devices, identification information of one or more external electronic devices included in a primary geo-fence, and determine relative distances between each of the one or more external electronic devices and the electronic device based on a signal received from the external device (see column 6, lines 1-65, which teach the geo-fences, which are defined by RF fingerprints which include RSSI and RTT between the identified devices, which allow for the relative distances between devices to be determined, and see the discussion from columns 8-9, which relate to the granularity of each of the geo-fences).
Regarding the feature of:
“determine locations of each external electronic devices, based on the relative distance and a location of the electronic device as detected via the location sensor, and the relative distances”, although Li teaches the relative “distances” between devices, as these distances are not “locations of the other devices” per se, Karaoguz is added.
In an analogous art, Karaoguz teaches a wireless device which uses its own location to determine the location of a “location unaware device”. As described in sections [0050] to [0052], and as shown in Fig. 3, Karaoguz teaches that the first device calculates the location of the second device. Sections [0031] and [0038] to [0040] also discuss the smart device determining the location of other smart devices.
Therefore, as Li and Karaoguz teach a device determining its location, and as Karaoguz also teaches a first device determining the location of a second device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li to include the feature of other device determination as in Karaoguz, for the reasons as in Karaoguz and Li which are ensuring that the other devices are correctly known.
Regarding the previous feature (related to a secondary geo-fence):
“determine a portion of the primary geo-fence as a secondary geo-fence inclusive of the one or more external electronic devices, based at least on the identification information and the respective locations of the one or more external electronic devices”, although Li teaches changing and/or determining the granularity of a geo-fence, where a smaller geo-fence would be the recited “secondary geo-fence”, either one of Haro or Jain is added to mor explicitly show changing geofence sizes (to be smaller than the primary to become the “secondary”) based on the location of the other devices.
In an analogous art, Haro teaches a device which determines geofences. As described in sections [0024] to [0029] and [0036] to [0040], and as shown in Figs. 3-6, Haro teaches that a subgroup geofence is created based on the location of the other devices in proximity. Similarly, section [0061] and step 720 of Jain teach that a smaller geofence may be generated when users are in close proximity.
Therefore, as Li/Karaoguz teach determining geo-fences, and as Haro or Jain teach creating a “secondary geo-fence”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li/Karaoguz to include the feature of determining a smaller geo-fence, for the “granularity” reasons in Li and as Haro/Jain teach the advantages of smaller geo-fences when the devices are determined to be within the smaller circle.
Regarding the amended feature of “generate a geo-fence table including a secondary geo-fence of each external electronic device”, Ushiki is added.
In an analogous art, Ushiki teaches a device which determines geofences. As shown in Figs. 14A to 14D (and as described in sections [0079] to [0081], Ushiki teaches storing a table of geo-fences GF1, GF2, GF3 (which include multiple secondary smaller fences GF2 and GF3 within a primary largest geo-fence GF1).
Therefore, as Li/Karaoguz teach determining geo-fences, as Haro/Jain teach creating a “secondary geo-fence”, and as Ushiki teaches creating a “geo-fence table”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Li combination to include the feature of storing the geo-fences in a table, as Ushiki teaches the advantages and conventionality of storing smaller secondary geo-fences in a table which relate to the primary largest geo-fence.
Regarding the amended features of claim 1 reciting: that the table… “includes information of each external electronic device indicating whether the location of each external device is valid” and
“when an external electronic device, corresponding to the information indicating the location of the external electronic device is valid, is detected after generating the geofence table, determine the secondary geo-fence of the external electronic device as a secondary geo-fence in which the electronic device is located based on the geo-fence table”,
regarding the newly recited language of “indicating whether the location of a device is valid”, see the description of Fig. 11 of Li in column 7, which teaches that the device locations are known to a certain degree of uncertainty and/or granularity, which is the “information indicating that the location is valid”, as recited. See also, Figs. 16-17 as described in column 8 of Li, which teach geofences for each device and transmitting each devices’ geofence to the other device and/or a first geofence created by the first device is sent to the central server which distributes the geofence to other devices.
Therefore, regarding the newly recited language of “when an external device is detected (after generating the table), determine the second geofence as including the location of the external device”, as Li (and Ushiki) teach storing a table and exchanging geofences and as Li (and Karaoguz and Haro/Jain) teach “detecting an external device after the table is stored”, the combination of references would teach and/or render obvious this new feature.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2014/0128095 to Finlow-Bates.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, which recite “wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether the location of the electronic device measured by the location sensor meets a predetermined reliability threshold, control the communication circuitry to receive identification information and determine the relative distances, based on determining that the location meets the predetermined reliability threshold”, although Li teaches determining location and changing granularity of a geo-fence, Finlow-Bates is added to show a “location accuracy threshold”.
In an analogous art, Finlow-Bates teaches a wireless device which determines its location and whether it has entered a geo-fence. See for example, Fig. 8 and step 870 as described in section [0075], which teaches that the device may determine if its location accuracy has exceeded a threshold and then subsequently use the location to determine if it has entered a geo-fence.
