Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Independent Claim 1 recites a method, independent Claim 15 recites a controller device, and independent Claim 28 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium. Thus, the claims are to a method, a machine, and a manufacture, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Independent claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
retrieving, from a database, a plurality of locations in a physical space and a plurality of device locations in the physical space, the plurality of device locations being tagged as associated with a first device, the plurality of locations and the plurality of device locations being associated with a coordinate system;
generating a first coordinate in the coordinate system based on the current location of a tag device, the current location being calculated based on a round-trip time of a signal that is associated with a wireless protocol and an angle-of-arrival of the signal [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and/or a mental process because it can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper];
determining whether the tag device is in a first zone of a plurality of zones that is associated with the coordinate system, the first zone being based on a first set of coordinates [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and/or a mental process because it can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper]; and
in response to determining the tag device is in the first zone, initiating an action by the first device, the action including, ending of a transmission of media to the first device and transmitting the media to a second device in a second zone that is associated with a second set of coordinates, the tag device having been determined to have moved from the first zone to the second zone [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and/or a mental process because it can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper].
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements (i.e. retrieving, from a database, a plurality of locations in a physical space and a plurality of device locations in the physical space, the plurality of device locations being tagged as associated with a first device, the plurality of locations and the plurality of device locations being associated with a coordinate system”, and “initiating an action by the first device, the action including, ending of a transmission of media to the first device and transmitting the media to a second device in a second zone that is associated with a second set of coordinates”).
The examiner submits that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of the abstract idea are performed. The retrieving step is mere gathering of data for use in the abstract idea (i.e., the generating and determining steps). The initiating step is merely an insignificant outputting of a result of the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner submits that the additional elements identified in Step 2A do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements identified in Step 2A are not unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; and simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Independent Claims 15 and 28 recite essentially the same steps as Claim 1, and are also not patent eligible. Independent Claim 15 additionally recites a controller device, which is generic computer hardware. Independent Claim 28 additionally recites a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is generic computer hardware.
Dependent Claims 2-14 and 16-27 are also not patent eligible. Claims 2-4, 10-11, and 16-18, and 24-25 merely recite further data gathering and use of generic computer hardware (i.e., machine learning) to perform the abstract idea. Claims 5-8, 12, 13, 19-22, 26, and 27 merely recite further details of the mathematical concepts and/or mental process. Claims 9 and 23 and merely recite an insignificant output of a result of the abstract idea using generic hardware. Claims 14 merely recites generic hardware.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-9, 12-17, 22-23, and 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue (WO-2022143472-A1) in view of Frenkel et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0005958, hereinafter “Frenkel”) and Suyama (WO-2016080536-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Xue teaches a method comprising: retrieving, from a database, a plurality of locations in a physical space and a plurality of device locations in the physical space, the plurality of device locations being tagged as associated with a first device (Figs. 7A-E, locations of UWB chips A1-A3, router B1, and lamp C1, pages 20-26; page 25, table 2, stored data regarding device locations equated to database), the plurality of locations and the plurality of device locations being associated with a coordinate system (Fig. 2B, geographic coordinate system, see pages 12-13 and 24-25); generating a first coordinate in the coordinate system based on a current location of a tag device (page 24, coordinates of T0); and initiating an action by the first device (last paragraph on page 5 and last full paragraph on page 7, control interface corresponding to household equipment that is closest to the mobile device is displayed on mobile device; household equipment initiates actions based on the control interface).
Xue does not specifically teach the current location being calculated based on a round-trip time of a signal that is associated with a wireless protocol and an angle-of-arrival of the signal. However, Xue does teach, on page 21 in the last full paragraph, determining delay times and distances between devices based on exchange of messages between the mobile device and the household devices (equated to the claimed round-trip time of a signal). Further, Frenkel teaches the current location being calculated based on a round-trip time of a signal that is associated with a wireless protocol and an angle-of-arrival of the signal in paragraph [0027] (AoA and distance are used to determine spatial coordinates; distance is correlated to round-trip time). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the coordinate determination of Frenkel in the system of Xue, because this is typically how coordinates are determined in a UWB system (see Frenkel, paragraph [0027]), and because combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results.
Xue does not specifically teach determining whether the tag device is in a first zone of a plurality of zones that is associated with the coordinate system, the first zone being based on a first set of coordinates, and that the action is initiated in response to determining the tag device is in the first zone, the action including ending of a transmission of a media to the first device and transmitting the media to a second device in a second zone that is associated with a second set of coordinates, the tag device having been determined to have moved from the first zone to a second zone. However, Xue does teach initiating an action by the first device (last paragraph on page 5 and last full paragraph on page 7), and that the action is initiated with respect to a closest household device (see page 5, last paragraph; e.g. the user is within a zone corresponding to the closest household device). Xue further teaches that there are home devices in multiple rooms (i.e., zones, see Xue, the paragraph spanning pages 10-11 through the first full paragraph on page 11); it is noted that the closest household device would be in the same room as the user. Further, Suyama teaches, in Fig. 3A, determining whether the tag device (user terminal 9) is in a first zone of a plurality of zones that is associated with the coordinate system (rooms 1A, 1B, 1C are each equated to zones; each room is a distinct location that would have respective coordinates), the first zone being based on a first set of coordinates (page 4, 8th full paragraph, position information, which may include coordinates, is used to determine which room, i.e., zone, user is in), and that the action is initiated in response to determining the tag device is in the first zone, the action including ending of a transmission of a media to the first device and transmitting the media to a second device in a second zone that is associated with a second set of coordinates, the tag device having been determined to have moved from the first zone to a second zone (Abstract, music is output from speakers 7A-C based on which room the user terminal 9 is determined to be in; user terminal 9 can move from room to room). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the zone-based media transmission of Suyama in the system of Xue, in order to provide a content playback device with which content which a specified user has instructed to be played back can, without requiring a complicated operation, be output in a location corresponding to movement of the specified user (see Suyama, Abstract), and because combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Xue further teaches wherein prior to retrieving the plurality of location, performing a calibration operation that includes capturing range and angle data based on a location of the tag device relative to an anchor device (page 21, last full paragraph, ranging messages sent and received; page 3, fourth full paragraph, initial heading angle of the electronic device and target angle of each home device are determined).
Regarding Claim 3, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Xue further teaches wherein prior to retrieving a set of first data, performing a calibration operation that includes capturing range and angle data representing the plurality of locations in the physical space using a first calibration technique (page 21, last full paragraph, ranging messages sent and received; page 3, fourth full paragraph, initial heading angle of the electronic device is determined in first step, which is equated to first calibration technique), capturing rang and angle data representing the plurality of device locations using a second calibration technique (page 21, last full paragraph, ranging messages sent and received; page 3, fourth full paragraph, target angle of each home device in the plurality of home devices in subsequent step, which is equated to second calibration technique), and associating a tag with range and angle data representing each of the plurality of device locations (page 21, last full paragraph, distances are determined based on ranging messages; page 3, fourth full paragraph, target angles are associated with electronic device).
Regarding Claim 8, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Xue further teaches wherein the determining of whether the tag device is proximate to a tagged coordinate is triggered by at least one of a user voice command and a user gesture (page 3, mobile device is pointed at home devices such as smart speaker, which is equated to user gesture).
Regarding Claim 9, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Xue further teaches wherein a first device and a second device are configured to perform a same action, and whether the first device or the second device initiates performance of the same action is based on the location of the device (last paragraph on page 5 and last full paragraph on page 7, control interface corresponding to household equipment that is closest to the mobile device is displayed on mobile device; household equipment initiates actions based on the control interface; pages 10-11, second full paragraph, devices of same type may be in the same room).
Regarding Claim 12, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Xue further teaches wherein prior to initiating the action by the device, determining a direction a user is pointing the tag device based on an AoA associated with the tag device (page 28, eighth full paragraph).
Regarding Claim 13, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Xue further teaches wherein prior to initiating the action by the device, determining a user intent based on a projection error associated with a pointing ray representing a direction the user is pointing the device (Figs. 7D-E, pages 26-27, difference between angles and offset used to select UWB tag; difference is equated to projection error).
Regarding Claim 14, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 2. Xue further teaches wherein the tag device is a mobile computing device (Fig. 2, mobile phone 300; Figs. 7A-E, mobile phone) and the anchor device is a stationary computing device (Figs. 3 and 7A-E, smart TV, smart speaker, router, or smart desk lamp).
Regarding Claim 15, Xue teaches a device comprising: a tag; and a processor communicatively coupled with the tag via a communication interface (Fig. 3, electronic device 300 and household devices are activated to communicate with each other, page 16, last two full paragraphs), the device being configured to: retrieve, from a database, a plurality of locations in a physical space and a plurality of object locations in the physical space, the plurality of object locations being tagged as associated with a first object (Figs. 7A-E, locations of UWB chips A1-A3, router B1, and lamp C1, pages 20-26; page 25, table 2, stored data regarding device locations equated to database), the plurality of locations and the plurality of object locations being associated with a coordinate system (Fig. 2B, geographic coordinate system, see pages 12-13 and 24-25); generate a first coordinate in the coordinate system based on a current location of a tag device (page 24, coordinates of T0); and initiate a computer-controlled action by the first object (last paragraph on page 5 and last full paragraph on page 7, control interface corresponding to household equipment that is closest to the mobile device is displayed on mobile device; household equipment initiates actions based on the control interface).
Xue does not specifically teach the current location being calculated based on a round-trip time of a signal that is associated with a wireless protocol and an angle-of-arrival of the signal. However, Xue does teach, on page 21 in the last full paragraph, determining delay times and distances between devices based on exchange of messages between the mobile device and the household devices (equated to the claimed round-trip time of a signal). Further, Frenkel teaches the current location being calculated based on a round-trip time of a signal that is associated with a wireless protocol and an angle-of-arrival of the signal in paragraph [0027] (AoA and distance are used to determine spatial coordinates; distance is correlated to round-trip time). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the coordinate determination of Frenkel in the system of Xue, because this is typically how coordinates are determined in a UWB system (see Frenkel, paragraph [0027]), and because combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results.
Xue does not specifically teach determine whether the tag device is in a first zone of a plurality of zones that is associated with the coordinate system, the first zone being based on a first set of coordinates, and that the computer-controlled action is initiated in response to determining the tag device is in the first zone, the computer-controlled action including ending of a transmission of a media to the first object and transmitting the media to a second object in a second zone that is associated with a second set of coordinates, the tag device having been determined to have moved from the first zone to a second zone. However, Xue does teach initiating an action by the first device (last paragraph on page 5 and last full paragraph on page 7), and that the action is initiated with respect to a closest household device (see page 5, last paragraph; e.g. the user is within a zone corresponding to the closest household device). Xue further teaches that there are home devices in multiple rooms (i.e., zones, see Xue, the paragraph spanning pages 10-11 through the first full paragraph on page 11); it is noted that the closest household device would be in the same room as the user. Further, Suyama teaches, in Fig. 3A, determine whether the tag device (user terminal 9) is in a first zone of a plurality of zones that is associated with the coordinate system (rooms 1A, 1B, 1C are each equated to zones; each room is a distinct location that would have respective coordinates), the first zone being based on a first set of coordinates (page 4, 8th full paragraph, position information, which may include coordinates, is used to determine which room, i.e., zone, user is in), and that the computer-controlled action is initiated in response to determining the tag device is in the first zone, the computer-controlled action including ending of a transmission of a media to the first object and transmitting the media to a second object in a second zone that is associated with a second set of coordinates, the tag device having been determined to have moved from the first zone to a second zone (Abstract, music is output from speakers 7A-C based on which room the user terminal 9 is determined to be in; user terminal 9 can move from room to room). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the zone-based media transmission of Suyama in the system of Xue, in order to provide a content playback device with which content which a specified user has instructed to be played back can, without requiring a complicated operation, be output in a location corresponding to movement of the specified user (see Suyama, Abstract), and because combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 16, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Xue further teaches wherein prior to retrieving a set of first data, performing a calibration operation that includes capturing range and angle data based on a location of the tag relative to an anchor (page 21, last full paragraph, ranging messages sent and received; page 3, fourth full paragraph, initial heading angle of the electronic device and target angle of each home device are determined).
Regarding Claim 17, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Xue further teaches wherein prior to retrieving a set of first data, performing a calibration operation that includes capturing range and angle data representing the plurality of locations in the physical space using a first calibration technique (page 21, last full paragraph, ranging messages sent and received; page 3, fourth full paragraph, initial heading angle of the electronic device is determined in first step, which is equated to first calibration technique), capturing range and angle data representing the plurality of device locations using a second calibration technique (page 21, last full paragraph, ranging messages sent and received; page 3, fourth full paragraph, target angle of each home device in the plurality of home devices in subsequent step, which is equated to second calibration technique), and associating a tag with range and angle data representing each of the plurality of device locations (page 21, last full paragraph, distances are determined based on ranging messages; page 3, fourth full paragraph, target angles are associated with electronic device).
Regarding Claim 22, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Xue further teaches wherein the determining of whether the tag device is proximate to a tagged coordinate is triggered by at least one of a user voice command and a user gesture (page 3, mobile device is pointed at home devices such as smart speaker, which is equated to user gesture).
Regarding Claim 23, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Xue further teaches wherein a first device and a second device are configured to perform a same action, and whether the first device or the second device initiates performance of the same action is based on the location of the tag (last paragraph on page 5 and last full paragraph on page 7, control interface corresponding to household equipment that is closest to the mobile device is displayed on mobile device; household equipment initiates actions based on the control interface; pages 10-11, second full paragraph, devices of same type may be in the same room).
Regarding Claim 26, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Xue further teaches wherein prior to initiating the action by the device, determining a direction a user is pointing the tag device based on an AoA associated with the tag device (page 28, eighth full paragraph).
Regarding Claim 27, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Xue further teaches wherein prior to initiating the action by the device, determining a user intent based on a projection error associated with a pointing ray representing a direction the user is pointing the device (Figs. 7D-E, pages 26-27, difference between angles and offset used to select UWB tag; difference is equated to projection error).
Regarding Claim 28, Xue teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium (Fig. 3, Figs. 7A-E) containing instructions that when executed cause a processor of a computer system to perform steps comprising: retrieving, from a database, a plurality of locations in a physical space and a plurality of device locations in the physical space, the plurality of device locations being tagged as associated with a first device (Figs. 7A-E, locations of UWB chips A1-A3, router B1, and lamp C1, pages 20-26; page 25, table 2, stored data regarding device locations equated to database), the plurality of locations and the plurality of device locations being associated with a coordinate system (Fig. 2B, geographic coordinate system, see pages 12-13 and 24-25); generating a first coordinate in the coordinate system based on a current location of a tag device (page 24, coordinates of T0); and initiating an action by the first device (last paragraph on page 5 and last full paragraph on page 7, control interface corresponding to household equipment that is closest to the mobile device is displayed on mobile device; household equipment initiates actions based on the control interface).
Xue does not specifically teach the current location being calculated based on a round-trip time of a signal that is associated with a wireless protocol and an angle-of-arrival of the signal. However, Xue does teach, on page 21 in the last full paragraph, determining delay times and distances between devices based on exchange of messages between the mobile device and the household devices (equated to the claimed round-trip time of a signal). Further, Frenkel teaches the current location being calculated based on a round-trip time of a signal that is associated with a wireless protocol and an angle-of-arrival of the signal in paragraph [0027] (AoA and distance are used to determine spatial coordinates; distance is correlated to round-trip time). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the coordinate determination of Frenkel in the system of Xue, because this is typically how coordinates are determined in a UWB system (see Frenkel, paragraph [0027]), and because combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results.
Xue does not specifically teach determining whether the tag device is in a first zone of a plurality of zones that is associated with the coordinate system, the first zone being based on a first set of coordinates, and that the action is initiated in response to determining the tag device is in the first zone, the action including ending of a transmission of a media to the first device and transmitting the media to a second device in a second zone that is associated with a second set of coordinates, the tag device having been determined to have moved from the first zone to a second zone. However, Xue does teach initiating an action by the first device (last paragraph on page 5 and last full paragraph on page 7), and that the action is initiated with respect to a closest household device (see page 5, last paragraph; e.g. the user is within a zone corresponding to the closest household device). Xue further teaches that there are home devices in multiple rooms (i.e., zones, see Xue, the paragraph spanning pages 10-11 through the first full paragraph on page 11); it is noted that the closest household device would be in the same room as the user. Further, Suyama teaches, in Fig. 3A, determining whether the tag device (user terminal 9) is in a first zone of a plurality of zones that is associated with the coordinate system (rooms 1A, 1B, 1C are each equated to zones; each room is a distinct location that would have respective coordinates), the first zone being based on a first set of coordinates (page 4, 8th full paragraph, position information, which may include coordinates, is used to determine which room, i.e., zone, user is in), and that the action is initiated in response to determining the tag device is in the first zone, the action including ending of a transmission of a media to the first device and transmitting the media to a second device in a second zone that is associated with a second set of coordinates, the tag device having been determined to have moved from the first zone to a second zone (Abstract, music is output from speakers 7A-C based on which room the user terminal 9 is determined to be in; user terminal 9 can move from room to room). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the zone-based media transmission of Suyama in the system of Xue, in order to provide a content playback device with which content which a specified user has instructed to be played back can, without requiring a complicated operation, be output in a location corresponding to movement of the specified user (see Suyama, Abstract), and because combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results.
Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama, further in view of Flueratoru, Lohan, Nurmi, and Nicolescu, “HTC Vive as Ground-Truth System for Anchor-Based Indoor Localization”, 12th ICUMT, 2020 (hereinafter “HTC”).
Regarding Claim 4, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 2. Xue does not specifically teach wherein the capturing range and angle data includes transmitting a first signal from the anchor device to the tag device, determining a delay time associated with a second signal received, in response to the first signal, by the anchor device from the tag device, determining a distance based on the delay time, and determining an angle-of-arrival (AoA) based on the second signal. However, Xue does teach, on page 21 in the last full paragraph, determining delay times and distance based on exchange of messages between the mobile device and the household devices. Further, HTC teaches on page 214, in the second paragraph of the Introduction section, wherein the capturing range and angle data includes transmitting a first signal from the anchor device to the tag device (signals sent by the anchors to the tag), determining a delay time associated with a second signal received, in response to the first signal, by the anchor device from the tag device (TOF, TDOA, signals sent by anchors to tag, or the other way around), determining a distance based on the delay time, and determining an angle-of-arrival (AoA) based on the second signal (location computed using distances, AOA, and TDOA). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the anchor-based location determination of HTC in the system of Xue, because anchor-based location determination can provide relatively accurate location determination (see HTC, Introduction section).
Regarding Claim 18, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 16. Xue does not specifically teach wherein the capturing range and angle data includes transmitting a first signal from the anchor device to the tag, determining a delay time associated with a second signal received, in response to the first signal, by the anchor device from the tag, determining a distance based on the delay time, and determining an angle-of-arrival (AoA) based on the second signal. However, Xue does teach, on page 21 in the last full paragraph, determining delay times and distance based on exchange of messages between the mobile device and the household devices. Further, HTC teaches on page 214, in the second paragraph of the Introduction section, wherein the capturing range and angle data includes transmitting a first signal from the anchor device to the tag device (signals sent by the anchors to the tag), determining a delay time associated with a second signal received, in response to the first signal, by the anchor device from the tag device (TOF, TDOA, signals sent by anchors to tag, or the other way around), determining a distance based on the delay time, and determining an angle-of-arrival (AoA) based on the second signal (location computed using distances, AOA, and TDOA). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the anchor-based location determination of HTC in the system of Xue, because anchor-based location determination can provide relatively accurate location determination (see HTC, Introduction section).
Claim(s) 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Frankel, Suyama, and Wodrich et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0250352, hereinafter “Wodrich”).
Regarding Claim 5, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Xue does not specifically teach wherein the generating of the first coordinate includes formatting range and angle data into a two-dimensional (2D) coordinate system. However, Wodrich teaches in paragraph [0072] that the virtual model can be presented as two-dimensional or 3-dimensional. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the 2D presentation of Wodrich in the system of Xue, in order to represent the environment that includes the wireless nodes (see Wodrich, paragraph [0072]).
Regarding Claim 19, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Xue does not specifically teach wherein the generating of the first coordinate includes formatting range and angle data into a two-dimensional (2D) coordinate system. However, Wodrich teaches in paragraph [0072] that the virtual model can be presented as two-dimensional or 3-dimensional. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the 2D presentation of Wodrich in the system of Xue, in order to represent the environment that includes the wireless nodes (see Wodrich, paragraph [0072]).
Claim(s) 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Frankel, Suyama, and Bevan (CN-102762999-A).
Regarding Claim 6, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Xue does not specifically teach wherein at least one range associated with the plurality of locations is non-linear corrected using a trained polynomial regression model. However, Bevan teaches in paragraph [0065] using polynomial regression to correct position data in a wireless network. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the polynomial regression taught in Bevan in the system of Xue, in order to accurately determine position data (see Bevan, paragraph [0065]).
Regarding Claim 20, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Xue does not specifically teach wherein at least one range associated with the plurality of locations is non-linear corrected using a trained polynomial regression model. However, Bevan teaches in paragraph [0065] using polynomial regression to correct position data in a wireless network. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the polynomial regression taught in Bevan in the system of Xue, in order to accurately determine position data (see Bevan, paragraph [0065]).
Claim(s) 7 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama, in further view of Houllier et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0223523, hereinafter “Houllier”) and Stein et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0019385, hereinafter “Stein”).
Regarding Claim 7, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Xue does not specifically teach generating a tiled set of coordinates to Voronoi-tessellate a plane associated with the physical space, wherein the first zone and the second zone are generated based on the tiled set of coordinates. However, Houllier teaches, in paragraphs [0036]-[0039] and Fig. 2, defining Voronoi polygons for each of a set of base stations; each polygon may be equated to a zone. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Voronoi polygons, such as are taught in Houllier, in the system of Xue, because Voronoi polygons are known in the art for wireless communications.
Xue in view of Houllier does not specifically teach applying a Euclidean distance metric to Voronoi-tessellate the plane. However, Stein teaches, in paragraph [0035], that a Euclidian distance metric is a suitable distance metric that can be used to compute a Voronoi cell. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Euclidian distance, as is taught in Stein, to compute the Voronoi polygons, such as are taught in Houllier, in the system of Xue, because a Euclidian distance metric is a suitable distance metric that can be used to compute a Voronoi cell (see Stein, paragraph [0035]).
Regarding Claim 21, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Xue does not specifically teach generating a tiled set of coordinates to Voronoi-tessellate a plane associated with the physical space, wherein the first zone and the second zone are generated based on the tiled set of coordinates. However, Houllier teaches, in paragraphs [0036]-[0039] and Fig. 2, defining Voronoi polygons for each of a set of base stations; each polygon may be equated to a zone. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Voronoi polygons, such as are taught in Houllier, in the system of Xue, because Voronoi polygons are known in the art for wireless communications.
Xue in view of Houllier does not specifically teach applying a Euclidean distance metric to Voronoi-tessellate the plane. However, Stein teaches, in paragraph [0035], that a Euclidian distance metric is a suitable distance metric that can be used to compute a Voronoi cell. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Euclidian distance, as is taught in Stein, to compute the Voronoi polygons, such as are taught in Houllier, in the system of Xue, because a Euclidian distance metric is a suitable distance metric that can be used to compute a Voronoi cell (see Stein, paragraph [0035]).
Claim(s) 10 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Frankel, Suyama, and Xu et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0291826, hereinafter “Xu”).
Regarding Claim 10, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Xue does not specifically teach wherein the initiating of the action by the device includes determining the action to initiate using a model. However, Xue does teach at the top of page 14 that a neural-network processing unit (NPU) may be used. Further, Xu teaches in paragraph [0788] that an NPU includes a neural network that performs continuous self-learning, which is equated to the claimed model. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the neural network of Xu on the NPU of Xue, because a neural network on an NPU quickly processes input information (see Xu, paragraph [0788]).
Regarding Claim 24, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Xue does not specifically teach wherein the initiating of the action by the device includes determining the action to initiate using a model. However, Xue does teach at the top of page 14 that a neural-network processing unit (NPU) may be used. Further, Xu teaches in paragraph [0788] that an NPU includes a neural network that performs continuous self-learning, which is equated to the claimed model. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the neural network of Xu on the NPU of Xue, because a neural network on an NPU quickly processes input information (see Xu, paragraph [0788]).
Claim(s) 11 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama, in further view of Mahfouz (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0367766) and Xu.
Regarding Claim 11, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Xue does not specifically teach wherein the tag device includes a component configured to measure six (6) degrees of freedom (6DoF) data. However, Mahfouz teaches in paragraph [0199] that 6DoF data may be used to track movement with high accuracy. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the 6D0F data of Mahfouz in the system of Xue, because 6DoF data accurately captures orientation and movements (see Mahfouz, paragraph [0199]).
Xue and Mahfouz do not specifically teach the initiating of the action by the device includes determining the action to initiate using a model having the second coordinate and the 6DoF data as input. However, Xue does teach at the top of page 14 that a neural-network processing unit (NPU) may be used. Further, Xu teaches in paragraph [0788] that an NPU includes a neural network that performs continuous self-learning, which is equated to the claimed model. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the neural network of Xu on the NPU of Xue, and to have the neural network process 6DOF data that is taught in Mahfouz and second coordinate data that is taught in Xue, because a neural network on an NPU quickly processes input information (see Xu, paragraph [0788]).
Regarding Claim 25, Xue in view of Frankel and Suyama teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Xue does not specifically teach wherein the tag device includes a component configured to measure six (6) degrees of freedom (6DoF) data. However, Mahfouz teaches in paragraph [0199] that 6DoF data may be used to track movement with high accuracy. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the 6D0F data of Mahfouz in the system of Xue, because 6DoF data accurately captures orientation and movements (see Mahfouz, paragraph [0199]).
Xue and Mahfouz do not specifically teach the initiating of the action by the device includes determining the action to initiate using a model having the second coordinate and the 6DoF data as input. However, Xue does teach at the top of page 14 that a neural-network processing unit (NPU) may be used. Further, Xu teaches in paragraph [0788] that an NPU includes a neural network that performs continuous self-learning, which is equated to the claimed model. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the neural network of Xu on the NPU of Xue, and to have the neural network process 6DOF data that is taught in Mahfouz and second coordinate data that is taught in Xue, because a neural network on an NPU quickly processes input information (see Xu, paragraph [0788]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 101 rejections, the Examiner does not deem the claim amendments to overcome the rejections. Updated rejections of the amended claims are provided above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect the prior art rejections have been considered. The Examiner agrees that Xue does not specifically teach “the action including ending of a transmission of a media to the first device and transmitting the media to a second device in a second zone that is associated with a second set of coordinates, the tag device having been determined to have moved from the first zone to a second zone” as is recited in the amended Claims. However, new grounds of rejection based on the Suyama reference are provided above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571)272-6334. 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights