DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1, 3-12, 14-20 are presented for examination. This Action is made FINAL.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1of U.S. Patent 11647358 B2. Although the conflicting claims are similar, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim scope are identical as listed as following.
US Pat. 11647358 B2
Application 18/193,169
Claim 1.
An electronic device comprising: a communicator comprising circuitry; a first sensor configured to detect movement information of the electronic device; a memory comprising: a first determination module configured to determine whether a user carries the electronic device, and a second determination module configured to determine a detecting method for detecting a user location; and a processor configured to: identify whether a user of the electronic device carries the electronic device based on the movement information of the electronic device obtained by the first sensor by using the first determination module, determine a detecting method for detecting location information of the user according to whether the user carries the electronic device by using the second determination module, based on the user being identified to carry the electronic device, determine a first detecting method for obtaining the location information of the user using at least one of the movement information of the electronic device or feature information of a first signal received from an access point (AP) via the communicator; and based on the user being identified to not carry the electronic device, determine a second detecting method for obtaining the location information of the user using feature information of a second signal received from at least one external device via the communicator.
Claim 1,
An electronic device comprising: a communicator comprising circuitry; a first sensor; memory storing one or more computer programs; and a processor communicatively coupled to the communicator, the first sensor, and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: identify whether a user of the electronic device carries the electronic device based on movement information of the electronic device obtained by the first sensor, and
wherein the processor is further configured to: based on the user being identified to carry the electronic device, obtain the location information of the user using at least one of the movement information of the electronic device or feature information of a first signal received from an access point (AP) via the communicator, and based on the user being identified to not carry the electronic device, obtain the location information of the user using feature information of a second signal received from at least one external device via the communicator, wherein a part or an entirety of the second signal is reflected by or transmitted through the user.
Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same functions as before. In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963). Since one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention would have been made obvious to use a location determination scheme with an external device to perform the similar data transfer/retrieval process in order to improve data accuracy; thus, the claims are similar in scope which requires a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) to overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafsson et al. (US Pub. 20140087707 A1) in view of Osterkamp et al. (US Pat. 11610204 B1).
Re Claims 1 and 12, Gustafsson discloses an electronic device (100) comprising:
a communicator comprising circuitry (Fig. 1) [0016-18];
a first sensor (101); memory storing one or more computer programs; and a processor communicatively coupled to the communicator, the first sensor, and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to:
identify whether a user of the electronic device carries the electronic device based on movement information (motion/movement info) of the electronic device obtained by the first sensor [0023, 0030, 0038], and
based on the user being identified to carry the electronic device, obtain the location information of the user using at least one of the movement information of the electronic device or feature information of a first signal received from an access point (AP) via the communicator (if the MS is not in a stand still mode then detect a motion mode using location/positioning info from a GPS/AP sensor or second sensor to determine movement/motion) [0034-37, 0020], and
based on the user being identified to not carry the electronic device, obtain the location information of the user using feature information of a second signal received from at least one external device via the communicator (Fig. 3 step 302, Page 4, Claims 12 and 13, first sensor for the location in a stand still mode at 302) [0034-37, 0026],
But Gustafsson doesn’t explicitly teach wherein a part or an entirety of the second signal is reflected by or transmitted through the user.
However, Osterkamp discloses wherein a part or an entirety of the second signal is reflected by or transmitted through the user (col. 6 lines 11-28, col. 7 lines 23-39).
Since, all are analogous arts addressing user data detection used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Gustafsson with Osterkamp to signal noises and interference can be accounted for to improve quality mitigation, thus, enhancing signal quality.
Claim 12 differs from claim 1 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art Gustafsson further discloses a method for controlling an electronic device including a first sensor [0016-18], the method (Fig. 3).
All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
Re Claims 3 and 14, Gustafsson, as modified by Osterkamp, discloses based on the movement information being not changed within threshold time, identify that the user does not carry the electronic device by using a first determination module (Velocity = Change of Distance/ Change of Time; Stand still mode indicates V= 0, which means no change in distance within a define period) [0026-28, 0034-35], and
based on the movement information being changed within the threshold time, identify that the user carries the electronic device by using the first determination module (Velocity = Change of Distance/ Change of Time; motion/movement mode indicates V > 0, which means a change in distance within a define period) [0023, 0030, 0038].
Re Claims 5 and 16, Gustafsson, as modified by Osterkamp, discloses based on a second detecting method being determined, control the communicator to transmit a signal requesting transmission of the second signal for obtaining the location information of the user to the at least one external device by using a second detecting method module (Page 4, Claims 12 and 13), and
based on the feature information of the second signal being obtained by receiving the second signal from the at least one external device via the communicator, obtain the location information of the user by inputting the feature information of the second signal to a location detecting model (detect a motion mode using location/positioning info from a GPS to determine movement/motion) [0034-37, 0026].
Re Claims 6 and 17, Gustafsson, as modified by Osterkamp, discloses based on a second detecting method being determined, control the communicator to transmit a request signal requesting to perform an operation of obtaining the location information of the user to the at least one external device (GPS) (if the MS is stand still mode then detect a motion mode using location/positioning info from a GPS to determine movement/motion) [0034-38, 0026], and
wherein the at least one external device, which has received the request signal, is configured to obtain the location information of the user based on feature information of a third signal received from another external device (WiFi) (When the GPS signal is out of reach, a Wi-Fi signal can be used to determine the location of the UE) [0020, 0029].
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafsson et al. (US Pub. 20140087707 A1) in view of Osterkamp et al. (US Pat. 11610204 B1) in further view of Hallock et al. (US Pub. 20200053558 A1).
Re Claims 4 and 15, Gustafsson, as modified by Osterkamp, discloses a second sensor configured to detect a user signal of the user by coming into contact with the user of the electronic device [0034-37, 0026],
wherein the processor is further configured to identify whether the user of the electronic device carries the electronic device based on whether the user signal of the user is able to be detected via the second sensor, by using a first determination module [0034-37, 0026].
But Gustafsson, as modified by Osterkamp, doesn’t explicitly disclose the user signal is a biological signal.
However, Hallock discloses the user signal is a biological signal [0035].
Hallock further discloses a second sensor configured to detect a biological signal of the user by coming into contact with the user of the electronic device [0035],
wherein the processor is further configured to identify whether the user of the electronic device carries the electronic device based on whether the biological signal of the user is able to be detected via the second sensor, by using a first determination module [0035, 0132].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing user data detection used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Gustafsson and Osterkamp with Hallock to ensure the biometric information can be captured to improve location determination, thus, enhancing system efficiency in data processing.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafsson et al. (US Pub. 20140087707 A1) in view of Osterkamp et al. (US Pat. 11610204 B1) in further view of Huh et al. (US Pub. 20200195772 A1).
Re Claims 7 and 18, Gustafsson, as modified by Osterkamp, discloses control the communicator to transmit a request signal requesting to perform an operation of obtaining the location information of the user to the at least one external device (Page 4, Claims 12 and 13), and
wherein the at least one external device, which has received the request signal, is configured to obtain the location information of the user based on the feature information of a third signal received from another external device [0034-37, 0026].
But Gustafsson, as modified by Osterkamp, doesn’t explicitly disclose based on the user being identified to be not present within a threshold distance from the electronic device based on the feature information of the second signal.
However, Huh discloses based on the user being identified to be not present within a threshold distance from the electronic device based on the feature information of the second signal, control the communicator to transmit a request signal requesting to perform an operation of obtaining the location information of the user to the at least one external device (Fig. 10 steps 1007-1017) [0024, 0081-83, 0132-133], and
wherein the at least one external device, which has received the request signal, is configured to obtain the location information of the user based on the feature information of a third signal received from another external device (Fig. 10 steps 1007-1017) [0024, 0081-83, 0132-133].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing user data detection used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Gustafsson and Osterkamp with Huh to ensure the distance information can be incorporated to improve location determination, thus, enhancing accuracy of location determination.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafsson et al. (US Pub. 20140087707 A1) in view of Osterkamp et al. (US Pat. 11610204 B1) in further view of Karabinis (US Pub. 20200074857 A1).
Re Claims 8 and 19, Gustafsson, as modified by Osterkamp, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Gustafsson, as modified by Osterkamp, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Karabinis.
Karabinis discloses identify whether a battery of the electronic device is being charged, determine a detecting method for detecting the location information of the user according to whether the battery of the electronic device is being charged by using a second determination module [0305],
based on the battery of the electronic device being identified as being charged, determine a second detecting method (increase rate of charging, when a detection of motion is decreased or zero) [0305], and
based on the battery of the electronic device being identified as not being charged, determine a first detecting method (decrease/stop rate of charging, when a new detection of motion increase) [0305].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing user data detection used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Gustafsson and Osterkamp with Karabinis to ensure the charging information can be incorporated to improve location determination, thus, enhancing battery power consumption.
Claims 9-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafsson et al. (US Pub. 20140087707 A1) in further view of Osterkamp et al. (US Pat. 11610204 B1) in view of Matus (US Pub. 20180077538 A1).
Re Claims 9 and 20, Gustafsson, as modified by Osterkamp, discloses identify whether the location of the electronic device is a location for obtaining the location information of the user via a location detecting model (Fig. 3, location detecting software/scheme).
But Gustafsson, as modified by Osterkamp, doesn’t explicitly disclose based on a battery of the electronic device being identified as being charged, identify a location of the electronic device by using the second signal received from the at least one external device.
However, Matus discloses based on a battery of the electronic device being identified as being charged, identify a location of the electronic device by using the second signal received from the at least one external device (when the battery is charging, the GSP signal from the GPS can determine the location of the UE) [0052], and
Matus further discloses identify whether the location of the electronic device is a location for obtaining the location information of the user via a location detecting model (collected location is obtained of the UE through a machine learning model) [0060].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing user data detection used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Gustafsson and Osterkamp with Matus to ensure the charging information can be incorporated to improve location determination, thus, enhancing location learning for the machine learning model.
Re Claim 10, Gustafsson, as modified by Matus, discloses based on the location of the electronic device being identified as the location for obtaining the location information of the user via the location detecting model, obtain the location information of the user by a second detecting method (if the MS is not in a stand still mode then detect a motion mode using location/positioning info from a GPS to determine movement/motion using the location detecting software/scheme) [0034-37, 0026], and
based on the location of the electronic device being not identified as the location for obtaining the location information of the user via the location detecting model, obtain the location information of the user by using a first detecting method (When the GPS signal is out of reach, a Wi-Fi signal can be used to determine the location of the UE using the location detecting software/scheme) [0020, 0029] (Page 4, Claims 12 and 13).
Re Claim 11, Gustafsson, as modified by Matus, discloses based on the user being identified to carry the electronic device after the location of the electronic device is identified as the location for obtaining the location information of the user via the location detecting model, obtain movement information of the electronic device via the first sensor based on the location of the electronic device (if the MS is not in a stand still mode then detect a motion mode using location/positioning info from a GPS to determine movement/motion using the location detecting software/scheme) [0034-37, 0026], and
train the location detecting model based on the movement information of the electronic device and feature information of a third signal received from the AP via the communicator (Page 4, Claims 12 and 13).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's latest filed arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the references failing to teach every element recited in the independent claims; the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments by the Applicant. Even though, the Examiner acknowledges Applicant's invention may possess some novel features, the claims are written too broad that can be read on the current cited prior art(s). Further actions must be taken to explicitly claim those novel features of the current application.
With regards to the argument for the limitation “…based on the user being identified to carry the electronic device, obtain the location information of the user using at least one of the movement information of the electronic device or feature information of a first signal received from an access point (AP) via the communicator…”, the Examiner asserts that Gustafsson discloses if the MS is not in a stand still mode then detect a motion mode using location/positioning info from a GPS/AP sensor or second sensor to determine movement/motion. [0034-37, 0020], the MS device determines user position using inertial sensors (movement sensors) and radio signals such as WiFi access point signals (landmark-based navigation using RSSI). The antenna enables receiving signals from access points, and the calculation unit computes position based on sensor data or radio signals; and Gustafsson also teaches using a "localization algorithm" based on first sensors and explicitly mentions resolving location near a "wireless access point" (AP) or using "dead-reckoning" from inertial sensors when in motion (carrying) [0004-5, 0032-37].
With regards to the argument for the limitation “…based on the user being identified to not carry the electronic device, obtain the location information of the user using feature information of a second signal received from at least one external device via the communicator…”, the Examiner asserts that Gustafsson discloses on Fig. 3 step 302, Page 4, Claims 12 and 13, first sensor for the location in a stand still mode at 302. Gustafsson further teaches selecting different sensor inputs and signal sources depending on the operational mode of the device, which corresponds to whether the device is carried or how it is carried. Gustafsson explicitly discloses that the mode determines which sensors are used and how signals are processed [0008], Fig. 3, stages 300–309, and that operational mode reflects whether the device is handheld, monitored, or stored in a pocket or bag [0032]. Because the operational mode determines which sensors and communication signals are used for localization, Gustafsson teaches obtaining location information using signals received from external devices via the communicator depending on whether the device is carried and how it is carried. [0034-37, 0026]. Gustafsson explicitly contemplates radio signals [0026] and GPS “enable other information sources (GPS close to entrances)” [0037], both of which originate from external sources and are received via the communicator. The fact that Gustafsson also uses internal sensors does not negate its teaching of external signal usage to track motion/movement.
With regards to the argument for the limitation “…wherein a part or an entirety of the second signal is reflected by or transmitted through the user.”, the Examiner asserts that Osterkamp discloses a user (first user 110) passes through a sensor zone 150 created by external Wi-Fi enabled devices (first device 152 and second device 154). The system obtains information about the user based on signals reflected by or transmitted through the user's body, exactly as claimed limitation (col. 6 lines 11-28, col. 7 lines 23-39).
ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS
NECESSARY
The arguments made by the counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. The Applicant representative’s arguments for the obvious reason to combine the implicit and explicit teaching of the cited reference(s) failed to provide factual support to sustain the ground of arguments. The mere statement of disagreement of the prior art made by the Applicant’s representative cannot be served as evidence for support. Please see the following case law for detail:
In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
ARGUING AGAINST REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck and Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As discussed above, it is apparent that the Applicant's cited limitations, elements, and arguments have already been disclosed by the relevant prior art(s) or were thoroughly addressed by the Examiner. Additionally, the current Office Action provides further elaboration on the explicit and implicit teachings of the aforementioned disclosed reference(s). It is important to note that any justifications and citations utilized in the preceding Office Action which were not contested by the Applicant shall be regarded as an implicit admission by the Applicant on the matter at hand.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409