DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 10/27/2025, are accepted and appreciated by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered. With regards to the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) Rejection, Applicant’s amendments have addressed this issue and is therefore withdrawn. With regards to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection Applicant argues that “It is clear that the user in Agrawal initiates a discovery mode to detect nearby wireless devices and NOT in response to detecting nearby wireless devices. As such, the cited portions of Agrawal do not teach "responsive to the detecting, receiving a search query including one or more search criterion associated with a second entity" as recited by Amended claim 2.” However Examiner respectfully disagrees. Agrawal teaches “Referring initially to FIG. 2, as represented by block 202 a first device such as device 102 commences distance-based operations (e.g., enables a ranging mode) in conjunction with establishing communication with a second device such as device 104. Here, the device 102 may determine whether it has entered a wireless coverage area associated with the device 104. These operations may be initiated automatically or may be initiated based an action by a user who wishes to associate the device 102 with the device 104. In the former case, a discovery mode may be continually enabled such that the device 102 may repeatedly scan to determine whether it has entered a coverage area of a wireless network (e.g., a body area network or personal area network) or a coverage area of some other wireless device. “ Therefore Agrawal teaches that detecting that is within a proximity zone of a computing device (See Para[0040] a first device such as device 102 commences distance-based operations (e.g., enables a ranging mode) in conjunction with establishing communication with a second device such as device 104. Here, the device 102 may determine whether it has entered a wireless coverage area associated with the device 104) responsive to the detecting, receiving a search query including one or more search criterion associated with a second entity (See Para[0040 In the former case, a discovery mode may be continually enabled such that the device 102 may repeatedly scan to determine whether it has entered a coverage area of a wireless network (e.g., a body area network or personal area network) or a coverage area of some other wireless device. Examiner notes that repeatedly scanning to determine whether it has entered a coverage area of a wireless network (e.g., a body area network or personal area network) or a coverage area of some other wireless device, has been interpreted as a search query), and therefore Examiner maintains that the prior art teaches the claimed limitation. With regards to the limitation concerning “presenting…”, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 11-14, 16, 17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agrawal (US 2007/0287386 A1) in view of Brown (US 2007/0159994 A1) and Scalisi (US 2006/0255935 A1).
With respect to Claim 2 Agrawal teaches A method comprising: detecting that is within a proximity zone of a computing device (See Para[0040] Here, the device 102 may determine whether it has entered a wireless coverage area associated with the device 104),; responsive to the detecting, receiving a search query including one or more search criterion associated with a second entity, (See Para[0040] initiate a discovery mode that causes the device 102 (e.g., the radio 110) to commence scanning for nearby wireless networks or wireless devices); However Agrawal is silent to the language of first personal digital key (PDK) the first PDK uniquely associated with a first entity the second entity uniquely associated with a second PDK receiving information including a current location of the second PDK; and generating a graphical representation of a location of the second entity based on the information including the current location of the second PDK, wherein the graphical representation includes a location of the first entity, the first PDK not associated with a group including the second PDK, and wherein the graphical representation of the first entity and the second entity is visually distinct, and presenting the graphical representation in a user interface of the computing device. Nevertheless Brown teaches first personal digital key (PDK) (See Para[0057]) the first PDK uniquely associated with a first entity (See Para[0057]) the second entity uniquely associated with a second PDK (See Para[0057]) receiving information including a current location of the second PDK; and; and (See Fig. 2) generating a graphical representation of a location of the second entity based on the information including the current location of the second PDK, wherein the graphical representation includes a location of the first entity, the first PDK not associated with a group including the second PDK, and wherein the graphical representation of the first entity and the second entity is visually distinct. (See Fig 2.) However Brown is silent to the language of and presenting the graphical representation in a user interface of the computing device. Nevertheless Scalisi teaches and presenting the graphical representation in a user interface of the computing device. (See Fig 1 and Para[0009] A graphical map may be provided with a conventional centralized monitoring station. For instance, the graphical map may be two dimensional, or even a three-dimensional, topological map that depicts landscaping, marine, or other environments. The map typically displays representative icons of individuals and/or objects being tracked. In one example, a mobile device may display the three-dimensional map, including primary regions and sub-regions that are pre-programmed to create a series of overlay maps for viewing on a computer display. In yet another example, map information of a first and second user terminal is synthesized; a map is chosen based on the map information from the database; and the map information is displayed on at least one of the first user and the second user terminal.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal and have use PDKs and display a location such as that of Brown. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Agrawal, because using pdks improve security and are cost effective and having a graphical representation would allow one to visualize the data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal and present the graphical representation in a user interface of the computing device such as that of Scalisi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Agrawal because presenting the graphical representation in a user interface would aid monitoring and tracking objects and/or individuals, and/or providing security measures when monitoring tracking devices. With respect to Claim 4 Agrawal teaches The method of claim 2, wherein receiving information including the current location of the second PDK includes: receiving an estimated distance between the second PDK and each of a plurality of reader devices distributed throughout a monitored area (See Para[0102]); and However Agrawal is silent to the language of determining, at a plurality of predetermined intervals of time, the current location of the second PDK using the distance between the second PDK and each of the plurality of reader devices. Nevertheless Scalisi teaches determining, at a plurality of predetermined intervals of time, the current location of the second PDK using the distance between the second PDK and each of the plurality of reader devices. (See Fig 2D and Para[0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal and determine the location such as that of Scalisi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Agrawal, because such a method would improve accuracy and reliability by using multiple inputs. With respect to Claim 5 Agrawal is silent to the language of The method of claim 4, further comprising: tracking a movement of the second PDK through the monitored area based on the current location of the second PDK at the plurality of predetermined intervals of time. Nevertheless Scalisi teaches tracking a movement of the second PDK through the monitored area based on the current location of the second PDK at the plurality of predetermined intervals of time (See Para[0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal and track movement such as that of Scalisi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Agrawal, because tracking movement would allow one to know the changing of the positions and the positions would thus be current and accurate. With respect to Claim 11 Agrawal teaches The method of claim 2, wherein the second PDK is associated with the group during configuration, the association with the group acting as a search criterion and expediting the configuration by indicating one or more settings associated with the group with which the second PDK is associated (See Para[0040]. With respect to Claim 12 Agrawal is silent to the language of The method of claim 2, wherein the second PDK is affixed to the second entity. Nevertheless Brown teaches wherein the second PDK is affixed to the second entity (See Para[0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal wherein the second PDK is affixed to the second entity such as that of Brown. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Agrawal because if the PDK is attached it would represent the attached entity, With respect to Claim 13 Agrawal teaches The method of claim 2, wherein the first entity is one of a first object and a first user, and the second entity is one of a second object and a second user. (See Fig 6) With respect to Claim 14 Agrawal teaches A system comprising: (See Abstract) a computing device including a processor and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform operations including: (See Fig 6) detecting that is within a proximity zone of the computing device, (See Para[0040] Here, the device 102 may determine whether it has entered a wireless coverage area associated with the device 104),; responsive to the detecting, receiving a search query including one or more search criterion associated with a second entity,; (See Para[0040] initiate a discovery mode that causes the device 102 (e.g., the radio 110) to commence scanning for nearby wireless networks or wireless devices); However Agrawal is silent to the language of first personal digital key (PDK) the first PDK uniquely associated with a first entity the second entity uniquely associated with a second PDK receiving information including a current location of the second PDK; and generating a graphical representation of a location of the second entity based on the information including the current location of the second PDK, wherein the graphical representation includes a location of the first entity, the first PDK not associated with a group including the second PDK, and wherein the graphical representation of the first entity and the second entity is visually distinct; and
presenting the graphical representation in a user interface of the computing device Nevertheless Brown teaches first personal digital key (PDK) (See Para[0057]) the first PDK uniquely associated with a first entity (See Para[0057]) the second entity uniquely associated with a second PDK (See Para[0057]) receiving information including a current location of the second PDK; and (See Fig. 2) generating a graphical representation of a location of the second entity based on the information including the current location of the second PDK, wherein the graphical representation includes a location of the first entity, the first PDK not associated with a group including the second PDK, and wherein the graphical representation of the first entity and the second entity is visually distinct (See Fig 2.) However Brown is silent to the language of presenting the graphical representation in a user interface of the computing device Nevertheless Scalisi teaches presenting the graphical representation in a user interface of the computing device (See Fig 1 and Para[0009] A graphical map may be provided with a conventional centralized monitoring station. For instance, the graphical map may be two dimensional, or even a three-dimensional, topological map that depicts landscaping, marine, or other environments. The map typically displays representative icons of individuals and/or objects being tracked. In one example, a mobile device may display the three-dimensional map, including primary regions and sub-regions that are pre-programmed to create a series of overlay maps for viewing on a computer display. In yet another example, map information of a first and second user terminal is synthesized; a map is chosen based on the map information from the database; and the map information is displayed on at least one of the first user and the second user terminal.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal and have use PDKs and display a location such as that of Brown. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Agrawal, because using pdks improve security and are cost effective and having a graphical representation would allow one to visualize the data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal and present the graphical representation in a user interface of the computing device such as that of Scalisi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Agrawal because presenting the graphical representation in a user interface would aid monitoring and tracking objects and/or individuals, and/or providing security measures when monitoring tracking devices. With respect to Claim 16 Agrawal teaches The system of claim 14, wherein receiving information including the current location of the second PDK includes: receiving an estimated distance between the second PDK and each of a plurality of reader devices distributed throughout a monitored area (See Para[0102]); and However Agrawal is silent to the language of determining, at a plurality of predetermined intervals of time, the current location of the second PDK using the distance between the second PDK and each of the plurality of reader devices. Nevertheless Scalisi teaches determining, at a plurality of predetermined intervals of time, the current location of the second PDK using the distance between the second PDK and each of the plurality of reader devices. (See Fig 2D and Para[0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal and determine a location such as that of Scalisi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Agrawal, because such a method would improve accuracy and reliability by using multiple inputs. With respect to Claim 17 Agrawal is silent to the language of The system of claim 16, wherein the operations further include tracking a movement of the second PDK through the monitored area based on the current location of the second PDK at the plurality of predetermined intervals of time. Nevertheless Scalisi teaches wherein the operations further include tracking a movement of the second PDK through the monitored area based on the current location of the second PDK at the plurality of predetermined intervals of time. (See Para[0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal and track movement such as that of Scalisi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Agrawal, because tracking movement would allow one to know the changing of the positions and the positions would thus be current and accurate.
Claims 3, 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agrawal (US 2007/0287386 A1) in view of Brown (US 2007/0159994 A1) and Scalisi (US 2006/0255935 A1) as applied to claims 2, 14 above, and further in view of Ertugrul (US 2008/0201733 A1).
With respect to Claim 3 Agrawal teaches The method of claim 2, further comprising: wherein the search query includes the group as one of the one or more search criterion (See Para[0040]). However Agrawal is silent to the language of generating a search interface for receiving the search query Nevertheless Ertugrul teaches generating a search interface for receiving the search query, (See Abstract and 3, 4, 9, 10) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal and have a search interface such as that of Ertugrul One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Agrawal because having an interface would allow so select and edit inputs. With respect to Claim 15 Agrawal teaches The system of claim 14, wherein the search query includes the group as one of the one or more search criterion. (See Para[0040]). However Agrawal is silent to the language of generating a search interface for receiving the search query Nevertheless Ertugrul teaches generating a search interface for receiving the search query, (See Abstract and 3, 4, 9, 10) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal and have a search interface such as that of Ertugrul One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Agrawal because having an interface would allow so select and edit inputs.
Claims (6, 7), 10, (18, 19) are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agrawal (US 2007/0287386 A1) in view of Brown (US 2007/0159994 A1) and Scalisi (US 2006/0255935 A1) as applied to claims 2, 4, 14 above, and further in view of Smith (US 2007/0247366 A1).
With respect to Claim 6 Agrawal in view of Brown teaches The method of claim 2, wherein receiving information including the location of the second PDK includes: receiving a plurality of timestamps associated with detecting the second PDK within a
range of a plurality of reader devices distributed throughout a monitored area (See Brown Para[0086]); and
determining a plurality of location vectors of the second PDK using the plurality of timestamps (Brown See Fig 19, 33); However Agrawal and Brown are silent to the language of determining a plurality of motion vectors of the second PDK using the plurality of location vectors and the plurality of timestamps; and tracking a movement of the second PDK through the monitored area using the plurality of motion vectors. Nevertheless Smith teaches determining a plurality of motion vectors of the second PDK using the plurality of location vectors and the plurality of timestamps; and (See Fig 4. Component 430) tracking a movement of the second PDK through the monitored area using the plurality of motion vectors. (See Fig 4. Component 430) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal and track movement such as that of Smith One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Agrawal, because using the plurality of motion vectors would produce accurate and precise results. With respect to Claim 7 Agrawal is silent to the language of The method of claim 2, wherein generating the graphical representation of the location of the second entity based on the information indicating the location of the second PDK includes: generating the graphical representation to display the location of the second entity on a floor plan in real-time; and updating the graphical representation to continuously display the location of the second entity as the second PDK uniquely associated with the second entity changes location or moves between floorplans. Nevertheless Smith teaches wherein generating the graphical representation of the location of the second entity based on the information indicating the location of the second PDK includes: generating the graphical representation to display the location of the second entity on a floor plan in real-time (See Fig 4); and updating the graphical representation to continuously display the location of the second entity as the second PDK uniquely associated with the second entity changes location or moves between floorplans. (See Fig 4) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal and update the graphical representation such as that of Smith. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Agrawal, because doing so would produce and accurate display of the current situation. With respect to Claim 10 Agrawal is silent to the language of The method of claim 4, wherein the estimated distance between the second PDK and each of the plurality of reader devices is based on monitoring at least one of bit error rate, packet error rate, or signal strength. Nevertheless Smith teaches wherein the estimated distance between the second PDK and each of the plurality of reader devices is based on monitoring at least one of bit error rate, packet error rate, or signal strength (See Para[0129]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal and use signal strength such as that of Smith. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Agrawal, because doing so would be accurate and would be no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. With respect to Claim 18 Agrawal in view of Brown teaches The system of claim 14, wherein receiving information including the location of the second PDK includes: receiving a plurality of timestamps associated with detecting the second PDK within a range of a plurality of reader devices distributed throughout a monitored area(See Brown Para[0086]); and determining a plurality of location vectors of the second PDK using the plurality of timestamps (Brown See Fig 19, 33);; However Agrawal and Brown are silent to the language of determining a plurality of motion vectors of the second PDK using the plurality of location vectors and the plurality of timestamps; and tracking a movement of the second PDK through the monitored area using the plurality of motion vectors. Nevertheless, Smith teaches determining a plurality of motion vectors of the second PDK using the plurality of location vectors and the plurality of timestamps; and (See Fig 4. Component 430) tracking a movement of the second PDK through the monitored area using the plurality of motion vectors. (See Fig 4. Component 430) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal and track movement such as that of Smith One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Agrawal, because using the plurality of motion vectors would produce accurate and precise results. With respect to Claim 19 Agrawal is silent to the language of The system of claim 14, wherein generating the graphical representation of the location of the second entity based on the information indicating the location of the second PDK includes: generating the graphical representation to display the location of the second entity on a floor plan in real-time; and updating the graphical representation to continuously display the location of the second entity as the second PDK uniquely associated with the second entity changes location or moves between floorplans. Nevertheless Smith teaches wherein generating the graphical representation of the location of the second entity based on the information indicating the location of the second PDK includes: generating the graphical representation to display the location of the second entity on a floor plan in real-time (See Fig 4); and updating the graphical representation to continuously display the location of the second entity as the second PDK uniquely associated with the second entity changes location or moves between floorplans. (See Fig 4) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal and update the graphical representation such as that of Smith. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Agrawal, because doing so would produce and accurate display of the current situation.
Claims 8, 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agrawal (US 2007/0287386 A1) in view of Brown (US 2007/0159994 A1) Scalisi (US 2006/0255935 A1) and Smith (US 2007/0247366 A1) as applied to claims 7, 19 above, and further in view of Van Os (US 2009/0325603 A1).
With respect to Claim 8 Agrawal is silent to the language of The method of claim 7, wherein generating the graphical representation to display the location of the second entity on the floor plan in real-time includes displaying a navigational route to reach the location of the second entity from the location of the first entity. Nevertheless Van Os teaches wherein generating the graphical representation to display the location of the second entity on the floor plan in real-time includes displaying a navigational route to reach the location of the second entity from the location of the first entity. (See Para[0004]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal and display a navigational route such as that of Van Os. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Agrawal, because a navigational route would allow one to move efficiently from point A to point B. With respect to Claim 20 Agrawal is silent to the language of The system of claim 19, wherein generating the graphical representation to display the location of the second entity on the floor plan in real-time includes displaying a navigational route to reach the location of the second entity from the location of the first entity. Nevertheless Van Os teaches wherein generating the graphical representation to display the location of the second entity on the floor plan in real-time includes displaying a navigational route to reach the location of the second entity from the location of the first entity. (See Para[0004]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal and display a navigational route such as that of Van Os. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Agrawal, because a navigational route would allow one to move efficiently from point A to point B.
Claims 9, 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agrawal (US 2007/0287386 A1) in view of Brown (US 2007/0159994 A1) and Scalisi (US2006/0255935 A1) as applied to claims 4, 16 above, and further in view of Burkart (US 2010/0277286 A1). With respect to Claim 9 Agrawal is silent to the language of The method of claim 4, wherein the plurality of reader devices are distributed throughout the monitored area in a grid pattern. Nevertheless Burkart teaches wherein the plurality of reader devices are distributed throughout the monitored area in a grid pattern. (See Fig 1 and Para[0066]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal wherein the plurality of reader devices are distributed throughout the monitored area in a grid pattern such as that of Burkart. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Agrawal, because a grid pattern would match city blocks and would evenly distribute reader devices. With respect to Claim 21 Agrawal is silent to the language of The system of claim 16, wherein the plurality of reader devices are distributed throughout the monitored area in a grid pattern. Nevertheless Burkart teaches wherein the plurality of reader devices are distributed throughout the monitored area in a grid pattern. (See Fig 1 and Para[0066]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal wherein the plurality of reader devices are distributed throughout the monitored area in a grid pattern such as that of Burkart. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Agrawal, because a grid pattern would match city blocks and would evenly distribute reader devices.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00-7:00.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
YOSHIHISA . ISHIZUKA
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857