DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn; however, the amendment introduces new clarity issues such as appear that a section of claim 1 was inadvertently removed. Please see below for details.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because in view of the new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear what is received in claim 1. Please clarify. The rest of the claims share the deficiency by virtue of dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the set of priority list" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites the limitations: “configured to base”; it is unclear what does the limitation requires.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, 13, 22-24 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim 8989777 in view of Reed 20080045234 and further in view of Davis 20240388632.
As to claim 1, Kim discloses a method of localization of a mobile device (see abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, with the mobile device from a server, a set of priority lists for localization of the mobile device, wherein the set of priority lists comprises, for each context [condition] of a plurality of contexts, a corresponding prioritized list of localization methods for the mobile device to use, for a respective context (see col. 6, lines 2-37);
determining, with the mobile device, an applicable context from the plurality of contexts based on a course location of the mobile device along the journey (see col. 6, line 53 – col. 7, line 8); and
performing, with the mobile device, a localization method in accordance with a priority list, from the set of priority lists, corresponding to the applicable context (see col. 7, lines 21-26, 41-46). Kim fails to disclose the intended use of during journey; however, it is noted that Kim’s terminal moves (see col. 3, lines 34-41); thereby it can be equated with a journey. Regardless, in an analogous art, Reed discloses a journey or traveling (see par. 0473) and coarse location (see par. 0517). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Kim’s teachings during a journey to provide triggered location based on the conditions and environment of the area; thereby, minimizing positioning error. The previous references fail to disclose a set of priority of list. In an analogous art, Davis discloses a set of priority of list [location … identify a prioritized set 102, 104, 106, 108] (see par. 0019). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to add priority list to Kim to have the desired priority in the desired location and improve speed, quality, etc.
As to claim 2, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the applicable context from the plurality of contexts: determining, with the mobile device, an event associated [threshold] with the applicable context [condition], determining the applicable context based on input received at the mobile device [POSMETHOD_LIST], or a combination thereof (see col. 6, line 53 – col. 7, line 45).
As to claim 3, Kim discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the input received at the mobile device comprises a user input, information from the server, information from another device, or any combination thereof (see col. 6, line 53 – col. 7, line 45).
As to claim 5, Kim discloses the method of claim 2, wherein determining the event associated with the applicable context is based at least in part on an indication, received from the server, of an association of the event with the applicable context (see col. 6, line 53 – col. 7, line 45).
As to claim 6, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the priority list corresponding to the applicable context comprises at least: a first localization method for the mobile device to use, a second localization method for the mobile device to use if the first localization method is unsuccessful, and a third localization method for the mobile device to use for the applicable context (see col. 6, line 53 – col. 7, line 45). Kim fails to disclose “always use”; however, setting a default method is withing the knowledge of one of the ordinary skills in the art since only require to choose a desired method. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that Kim’s priority list can be used during a journey to provide triggered location based on the conditions and environment of the area; thereby, minimizing positioning error.
As to claim 9, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining, with the mobile device, contextual information [position capabilities]; sending, from the mobile device to the server, the contextual information (see col. 5, lines 49-62); and subsequent to sending the contextual information, receiving, with the mobile device, one or more updated priority lists from the server (see col. 6, lines 24-36). Kim fails to disclose the intended use of during journey. In an analogous art, Reed discloses a journey or traveling (see par. 0473). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Kim’s teachings during a journey to provide triggered location based on the conditions and environment of the area; thereby, minimizing positioning error.
As to claims 10-11, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, with the mobile device, a location estimate of the mobile device based on the performing of the localization method (see col. 7, lines 21-26, 41-46); and sending, from the mobile device to a remote device, an indication of the location estimate (see col. 6, lines 61-63), wherein the remote device comprises the server (see col. 15, lines 21-23).
As to claim 13, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the prioritized list of localization methods for at least one priority list of the set of priority lists comprises: global navigation satellite system (GNSS) positioning, non-terrestrial communication network positioning, terrestrial cellular positioning, terrestrial Wi-Fi positioning, ultra-wideband (UWB) positioning, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE)-based positioning, visual-based positioning, sensor-assisted positioning, context-based positioning, or a combination thereof (see col. 3, lines 11-23; col. 7, lines 9-46).
Regarding claims 22-23, 26-27; they are the corresponding mobile device claims of method claims 1-2, 9-10. Therefore, claims 22-23, 26-27 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above and Kim discloses a transceiver [704]; a memory [702]; and one or more processors [700].
As to claim 24, Kim discloses the mobile device of claim 23, wherein the one or more processors are configured to base in determining the event associated with the applicable context at least in part on an indication, received via the transceiver from the server, of an association of the event with the applicable context (see col. 6, line 53 – col. 7, line 45).
Claim(s) 7-8, 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Reed in view of Davis and further in view of Hamada 20220179104.
As to claim 7, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the set of priority lists is received by the mobile device (see col. 6, lines 2-37). Kim fails to disclose receiving prior to the mobile device embarking on the journey. In an analogous art, Hamada discloses receiving prior to the mobile device embarking on the journey (see par. 0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that Kim’s priority list can be received before a journey to provide triggered location based on the conditions and environment of the area including areas with poor network reception as a tunnel; thereby, minimizing error.
As to claims 8 and 25, Kim discloses the method/mobile device of claim 1/22, further comprising receiving, at the mobile device from the server, an indication for a context, of the plurality of contexts, for the mobile device to use (see col. 6, line 2 – col. 7, line 8). Kim fails to disclose the intended use of a journey. In an analogous art, Hamada discloses receiving, at the mobile device from the server, an indication for a context, of the plurality of contexts, for the mobile device to use for at least one portion of the journey (see par. 0041). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that Kim’s priority list can be used during a journey to provide triggered location based on the conditions and environment of the area; thereby, minimizing positioning error.
As to claim 12, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising sending, from the mobile device to the server, information regarding the journey, wherein sending the information (see col. 6, lines 2-37). Kim fails to disclose sending prior to the mobile device embarking on the journey. In an analogous art, Hamada discloses sending prior to the mobile device embarking on the journey (see par. 0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that Kim’s priority list can be received before a journey to provide triggered location based on the conditions and environment of the area including areas with poor network reception as a tunnel; thereby, minimizing error.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the limitation of the input received at the mobile device comprises real-time or near real-time information indicative of a congestion level of one or more radio frequencies used by one or more of the localization methods in combination with all previously claimed limitations have not been found nor have been fairly suggested in the prior art search.
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 MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights