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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 09, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to applicant’s amendment submitted on March 15, 2026. Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-20, 22 and 23 are still currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-20, 22 and 23 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 15, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Bae (US Patent Number US 20160165440 A1, hereby referred to as Bae) in view of Carey (US PGPUB 2020/0014885 A1) in view of Vedantham et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0255457 A1, hereinafter Vedantham) and further in view of Lee et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0032870 A1, hereinafter Lee).
Consider claim 1, Bae discloses a proximity detection system (e.g., Fig. 5, electronic apparatus 100) comprising:
an antenna (e.g., detector 150) configured to receive a signal provided by a device
(detector 150 detects whether or not one or more terminal devices are present within a preset
threshold distance or are in contact with the electronic apparatus 100, see [0082] lines 1-3);
a user interface (e.g., display 160 displays content and the list UI for the terminal device, see [0082] lines 3-5); and
at least one controller (controller 140, see [0081] lines 4) configured to:
determine, based on the signal, whether the device is known (the new terminal device 300 is detected as being located within the preset threshold distance; “new” indicating the device is not previously known or registered, [0084] lines 1-3),
generate, responsive to determining that the device is not known, one or more instructions instructing the proximity detection system to activate the user interface and, provide the one or more instructions to the proximity detection system (electronic apparatus 100 determines whether or not one or more terminal devices are located within a preset threshold distance (S910). As a result of the determination, if the new terminal device 300 among one or more terminal devices is located within the preset threshold distance, the electronic apparatus 100 transmits the signal to the new terminal device 300 requesting the terminal information of the new terminal device 300 (S920). Thereafter, the electronic apparatus 100 receives the terminal information of the new terminal device 300 from the new terminal device 300 (S930), and the electronic apparatus 100 displays a list UI for the terminal device that is registered with the AP 400 on a screen (S940). See Fig. 9, [0113]).
Bae substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach the device being known provided the device is present within a threshold distance of the antenna for a first threshold period of time, and the device being not known provide the device has not been within the threshold distance of the antenna for a second threshold period of time.
However, Carey teaches the device being known provided the device is present within a threshold distance of the antenna for a first threshold period of time, and the device being not known provide the device has not been within the threshold distance of the antenna for a second threshold period of time (fig. 9, paragraphs 147, 150, 151, read as mobile communication device is either considered a return shopper (i.e. known) or a first time shopper (i.e. not known), where this is based on (1) the number of visits that people have made to a particular location (e.g., a store location having one or more cameras 110 and antennae 150 by which video data and/or mobile communication data was captured at block 902), (2) durations of time for which people have remained at a particular location. In other words, a mobile communication device is within range of an antenna and a time duration the mobile device remains at the location near the antenna. It is read that a return shopper is known since the mobile communication device was previously near the antenna for a time duration and a first time shopper is unknown since there was no data for the mobile communication device coming within range of the antenna).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Carey into the invention of Bae in order to identify specific user behavior in order to improve the throughput and efficiency of the company.
The combination of Bae and Carey disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach a database of authorized devices, determining that the device is not known and is an authorized device, wherein the device is the authorized device when the devices appears in the database of authorized devices.
However, Vedantham teaches a database of authorized devices, determining that the device is not known and is an authorized device, wherein the device is the authorized device when the devices appears in the database of authorized devices (paragraphs 24, 25, read as a database that includes three types of device, one of the types being devices that were previously joined and authenticated but are not currently joined, e.g., because the devices are currently disconnected from the WSN, where the device is clearly authenticated if the device is in at least the second type that includes the disconnected, but authenticated group. Vedantham further teaches that the L2NMP layer is configured to initiate periodic scan, link, and pair procedures to rejoin previously joined BLE devices that may have been disconnected, where the database is used to store information for each device In short, it appears that applicant’s known vs. unknown is simply connected vs. disconnected (as taught by Vedantham). This would be similar to when a user connects to Wi-Fi and is authenticated/authorized and then leave the Wi-Fi. They are disconnected/unknown to the network, but once the user comes within range with his/her device, they are automatically connected since they were already authenticated/authorized).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Vedantham into the invention of Bae and Carey in order to provide a faster and more efficient process to scan, link, and pair previously joined devices.
The combination of Bae, Carey and Vedantham disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach a user interface of power control equipment or electrical switch gear and where the one or more instructions causing the user interface to allow the device to alter a status or function of the power equipment or electrical switchgear.
However, Lee teaches a user interface of power control equipment or electrical switch gear and where the one or more instructions causing the user interface to allow the device to alter a status or function of the power equipment or electrical switchgear (paragraphs 12, 16, read as console comprises one or more processors and memory storing application software and a user interface that allows a user or a computer program to configure, alter, and control the operation of functions in PLC, where user of console (or a computer program) may instruct PLC to change one or more parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lee into the invention of Bae, Carey and Vedantham in order to allow parameters/functions to be modified without requiring the stopping and restarting of various devices.
Consider claim 7, The combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee discloses all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Bae discloses a system (e.g., Fig. 5, electronic apparatus 100) wherein at least one controller (e.g., controller 140) determines whether the device is not known responsive to determining that the device is within a threshold distance of the antenna (e.g., detector 150) (electronic apparatus 100 determines whether or not one or more terminal devices are located within a preset threshold distance (S910). As a result of the determination, if the new terminal device 300 among one or more terminal devices is located within the preset threshold distance, the electronic apparatus 100 transmits the signal to the new terminal device 300 requesting the terminal information of the new terminal device 300 (S920). See [0113] lines 1-8).
Consider claim 10, Bae discloses a method (e.g., Fig. 9) of detecting the proximity of a device, the method comprising:
receiving a signal provided by the device (electronic apparatus 100 determines whether or not one or more terminal devices are located within a preset threshold distance (S910), see [0113] lines 1-3);
determining, based on the signal, that the device is not known (if the new terminal device 300 among one or more terminal devices is located within the preset threshold distance, electronic apparatus 100 requests the new terminal device’s terminal information (S920), see [0113] lines 3-8);
generating, responsive to determining that the device is not known, one or more instructions instructing a user interface to activate; and providing the one or more instructions to the user interface (electronic apparatus 100 receives the terminal information of the new terminal device 300 from the new terminal device 300 (S930), and the electronic apparatus 100 displays a list UI for the terminal device that is registered with the AP 400 on a screen (S940), see Fig. 9, [0113] lines 8-13).
Bae substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach the device being known provided the device is present within a threshold distance of the antenna for a first threshold period of time, and the device being not known provide the device has not been within the threshold distance of the antenna for a second threshold period of time.
However, Carey teaches the device being known provided the device is present within a threshold distance of the antenna for a first threshold period of time, and the device being not known provide the device has not been within the threshold distance of the antenna for a second threshold period of time (fig. 9, paragraphs 147, 150, 151, read as mobile communication device is either considered a return shopper (i.e. known) or a first time shopper (i.e. not known), where this is based on (1) the number of visits that people have made to a particular location (e.g., a store location having one or more cameras 110 and antennae 150 by which video data and/or mobile communication data was captured at block 902), (2) durations of time for which people have remained at a particular location. In other words, a mobile communication device is within range of an antenna and a time duration the mobile device remains at the location near the antenna. It is read that a return shopper is known since the mobile communication device was previously near the antenna for a time duration and a first time shopper is unknown since there was no data for the mobile communication device coming within range of the antenna).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Carey into the invention of Bae in order to identify specific user behavior in order to improve the throughput and efficiency of the company.
The combination of Bae and Carey disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach determining that the device is not known and is an authorized device, wherein the device is the authorized device when the devices appears in the database of authorized devices.
