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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/17/23 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations of in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “unit configured to estimate”, “unit configured to analyze”, “unit configured to calculate”, “unit configured to select”, “unit configured to generate”, “unit is configured to obtain”, “unit is configured to set”, “unit is configured to determine” and “unit is configured to correct” as recited in claims 14-22 and 24-25 which specifies the generic place holder “unit” coupled with the functional language of “estimate”, “analyze”, “calculate”, “select”, “generate”, “obtain”, “set”, “determine” and “correct” and is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Applicant’s Specification, Fig. 1 & Paragraph [0065] on Page 6 recites “Throughout this specification, when a part ‘includes’ or ‘comprises’ a component, the part is meant to further include other components, not to exclude thereof unless specifically stated to the contrary. The terms such as “unit”, ‘module’, and the like refer to one or more units for processing at least one function or operation, which may be implemented by hardware, software, or a combination thereof.” and as such said “unit” will be interpreted as being directed towards hardware devices such as processors as is commonly known in the art and in accordance with the guidance indicated by MPEP 2181, Section ll, Subsection A.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 10-11, 16-20 and 23-24 are also 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 in between.
The dependent claims 3-7, 10-11, 16-20 and 23-24 are objected as allowable because the closest prior art found fails to disclose, teach or suggest either alone or render obvious in a combined teachings of the prior art, the uniquely distinct features in the specific order, structure and combination of limitations together as a whole of the limitations recited in the dependent claims in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims in between.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 12-15, 21 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENKATRAMAN et al. (US Patent Publication 2016/0249315 herein after referenced as Venka) in view of ISHIWATARI et al. (US Patent Publication 2009/0213009 herein after referenced as Ishi).
Regarding claim 1 and claim 14, Venka discloses:
A positioning method for a terminal, the method comprising: and A positioning apparatus for a terminal, comprising: estimating a temporary location of the terminal; (Venka, [0044] discloses the position determination module can provide means for determining a coarse location of the mobile device (i.e. reads on positioning method for a terminal, the method comprising: estimating a temporary location of the terminal); Venka, [0074] discloses the coarse location represents an approximate location of the mobile device and the almanac data module can provide almanac data that identifies wireless access points and/or base stations proximate to coarse location of the mobile device that the mobile device can use to determine a more precise location of the mobile device; Venka, [0164]-[0165] discloses methodologies described herein may be implemented by various means depending upon the application and for example, these methodologies may be implemented in hardware, firmware, software, or any combination thereof and for a hardware implementation, the processing units may be implemented within one or more application specific integrated circuits ASICs, digital signal processors DSPs, digital signal processing devices DSPDs, programmable logic devices PLDs, field programmable gate arrays FPGAs, processors, controllers, micro-controllers, microprocessors, electronic devices, other electronic units designed to perform the functions described herein, or a combination thereof and discloses for a firmware and/or software implementation, the methodologies may be implemented with modules such as procedures, functions, and so on that perform the functions described herein).
analyzing characteristics of obstacles between the temporary location of the terminal and peripheral access points (APs) based on a (Venka, [0108] discloses the location server and/or the mobile device can be configured to determine whether any obstructions may be present (i.e. reads on analyzing characteristics of obstacles) between the mobile device i.e. reads on between the temporary location of the terminal) and a particular wireless access point (i.e. reads on and peripheral access points) based on map (i.e. reads on based on a map) and structural information (i.e. reads on on which the peripheral APs and the obstacles are indicated) for the environment in which the mobile device is located and obstructions in the line-of-sight LOS path between the wireless access point and the mobile device can interfere with the accuracy of the RSSI measurements).
selecting at least three peripheral APs from among the peripheral APs according to at least one of the distances(Venka, [0044] discloses means for selecting a set of wireless access points (i.e. reads on and the peripheral APs) proximate (i.e. reads on distances and reads on according to at least one of the distances) to the mobile device (i.e. reads on between the temporary location of the terminal) from the almanac data and the position determination module can also provide means for identifying (i.e. reads on selecting) a subset of wireless access points (i.e. reads on at least three peripheral APs) from the set of wireless access points (i.e. reads on from among the peripheral APs) from which the mobile device was able to measure the signals and to send identifiers associated with the subset of wireless access points and determining the position of the mobile device based at least in part on the signals measured from the wireless access points detected during the scan; Venka, [0026] discloses two terrestrial wireless access points are illustrated in this example and in other implementations, more (i.e. reads on with the at least three peripheral APs) or less wireless access points may be included; Venka, [0088] discloses a position of the mobile device can be determined based at least in part on the signals measured and the mobile device can be configured to determine a position of the mobile device by triangulating the position of the mobile device based on signals measured from the wireless access points that were selected; Venka, [0110] discloses the position determination module of the mobile device can be configured to select a subset of the wireless access points that the position determination module will make use of for determining the position of the mobile device and the position determination module can make use of the positioning effectiveness criteria to select the wireless access points using techniques similar to those discussed above with respect to the almanac data module of the location server. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or the obstacle characteristics;”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
generating timing measurement data with the at least three peripheral APs using identification information of the at least three peripheral APs; and estimating a current location of the terminal using the timing measurement data (Venka, [0044] disclosesin part on the signals measured (i.e. reads on using the timing measurement data) from the wireless access points detected during the scan; Venka, [0026] discloses the mobile device may also measure signals from one or more wireless base stations or wireless access points and obtain timing measurements (i.e. reads on generating timing measurement data) such as for time of arrival TOA or observed time difference of arrival OTDOA, for the wireless base stations and the timing measurements (i.e. reads on using the timing measurement data) may be used to derive a location estimate for the mobile device (i.e. reads on estimating a current location of the terminal) and two terrestrial wireless access points are illustrated in this example and in other implementations, more (i.e. reads on with the at least three peripheral APs) or less wireless access points may be included; Venka, [0088] discloses a position of the mobile device can be determined based at least in part on the signals measured and the mobile device can be configured to determine a position of the mobile device by triangulating the position of the mobile device based on signals measured from the wireless access points that were selected).
Venka discloses determining an approximate location of a mobile device as well as disclosing the use of a map to determine the presence of obstructions but fails to explicitly disclose that said map is pre-stored and that the map indicates the APs and obstacles and also fails to explicitly disclose that the selection of the APs are based on distances “a pre-stored map on which the peripheral APs and the obstacles are indicated;” and “calculating distances between the temporary location of the terminal and the peripheral APs based on the map;”.
In a related field of endeavor, Ishi discloses:
a pre-stored map on which the peripheral APs and the obstacles are indicated; calculating distances between the temporary location of the terminal and the peripheral APs based on the map; (Ishi, [0023]-[0024] discloses the region determining unit determines the number of walls (i.e. reads on and the obstacles are indicated) which exist between the immediately preceding position and each of the AP units (i.e. reads on on which the peripheral APs) from the map information stored (i.e. reads on a pre-stored map and reads on based on the map) in the indoor map storage unit and discloses when one or more walls exist between the terminal and an AP unit, the intensity of the electric wave from the AP unit attenuates and in order to determine the distance between each of the AP units and the terminal correctly, it is necessary to correct the intensity of the electric wave from each of the AP units to a value that ought to be obtained when no wall exists between them and after acquiring the number of walls, the region determining unit corrects the intensity of the electric wave from each of the AP units on the basis of this number of walls, and determines the distance (i.e. reads on calculating distances) between each of the AP units (i.e. reads on and the peripheral APs) and the terminal (i.e. reads on between the temporary location of the terminal) on the basis of the corrected electric wave intensity; Ishi, [0032] discloses information about the material of the walls can be included into the map information stored in the indoor map storage unit and the radio wave propagation loss in consideration of the materials of the walls can be reflected to correct the electric wave intensity and this is because the attenuation of the electric wave varies according to the material of the walls and therefore, when a correction in consideration of the attenuation of the electric wave depending upon the material of the walls is made, a further improvement in the accuracy of the distance positioning can be expected; Ishi, [0027] discloses the position detecting unit estimates the current state of the terminal from previously-detected positions of the terminal which are stored in the position history storage unit and for example, this current state of the terminal can be a state in which the terminal is standing still, a state in which the terminal is moving at a person's usual walking speed, or a state in which the terminal is moving at a person's usual running speed and the position detecting unit then determines a maximum distance over which the terminal can move from the immediately preceding position according to the above-mentioned current state of the terminal by using a method which is illustrated in FIG. 5, acquires an actionable region on the basis of this maximum distance, and determines, as a movable region of the terminal, a portion where the actionable region and the existence region of the terminal which is delivered thereto from the region determining unit overlap each other; Ishi, [0035] discloses the region determining unit, the position detecting unit, the AP position storage unit, the indoor map storage unit, the electric wave intensity history storage unit, and the position history storage unit are disposed in the terminal and as a result, the terminal can perform detection of the position thereof independently).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Venka to incorporate the teachings of Ishi for the purpose of providing the system with a means to further improve location determination accuracy by correcting distance positioning estimates (Ishi, [0023]-[0024] & [0032]) and providing alternative means of determining a user’s approximate location (Ishi, [0027]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of determining an approximate location of a mobile device and utilizing a map to determine the presence of obstructions as taught by Venka) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of determining an approximate location of a mobile device and utilizing a map to determine the presence of obstructions, wherein the map is pre-stored and utilized in calculating distances by accounting for corrections necessitated by obstructions and wherein the approximate location is determined utilizing the speed and previous location of the mobile device as taught by Ishi) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of determining an approximate location of a mobile device and utilizing a map to determine the presence of obstructions (i.e. as taught by both Venka & Ishi) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 2 and claim 15, Venka in view of Ishi discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the temporary location of the terminal includes: (see claim 1) and The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the first estimation unit is configured to (see claim 14).
obtaining at least one of at least one of (Ishi, [0027] discloses the position detecting unit estimates the current state of the terminal from previously-detected positions of the terminal which are stored in the position history storage unit and for example, this current state of the terminal can be a state in which the terminal is standing still, a state in which the terminal is moving at a person's usual walking speed, or a state in which the terminal is moving at a person's usual running speed and the position detecting unit then determines a maximum distance over which the terminal can move from the immediately preceding position according to the above-mentioned current state of the terminal by using a method which is illustrated in FIG. 5, acquires an actionable region on the basis of this maximum distance, and determines, as a movable region of the terminal, a portion where the actionable region and the existence region of the terminal which is delivered thereto from the region determining unit overlap each other. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “a moving direction” and “or a step count of the terminal;”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 8 and claim 21, Venka in view of Ishi discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the obstacle characteristics includes (see claim 1) and The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the analysis unit is configured to (see claim 14).
analyzing at least one of a number (Ishi, [0023]-[0024] discloses the region determining unit determines the number of walls which exist between the immediately preceding position and each of the AP units from the map information stored in the indoor map storage unit and discloses when one or more walls exist between the terminal and an AP unit, the intensity of the electric wave from the AP unit attenuates and in order to determine the distance between each of the AP units and the terminal correctly, it is necessary to correct the intensity of the electric wave from each of the AP units to a value that ought to be obtained when no wall exists between them and after acquiring the number of walls, the region determining unit corrects the intensity of the electric wave from each of the AP units on the basis of this number of walls, and determines the distance between each of the AP units and the terminal on the basis of the corrected electric wave intensity. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or types”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 12 and claim 25, Venka in view of Ishi discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the current location of the terminal includes: (see claim 1) and The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the second estimation unit is configured to (see claim 14).
correcting the timing measurement data based on the obstacle characteristics; and estimating the current location of the terminal using the corrected timing measurement data (Ishi, [0023]-[0024] discloses the region determining unit determines the number of walls which exist between the immediately preceding position and each of the AP units from the map information stored in the indoor map storage unit and discloses when one or more walls exist between the terminal and an AP unit, the intensity of the electric wave from the AP unit attenuates and in order to determine the distance between each of the AP units and the terminal correctly, it is necessary to correct the intensity of the electric wave from each of the AP units to a value that ought to be obtained when no wall exists between them and after acquiring the number of walls, the region determining unit corrects the intensity of the electric wave from each of the AP units on the basis of this number of walls, and determines the distance between each of the AP units and the terminal on the basis of the corrected electric wave intensity; Venka, [0026] discloses the mobile device may also measure signals from one or more wireless base stations or wireless access points and obtain timing measurements such as for time of arrival TOA or observed time difference of arrival OTDOA, for the wireless base stations and the timing measurements may be used to derive a location estimate for the mobile device and two terrestrial wireless access points are illustrated in this example and in other implementations, more or less wireless access points may be included).
Regarding claim 13, Venka in view of Ishi discloses:
The method of claim 1, (see claim 1).
wherein the timing measurement data is at least one of Venka, [0026] discloses the mobile device may also measure signals from one or more wireless base stations or wireless access points and obtain timing measurements such as for time of arrival TOA or observed time difference of arrival OTDOA, for the wireless base stations and the timing measurements may be used to derive a location estimate for the mobile device and two terrestrial wireless access points are illustrated in this example and in other implementations, more or less wireless access points may be included. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “round trip time (RTT), time of flight (ToF)” and “or time difference of arrival (TDoA)”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Claim(s) 9 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VENKATRAMAN et al. (US Patent Publication 2016/0249315 herein after referenced as Venka) in view of ISHIWATARI et al. (US Patent Publication 2009/0213009 herein after referenced as Ishi) and further in view of Robinson et al. (US Patent Publication 2005/0233748 herein after referenced as Robinson).
Regarding claim 9 and claim 22, Venka in view of Ishi discloses:
The method of claim 8, wherein selecting the at least three peripheral APs includes: (see claim 8) and The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the selection unit is configured to (see claim 21).
Venka in view of Ishi discloses selecting devices to determine location based on distances but fails to explicitly disclose the use of priority scores and therefore fails to disclose “calculating priority scores for the peripheral APs based on the distances or the obstacle characteristics; and selecting at least three peripheral APs having higher priority scores among the peripheral APs.”
In a related field of endeavor, Robinson discloses:
calculating priority scores for the peripheral APs based on the distances (Robinson, [0022] discloses when each device first generates an estimated position, if it has information from more than one neighbouring device, it will use information from the neighbouring nodes according to the following order of priority: neighbouring nodes which say they know their actual position have highest priority, thereafter neighbouring nodes, which have broadcast an estimated position, have priority according to the measured distance of the neighbouring node from the respective determining node, with closer nodes having higher priority than more distant nodes and when a device, after having already determined an initial estimated position, subsequently receives a broadcast of an actual or estimated position from a neighbouring node which is within range and which has a higher priority than the node or nodes whose broadcast information was originally used to determine its initial estimated position, it re-determines its "initial" estimated position using the information newly received from the higher priority node).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Venka in view of Ishi to incorporate the teachings of Robinson for the purpose of providing the system with a means to utilize alternative selection process in selecting devices utilized in determining location (Robinson, [0022]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of selecting devices utilized for determining location based on distances as taught by Venka) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. process of selecting devices utilized for determining location based on distances, wherein the selection is based on a priority score as taught by Robinson) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system process of selecting devices utilized for determining location based on distances (i.e. as taught by both Venka & Robinson) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y MAPA whose telephone number is (571)270-5540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday: 10 AM - 8 PM EST.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at (571) 272 - 7795. 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.
/MICHAEL Y MAPA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645