DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 04/10/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been considered below.
3. The claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) of last office action has been addressed by the amendment. Therefore, the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) of last office action is withdrawn.
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 10 and 19 have been considered are persuasive but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection because of the amendments. Also, due to new ground of rejection, the allowable subject matter of the last office action of claim claims 6 and 15 is withdrawn. Accordingly, this office action is made nonfinal.
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Please note: Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, and figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teaching of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well.
Applicants are reminded that MPEP 2141.02 states:
A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 10-11, 14-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heinrich et al. (US 20140044096) (hereinafter Heinrich).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19:
As shown in figures 1-3, Heinrich discloses a communication system for a frequency management system (see figures 1-3, par 0045, automatic frequency control (AFC) interpreted to be a frequency management system), the communication system comprising:
at least one positioning device (2 in figure 2) comprising a positioning circuit (see block 20 (GPS) in figure 2) configured to obtain location information (par 0013, 0040) and a short-range wireless communication circuit (see Bluetooth 18 in figure 2) configured to broadcast the location information (par 0018, 0040, 0042-0044);
one or more network devices (see one or more devices 4-10 in figure 2) configured to receive the location information from the at least one positioning device (figure 2 shows one or more devices 4-10 receives he location information from the at least one positioning device 2);
wherein the one or more network devices (see one or more devices 4-10 in figure 2) are configured to perform a frequency communication process with the frequency management system (14 in figure 2) by using the received location information as a current geographic location of the one or more network devices (par 0040-0045, 0048, 0051-0052, 0063-0066).
Heinrich also teaches a processing circuit (see CPU 22 in figure 2) as recited in claim 19.
Regarding claims 2 and 11:
Heinrich discloses further discloses a processing circuit (see CPU 22 in figure 2);
wherein the positioning module circuit (see CPU 22 in figure 2) includes a satellite (see 10 in figure 2) signal receiver configured to obtain the location information (figure 2 shows GPS 20 receives location information from satellite 10) (also see par 0042); and
wherein the short-range wireless communication circuit (see Bluetooth 18 in figure 2) is controlled by the processing circuit (figure 2 shows Bluetooth 18 is controlled by CPU 22) for connecting to the one or more network devices (8 in figure 2), so as to broadcast the location information to the one or more network devices (par 0018, 0040, 0042-0044).
Regarding claims 5 and 14:
Heinrich further discloses wherein the frequency management system is an automated frequency coordination (AFC) system (see figures 1-3, par 0045), the processing circuit is a global positioning system (GPS) module (GOS 20 in figure 2), and the short-range wireless communication circuit is a Bluetooth communication circuit (18 in figure 2).
Regarding claims 6 and 15:
Heinrich further discloses wherein the processing circuit (22 in figure 2) is configured to acquire the location information from the positioning module circuit (20 in figure 2) repeatedly (par 0040-0043), and control the short-range wireless communication circuit (18 in figure 2) (figure 2 shows Bluetooth 18 is controlled by CPU 22) to periodically broadcast the location information to the one or more network devices according to a first predetermined time interval (par 0040-0043).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 3, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinrich in view of Furuichi et al. (US 20200314769) (hereinafter Furuichi).
Regarding claim 3, 12 and 20:
Heinrich discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching wherein the location information includes latitude information, longitude information and altitude information.
However, Furuichi in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the location information includes latitude information, longitude information and altitude information (par 0083). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the location information as taught by Furuichi to modify the system and method of Heinrich in order to acquire location information (par 0083) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
11. Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Heinrich in view of CRONIN et al. (US 20180248869) (hereinafter CRONIN).
Regarding claim 8 and 17:
Heinrich discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching wherein the processing circuit is further configured to encrypt the location information before the location information is broadcasted, and each of the one or more network devices is configured to decrypt the location information in response to receiving the location information.
However, CRONIN in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to encrypt the location information before the location information is broadcasted, and each of the one or more network devices is configured to decrypt the location information in response to receiving the location information (figure 9, par 0089). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the location information as taught by CRONIN to modify the system and method of Heinrich in order to provide compatible format is compatible with the connection between the wireless communication device and the location infrastructure of the requested goods and/or services (par 0089) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
12. Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Heinrich in view of YUCEK et al. (US 20190075549) (hereinafter YUCEK).
Regarding claim 9 and 18:
Heinrich discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching wherein the positioning device is further configured to broadcast a unique identifier along with the location information, and the one or more network devices are configured to perform the frequency communication process according to the unique identifier and the location information.
However, YUCEK in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the positioning device is further configured to broadcast a unique identifier along with the location information, and the one or more network devices are configured to perform the frequency communication process according to the unique identifier and the location information (see 802-808 in figure 8 and 902-906 in figure 9, par 0025, 0135-0140). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the location information as taught by YUCEK to modify the system and method of Heinrich in order to determine a frequency channel on which to communicate (par 0025) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
13. Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards in view of Furuichi as applied to claims 3, 12 and 20 above and further in view of Allen et al. (US 20160277419) (hereinafter Allen).
Regarding claims 4 and 13:
Heinrich and Furuichi disclose all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching wherein the positioning device further includes an altimeter for obtaining the altitude information according to air pressure.
However, Allen in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the positioning device further includes an altimeter for obtaining the altitude information according to air pressure (in par 0072 Allen teaches “The position components 1362 may include location sensor components (e.g., a Global Position System (GPS) receiver component), altitude sensor components (e.g., altimeters or barometers that detect air pressure from which altitude may be derived)”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the location information as taught by Allen to modify the system and method of Heinrich in order to detect air pressure from which altitude may be derived (par 0072) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 7 and 16 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.
15. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, Richards does not teach or suggest wherein the positioning device is further configured to, in response to an installation mode being triggered, broadcast the location information within a second predetermined time interval, and the second predetermined time interval is shorter than the first predetermined time interval.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Raghupathy et al. (US 20130169484) disclose systems and methods for sending positional information from transmitters/beacons are disclosed. In one implementation a transmitter generates a range block including a ranging signal and a hybrid block including positioning data, and sends the range block and hybrid block in predefined slots in a transmit frame. A receiver in a user device receives signals from a plurality of transmitters and generates position/location information using trilateration and measured altitude information in comparison with transmitter altitude information.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KABIR A TIMORY whose telephone number is (571)270-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00 AM-3:00 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, Hannah S Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/KABIR A TIMORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights