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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagnado (US Pat Pub# 2023/0126424) in view of Jooste (US Pat Pub# 2015/0170504) and further in view of Ghabra (US Pat Pub# 2021/0209873).
Regarding claim 1, Lagnado teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a computing device (220/228) and from a first device (228/220), a signal (226) (fig. 2, page 1, 3, par [0008, 0027) (see the radio device 228 is a cellular or wireless radio that transmits and/or receives wireless signals with other devices);
determining, based on the signal, that the first device (228/220) is in motion (fig. 2-3, page 3, par [0027, 0030]) (see the computing device 220 determine that the device has moved from a first location to a second location based on the comparison.);
determining, based on the first device (228/220) being in motion (move) (fig. 2-3, page 3, par [0030]) (see determine that the device has moved from a first location to a second location based on the comparison),
Lagnado teaches the radio device to perform a radio scan of an area, compare the radio scan to a previous radio scan by the radio device, determine that the device has moved from a first location to a second location, the computing device 220 has changed locations, a particular device may be activated during a first scan and deactivated during a second scan (fig. 2-3, page 3, par [0030-0031 ]). That is or obvious to cease (stop) determining (scan) a location of the first device; and causing location determination for the first device to cease when the device in motion or move. Lagnado fails to teach ceasing location determination and a signal indicating motion.
However, Jooste teaches determining, based on the first device being in motion, to cease determining a location of the first device (Section 0040, when the device 200 moves the positioning device terminates the location signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify above teaching of Lagnado with Jooste, in order to reduce power consumption and improve efficiency.
Lagnado and Jooste fail to teach a signal indicating motion.
Ghabra teaches receiving, by a computing device and from the first device, a signal indicaton the first device is in motion (Sections 0018 and 0024, device receiving a signal from a mobile device indicating movement etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify above teaching of Lagnado with Jooste and Ghabra, in order to improve communication to track location.
Regarding claim 6, the combination including Lagnado teaches the signal comprises motion data and wherein determining that the first device is in motion (page 5, par [0044]) comprises determining, based on the motion data, the first device is in motion (page 5, par [0044]) (see determination that the device has moved from a first location to a second location or that the device has moved a threshold distance away from the first location can be determined based on the comparison).
Regarding claim 7, the combination including Jooste teaches the motion data comprises at least one of a quantity of acceleration, a quantity of velocity, or a motion indication, for the first device (Sections 0036 and 0042, accelerometer).
Regarding claim 8, the combination including Jooste teaches determining that the first device is in motion comprises: comparing a signal strength of the signal to a second signal strength of another signal from the first device (Sections 0039-0041, 0098, and 0103, comparisons of data which can include signal strength etc.); and
determining, based on a difference between the signal strength and the second signal strength, that the first device is in motion (Sections 0039-0041, 0098, and 0103, comparisons of data which can include signal strength to see location changes etc.).
Regarding claim 9, the combination including Jooste teaches the signal comprises a Bluetooth signal (Sections 0026 and 0033, Bluetooth protocol).
Claims 10-13, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagnado (US Pat Pub# 2023/0126424) in view of Jooste (US Pat Pub# 2015/0170504)
Regarding claim 10, Lagnado teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a computing device (220/228), a signal (226) associated with a first device (228/220) signal (fig. 2, page 1, 3, par [0008, 0027) (see the radio device 228 is a cellular or wireless radio that transmits and/or receives wireless signals with other devices);
Determining (scan) a signal strength for the signal (fig. 4, page par [0040]) (see the radio scan information includes cellular device identification, signal strength information);
determining, based on a comparison of the signal strength of the signal to a prior signal strength of a prior signal from the first (Section 0017 and Claims 4 and 10, comparing the signal strength of a previous scan and a current scan to determine motion etc.), that the first device is in motion (fig. 2-4, page 3, par [0027, 0030. 0040]) (see the computing device 220 determine that the device has moved from a first location to a second location based on the comparison. information includes cellular device identification, signal strength information); and
Lagnado teaches the radio device to perform a radio scan of an area, compare the radio scan to a previous radio scan by the radio device, determine that the device has moved from a first location to a second location, the computing device 220 has changed locations, a particular device may be activated during a first scan and deactivated during a second scan (fig. 2-3, page 3, par [0030-0031 ]). That is or obvious causing location determination for the first device to cease when the device in motion or move.