However, Vedantham teaches determining that the device is not known and is an authorized device, wherein the device is the authorized device when the devices appears in the database of authorized devices (paragraphs 24, 25, read as a database that includes three types of device, one of the types being devices that were previously joined and authenticated but are not currently joined, e.g., because the devices are currently disconnected from the WSN, where the device is clearly authenticated if the device is in at least the second type that includes the disconnected, but authenticated group. Vedantham further teaches that the L2NMP layer is configured to initiate periodic scan, link, and pair procedures to rejoin previously joined BLE devices that may have been disconnected, where the database is used to store information for each device In short, it appears that applicant’s known vs. unknown is simply connected vs. disconnected (as taught by Vedantham) This would be similar to when a user connects to Wi-Fi and is authenticated/authorized and then leave the Wi-Fi. They are disconnected/unknown to the network, but once the user comes within range with his/her device, they are automatically connected since they were already authenticated/authorized).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Vedantham into the invention of Bae and Carey in order to provide a faster and more efficient process to scan, link, and pair previously joined devices.
The combination of Bae, Carey and Vedantham disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach causing the user interface to allow the device to alter a status or function of the power equipment or electrical switchgear.
However, Lee teaches causing the user interface to allow the device to alter a status or function of the power equipment or electrical switchgear (paragraphs 12, 16, read as console comprises one or more processors and memory storing application software and a user interface that allows a user or a computer program to configure, alter, and control the operation of functions in PLC, where user of console (or a computer program) may instruct PLC to change one or more parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lee into the invention of Bae, Carey and Vedantham in order to allow parameters/functions to be modified without requiring the stopping and restarting of various devices.
Consider claim 15, The combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee discloses all the limitations of claim 10. In addition, Bae discloses a method further comprising:
determining, prior to determining that the device is not known, that the device is within a threshold distance of an antenna (electronic apparatus 100 determines whether or not one or more terminal devices are located within a preset threshold distance (S910). See [0113] lines 1-3); and
determining whether the device is known responsive to determining that the device is within a threshold distance (As a result of the determination, if the new terminal device 300 among one or more terminal devices is located within the preset threshold distance, the electronic apparatus 100 transmits the signal to the new terminal device 300 requesting the terminal information of the new terminal device 300 (S920). See [0113], lines 3-8).
Consider claim 18, Bae discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable medium (e.g., Fig. 5, storage 130) including instructions thereon, the instructions instructing at least one processor (e.g., controller 140) to:
receive a signal provided by a device (the new terminal device 300 is detected as being located within the preset threshold distance, [0084] lines 1-3);
determine, based on the signal, whether the device is known (the new terminal device 300 is detected as being located within the preset threshold distance; “new” indicating the device is not previously known or registered, [0084] lines 1-3);
generate, responsive to determining that the device is not known, one or more instructions instructing a user interface to activate; and provide the one or more instructions to the user interface (if the terminal information of the new terminal device 300 is received through the second communicator 120, the controller 140 controls the display 160 to display the list UI for the terminal device that is registered with AP 400, [0071] lines 11-15).
Bae substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach the device being known provided the device is present within a threshold distance of the antenna for a first threshold period of time, and the device being not known provide the device has not been within the threshold distance of the antenna for a second threshold period of time.
However, Carey teaches the device being known provided the device is present within a threshold distance of the antenna for a first threshold period of time, and the device being not known provide the device has not been within the threshold distance of the antenna for a second threshold period of time (fig. 9, paragraphs 147, 150, 151, read as mobile communication device is either considered a return shopper (i.e. known) or a first time shopper (i.e. not known), where this is based on (1) the number of visits that people have made to a particular location (e.g., a store location having one or more cameras 110 and antennae 150 by which video data and/or mobile communication data was captured at block 902), (2) durations of time for which people have remained at a particular location. In other words, a mobile communication device is within range of an antenna and a time duration the mobile device remains at the location near the antenna. It is read that a return shopper is known since the mobile communication device was previously near the antenna for a time duration and a first time shopper is unknown since there was no data for the mobile communication device coming within range of the antenna).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Carey into the invention of Bae in order to identify specific user behavior in order to improve the throughput and efficiency of the company.
The combination of Bae and Carey disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach determining that the device is not known and is an authorized device, wherein the device is the authorized device when the devices appears in the database of authorized devices.
However, Vedantham teaches determining that the device is not known and is an authorized device, wherein the device is the authorized device when the devices appears in the database of authorized devices (paragraphs 24, 25, read as a database that includes three types of device, one of the types being devices that were previously joined and authenticated but are not currently joined, e.g., because the devices are currently disconnected from the WSN, where the device is clearly authenticated if the device is in at least the second type that includes the disconnected, but authenticated group. Vedantham further teaches that the L2NMP layer is configured to initiate periodic scan, link, and pair procedures to rejoin previously joined BLE devices that may have been disconnected, where the database is used to store information for each device In short, it appears that applicant’s known vs. unknown is simply connected vs. disconnected (as taught by Vedantham). This would be similar to when a user connects to Wi-Fi and is authenticated/authorized and then leave the Wi-Fi. They are disconnected/unknown to the network, but once the user comes within range with his/her device, they are automatically connected since they were already authenticated/authorized).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Vedantham into the invention of Bae and Carey in order to provide a faster and more efficient process to scan, link, and pair previously joined devices.
The combination of Bae, Carey and Vedantham disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach causing the user interface to allow the device to alter a status or function of the power equipment or electrical switchgear.
However, Lee teaches causing the user interface to allow the device to alter a status or function of the power equipment or electrical switchgear (paragraphs 12, 16, read as console comprises one or more processors and memory storing application software and a user interface that allows a user or a computer program to configure, alter, and control the operation of functions in PLC, where user of console (or a computer program) may instruct PLC to change one or more parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lee into the invention of Bae, Carey and Vedantham in order to allow parameters/functions to be modified without requiring the stopping and restarting of various devices.
Consider claim 22, The combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee discloses all the limitations of claim 18. In addition, Bae discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable medium (e.g., Fig. 5, storage 130) wherein the instructions further instruct the at least one processor (e.g., controller 140) to determine whether the device is not known responsive to determining that the device is within a threshold distance of the antenna (e.g., detector 150) (electronic apparatus 100 determines whether or not one or more terminal devices are located within a preset threshold distance (S910). As a result of the determination, if the new terminal device 300 among one or more terminal devices is located within the preset threshold distance, the electronic apparatus 100 transmits the signal to the new terminal device 300 requesting the terminal information of the new terminal device 300 (S920). See [0113] lines 1-8).
Claims 2, 11, and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (US Patent Number US 20160165440 A1) in view of Carey (US PGPUB 2020/0014885 A1) in view of Vedantham et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0255457 A1, hereinafter Vedantham) in view of Lee et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0032870 A1, hereinafter Lee) as applied to claims 1, 10 and 18 above and further in view of Uchida (US Patent Number US 20200288514 A1, hereby referred to as Uchida).
Consider claim 2, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee disclose all the limitations of claim 1. However, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee fail to disclose a system wherein the user interface includes a screen configured to display information responsive to receiving one or more instructions, the information being based on the identity of the device.
Uchida discloses a system (e.g., Fig. 1, information processing apparatus 101) wherein the user interface (e.g., input interface 102 and output interface 107) includes a screen (e.g., display unit 108) configured to display information responsive to receiving one or more instructions, the information being based on the identity of the device (the identification information of the communication apparatus 151 capable of communication with the information processing apparatus 101 is displayed in on the discovered apparatus list. The CPU 103 displays the discovered apparatus list on the display unit 108. See Fig. 1, [0051] lines 1-7, Fig. 3A, [0056] lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have combined Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee with the teachings of Uchida to have a system provide information about a detected device to an end user via a user interface. This allows the end user to make an informed decision when making a user input via the user interface (upon receiving, from the user, a user operation (user input) to select the communication apparatus 151 of the connection setting target in step S305, the CPU 103 advances the process to step S306 to start connection setting processing. See Uchida, [0058]).
Consider claim 11, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee disclose all the limitations of claim 10. However, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee fail to disclose a method further comprising:
activating, by the user interface, responsive to receiving the one or more; and
displaying, by the user interface, information based on the identity of the device.
Uchida discloses a method (e.g., Fig. 3A) further comprising:
activating, by the user interface, responsive to receiving one or more instructions (step S305, the CPU 103 displays the discovered apparatus list on the display unit 108. See Fig. 3A, [0056] lines 1-2); and
displaying, by the user interface, information based on an identity of the device (the identification information of the communication apparatus 151 capable of communication with the information processing apparatus 101 is displayed in on the discovered apparatus list. The CPU 103 displays the discovered apparatus list on the display unit 108. See Fig. 1, [0051] lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee with the teachings of Uchida have a method to provide information about a detected device to an end user via a user interface. This allows the end user to make an informed decision when making a user input via the user interface (upon receiving, from the user, a user operation (user input) to select the communication apparatus 151 of the connection setting target in step S305, the CPU 103 advances the process to step S306 to start connection setting processing. See Uchida, [0058]).
Consider claim 19, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee disclose all the limitations of claim 18. However, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee fail to disclose a non-transitory, computer readable medium wherein the one or more instructions instruct the user interface to display information, the information being based on the identity of the device.
Uchida discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable medium (e.g., RAM 105) wherein the one or more instructions instruct the user interface to display information, the information being based on identity of the device (the identification information of the communication apparatus 151 capable of communication with the information processing apparatus 101 is displayed in on the discovered apparatus list. The CPU 103 displays the discovered apparatus list on the display unit 108. See Fig. 1, [0051] lines 1-7, Fig. 3A, [0056] lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee with the teachings of Uchida have a system with a non-transitory, computer readable medium to instruct a processor to provide information about a detected device to an end user via a user interface. This allows the end user to make an informed decision when making a user input via the user interface (upon receiving, from the user, a user operation (user input) to select the communication apparatus 151 of the connection setting target in step S305, the CPU 103 advances the process to step S306 to start connection setting processing. See Uchida, [0058]).
Claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (US Patent Number US 20160165440 A1) in view of Carey (US PGPUB 2020/0014885 A1) in view of Vedantham et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0255457 A1, hereinafter Vedantham) in view of Lee et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0032870 A1, hereinafter Lee) as applied to claims 1, 10 and 18 above and further in view of in view of Klinkner (US Patent Number US 20230016477 A1, hereby referred to as Klinkner).
Consider claim 3, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee disclose all the limitations of claim 1. However, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee fail to disclose a system wherein the determining that the device is not known includes:
determining the identity of the device;
comparing the identity of the deice to a list of known devices; and
determining whether the identity of the device is contained in the list of known devices.
Klinkner discloses a system (e.g., Fig. 2, tracking system 100) wherein the determining that the device is not known includes:
determining an identity of the device (e.g., received IDs of detected wireless devices, see [0086] lines 3-6);
comparing the identity of the device to a list of known devices (e.g., known device list(s) may be stored and compared with received device IDs of detected wireless devices to determine whether the wireless devices associated with the received device IDs are known devices. See [0086] lines 3-6); and
determining whether the identity of the device is contained in the list of known devices (A wireless device that fails to include a known device ID, may be determined as an unknown device. See [0086] lines 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee with the teachings of Klinkner to have a system that compares the identities of detected devices to a list of previously authorized devices. This allows for the system to determine whether said devices are unknown and whether they require the time and system resources needed to become known and/or authorized (the device ID of the unknown device may be stored in an authorized device list. As such, the authorized device is not identified as an unknown device at 905 for subsequent connections of the authorized device. See Klinkner, Fig. 9, [104]).
Consider claim 5, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham, Lee and Klinkner discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. In addition, Klinkner discloses a system (e.g., Fig. 2, tracking system 100) further comprising a memory and/or storage configured to be accessible to the at least one controller (e.g., a processor) and to store the list of known devices (Identification of the unknown device may be performed by referencing a listing of known devices accessible to the tracking system 100. Any devices or systems described herein can be implemented with one or more computing devices, including a processor, memory, and/or storage device. See [0085], [0127] lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee with the teachings of Klinkner to have a system that is capable of storing a list of known or authorized devices. This allows for the system later compare unknown devices with those found on the list and determine whether said devices are “new” and whether they require the time and system resources needed to become known and/or authorized (the device ID of the unknown device may be stored in an authorized device list. As such, the authorized device is not identified as an unknown device at 905 for subsequent connections of the authorized device; method 900 avoided entirely. See Klinkner, Fig. 9, [104]).
Consider claim 8, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee disclose all the limitations of claim 7. However, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee fail to disclose a system wherein determining that the device is within the threshold distance includes:
determining a signal strength of the signal; and
determine, based on the signal strength a distance of the device from an antenna.
Klinkner discloses a system (e.g., Fig. 2, tracking system 100) wherein determining that the device is within the threshold distance includes:
determining a signal strength of the signal (tracking system 100 records the signal strength of each signal received from a device over time, see [0118] lines 1-3); and
determining, based on the signal strength of the signal, a distance of the device from the antenna (e.g., a communication interface)(The tracking system, upon detecting a first and a second advertisement signal including the first identity, generates 1040 an interface on the mobile device of the user indicating the presence of an unknown device (a device tagged as following the user, or a “tagged device”). The interface may also display a signal strength indicator of the tagged device to enable the user to determine an approximate distance to the tagged device. Any devices or systems described can be implemented by one or more computing devices, including a memory, a storage device, and/or communication interface. See Fig 10, [0119] lines 1-5 and 16-18, [0127] lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee with the teachings of Klinkner have a system to determine the signal strength of a signal received from a device, as well as the distance of the device from the antenna based on said signal. This allows an end user to determine the approximate location of a device in relation to the system (see Klinkner, [0119] lines 16-18).
Consider claim 9, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham, Lee and Klinkner discloses all the limitations of claim 8. In addition, Klinkner discloses a system (e.g., tracking system 100) wherein the distance of the device from the antenna (e.g., communication interface) is determined based on only the signal strength of the signal (The tracking system, upon detecting a first and a second advertisement signal including the first identity, generates 1040 an interface on the mobile device of the user indicating the presence of an unknown device (a device tagged as following the user, or a “tagged device”). The interface may also display a signal strength indicator of the tagged device to enable the user to determine an approximate distance to the tagged device. Any device or system described herein can be implemented with one or more computing devices, including a communication interface. See Fig 10, [0119] lines 1-5 and 16-18, [0127] lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee with the teachings of Klinkner have a system to determine the distance of the device from the antenna based on signal strength. This allows an end user to determine the approximate location of a device in relation to the system (see Klinkner, [0119] lines 16-18).
Consider claim 12, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee disclose all the limitations of claim 10. However, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee fail to disclose a method wherein the determining that the device is not known includes:
determining the identity of the device;
comparing the identity of the deice to a list of known devices; and
determining whether the identity of the device is contained in the list of known devices.
Klinkner discloses a method (e.g., Fig. 9) wherein the determining that the device is not known includes;
determining an identity of the device (at step 905, the tracking system 100 may be configured to identify an unknown device from a set of wireless devices detected by the mobile device 102. See Fig. 9, [0085] lines 1-2);
comparing the identity of the device to a list of known devices (The known device list(s) may be stored and compared with received device IDs of detected wireless devices to determine whether the wireless devices associated with the received device IDs are known devices. See
[0086] lines 3-6); and
determining that the identity of the device is not contained in the list of known devices (A wireless device that fails to include a known device ID, may be determined as an unknown device. See [0086] lines 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee with the teachings of Klinkner to have a process by which to compare the identities of detected devices to a list of previously authorized devices. This allows for the system to determine whether said devices are unknown and whether they require the time and system resources needed to become known and/or authorized (the device ID of the unknown device may be stored in an authorized device list. As such, the authorized device is not identified as an unknown device at 905 for subsequent connections of the authorized device. See Klinkner, Fig. 9, [104]).
Consider claim 16, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee disclose all the limitations of claim 15. However, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee fail to disclose a method wherein determining that the device is within the threshold distance includes:
determining a signal strength of the signal; and
determine, based on the signal strength a distance of the device from an antenna.
Klinkner discloses a method (e.g., Fig. 10, method 1000) wherein determining that the device is within the threshold distance includes:
determining a signal strength of the signal (tracking system 100 records the signal strength of each signal received from a device over time, see [0118] lines 1-3); and
determining, based on the signal strength of the signal, a distance of the device from the antenna (e.g., a communication interface) (The tracking system, upon detecting a first and a second advertisement signal including the first identity, generates 1040 an interface on the mobile device of the user indicating the presence of an unknown device (a device tagged as following the user, or a “tagged device”). The interface may also display a signal strength indicator of the tagged device to enable the user to determine an approximate distance to the tagged device. Any devices or systems described can be implemented by one or more computing devices, including a memory, a storage device, and/or communication interface. See Fig 10, [0119] lines 1-5 and 16-18, [0127] lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee with the teachings of Klinkner have a method to determine the distance of a detected device from the antenna based on signal strength. This allows an end user to determine the approximate location of a device in relation to the system (see Klinkner, [0119] lines 16-18).
Consider claim 17, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham, Lee and Klinkner discloses all the limitations of claim 16. In addition, Klinkner discloses a method (e.g., Fig. 10, method 1000) wherein the distance of the device from the antenna (e.g., communication interface) is determined based on only the signal strength of the signal (The tracking system, upon detecting a first and a second advertisement signal including the first identity, generates 1040 an interface on the mobile device of the user indicating the presence of an unknown device (a device tagged as following the user, or a “tagged device”). The interface may also display a signal strength indicator of the tagged device to enable the user to determine an approximate distance to the tagged device. Any device or system described herein can be implemented with one or more computing devices, including a communication interface. See Fig 10, [0119] lines 1-5 and 16-18, [0127] lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee with the teachings of Klinkner have a method to determine the signal strength of a signal received from a device, as well as the distance of the device from the antenna based on said signal. This allows an end user to determine the approximate location of a device in relation to the system (see Klinkner, [0119] lines 16-18).
Consider claim 20, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee discloses all the limitations of claim 18. Bae also discloses a non-transitory, computer readable medium wherein the instructions further instruct at least one processor to:
determine the identity of a device (As a result of the determination, if the new terminal device 300 among one or more terminal devices is located within the preset threshold distance, the electronic apparatus 100 transmits the signal to the new terminal device 300 requesting the terminal information of the new terminal device 300. Here, the terminal information of the new terminal device 300 may include address information, identification information, product information, and the like of the new terminal device 300. See [0113] lines 3-8 and 13-16).
However, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee fail to teach a non-transitory, computer-readable medium wherein the instructions further instruct at least one processor to:
compare the identity of the device to a list of known devices; and
determine whether the identity of the device is contained in the list of known devices.
Klinkner discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable medium (e.g., memory or storage device) wherein the instructions further instruct the at least one processor to:
compare the identity of the device to a list of known devices (e.g., known device list(s) may be stored and compared with received device IDs of detected wireless devices to determine whether the wireless devices associated with the received device IDs are known devices. See [0086] lines 3-6); and
determine whether the identity of the device is contained in the list of known devices (A wireless device that fails to include a known device ID, may be determined as an unknown device. Any devices or systems described herein can be implemented by one or more computing devices, including a processor, a memory, and/or a storage device. See [0086] lines 6-8, [0127] lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee with the teachings of Klinkner have a system with a non-transitory, computer readable medium to instruct a processor to compare the identities of detected devices to a list of previously authorized devices. This allows for the system to determine whether said devices are unknown and whether they require the time and system resources needed to become known and/or authorized (the device ID of the unknown device may be stored in an authorized device list. As such, the authorized device is not identified as an unknown device at 905 for subsequent connections of the authorized device. See Klinkner, Fig. 9, [104]).
Consider claim 23, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee disclose all the limitations of claim 22. However, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee fail to disclose a non-transitory, computer-readable medium wherein determining that the device is within the threshold distance includes:
determining a signal strength of the signal; and
determine, based on the signal strength a distance of the device from an antenna.
Klinkner discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable medium (e.g., memory or storage device) wherein determining that the device is within the threshold distance includes:
determining a signal strength of the signal (tracking system 100 records the signal strength of each signal received from a device over time, see [0118] lines 1-3); and
determining, based on the signal strength of the signal, a distance of the device from an antenna (e.g., a communication interface) (The tracking system, upon detecting a first and a second advertisement signal including the first identity, generates 1040 an interface on the mobile device of the user indicating the presence of an unknown device (a device tagged as following the user, or a “tagged device”). The interface may also display a signal strength indicator of the tagged device to enable the user to determine an approximate distance to the tagged device. Any devices or systems described can be implemented by one or more computing devices, including a memory, a storage device, and/or communication interface. See Fig 10, [0119] lines 1-5 and 16-18, [0127] lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bae, Carey, Vedantham and Lee with the teachings of Klinkner have a system with a non-transitory, computer readable medium to instruct a processor to determine the signal strength of a signal received from a device, as well as the distance of the device from the antenna based on said signal. This allows an end user to determine the approximate location of a device in relation to the system (see Klinkner, [0119] lines 16-18).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (US Patent Number US 20160165440 A1) in view of Carey (US PGPUB 2020/0014885 A1) in view of Vedantham et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0255457 A1, hereinafter Vedantham) in view of Lee et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0032870 A1, hereinafter Lee) in view of Klinkner (US Patent Number US 20230016477 A1) and as applied to claims 3 and 12 above and in further view of Silva (US Patent Number US 20160098690 A1, hereby referred to as Silva).
Consider claim 4, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham, Lee and Klinkner discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. However, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham, Lee and Klinkner fail to disclose a system wherein determining the identity of the device includes analyzing at least one packet header of the signal.
Silva teaches a system (e.g., Fig. 4, kiosk 100) wherein the determining the identity of the
device (e.g., device 330) includes analyzing at least one packet header of the signal (As a result of the device (330) sending and receiving data using the kiosk's wireless network, the kiosk 100 is able to capture and/or inspect the device's data transmissions. The contents of the wireless data transmissions can include, for example, a MAC address that indicates the device's manufacturer, packet header information identifying the type of the device 330, and/or packet payload information that reveals the identity of the device 330. See Fig. 21, [0100] lines 10-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bae, Carey, Vedantham, Lee and Klinknerwith the teachings of Silva to have a system that determines the identity of the device by analyzing at least one packet header of the signal. The packet header often contains information about the signal that contributes to determining the identity of the source device (The advertisement signal may comprise identification information of the unknown device including a first identity or first identifier value, see Klinkner, [0114] lines 6-9 and Silva [0100]).
Consider claim 13, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham, Lee and Klinkner discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. However, the combination of Bae, Carey, Vedantham, Lee and Klinkner fail to disclose a method wherein determining the identity of the device includes analyzing at least one packet header of the signal.
Silva teaches a method (e.g., Fig. 21, routine 2100) wherein the determining the identity of the device (e.g., block 2106) includes analyzing at least one packet header of the signal (e.g., block 2104) (As a result of the device (330) sending and receiving data using the kiosk's wireless network, the kiosk 100 is able to capture and/or inspect the device's data transmissions. The contents of the wireless data transmissions can include, for example, a MAC address that indicates the device's manufacturer, packet header information identifying the type of the device 330, and/or packet payload information that reveals the identity of the device 330. See Fig. 21, [0100] lines 10-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bae, Carey, Vedantham, Lee and Klinkner with the teachings of Silva to have a method that determines the identity of the device by analyzing at least one packet header of the signal. The packet header often contains information about the signal that contributes to determining the identity of the source device (The advertisement signal may comprise identification information of the unknown device including a first identity or first identifier value, see Klinkner, [0114] lines 6-9 and Silva [0100]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) should be directed to Anthony Addy whose telephone number is (571) 272-7795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 8:00-5:00.
SPE 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.
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.
/ANTHONY S ADDY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights