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 .
Response to Remark(s)
Applicant's amendment filed July 29th, 2025 has been fully entered and considered. Applicant’s amendment to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on May 20th, 2025. Regarding the 101 rejections, the examiner respectfully find the Applicants’ argument to be non-persuasive, see response below for more details. Regarding the prior art rejection, all new grounds of rejection set forth in the present action were necessitated by Applicants’ claim amendments; accordingly, this action is made final.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, claims 1, 11-12 and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remains rejected.
Response to Argument(s)
101 rejection:
In pages 9-11 of the remarks, the Applicants argue that the features of the independent claims such as claim 1, cannot be practically performed in the human mind, under Step 2A Prong 1, such as,
“obtaining an environment representation corresponding to a physical environment, wherein the environmental representation is generated based on image data,
In accordance with a determination that one or more first criteria are met, providing a description of the location of the first object, wherein a criterion of the one or more first criteria is met when the location of the first object is identifiable from the environment representation,
In accordance with a determination that one or more second criteria are met, forgoing providing the description of the location of the first object, wherein a criterion of the one or more second criteria is met when the location of the first object is not identifiable from the environment representation”
Furthermore, the Applicants state that a human is unable to obtain an environment representation generated based on image data within their own mind.
For Step 2A Prong 2, the Applicants argue that the amended claim 1 has steps that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by improving object localization and providing intelligent location descriptions depending on whether specific criteria are met, such as the availability or unavailability of an object’s location based on specifically an environmental representation obtained from image data, with the support from the instant specification’s [0208] and FIGS. 8C-8C and FIG. 9.
Examiner’s reply:
Regarding the Applicants’ argument on Step 2A Prong 1, the examiner respectfully finds the Applicants’ argument to be non-persuasive, moreover, the Applicants are reminded that the requirement for Step 2A Prong 1 is that the limitations can be practically perform in a human mind with a pen and paper, based on BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation), therefore, the steps such as “in accordance with a determination that one or more first criteria are met, providing a description of the location of the first object, wherein a criterion of the one or more first criteria is met when the location of the first object is identifiable from the environment representation, in accordance with a determination that one or more second criteria are met, forgoing providing the description of the location of the first object, wherein a criterion of the one or more second criteria is met when the location of the first object is not identifiable from the environment representation” are steps that, under BRI, can be performed through mental processes using pen and paper such as, the human mind can provide a description of a location of an object using a pen and paper when the human mind observe an image and make a determination that a certain criteria are met regarding the location of the object here simply being if there is an object identified in the image (from image data of an environment representation) or not, to make a determination to provide a description or not, hence, all are just steps a human can perform mentally.
The step of “obtaining an environment representation corresponding to a physical environment, wherein the environmental representation is generated based on image data” is a step of an additional element, under Step 2A Prong 2, not under Step 2A Prong 1, which is analyzed to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering such as obtaining data/information here the data being an environment representation corresponding to certain information hence, still merely data gathering used for other steps including obtaining data/information for which the mental processes, as mentioned above, to be performed on. Hence this additional being insignificant extra-solution activity, is not an indication of an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Regarding the Applicants’ argument on Step 2A Prong 2, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicants’ argument. As the Applicants stated that the claim recite an improvement to a certain technology here being an object localization and providing intelligent location descriptions further stating that the processing is based on whether specific criteria are met such as the availability or unavailability of an object’s location from data of an image. The examiner finds this to not indicate an improvement but merely, steps of object localization based on availability of unavailability of an object in an image which is generic and not being practical of an application; as it is obvious that an object location is determined based on its availability in an image.
Please see MPEP 2106.04-05 for the 2A Prong 2 considerations of an indication of integration into a practical application. Nevertheless, there is no recitation of an explicit improvement within the claims, based on BRI scope, the teachings of the instant specification cannot be imported to be the scope of the claim as the claims are construed based on BRI in light of the specification.
Therefore the 101 rejections remain.
Claim Interpretation
The limitations of “a criterion of the one or more first criteria is met when the location of the first object is identifiable from the environment representation” and “a criterion of the one or more second criteria is met when the location of the first object is not identifiable from the environment representation” as recited in claims 1 and 19-20.
As stated in the Applicants’ remarks, in pages 12-13, that the terms “criteria” and “criterion” to be based on the definition recited within the claims and further defined in the specification which provides a standard for ascertaining the terms such as disclosed in the instant specification’s [0212] wherein the one or more first criteria are the criteria of a location of a requested object is available and the one or more second criteria are the criteria of a location of the requested object is not available, therefore, the terms “first criteria” and “criterion of the one or more first criteria n” are both interpreted as that there is an availability of an object’s location within the image data, and the terms “second criteria” and “criterion of the one or more second criteria n” are both interpreted as that there is an unavailability of an object’s location within the image data.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding independent claim 1 and claims 2-18,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a device, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part, “determining a location of the first object; accordance with a determination that one or more first criteria are met, providing a description of the location of the first object, wherein a criterion of the one or more first criteria is met when the location of the first object is identifiable from the environmental representation, and the description includes a relationship between the first object and a reference within the physical environment; and in accordance with a determination that one or more second criteria are met, forgoing providing the description of the location of the first object, wherein a criterion of the one or more second criteria is met when the location of the first object is not identifiable from the environmental representation.” The limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations of:
“determining a location of the first object” can be understood as a step that a human brain can also perform of determining a location of an object which is the same as an observation in the human mind mental process abstract idea;
“accordance with a determination that one or more first criteria are met, providing a description of the location of the first object” can be understood to be an observation that when certain criteria are met so provide a description which is just steps that a human brain can also perform hence, falls under mental process abstract idea, “wherein a criterion of the one or more first criteria is met when the location of the first object is identifiable from the environmental representation” is just a further specification of what the criteria can be which is an abstract idea belongs to the previous limitation, “and the description includes a relationship between the first object and a reference within the physical environment” is also a further specification to what the description can be which is an abstract idea of the observation limitation previously discussed; “and in accordance with a determination that one or more second criteria are met, forgoing providing the description of the location of the first object” can be understood as an observation can be done as what a human brain can also perform by based on certain criteria are met forgo the providing of the description, “wherein a criterion of the one or more second criteria is met when the location of the first object is not identifiable from the environmental representation” is also just a further specification of what a criterion can be which is an abstract idea supporting the observation mental process abstract idea as previously discussed.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s) –
An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; a memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: receiving an input including a reference to a first object, wherein the input includes a request for a location of the first object, and the first object is located in a physical environment; and in response to receiving the input;
Obtaining an environmental representation corresponding to a physical environment, wherein the environmental representation is generated based on image data
The additional elements – “an electronic device,” “one or more processors,” “a memory,” “one or more programs” - recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as memory configured to store the program’s instructions to be executed by the processor of a computer such as the electronic device recited) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. And the additional element of “obtaining an environmental representation…..is generated based on image data” is a step of insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, obtaining data/information, generating data/information. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Please see MPEP §2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
For all of the foregoing reasons, claim 1 does not comply with the requirements of 35 USC 101.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-18 do not provide elements that overcome the deficiencies of the independent claim 1. Moreover, claims 2-5, 8-9, 14 and 16-18 recites, in part, wherein clauses which are recitation of further specification of the abstract ideas of the claims they depend on such as “wherein the first object” in claim 1 or “wherein the reference within” in claim 5 and so on. Claim 6 recites, in part, “in response to receiving the input including the reference to the first object, requesting location information for the first object; receiving location information from the first object; and determining the location of the first object based on the location information” recite additional elements of “receiving the input….” and “receiving location information….” are extra-solution activities, under Step 2A Prong 2, to be mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, thus are insignificant extra-solution activity; and “determining…” step to be a limitation that is also an observation that can be done through the human mind such as determining location of something. Claim 7 recites, in part, “wherein determining the location of the first object comprises: obtaining a representation of the physical environment; comparing the location information with location information corresponding to the representation; and determining, based on the comparison, the location of the first object” which recites an additional element, under step 2A prong 2, which is the “obtaining a representation…” limitation of mere data gathering thus is insignificant extra-solution activity; and the limitations of “comparing….,” “determining, based on the comparison, …..” are steps that can be done through the human mind such as an observation, evaluation such as comparing gathered information and determine a location based on the comparison. Claim 10 recites, in part, “in response to receiving the input including the reference to the first object, identifying the first object as a secondary electronic device; after identifying the first object as the secondary electronic device, receiving, from the secondary electronic device, a positional value corresponding to a location of the secondary electronic device within the physical environment; and determining the location of the first object based on the received positional value” which recites, under Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements of “receiving the input including the reference….,” “after identifying the first object…., receiving, from the secondary electronic device, a positional….,” which are mere data gathering of gathering further information for processing which are insignificant extra-solution activities, moreover, “identifying the first object…,” “determining the location” to be steps that can be done through the human mind such as identifying objects and determining location based on given or resulted information, hence are abstract ideas of mental processed. Claim 11 recites, in part, “obtaining spatial information corresponding to the physical environment of the electronic device, wherein the spatial information is based on a multi-dimensional representation of the physical environment; obtaining a positional value corresponding to the location of the first object; and in accordance with a determination that the positional value corresponding to the location of the first object is included within the spatial information corresponding to the physical environment, determining that the location of the first object is identifiable from the environmental representation” which recites additional elements, under Step 2A Prong 2, “obtaining spatial information….,” “obtaining a positional value…..,” of mere data gathering that are insignificant extra-solution activities, moreover, “wherein the spatial information is based….” and “in accordance with a determination that the positional value….” to be a further specification limitations such as of what the spatial information is based on which is an abstract idea, “determining that the location….” is a limitation of a step that can be done through the human mind such as determining that the location is available based on processed information hence, abstract idea of a mental process. Claim 12 recites, in part, “in accordance with a determination that the positional value corresponding to the location of the first object is not included within the spatial information corresponding to the physical environment, determining that the location of the first object is not identifiable from the environmental representation” where “in accordance with a determination that the positional value….” is a limitation of a step that can be done through the human mind of an observation and evaluation such as determining that the positional value…. Is not included…. based on observing the processed information, and the “determining that the location of the first object is not available” also an observation, evaluation can be done through the human mind. Claim 13 recites, in part, “obtaining a multi-dimensional representation of the physical environment, wherein the multi-dimensional representation of the physical environment includes positional values corresponding to a plurality of object representations and positional values corresponding to a plurality of boundary representations, wherein the one or more first criteria and the one or more second criteria are based on the obtained multi-dimensional representation” where “obtaining a multi-dimensional representation….” to be an additional element of a mere data gathering step which is insignificant extra-solution activity under Step 2A Prong 2, the wherein clauses to be further specification limitations that provide further information to the previous abstract ideas. Claim 15 recites, in part, “in accordance with a determination that the first object satisfies one or more third criteria, periodically obtaining a positional value corresponding to the location of the first object” which recites “…determination that the first object…” to be an observation, evaluation can be done through the human mind such as determining an object satisfies certain condition based on given information, moreover, “…obtaining a positional value…” to be an additional element of a mere data gathering of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-18 are not patent eligible under 101.
The analogous independent claims 19-20 can be analyzed the same approach as for the independent claim 1 above since recited analogous features, hence are rejected under 101. Moreover, claim 19 recites further additional elements, under Step 2A Prong 2, to be insignificant generic computer components performing generic functions such as an electronic device with one or more processors and memory; furthermore claim 20 recites, further additional elements, under Step 2A Prong 2, to be insignificant generic computer components performing generic functions such as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs,…comprising instructions,…executed by one or more processors of a first electronic device,…..” therefore, these additional elements are not indicative of an integration into a practical application nor being considered as being significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faheem Zafari et. al. (“A Survey of Indoor Localization Systems and Technologies, April 2019, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, Vol. 21, Issue 3” hereinafter as “Zafari”) in view of C. Zhang et. al. (“LiTell: Indoor localization using unmodified light fixtures: Demo, 2016, in Proc. ACM 22nd Annu. Int. Conf. Mobile Comput. Netw., pp. 481–482” hereinafter as “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1, Zafari discloses an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; a memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for (section II.A, 2nd paragraph, discloses the processing of the invention which can be understood to include the use of a computer which includes a memory storing program to be executed by a processor for the instructions of such processing): obtaining an environmental representation corresponding to a physical environment (section II.C, 1st par., discloses the localization technique require obtaining environmental fingerprints of features of the environment which is based on RSSI measurements to estimate the user location, the environmental fingerprints here together is analogous to the recited environmental representation as claimed, by BRI); receiving an input including a reference to a first object, wherein the input includes a request for a location of the first object, and the first object is located in a physical environment (section V.A discloses indoor localization such as discloses in section V.E wherein the localization system is to obtain user/device position within an indoor environment; the localization can be done through a request such as discloses in section VI.A.3; therefore, the request here is analogous to the input includes a request for location of a user device [first object as claimed] within an indoor environment [a physical environment as claimed]; moreover, the localization request is to estimate location of the device with respect to some reference points [according to section I, 3rd paragraph, which is analogous to the input including a reference to a first object as claimed, since the request is reference to estimating a location in reference to a point], by BRI [broadest reasonable interpretation]); determining a location of the first object (the localization system as discussed previously is to obtain the location of the devices [any of which is analogous to the first object as claimed]); and in response to receiving the input: in accordance with a determination that one or more first criteria are met, providing a description of the location of the first object, wherein a criterion of the one or more first criteria is met when the location of the first object is identifiable from the environmental representation (section VIII.D discloses, in one instance of use, a location support systems allows user to obtain his location with respect to the anchor points and provides user freedom to discover serves based on his/her location; therefore, it indicates a determination that the location is available [location is obtained] to discovers services [services must be available around the user] in order for the service discovery to be available to the user; such as further discloses in section I, 4th paragraph, 2nd bullet, where it teaches that when the location is obtained in reference to a reference node then provide the user with different services [description as claimed, by BRI], determination of location in respect to a reference node is analogous to the criterion as claimed, by BRI; there must be met this criterion for the output to be providing services, by BRI covers the scope of the claim’s limitation; moreover, as discussed previously and as disclosed in section II.C, 1st 2 paragraphs, the user location is determined from the environmental fingerprints, moreover, the user location is identifiable if either equation 3 or 4 is met the likelihood of the user’s location, therefore, the likelihood of the user location here indicates if the user’s location is identifiable from the environmental fingerprint according to either equation 3 or 4, therefore, by BRI, covers the scope of the claimed limitation); and in accordance with a determination that one or more second criteria are met, forgoing providing the description of the location of the first object, wherein a criterion of the one or more second criteria is met when the location of the first object is not identifiable from the environmental representation (section II.E, 2nd paragraph, discloses when the sight path between the transmitter and the receives is not available, then cannot perform the localization, which covers the scope of this claim’s limitation wherein the second criteria are not met; then forgo providing the description of the location; wherein the criteria here being no sight path of location of the first object is not available, by BRI covers the scope of the claim’s limitation; moreover, as discussed previously and as disclosed in section II.C, 1st 2 paragraphs, the user location is determined from the environmental fingerprints, moreover, the user location is identifiable if either equation 3 or 4 is met the likelihood of the user’s location, therefore, the likelihood of the user location here indicates if the user’s location is identifiable from the environmental fingerprint according to either equation 3 or 4, therefore, when the likelihood is low then the user’s location is not identifiable in that environmental fingerprints, by BRI, covers the scope of the claimed limitation).
However, Zafari does not explicitly disclose wherein the environmental representation is generated based on image data.
In the same field of Indoor Localization (title, Zhang), Zhang discloses wherein the environmental representation is generated based on image data (as discussed previously and discloses in Zafari’s section II.C, 2nd paragraph, the environmental fingerprints and the user’s location are determined based on RSSI and RNs and further disclosed Zafari’s page 2587, last paragraph, cameras can be used along with RNs to localize an environment such as the environmental fingerprints of Zafari’s section II.C, 2nd paragraph, as taught in Zhang; therefore, Zhang here teaches this such as disclosed in Zhang’s page 233, the last 2 paragraphs; therefore, it can be understood that the environmental fingerprints can be obtained based on cameras of visual signals or image data, by BRI, covers the claimed limitation).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zafari to perform obtaining an environmental representation corresponding to a physical environment, wherein the environmental representation is generated based on image data as taught by Zhang to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to signal amplification along with camera system to localize location effectively (abstract, Zhang).
Regarding claim 2, Zafari in view of Zhang, wherein Zafari discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first object corresponds to a second electronic device different from the electronic device (as discussed above in claim 1, both the reference point and the devices include electronic devices, hence any of which can be the first object and the second device as claimed, by BRI covers the scope of the claim).
Regarding claim 3, Zafari in view of Zhang, wherein Zafari discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first object corresponds to the electronic device (as discussed above in claim 1, both the reference point and the devices include electronic devices, hence any of which can be the first object, by BRI covers the scope of the claim).
Regarding claim 4, Zafari in view of Zhang, wherein Zafari discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the description includes a reference to a second object different from the first object (as discussed above in claim 1, the description includes information regarding services as reference spots to the second object different from the first object, by BRI).
Regarding claim 5, Zafari in view of Zhang, wherein Zafari discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the reference within the physical environment corresponds to an identified area within the physical environment (as discussed above in claim 1 which teaches that the reference within an indoor environment corresponds to a known reference in the environment physically), and the relationship between the first object and the reference within the physical environment includes the first object within the identified area (as discussed above in claim 1, the obtained location and the information regarding nearby services indicate the relationship between the device with the nearby locations for services such as disclosed in page 2569, 1st column, 2nd paragraph, 2nd bullet wherein the entity connected to the reference node, the entity connection here is analogous to the relationship as claimed by BRI).
Regarding claim 6, Zafari in view of Zhang, wherein Zafari discloses the electronic device of claim 1, the one or more programs including instructions for: in response to receiving the input including the reference to the first object (as discussed above in claim 1, section V.A discloses indoor localization such as discloses in section V.E wherein the localization system is to obtain user/device position within an indoor environment; the localization can be done through a request such as discloses in section VI.A.3; therefore, the request here is analogous to the input includes a request for location of a user device [first object as claimed] within an indoor environment [a physical environment as claimed]; moreover, the localization request is to estimate location of the device with respect to some reference points [according to section I, 3rd paragraph, which is analogous to the input including a reference to a first object as claimed), requesting location information for the first object (as discussed previously, the request is to localize the location of the device); receiving location information from the first object (localization is to find location of the object including location information as disclosed in section II.A,); and determining the location of the first object based on the location information (section II.A discloses the object location is obtained based on the location information).
Regarding claim 7, Zafari in view of Zhang, wherein Zafari discloses the electronic device of claim 6, wherein determining the location of the first object comprises: obtaining a representation of the physical environment (page 2587, last paragraph, discloses in one approach for the device localization as taught in Zhang and Zhang [an implementation of such technique] teaches using fluorescent lights as the RNs, therefore, the fluorescent light can be understood as a representation based on BRI [broadest reasonable interpretation] of the physical environment, since the RNs here are being present in a physical environment); comparing the location information with location information corresponding to the representation (furthermore, in the same paragraph, Zhang and Zhang’s implement further teaches that LiTell uses characteristic frequency to differentiate among the RNs [differentiate is analogous to comparing location information corresponding to the representation or the RNs’ locations and the device location in this case]); and determining, based on the comparison, the location of the first object (then perform localize different users based on their proximity to a certain RN [as taught in the same paragraph]; by BRI, this paragraph teaches the same scope of the claim’s limitation).
Regarding claim 8, Zafari in view of Zhang, wherein Zafari discloses the electronic device of claim 7, wherein the location information corresponding to the representation includes a plurality of object locations, each object location of the plurality of object locations corresponding to a respective physical object in the physical environment (as discussed above in claim 7, page 2587, last paragraph, discloses in one approach for the device localization as taught in Zhang and Zhang [an implementation of such technique] teaches using fluorescent lights as the RNs, therefore, the fluorescent light can be understood as a representation based on BRI [broadest reasonable interpretation] of the physical environment; wherein the RNs here each correspond to a location information within the environment further correspond to a physical object here bring the florescent light, by BRI, covers the same scope of the claim’s limitation).
Regarding claim 9, Zafari in view of Zhang, wherein Zafari discloses the electronic device of claim 7, wherein the location information corresponding to the representation includes a plurality of boundary locations (as discussed above in claim 7, as taught in page 2587, last paragraph, the location information of the their proximity to a certain RN, indicate location information of a plurality of user devices and also of the RNs; moreover, as disclosed in shown in FIG. 4, each RN has a boundary line such as the hyperbola RN-RN [analogous to the boundary locations as claimed by BRI]), each boundary location of the plurality of boundary locations corresponding to a respective physical boundary in the physical environment (as shown in FIG. 4, each boundary location correspond to a respective physical boundary in the environment).
Regarding claim 10, Zafari in view of Zhang, wherein Zafari discloses the electronic device of claim 1, the one or more programs including instructions for: in response to receiving the input including the reference to the first object (section V.A discloses indoor localization such as discloses in section V.E wherein the localization system is to obtain user/device position within an indoor environment; the localization can be done through a request such as discloses in section VI.A.3; therefore, the request here is analogous to the input includes a request for location of a user device [first object as claimed] within an indoor environment [a physical environment as claimed]; moreover, the localization request is to estimate location of the device with respect to some reference points [according to section I, 3rd paragraph, which is analogous to the input including a reference to a first object as claimed, since the request is reference to estimating a location in reference to a point]; therefore, in response to the input or the request is received, the localization system is to then perform the obtaining of the location), identifying the first object as a secondary electronic device (such as discussed above in claim 1, the locations of the user device and the nearby services are obtained, hence, the nearby service here can be understood as the second electronic device as claimed by BRI; such as in one instance of implement as shown in FIG. 4, the RN can be understood as the first object as a secondary electronic device); after identifying the first object as the secondary electronic device, receiving, from the secondary electronic device, a positional value corresponding to a location of the secondary electronic device within the physical environment (as shown in FIG. 4, the location of the RN within a physical environment is known as a value such as according to equation 6, therefore, indicates a positional value is identified and received); and determining the location of the first object based on the received positional value (as have been discussed and shown in FIG 4 and section II.E, the location of the first object is determined accordingly based on the received positional value as such according to equation 6; by BRI, this teaching covers the same scope as of the claim’s limitation).
Regarding claim 11, Zafari in view of Zhang, wherein Zafari discloses the electronic device of claim 1, the one or more programs including instructions for: obtaining spatial information corresponding to the physical environment of the electronic device, wherein the spatial information is based on a multi-dimensional representation of the physical environment (page 2883, of section VI.3, discloses in one implementation of this paper, Mandal teaches 3D MBL system for the device localization system, wherein the localization includes obtaining 3D multi-lateration for obtaining an estimate of the user location including mapping of the physical environment [mapping of the ToF into distance which indicates a mapping within the environment which is analogous to a multi-dimensional representation of the environment it also indicates a spatial information, by BRI, covers the claim’s limitation]); obtaining a positional value corresponding to the location of the first object (in another implementation of an example of the localization system as disclosed in page 2585 of section VI.B, where it teaches in Lim which also teaches mapping to distance which is based on RSSI values which can be understood as positional value corresponding to the location of the first object as claimed, by BRI); and in accordance with a determination that the positional value corresponding to the location of the first object is included within the spatial information corresponding to the physical environment, determining that the location of the first object is identifiable from the environmental representation (as further discloses in page 2585 of section VI.B, the RSSI values are used in creating an online RSSI map which is used to estimate the user location [determining the location of the 1st object is available by BRI] which indicates that the user location has to be within the RSSI map of the physical environment for it to locate the device which, by BRI, covers the scope of this claim’s limitation; in the same paragraph, it also teaches that tit requires a number of samples to obtain an estimate of the user location, therefore, this teaching, by BRI, also covers the claim’s limitation by stating that the samples have to be within a certain number requirement of analogous to the positional value is included within a spatial information for the location of the object to be determined; moreover, as discussed previously and as disclosed in section II.C, 1st 2 paragraphs, the user location is determined from the environmental fingerprints, moreover, the user location is identifiable if either equation 3 or 4 is met the likelihood of the user’s location, therefore, the likelihood of the user location here indicates if the user’s location is identifiable from the environmental fingerprint according to either equation 3 or 4, therefore, by BRI, covers the scope of the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 12, Zafari in view of Zhang, wherein Zafari discloses the electronic device of claim 11, the one or more programs including instructions for: in accordance with a determination that the positional value corresponding to the location of the first object is not included within the spatial information corresponding to the physical environment, determining that the location of the first object is not identifiable from the environmental representation (as discussed above in claim 11, in the same paragraph, it also teaches that tit requires a number of samples to obtain an estimate of the user location, therefore, this teaching, by BRI, also covers the claim’s limitation by stating that the samples have to be within a certain number requirement of analogous to the positional value is included within a spatial information for the location of the object to be determined; therefore, when this requirement is not met then the location of the device is not determined; moreover, as discussed previously and as disclosed in section II.C, 1st 2 paragraphs, the user location is determined from the environmental fingerprints, moreover, the user location is identifiable if either equation 3 or 4 is met the likelihood of the user’s location, therefore, the likelihood of the user location here indicates if the user’s location is identifiable from the environmental fingerprint according to either equation 3 or 4, therefore, when the likelihood is low then the user’s location is not identifiable in that environmental fingerprints, by BRI, covers the scope of the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 13, Zafari in view of Zhang, wherein Zafari discloses the electronic device of claim 1, the one or more programs including instructions for: obtaining a multi-dimensional representation of the physical environment (page 2883, of section VI.3, discloses in one implementation of this paper, Mandal teaches 3D MBL system for the device localization system, wherein the localization includes obtaining 3D multi-lateration for obtaining an estimate of the user location including mapping of the environment [mapping of the ToF into distance which indicates a mapping within the environment which is analogous to a multi-dimensional representation of the environment it also indicates a spatial information, by BRI, covers the claim’s limitation]), wherein the multi-dimensional representation of the physical environment includes positional values corresponding to a plurality of object representations and positional values (in another implementation of an example of the localization system as disclosed in page 2585 of section VI.B, where it teaches in Lim which also teaches mapping to distance which is based on RSSI values which can be understood as positional value corresponding to the location of the first object as claimed, by BRI) corresponding to a plurality of boundary representations (moreover, as discussed above in claim 7, as taught in page 2587, last paragraph, the location information of the their proximity to a certain RN, indicate location information of a plurality of user devices and also of the RNs; moreover, as disclosed in shown in FIG. 4, each RN has a boundary line such as the hyperbola RN-RN [analogous to the boundary locations as claimed by BRI]), wherein the one or more first criteria and the one or more second criteria are based on the obtained multi-dimensional representation (as further discloses in page 2585 of section VI.B, the RSSI values are used in creating an online RSSI map which is used to estimate the user location [determining the location of the 1st object is available by BRI] which indicates that the user location has to be within the RSSI map of the physical environment for it to locate the device which, by BRI, covers the scope of this claim’s limitation; in the same paragraph, it also teaches that tit requires a number of samples to obtain an estimate of the user location, therefore, this teaching, by BRI, also covers the claim’s limitation by stating that the samples have to be within a certain number requirement of analogous to the positional value is included within a spatial information for the location of the object to be determined).
Regarding claim 14, Zafari in view of Zhang, wherein Zafari discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the location of the first object is determined in response to receiving the input including the reference to the first object (section V.A discloses indoor localization such as discloses in section V.E wherein the localization system is to obtain user/device position within an indoor environment; the localization can be done through a request such as discloses in section VI.A.3; therefore, the request here is analogous to the input includes a request for location of a user device [first object as claimed] within an indoor environment [a physical environment as claimed]; moreover, the localization request is to estimate location of the device with respect to some reference points [according to section I, 3rd paragraph, which is analogous to the input including a reference to a first object as claimed, since the request is reference to estimating a location in reference to a point], by BRI [broadest reasonable interpretation]).
Regarding claim 15, Zafari in view of Zhang, wherein Zafari discloses the electronic device of claim 1, the one or more programs including instructions for: in accordance with a determination that the first object satisfies one or more third criteria, periodically obtaining a positional value corresponding to the location of the first object (page 2587, last paragraph, discloses in one approach for the device localization as taught in Zhang and Zhang [an implementation of such technique] teaches using fluorescent lights as the RNs, therefore, the fluorescent light can be understood as a representation based on BRI [broadest reasonable interpretation] of the physical environment, since the RNs here are being present in a physical environment; furthermore, in the same paragraph, Zhang and Zhang’s implement further teaches that LiTell uses characteristic frequency to differentiate among the RNs [differentiate is analogous to comparing location information corresponding to the representation or the RNs’ locations and the device location in this case]; then perform localize different users based on their proximity to a certain RN [as taught in the same paragraph]; by BRI, this paragraph teaches the same scope of the claim’s limitation; moreover, this is based on frequency selective [according to page 2571, 2nd column, 1st paragraph] which indicates periodically obtaining a positional value corresponding to the location; the satisfaction of the selection can be understood as the third criteria as claimed, by BRI).
Regarding claim 16, Zafari in view of Zhang, wherein Zafari discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the reference within the physical environment includes an identified area within the physical environment (as discussed above the physical environment includes an identified area within the environment such as disclosed in page 2580, 1st paragraph), and wherein the identified area is associated with at least one area type (wherein page 2580, 1st paragraph, discloses the area can be large area or small area of base stations which is analogous to an area type as claimed, by BRI).
Regarding claim 17, Zafari in view of Zhang, wherein Zafari discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the reference within the physical environment includes a second object identified within the physical environment (as discussed above in claim 1, the reference is within the environment includes a second object within the environment identified), wherein the second object is associated with at least one object type (as discussed above in claim 1, the second object can be of services nearby which indicates an object type, by BRI).
Regarding claim 18, Zafari in view of Zhang, wherein Zafari discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the reference within the physical environment includes an identified spatial relation between a second object identified within the physical environment and a third object identified within the physical environment (the reference within the physical environment as discussed above in claim 1, which can be of refence nodes according to page 2569, 1st paragraph, therefore, the nodes are already identified and have spatial relation between these nodes [between second object and a third object within the environment] for it to obtain relative location of the nodes, therefore, covers the same scope as of the claim’s limitation, by BRI).
Regarding claim 19, Zafari discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising: at an electronic device with one or more processors and memory (section II.A, 2nd paragraph, discloses the processing of the invention which can be understood to include the use of a computer which includes a memory storing program to be executed by a processor for the instructions of such processing): obtaining an environmental representation corresponding to a physical environment (section II.C, 1st par., discloses the localization technique require obtaining environmental fingerprints of features of the environment which is based on RSSI measurements to estimate the user location, the environmental fingerprints here together is analogous to the recited environmental representation as claimed, by BRI); receiving an input including a reference to a first object, wherein the input includes a request for a location of the first object, and the first object is located in the physical environment (section V.A discloses indoor localization such as discloses in section V.E wherein the localization system is to obtain user/device position within an indoor environment; the localizati