However, Jooste teaches determining, based on the signal strength of the signal, that the first device is in motion; and based on determining that the first device is in motion, causing location determination for the first device (Sections 0039-0041, when the device 200 moves the positioning device terminates the location signal which can be based on signal strength etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify above teaching of Lagnado with Jooste, in order to reduce power consumption and improve efficiency.
Regarding claim 11, the combination including Lagnado teaches wherein the signal comprises motion data (Sections 0011-0012, scan data to determine motion etc.)
Regarding claim 12, the combination including Lagnado teaches the signal strength comprises a received signal strength indicator quantity (page 1, par [0017)]) (see the signal strength is represented by a received signal strength indictor (RSSI).
Regarding claim 13, the combination including Jooste teaches receiving a second signal associated with the first device; and determining, based on a second signal strength of the second signal and a location of the computing device, a second location of the first device location (Sections 0039-0041, using signal strength signals to determine location of the first device 200 etc.).
Regarding claim 16, the combination including Lagnado teaches the signal is a wireless signal (page 1, par [(0027])(see the radio device 228 is a cellular or wireless radio that transmits and/or receives wireless signals with other devices).
Regarding claim 17, Lagnado teaches a method comprising: sending, by a device (228/220) (fig. 2), a wireless signal (226) (fig. 2, page 1, 3, par [0008, 0027) (see the radio device 228 is a cellular or wireless radio that transmits and/or receives wireless signals with other devices),
determining, by the device, based on motion data for the device (228/220), that the device is in motion (fig. 2-3, page 3, par [0027, 0030]) (see the computing device 220 determine that the device has moved from a first location to a second location based on the comparison.); and
Lagnado teaches the radio device to perform a radio scan of an area, compare the radio scan to a previous radio scan by the radio device, determine that the device has moved from a first location to a second location, the computing device 220 has changed locations, a particular device may be activated during a first scan and deactivated during a second scan (fig. 2-3, page 3, par [0030-0031]). That is or obvious discontinuing, based on the device being in motion, the sending of the wireless signal.
However, Jooste teaches determining, by the device, based on motion data for the device, that the device is in motion; and discontinuing, by the device, based on the device being in motion, the sending of the wireless signal (Sections 0039-0041, when the device 200 moves the positioning device terminates the location signal and signal strength measurements etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify above teaching of Lagnado with Jooste, in order to reduce power consumption and improve efficiency.
Regarding claim 18, the combination including Lagnado teaches receiving, by the device, the motion data (page 5, par [0044]) (see determination that the device has moved from a first location to a second location or that the device has moved a threshold distance away from the first location can be determined based on the comparison).
Regarding claim 20, the combination including Jooste teaches the motion data comprises at least one of a quantity of acceleration, a quantity of velocity, or a motion indication, for the device (Sections 0036 and 0042, accelerometer).
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagnado (US Pat Pub# 2023/0126424) in view of Jooste (US Pat Pub# 2015/0170504) and further in view of Ghabra (US Pat Pub# 2021/0209873) and further in view of Buck et al. (US Pat Pub# 2013/0237204).
Regarding claim 2, Lagnado in view of Jooste and further in view of Ghabra teaches the limitations in claim 1. Lagnado, Ghabra, and Jooste fails to teach a second signal went he first device is not in motion.
Buck teaches receiving, from the first device a second signal, wherein the second signal indicates (transmit) that the first device is not in motion (motion has stop) (fig. 28, page 2,11, par [0035, 0097]) (see when the mobile device is not in motion); and
determining a second location of the first device (fig. 27-28, page 11, par [0093, 0097]) (see determine a first location and a second location associated with the mobile device, when the mobile device is not in motion. the location information may be transmitted or uploaded more frequently as the mobile device is in motion as opposed to when the mobile device is not in motion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify above teaching of Lagnado with Jooste and further in view of Ghabra and further with Buck, in order to improve communication and efficiency.
Regarding claim 5, Buck further teaches determining the second location of the first device comprises: determining a signal strength of the second signal; and determining, based on the signal strength and a location of the computing device, the second location (page 12, par [0095, 0100, and 0103]) (see determine the location of the device, the system is already prepared and requires minimal computational power to estimate the device's location. In an additional embodiment, the server may estimate the device's location based on its proximity, as determined by signal strength).
Claims 14-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagnado (US Pat Pub# 2023/0126424) in view of Jooste (US Pat Pub# 2015/0170504) and further in view of Buck et al. (US Pat Pub# 2013/0237204).
Regarding claim 14, Lagnado in view of Jooste teaches the limitations in claim 10. However, Lagnado and Jooste fail to teach a second signal strength.
Buck further teaches determining, based on a second signal strength of a second signal associated with the first device, that the first device is not in motion (motion has stop) (fig. 28, page 2, 11, par [0035, 0097]) (see when the mobile device is not in motion); and
causing, based on the first device not being in motion, the location determining for the first device to resume (fig. 27-28, page 11, par [0093, 0097]) (see determine a first location and a second location associated with the mobile device, when the mobile device is not in motion. the location information may be transmitted or uploaded more frequently as the mobile device is in motion as opposed to when the mobile device is not in motion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify above teaching of Lagnado with Jooste and further with Buck, in order to improve locating a device.
Regarding claim 15, Buck further teaches determining, based on a second signal strength of a second signal associated with the first device, that the first device is not in motion (motion has stop) (fig. 28, page 2, 11, par [0035, 0097]) (see when the mobile device is not in motion); and determining, based on the first device not being in motion, the location of the first device (fig. 27-28, page 11, par [0093, 0097]) (see determine a first location and a second location associated with the mobile device, when the mobile device is not in motion. the location information may be transmitted or uploaded more frequently as the mobile device is in motion as opposed to when the mobile device is not in motion).
Regarding claim 19, Buck further teaches determining, based on second motion data, that the device is not in motion (motion has stop) (fig. 28, page 2, 11, par [0035, 0097]) (see when the mobile device is not in motion); and
resuming, based on the device not being in motion, the sending of the wireless signal (fig. 27-28, page 11, par [0093, 0097]) (see determine a first location and a second location associated with the mobile device, when the mobile device is not in motion. the location information may be transmitted or uploaded more frequently as the mobile device is in motion as opposed to when the mobile device is not in motion).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 3-4 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.
Reasons for allowance
10. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding dependent claim 3, Lagnado teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a computing device (220/228) and from a first device (228/220), a signal (226) (fig. 2, page 1, 3, par [0008, 0027]),
determining, based on the signal, that the first device (228/220) is in motion (fig. 2-3, page 3, par [0027, 0030]);
determining, based on the first device (228/220) being in motion (move) (fig. 2-3, page 3, par [0030]) (see determine that the device has moved from a first location to a second location based on the comparison).
Lagnado teaches the radio device to perform a radio scan of an area, compare the radio scan to a previous radio scan by the radio device, determine that the device has moved from a first location to a second location, the computing device 220 has changed locations, a particular device may be activated during a first scan and deactivated during a second scan (fig. 2-3, page 3, par [0030-0031]). And
Buck teaches a method to transmit location information when device motion has been detected to cease or stop (fig. 21-22, 28, page 11, par [0098)).
The above prior art of record, however, fail to disclose or render obvious: wherein the second signal is received by a first scanner of the computing device and wherein determining the second location of the first device comprises: receiving, by a second scanner of the computing device and from the first device, a third signal; receiving, by a third scanner of the computing device and from the first device, a fourth signal; and determining, based on the second signal, the third signal, and the fourth signal, the second location for the first device, as specified in the claim 3.
Regarding dependent claim 4, Lagnado teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a computing device (220/228) and from a first device (228/220), a signal (226) (fig. 2, page 1, 3, par [0008, 0027]),
determining, based on the signal, that the first device (228/220) is in motion (fig. 2-3, page 3, par [0027, 0030]);
determining, based on the first device (228/220) being in motion (move) (fig. 2-3, page 3, par [0030]) (see determine that the device has moved from a first location to a second location based on the comparison).
Lagnado teaches the radio device to perform a radio scan of an area, compare the radio scan to a previous radio scan by the radio device, determine that the device has moved from a first location to a second location, the computing device 220 has changed locations, a particular device may be activated during a first scan and deactivated during a second scan (fig. 2-3, page 3, par [0030-0031 ]). And
Buck teaches a method to transmit location information when device motion has been detected to cease or stop (fig. 21-22, 28, page 11, par [0098)).
The above prior art of record, however, fail to disclose or render obvious: wherein the second signal is received by the computing device and wherein determining the second location of the first device comprises: receiving, by a second computing device and from the first device, a third signal; receiving, by a computing device and from the first device, a fourth signal; and determining, based on the second signal, the third signal, and the fourth signal, the second location for the first device, as specified in the claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks
Examiner’s Response
“As the Office Action suggests, Lagnado, teaches using a difference in signal strength measured at two different times to determine that a device has moved. Office Action, p. 3. This does not teach ‘a signal comprising an indication the first device is in motion,’ as claimed.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See Examiner Interview Summary filed on 7/15/2026.
“Ghabra teaches using motion data to enhance location determination accuracy, which teaches away from the claimed approach of terminating location determination upon detecting motion. It is improper to combine references where the references teach away from their combination.”
In response to applicant's argument that “It is improper to combine references where the references teach away from their combination”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Further, see examiner’s 2nd, 3rd, and 4th response in Advisory Action filed on 2/26/2026.
“Jooste does not teach terminating location determination based on receiving a motion indication signal.”
See the 2nd examiner’s response under “Response to Arguments” in Final Rejection filed on 3/13/2025.
“Even assuming arguendo that each reference individually discloses portions of the claimed subject matter (which Applicant does not concede), the Office Action fails to articulate a legally sufficient motivation to combine Lagnado, Jooste, and Ghabra in the manner proposed. The cited references are directed to distinct technical problems, operate under different design assumptions, and in several respects teach away from one another. The Office Action's proposed combination therefore relies on impermissible hindsight rather than a reasoned explanation grounded in the prior art.”
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Further, see examiner’s 2nd, 3rd, and 4th response in Advisory Action filed on 2/26/2026.
“In fact, the word "motion" does not even appear in Lagnado at all. In Lagnado, in
paragraph 17, as referenced by the Office Action, ‘a previous signal strength is compared to a current signal strength to determine if the device has moved from a previously determined location.’ Without more, the determination that an object or device was previously at a first location, and it is now at a second location, does not teach determining motion per se.”
See 1st examiner’s response above.
“With respect to Jooste, Applicant submits that this reference teaches termination of location determination based on a lack of signal resulting from devices no longer being in range of each other, not ‘determining, based on a comparison of the signal strength of the signal to a prior signal strength of a prior signal from the first device, that the first device is in motion; and based on determining that the first device is in motion, terminating location determination
for the first device."
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
See Examiner Interview Summary filed on 7/15/2026.
“Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action has not provided a proper
motivation to combine the teachings of Jooste with Lagnado. The Office Action concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Lagnado with Jooste in order to reduce power consumption and improve efficiency. However, Lagnado already teaches methods for increasing energy efficiency at the computing device. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have no need to look to Jooste for ways to modify Lagnado, as Lagnado already addresses the stated motivation. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the proposed combination
lacks a proper rationale.”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, see examiner’s 2nd, 3rd, and 4th response in Advisory Action filed on 2/26/2026.
“The Office Action asserts that Jooste teaches ‘when the device moves the position device terminates the location signal.’ Office Action, p. 8. Any termination of determining a location in
Jooste occurs purely incidentally due to the device being out of range. In other words, in Jooste the location is still determined while the device is in range, even if the device is in motion.”
See the 2nd examiner’s response under “Response to Arguments” in Final Rejection filed on 3/13/2025.
“Again, any discontinuation of a signal transmission taught by Jooste occurs by virtue of the devices no longer being in range of each other and not ‘based on
the device (that is sending the signal) being in motion,’ as claimed.”
See the 2nd examiner’s response under “Response to Arguments” in Final Rejection filed on 3/13/2025.
“Thus, Lagnado already teaches methods for increasing energy efficiency at the
computing device. As such, Lagnado would have no need for the teachings in Jooste to improve the efficiency of the computing device in Lagnado. Accordingly, Applicant asserts that one or
ordinary skill in the art would not look to Jooste for ways to modify Lagnado as alleged by the Office Action.”
In response to applicant's argument that “Applicant asserts that one or ordinary skill in the art would not look to Jooste for ways to modify Lagnado”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Further, see examiner’s 2nd, 3rd, and 4th response in Advisory Action filed on 2/26/2026.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW WENDELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0557. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached on 571-272-7867. 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.
/ANDREW WENDELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 8/8/2026
Prosecution Insights