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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim 45-48, 53 and 61-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without “significantly more”. Claim(s) 45-48, 53 and 61-64 is/are directed to Abstract Idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper for example using measurement received from a mobile device, transmitting and receiving from the source apparatus to another position information.
The apparatus and the method claim 45 and 61 recites limitation, “at least sensing, by the apparatus, at least one another apparatus in a space including the apparatus; determining, by the apparatus, first information including a position of the at least one another apparatus relative to the apparatus; transmitting the first information to the at least one another apparatus; and receiving from the at least one another apparatus second information including a position of the apparatus relative to the at least one another apparatus determined by the at least one another apparatus”. Since the claim is directed to a process and a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites sensing, by the apparatus, at least one another apparatus in a space including the apparatus; determining, by the apparatus, first information including a position of the at least one another apparatus relative to the apparatus; transmitting the first information to the at least one another apparatus; and receiving from the at least one another apparatus second information including a position of the apparatus relative to the at least one another apparatus determined by the at least one another apparatus. The sensing step i.e., collecting information based on determining that the first information including a position of the at least one another apparatus relative to the apparatus and transmitting i.e., analyzing and then transmitting after the first information to at least one another apparatus and receiving information from the apparatus recited in the claim i.e., outputting certain information receiving from the at least one another apparatus second information including a position of the apparatus relative to the at least one another apparatus determined by the at least one another apparatus is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of sending and receiving, etc. i.e., a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea=Yes).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea=Yes).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim requires the additional limitation of a computer with the central processing unit, memory, a printer, an input and output terminal and a program. These generic computer components are claimed to perform the basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the program that enables. In the current scenario, there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: No). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, dependent claims do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
However, if applicant add limitation from claim 49 including its parent limitation than it will overcome 35 USC 101 rejection.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 45, 47, 53, 61, 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 1818560 A in view of Opshaug et al. Pub. No. US 20210329586 A1.
Regarding Claim 45, CN 1818560 A teaches an apparatus (Para 32, the managers of the exhibition hall placed a location information transmitter in each functional room, and set up the connectivity between each location information transmitter refer to as an apparatus) comprising: at least one processor (apparatus inherently has a processor); and
at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform at least: (apparatus inherently has at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor to perform actions),
sensing by the apparatus at least one another apparatus in a space including the apparatus (Para 33, Now the user walks into the exhibition hall. The manager provides him with a location information receiver. He then enters the hall carrying the receiver which detect that it has entered the signal rang of the location information transmitter i.e., sensing by the apparatus at least one another apparatus in a space including the apparatus);
determining by the apparatus first information including a position of the at least one another apparatus relative to the apparatus (Para 33, It immediately communicates with all the location information transmitters in the hall i.e., one another apparatus relative to the apparatus, obtaining the distance vector relationship between all the transmitters and the receiver. This relationship is then displayed on the receiver's screen i.e., determining by the apparatus first information including a position of the at least one another apparatus relative to the apparatus),
transmitting the first information to the at least one another apparatus (Para 34, He wants to visit room A first, so he sends a command to the location information receiver to navigate to A i.e., transmitting the first information to the at least one another apparatus).
CN 1818560 A teaches that the receiver then communicated with all the location information transmitters to re-establish the distance vector relationship and the connectivity between the transmitters. It then calculated that the shortest path for the user to walk directly to location A was the shortest path. Since A was to the north of the user's location, the location information transmitter instructed the user to walk north which can be refer to as receiving from the at least one another apparatus second information including a position of the apparatus relative to the at least one another apparatus but does not specially disclose that it is determined by the at least one another apparatus.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Opshaug teaches from Fig.1 and Para 43 that when within the coverage area 122, the UE can detect the cell identity of the serving cell 120 (e.g. CID 1). Depending on its location within the coverage area 122 (e.g., as the UE travels closer to the coverage area 132), the UE can also detect the cell identity of the neighbor cell 130 (e.g. CID 2). The detected cell identity/identities are included in cell identity data 112 sent from the UE 110 to the serving cell 120 (e.g., to a base station thereof). The cell identity data 112 can take the form of a cell identity (CID) measurement report or an enhanced CID (eCID) measurement report containing information about the serving cell 120, and optionally a list of neighbor cells that were also heard when camped on that serving cell 120. The base station can perform a look up of the data structure 142 using the cell identity data 112 to determine the most likely position 128 of the UE 110 within one of the coverage sub-areas of the coverage area 122 and can return the most likely position 128 as position data 126 to the UE 110. For instance, when the cell identity data 112 includes CID 1 and CID 2, the position data 126 indicates a position fix of the UE 110 within the coverage sub-area 124 i.e., receiving from the at least one another apparatus second information including a position of the apparatus relative to the at least one another apparatus determined by the at least one another apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of CN 1818560 A with the method of Opshaug so as to provide the highest quality of service for the position-based functionalities (See Opshaug Para 3).
Regarding Claim 47, CN 1818560 A teaches wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code is further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform sensing a user equipment in the space, determining at least one third information including one or more of an identity of the apparatus, an identity of the user equipment, at least one position of the user equipment relative to the apparatus, and at least one detection time of the position of the user equipment relative to the apparatus, and transmitting the at least one third information to the at least one another apparatus (Para 34-35).
Regarding Claim 53, CN 1818560 A teaches wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code is further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform transmitting at least one of the first information, the second information, at least one location of a user equipment in the space, and information on a structure of the space to the user equipment (Para 33).
Regarding Claim 61, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 45.
Regarding Claim 63, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 47.
Claim(s) 46, 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 1818560 A in view of in view of Opshaug et al. Pub. No. US 20210329586 A1 and further in view of Morrison Pub. No. US 20090233575 A1.
Regarding Claim 46, CN 1818560 A and Opshaug does not specifically teach wherein the first information is transmitted via at least one of broadcast, Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP), and User Datagram Protocol (UDP), and/or the second information is received via at least one of broadcast, TCP/IP, and UDP.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Morrison teaches the Mobile Alert Network (MAN) service can include identifying an Alert Area related to an Event Location, identifying a group of subscribers in the Alert Area, and broadcasting an Alert Message to the identified subscribers in a push-to-talk-equivalent (PTTE) environment. An Alert Message can be prepared and broadcast to the identified subscribers by a master broadcaster. The master broadcaster can be a Broadcast Module of a server of the MAN Service i.e., the first information is transmitted via at least one of broadcast and/or the second information is received via at least one of broadcast (Para 17-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of CN 1818560 A in view of Opshaug and further with the method of Morrison so as to provide a detailed account of the operations of the apparatus based on self-identification information, broadcast by the cell phone (See Morrison Abstract).
Regarding Claim 48, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 46.
Claim(s) 62, 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 1818560 A in view of in view of Opshaug et al. Pub. No. US 20210329586 A1 and further in view of Richley et al. Pub. No. US 20040108954 A1
Regarding Claim 62, CN 1818560 A and Opshaug does not specifically teach determining the position of the at least one another apparatus relative to the apparatus based on at least one of an angle of arrival and a time of arrival of the at least one another apparatus relative to the apparatus.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Richley teaches a method of determining the position of an object in a monitored region that comprises transmitting an RF tag signal from an object to be located, transmitting a timing reference signal from a known location, providing a common clock signal to plural linked monitoring stations, measuring at the monitoring stations the times of arrival of the timing reference signal and the tag signal, adjusting measured times of arrival according to relative offsets among the monitoring stations, and determining the position of the object according to the relative offsets and the measured times of arrival of the tag signal at the respective monitoring stations i.e., determining the position of the at least one another apparatus relative to the apparatus based on at least one of an angle of arrival (Para 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of CN 1818560 A in view of Opshaug and further with the method of Rickley so as to monitor large number of devices available within the vicinity, thus object location can be determined (See Rickley Abstract and Para 8).
Regarding Claim 64, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 62.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 49-52 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art reference fail to teach the limitation of “cause the apparatus to perform determining at least one location of the user equipment in the space based on at least one of the first information, the second information, the at least one third information, and at least one fourth information from the at least one another apparatus, the at least one fourth information including one or more of an identity of the at least one another apparatus, the identity of the user equipment, at least one position of the user equipment relative to the at least one another apparatus, and at least one detection time of the position of the user equipment relative to the at least one another apparatus”. These limitation in combination of other elements are neither found nor disclosed in prior art as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wirola et al. Pub. No. US 20150351017 A1 - Verifying stored location data for WLAN access points
Ratasuk et al. Pub. No. US 20220191782 A1 - DETERMINING RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) CONDITIONS USING SENSING INFORMATION
Sirotkin et al. Pub. No. US 20220103973 A1 - LOCATION SERVICES (LCS) CLIENT IN A NEXT GENERATION (NG) RADIO ACCESS NETWORK (RAN)
Chawla Pub. No. US 20120245995 A1 - METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ENABLING LOCATION BASED ADVERTISEMENTS WITH PAY FOR PERFORMANCE
Showers et al. Pub. No. US 20140365304 A1 - Cross-Device Geolocation Sensing to Geotarget Offers
Alonso et al. Pub. No. US 20160097646 A1 - CONTENT PRESENTATION BASED ON TRAVEL PATTERNS
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAR N SIVJI whose telephone number is (571)270-7462. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
NIZAR N. SIVJI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/NIZAR N SIVJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647