Therefore, as Li/Karaoguz teach determining location and geo-fences, and as Finlow-Bates teaches a device determining if its location accuracy threshold is met and then subsequently entering and joining devices in geofences, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li/Karaoguz to include the feature of location accuracy threshold of Finlow-Bates, for the reasons in Finlow-Bates, which is that if the position is inaccurate, there is no reason to determine geo-fence entry and then obtain other device information in the geo-fenced group.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 10,440,579 to Korrapati.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, which recite “further comprising a motion sensor, wherein the memory is configured to store reliable location information including the location of the electronic device, and an accuracy value for the electronic device, and wherein the processor is configured to: acquire a movement distance of the electronic device via the motion sensor, determine a reliable location circle by adding the accuracy value to the movement distance of the electronic device, and wherein the predetermined reliability threshold is met when the location is disposed within the reliable location circle”, although the above references (such as the location accuracy threshold of Finlow-Bates) teach some of the above features, as they do not teach the features of movement distance and reliability location circle, Korrapati is added.
In an analogous art, Korrapati teaches a wireless system which determines device location which is used to prevent spoofing. As described with respect to Figs. 10 and 11 (column 13, line 29 to column 15, line 61), Korrapati teaches obtaining primary and secondary location information and also monitors device speed and device movement. As described in column 17, line 55 to column 18, line 15, Korrapati teaches that the device movement is added to the distance between primary/secondary locations to determine a measurement accuracy threshold, which result in “low confidence” and “high confidence” assessment of the location measurement (which is equivalent to the recited “movement distance and reliability location circle” in claim 3).
Therefore, as Li and Karagouz teach a device determining geo-fences, and as Korrapati teaches the movement distance and reliability location circle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li to include the features of adding movement values to accuracy threshold, for the reasons in columns 17-18 of Korrapati, which are that this allows for both high and low confidence discrimination for location determination, as is desired.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2012/0046040 to Chatterjee.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, which recite “wherein the processor is configured to generate the geo-fence table based on count of a number of times that the external electronic device exits and reenters a predetermined area”, Chatterjee is added.
In an analogous art, Chatterjee teaches a wireless device which determines how many times the device has entered and exited a geo-fence (see section [0035]), where if the number of exit/entry times exceeds a threshold, the geo-fence is activated.
Therefore, as Li/Karagouz teach generating a secondary geo-fence, and as Chatterjee teaches activating (or recited “generating”) a geofence based on the number of exit/entry times, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li to include the counting entry/exits of Chaterjee, for the reasons as in Chaterjee and Li which are that repetition increases the reliability and/or granularity of the geo-fence.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2016/0266258 to Huang.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, which recite “wherein the processor is configured to: generate a movement probability value based on the count, wherein the geo-fence table is further generated based on the movement probability value”, Huang is added.
In an analogous art, Huang teaches a system which determines user device movement probabilities of geofence crossings (see sections [0058]-[0067] and [0070] to [0071]), and creation and/or activation of the geo-fences based on the probability values and crossings (similar to Chaterjee).
Therefore, as Li/Karagouz teach a device generating geo-fences, as Chatterjee teaches activating/generating a geofence based on the number of exit/entry times, and Huang teaches using movement probability values, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li/Karaoguz/Chaterjee, for the reasons as in Huang, which are that movement probabilities are useful indicators of location and geo-fencing.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2022/0312148 to Zucker.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, which recite “wherein the processor is configured to determine a valid state of the external electronic devices based at least on a count of times that each of the one or more external electronic devices detected to be within a predetermined range of value”, although Li teaches in Figs. 11-15 (see columns 7-8) and sections [0021] and [0026]-[0027] of Haro teach refining locations or granularity of devices/fences, as they do not teach “counting times within a geofence”, Zucker is added.
In an analogous art, Zucker teaches a wireless system which increases the accuracy and granularity of geo-fences based on number of entrances/exits. As described in sections [0052] to [0053], and as shown in Figs. 2-6, Zucker teaches that increasing the number of entries/exits increases the accuracy of the geo-fencing process. Therefore, the number of crossings forms the recited “information determining the location validity”.
Therefore, as Li and Karaoguz teach a device determining higher accuracy (more granular) geo-fences, and as Zucker also teaches using a crossing number (information indicating “validity”) to refine the geo-fence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li to include the features of Zucker, for the reasons as in Li and Zucker, which are that more crossings of geo-fences increase accuracy (for the “second fence”) and the number of crossings forms the recited “validity state”.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2021/0144509 to Hicks.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, which recite “wherein the processor is configured to: receive information related to the geo-fence table from a server via the communication circuitry, and transmit update information for the geo-fence table to the server via the communication circuitry”, although the references applied to claims 1 and 11 involve servers, as they do not explicitly teach receiving updated information from them, Hicks is added.
In an analogous art, Hicks teaches a wireless device which allows the user devices to transmit and receive information related to geo-fences with a central server. As recited in claims 1, 13 and 14 of Hicks, the system provides means for transmitting to a server, requests for information about a geo-fence and receiving the information from the server, as recited.
Therefore, as Li/Karaoguz teach using servers to store “secondary” geo-fences in tables, and as Hicks teaches a mobile device receiving information related to the stored geo-fences, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li to transmit geo-fence information to a requesting device, for the reasons as described within the background of Hicks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3-12-26 have been considered but are not persuasive and/or now moot because of the grounds of rejection as described above.
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 STEVEN SHAUN KELLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5652. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays.
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached on (571)270-3647. 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.
/STEVEN S KELLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights