DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to applicant's communication filed on 11/17/2025, wherein:
Claim 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1) On page 1-3 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues that Russell failed to anticipate the claimed invention regarding to “determining that the device is not reporting precise location information; based on output from one or more sensors determining that the device is located indoors; and instructing the device to suspend precise location services on the device”. Applicant indicated that Russell (¶0072) only teaches reducing reliance rather than disabling or suspending GPS, which failed to address the limitation “instructing the device to suspend precise location services on the device”.
(2) On page 3-4 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues that Pinder failed to anticipate the claimed invention. Pinder demonstrates that it does not disclose suspending precise location services for a predetermined period of time, but rather describes context-based weighting and selective control among multiple positioning technologies. While Pinder recognizes that GPS "can easily drain current attempting to obtain a position fix while indoors," it merely teaches that the system may "make a decision whether to suspend or modify GPS operation for the purpose of power savings" ([0016]). This conditional suspension occurs only after a failed attempt to obtain a GPS fix and is immediately reversible once a fix becomes possible. As Pinder explains, "If a fix is still obtainable, then the GPS could remain on. If a fix is not obtainable, then the GPS can be shut down until an indoor-to-outdoor transition is detected" ([0030]). Pinder acknowledged that the GPS may be turned off but it is reactive due to signal loss rather than proactive instruction. Moreover, Pinder does not disclose suspending GPS for a predetermined duration or under programmatic timing control. In contrast, the present claims expressly require that, once an indoor state is confirmed based on sensor output, the device is instructed to suspend precise location services for a predetermined period of time-an affirmative, controlled action distinct from Pinder's opportunistic GPS shutoff.
On page 4-5 of Applicant’s remark, Applicant remarks on 103 rejections are based on remarks for independent claim summarized in (1)
Applicant arguments have been carefully considered. However, Examiner respectfully disagreed.
(1) & (3) Applicant is invited to consider the current scope of claim 1: (i) determining that the device is not reporting precise location information; (ii) based on output from one or more sensors determining that the device is located indoors; and (iii) instructing the device to suspend precise location services on the device. In the current scope of claim 1, step (i)-(iii) are currently separate steps and not linked together. Also the current scope of the claim indicated suspending precise location service on the device, which does not explicitly require that the GPS is off or terminating GPS location service. Examiner interpret the limitation as any action that does not provide a similar level of precision in location service.
Russell teaches the following details: (a) GPS is off when mobile device is in indoor state (Fig. 5); (b) detecting transition between indoor state and outdoor state based on contextual information and adjusting operating parameter including setting transceiver in power saving mode (Fig. 6 step 610-612 and ¶0071-0072) wherein the power saving mode including reducing reliance on high power consumption location service such as GPS (¶0044). Therefore, Russell teaching is sufficient to address limitation (iii) since power saving mode is reducing the reliance on GPS which is high precision location service and also when the indoor transition is detected, GPS is turned off (¶0040). In other words, Russell does address limitation (iii) whether the limitation is interpreted as any reduction in precision location service or turning off precision location service such as GPS.
(2) Pinder teaching clearly teach the limitation based on the device being located indoors, suspend, for a pre-determined period of time, precise location services on the device. In particular, Fig. 3 step 314 and ¶0035 specifically indicated modifying an operation of location applications in a communication device based on the context transition detected at step 314. The step of modifying can involve activating, suspending, favoring, disfavoring or initiating a particular location technology among a plurality of location technologies used in a communication device based on the context transition detected at step 316. In one arrangement, the step of modifying can involve suspending or disfavoring a GPS location technology used in a communication device based on a context transition detected indicative of being indoors at step 318. Since the current scope of the claim does not clearly define “a predetermined period of time”, Examiner interprets the predetermined period of time as the time duration until the next context transition from indoor to outdoor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 6-8, 10, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Russell (US 20150097731 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Russell discloses a method for determining a location of a device (Fig. 1, Fig. 6, and ¶0071 – “FIG. 6 illustrates a method 600 for determining indoor or outdoor location of a portable communication device 100”) the method comprising:
determining that the device is not reporting precise location information (Fig. 6 step 602-603-604, ¶0071- “The indoor/outdoor detection utility 124 compares the signal strength 126 to a corresponding pre-established signal strength threshold 136 (block 604)”, ¶0027 – (b) compare the signal strength 126 to a corresponding pre-established signal strength threshold 136 and where applicable, compare the number of signal sources to a threshold minimum number required for a clear signal (e.g., with GNSS satellites whose visibility to the portable communication device 100 can vary based on the portable communication device being indoors or outdoors)”, Fig. 4 – indoor scenario such as A/B/G/H indicating low signal strength and fewer satellite vehicle, ¶0077);
based on output from one or more sensors determining that the device is located indoors (Fig. 6 step 606-610 and ¶0071-0072: “The indoor/outdoor detection utility 124 obtains contextual information 116 by accessing sensor data 114 from at least one sensor 112 selected based on a result of the comparing (block 606). A determination is made as to whether the contextual information 116 confirms a transition that is suggested by the comparison of the signal strength 126 to the pre-established signal strength threshold 136 (block 608). If a transition that is suggested by the comparison of the signal strength 126 to the pre-established signal strength threshold 136 is confirmed utilizing the contextual information 116 in block 608, then the indoor/outdoor detection utility 124 determines that the portable communication device 100 is transitioning from one of … (ii) an indoor space 118 to an outdoor space 120 (block 610)”); and
instructing the device to suspend precise location services on the device (Fig. 5 – indoor state with GPS off; Fig. 6 step 612; ¶0071-0072: “[0071] …(b) the outdoor space 120 to the indoor space 118, the indoor/outdoor detection utility 124 configures the portable communication device 100 for operation within an end location (outdoor space 120, indoor space 118, respectively) to which the portable communication device 100 is transitioning (block 612). [0072] For example, the indoor/outdoor detection utility 124 configures the portable communication device 100 by adjusting at least one of … (b) setting at least one signal transceiver of the portable communication device to a power saving mode” and ¶0044 – “This power saving mode for location services can include reducing reliance upon accurate but higher power consuming location services such as GPS”).
Regarding claim 6, Russell discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors are associated with the device (Fig. 1 - sensor 112; Fig. 2 sensor 243, 245, 241, 247, 249, 269, and 267).
Regarding claim 7, Russell discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the suspending the precise location services comprises instructing the device to deactivate one or more processes associated with determining a location of the device using one or more received GPS signals (Fig. 5 and ¶0088 disclose indoor operating state with GPS off).
Regarding claim 8, Russell discloses the method of claim 1, wherein, the one or more sensors include a light sensor (Fig. 2, ¶0042, and ¶0046 disclose light sensor 245).
Regarding claim 10, Russell discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors include an accelerometer (Fig. 2 - accelerometer 251).
Regarding claim 12, Russell discloses the method of claim 10, wherein it is determined that the device is located outdoors when data from the accelerometer indicates that the device is moving for a predetermined period of time (¶0052 – “The portable communication device 100 can detect being in a vehicle, can detect moving at rate indicative of a transition from indoor to outdoor”; ¶0060 – “A dead reckoning sensor or other location service can indicate that the device is moving quickly away from the home. Contextual information can corroborate a planned departure from a home location” wherein the dead reckoning device is including accelerometer shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Russell discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors include a magnetic sensor (Fig. 2 – magnetometer 253).
Regarding claim 15, the scope and content of the claim recites a system for determining a location of a device for performing the method of claim 1, therefore, being addressed as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Russell discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the data from the one or more sensors is the result of acceleration of the device (Fig. 2 and 0071-0072 disclose accelerometer 251 as one of the sensor for providing context information).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pinder (US 20070239813 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Pinder discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-usable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed by one or more processors (Abstract, Fig. 1, and Fig. 3), cause the processors to:
based on data from one or more sensors associated with the device, determine that the device is located indoors (Fig. 3 step 302-312 and ¶0035 disclose defining detecting a context transition corresponding to a change in the environmental condition based on sensor data including context transition indicating indoor environment); and
based on the device being located indoors, suspend, for a pre-determined period of time, precise location services on the device (Fig. 3 step 314 and ¶0035 – “modifying an operation of location applications in a communication device based on the context transition detected at step 314. The step of modifying can involve activating, suspending, favoring, disfavoring or initiating a particular location technology among a plurality of location technologies used in a communication device based on the context transition detected at step 316. In one arrangement, the step of modifying can involve suspending or disfavoring a GPS location technology used in a communication device based on a context transition detected indicative of being indoors at step 318”, which indicates that the GPS is suspended for a period of time until the next context transition).
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, 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.
Claim 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell (US 20150097731 A1) in view of Shaw (US 20090058720 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Russell discloses the method of claim 1, however, silent on further details of claim 2.
Shaw discloses wherein the determining is based on an absence of a return signal to a wireless telecommunications network after an attempt by a GPS system to transmit a GPS signal to the device (¶0071 – “If the mobile device 100' is able to obtain a GPS position from the GPS transceiver, it forwards that position to the multi-mode position server 212. If the mobile device 100' is unable to obtain a GPS position from the GPS transceiver 204', it relays this fact to the position server 212”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Russell to deliver status of GPS location determination to network from Shaw because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to obtain status of GPS location determination.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Russell and Shaw discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: using sensor data to determine that the device is located outdoors; and instructing the device to reactivate the precise location information (Russell – Fig. 6 and ¶0071-0075 disclose using sensor data for determining the transition from indoor to outdoor and activating GPS as shown in Fig. 5 in state 516-26-512).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Russell and Shaw discloses the method of claim 3, where the determination that the device is located outdoors is performed after a predetermined period of time after it has been determined that the device is located indoors (Russell – Fig. 6 from step 816-844 and ¶0080-0082 disclose determining outdoor mode after being determined as indoor in step 816 for a period of time indicated by timer in step 828).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell (US 20150097731 A1) in view of Van Dalen et al. (CN 101779109 A).
Regarding claim 9, Russell discloses the method of claim 8, however, silent on further details of claim 9.
Van Dalen discloses wherein the light sensor uses a light frequency measurement to determine if a light source is artificial light or natural light (Fig. 3 and ¶0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Russell to incorporate natural light determination from Van Dalen because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to improve accuracy of indoor/outdoor detection.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell (US 20150097731 A1) in view of Lukaszewski et al. (US 20230400826 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Russell discloses the method of claim 10, wherein it is determined that the device is located indoors when data from the accelerometer indicates that the device has not moved (Fig. 4 – scenario A). However, the reference does not explicitly disclose that device is stationary for a predetermined period of time.
Lukaszewski disclose determining indoor when device has not moved for a predetermined period of time (¶0019 –“Embodiments of the application can deterministically estimate whether the location of a computing device that is fixed or movable is inside a fully enclosed building or not (e.g., fully or partially indoors/outdoors). The determination of the environment at the fixed or movable location may be required within a specified timeframe (e.g., 4, 12, or 24 hours) to reach a minimum desired confidence level for a given use case (e.g., 95% confidence score from a trained machine learning model)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Russell to incorporate time duration for indoor determination from Lukaszewski because doing so would make use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP §2141 -III) to include confidence level for indoor determination.
Claim 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell (US 20150097731 A1) in view of Gu et al. (CN 105549717 A).
Regarding claim 17, Russell discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the one or more sensors comprise an optical sensor (Fig. 2 – ambience light sensor 245), however, silent on further details about wherein the data from the optical sensor is used to determine that a light intensity is within a predetermined range over a predetermined amount of time.
Gu discloses wherein the data from the optical sensor is used to determine that a light intensity is within a predetermined range over a predetermined amount of time (claim 5 – “detecting light intensity of the electronic device and the electronic device is moving within a time period of predetermined times, if the indoor light intensity threshold value less than the pre-set light intensity detection, and the electronic device is not moving in the time period of predetermined time, determining that the electronic device is in the chamber”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Russell to incorporate light intensity value for indoor detection from Gu because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to utilize various data available for indoor/outdoor determination.
Regarding claim 18, the combined teaching of Russell and Gu discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the light intensity indicates that the device is located indoors (Gu – claim 5 – “if so, detecting light intensity of the electronic device and the electronic device is moving within a time period of predetermined times, if the indoor light intensity threshold value less than the pre-set light intensity detection, and the electronic device is not moving in the time period of predetermined time, determining that the electronic device is in the chamber”). The combined teaching would be obvious for the same reason indicated in claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5, 14, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7928. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JINSONG HU, can be reached on (571) 272-3965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DUNG HONG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643