DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to applicant's communication filed on 08/15/2025, wherein:
Claim 1-22 and 34 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9-10 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues that Hamahata failed to anticipated the claimed invention regarding to limitation “a change in moving pose”. In the specification, a moving pose and a change in a moving posed is described as: “For example, the information associated with the moving pose of the UE (or moving pose data of the UE) may include information associated with one or more of: one or more moving directions of the UE respectively at one or more time points or timestamps; a moving pose change of the UE within a period, which for example may be represented as an accumulation of data fusion of the sensed accelerator a and angular velocity ω, for example as Σ.sub.tf(α,ω), where Σ.sub.t(⋅) represents the accumulation within the period up to a time point or timestamp t, and f(⋅) may be any suitable pose fusion function or pose fusion method, such as Mahony method; one or more moving poses at one or more time points or timestamps, which for example may be represented by the sensed accelerators and angular velocities sensed at the one or more time points or timestamps; and so on”. A moving pose is the moving direction of an object at a specific point in time. A change in a moving pose represents the accumulation of the change in the moving direction over a specific time period. The current location identified by the Office Action is a “static pose,” that is, it is just location information about the object. There is no information about the moving direction of the object in the current location disclosed in Hamahata. Hence, Hamahata fails to teach at least the features of “monitoring a change of a moving pose of the first mobile station” and “transmitting, to at least one mobile station comprising a second mobile station, information associated with the moving pose of the first mobile station in a case of a detection of the change” because Hamahata does not disclose a moving pose.
Applicant remarks have been carefully considered. However, Examiner respectfully disagreed.
Applicant remarks on the definition of “a change in moving pose” is not persuasive because the current scope of the claimed invention does not clearly define the moving pose as described in specification ¶0104. Examiner interpreted based on the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification (MPEP 2111) by giving the term a plain meaning consistent with specification: a change in moving pose is any change in movement of a device including location change. In addition, Applicant is invited to consider Hamahata teaching as a whole. The reference does describe detecting dynamic change of movement of mobile device when moving between groups (i.e. change in moving pose) and becoming stray device (in contrast with the remark about Hamahata teaching only discloses “static pose”) as described in ¶0035, 0042, and 0072.
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, 5, 7, 14, 22, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamahata et al. (US 20170339523 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hamahata discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus as at least a part of a first mobile station (Fig. 1 – mobile device 10) to perform:
monitoring a change of a moving pose of the first mobile station (¶0030 – “The GPS 12 may detect a current location of the mobile device 10”; ¶0035, ¶0042, and ¶0072 – ”at S170, the system may detect a stray mobile device and may manage movement of the mobile device between the groups. Further details of S170 are explained below”);
transmitting, to at least one mobile station comprising a second mobile station, information associated with the moving pose of the first mobile station in a case of a detection of the change (¶0032; Fig. 7 step 310-360; ¶0085-0090; and ¶0052 – “The informing section 252 may receive information of the stray mobile device 10 from the detecting section 250 and inform a representative mobile device 10 of the group of a location of the stray mobile device 10”); and
configuring a group of the first mobile station based on a response of the second mobile station to the information (Fig. 6 step 380-385/390-395 and ¶0093-0097).
Regarding claim 5, Hamahata discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the response of the second mobile station comprises information associated with a group of the second mobile station, and the configuring the group of the first mobile station comprises: configuring the group of the second mobile station as the group of the first mobile station (Fig. 5 and ¶0083-0084 disclose representative device can initiate invitation to join group to a second device and second device can join group by accepting the offer – i.e. configuring the group of the second mobile station as the group of the first mobile station).
Regarding claim 7, Hamahata discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the information associated with the moving pose of the first mobile station is transmitted to the second mobile station as a delegate of the group (Fig. 6 step 360 and ¶0090 – “Next, at S360, an informing section, such as the informing section 252, may indicate the location of the group and the location of the stray mobile device(s) to the representative mobile device for each group. In one embodiment, the informing section may transmit the information of the locations of the groups to the representative mobile devices of the groups”).
Regarding claim 13, Hamahata discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus as at least a part of a first mobile station (Fig. 1 - mobile device 10) to perform:
receiving, from a second mobile station, information associated with a moving pose of the second mobile station (Fig. 6 step 360 and ¶0090 – “Next, at S360, an informing section, such as the informing section 252, may indicate the location of the group and the location of the stray mobile device(s) to the representative mobile device for each group. In one embodiment, the informing section may transmit the information of the locations of the groups to the representative mobile devices of the groups”);
detecting a difference between a moving pose of the first mobile station and the moving pose of the second mobile station (Fig. 6 step 350 and ¶0088 – “Next, at S350, a detecting section, such as the detecting section 250, may determine a stray mobile device, which strays from the group to which it belongs. In one embodiment, the detecting section may compare a location of each mobile device in a group and a location of the group, and may detect a mobile device that is distant from the location of the group to which it belongs by at least a threshold distance, as the stray mobile device”); and
transmitting a response to the information to the second mobile station based on the detection (Fig. 6 step 3395 and ¶0093 – 0096 disclose transmitting notification that the group rejects the solitary device).
Regarding claim 14, Hamahata discloses the apparatus of claim 13 wherein the response comprises information associated with at least one of an identifier of the first mobile station and a group of the first mobile station (¶0077 – “Next, at S230, the representative mobile device may receive responses to the invitation from mobile devices via short distance communication or other network types. The representative mobile device may receive the responses including acceptance or rejection to the invitation and the identification information of the mobile devices (e.g., IDs, phone number, or, email address of the mobile devices), and transmit the identification information of the mobile devices to the server“).
Regarding claim 22, the scope and content of the claim recites a method performed by the apparatus of claim 1, therefore being addressed as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 34, the scope and content of the claim recites a method performed by the apparatus of claim 13, therefore being addressed as in claim 13.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamahata et al. (US 20170339523 A1) in view of Stickels et al. (US 20200302421 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hamahata discloses the apparatus of claim 1, however, silent on further details of claim 2.
Stickels discloses wherein the information associated with the moving pose of the first mobile station is transmitted to the at least one mobile station via a broadcast channel (abstract, Fig. 1A, and ¶0011-0012).
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 Hamahata to incorporate location broadcast capability from Stickels because doing so would make use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP §2141 -III) to improve ability to share location information between devices.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-4, 6, 8-12, and 15-21 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.
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