DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the second locating device analyzing at least one of: the location of the first locating device …”. The originally filed disclosure fails to provide support for the above limitation wherein the second locating device analyzes the location of the first locating device. The originally filed disclosure provides support for the base station performing the analysis. The limitation is considered a new matter.
Note: for the purpose of the art rejection below, the limitation is interpreted to represent “a server in communication with the plurality of locating mobile devices receiving the signal emitted from the first locating device, ”.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the second locating device" in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1, 10 recite the limitation “a server … receiving the signal emitted from the first locating device, … analyzing at least one of: … a detection direction and the distance to the tag”. The limitation, based on the use of the term “at least one of” followed by “and” between the listed components, indicates that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase to be “a server … receiving, … analyzing at least one of … a detection direction and at least one of the distance to the tag”; wherein the limitation requires both the direction and distance to the tag from the first locating device. However, the claim further recites the limitation “wherein the first locating device … can generate a directional or distance indicator”; which, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, indicates that the first locating device can generate one of the direction or distance and not both. The two limitations contradict with each other where the claim has a scope where the fist locating device generates one of either the direction or the distance of the tag but the server requires both for the analyzing step. The scope of the claims could not be determined and is considered indefinite.
Note: for the purpose of the art rejection below, the limitation is interpreted to represent “wherein the first locating device … can generate a directional and distance indicator”.
Claims 1, 10 recite the limitations “the first locating device or a second locating device … activate an indication … via a user interface of the user device”, “the tag … capable of emitting the indication …”. It is not clear which one is responsible for activating/emitting the indication. The first limitation indicates that one of the locating devices is responsible for activating the indication to be output by the user device, whereas, the second limitation indicates that the tag emits the indication. The scope of the claim could not be determined and is considered indefinite.
Note: for the purpose of the art rejection below, the limitation is interpreted to represent “wherein the first locating device … can generate a directional and distance indicator”.
Claims 1, 10 recite the limitation “locating device … activate an indication via the user interface of the user device from the tag…”. It is not clear what the limitation is claiming. Is the locating device activating the user interface to show the indication, wherein the activation signal is transmitted through the tag? Is the locating device receiving the activation signal from the tag, then using the signal to activate the user interface of the user device? The Examiner is unable to determine the scope of the claim and is considered indefinite.
Claims 1, 10 recite the limitation “the tag … capable of emitting the indication via the user interface of the user device”. It is not clear what the phrase is claiming. Is the tag emitting the indication to the user device, which intern outputs the indication on the user device’s interface? Is the tag emitting the indication to another device but transmitted via the user device? Is it not clear what the phrase represents the scope of the limitation cannot be determined. The claim is considered indefinite.
Claims 1, 10 recite the limitation “a power source coupled to the tag, wherein the tag is powered by battery”. Is the battery, the claimed power source? Is the battery a separate power source? The scope of the claim could not be determined and is considered indefinite.
Claims 2-10, 12-20 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688