DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “selecting, by the client device and based on the first movement information, a first set of ranging parameters”, “performing, by the client device, one or more ranging operations in accordance with the first set of ranging parameters”, “selecting, by the client device and based on the second movement information, a second set of ranging parameters different from the first set of ranging parameters”, and “performing, by the client device, one or more ranging operations in accordance with the second set of ranging parameters” which, analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of comparing data as well as identifying problems/solutions to the comparison which can all reasonably be performed using the human mind/with pen and paper and thus fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 1 as amended does include the additional limitation of a “by a client device”, however, as generally recited, it is interpreted as merely a generic computer component for implementing the abstract idea, as opposed to a specialized computer that performs a specialized function.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the limitation of “determining, by a client device at a first time, first movement information for the client device” and “determining, by the client device at a second time, second movement information for the client device” which, analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP §2106.05(g)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering movement or telemetry data and the selection of corresponding parameters. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Independent claims 11 and 16 are substantially similar to claim 1 and thus are rejected using the same rationale as presented above. Claims 11 and 16 do include the additional limitations of a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and a “system,” however, as generally recited are interpreted as generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For instance, claims 2-5, 8-9, 12-15, and 17-19 each include additional limitations which involve identifying information, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, adds more limitations which can readily performed using the human mind and thus fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 6, 15, and 20 each include limitations regarding transmitting a movement indication to an access point, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, is merely understood as sending monitoring information which just generally applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 9 includes the limitation of “determining an accuracy of the one or more ranging operations” and “updating, based on the accuracy, a mapping” which, analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, performs execution of software, however, it is not clear if executing the software merely adjusts values or if the execution of the software actually initiates control functions and as such will be broadly interpreted to merely adjust values which just generally applies the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Finally, the limitations contained in claims 7 and 10 each include limitations detailing structural limitations of the network device/client device which, analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, generally links the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment or field of use of telemetry systems (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering telemetry data and selection data of process plant assets and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rumar et al. (US 2023/0161023 A1), hereinafter Rumar.
Regarding claim 1, Rumar discloses a method (para. [0001], regarding a first device in a positioning system, a second device in a positioning system, a third device in a positioning system, a positioning system and a method), comprising:
determining, by a client device at a first time, first movement information for the client device (para. [0068], regarding as long as a first device 10 in the system 40 is moving, as detected by its sensor, the device 10 periodically sends the first signal having localization enabling information; fig. 4);
selecting, by the client device and based on the first movement information, a first set of ranging parameters (see again para. [0068]);
performing, by the client device one or more ranging operations in accordance with the first set of ranging parameters (see again para. [0068]);
determining, by the client device at a second time, second movement information for the client device (para. [0068], regarding as soon as one of the first devices 10 detects that it is stationary, it sends out the second signal and stops sending the first signal during the period in which it is stationary);
selecting, by the client device and based on the second movement information, a second set of ranging parameters different from the first set of ranging parameters (para. [0068], regarding upon detection of the second signal, the second device 20 learns that the first device 10 identified in the second signal is stationary and subsequently releases computing and storage resources allocated to the identified first device 10; Examiner notes that the second signal will inherently comprise different ranging parameters from the first signal because the second signal relates to localization information from a stationary device, rather than a moving device); and
performing, by the client device, one or more ranging operations in accordance with the second set of ranging parameters (see again para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 2, Rumar discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein: the first movement information indicates that the client device is moving below a threshold speed (para. [0068], regarding as soon as one of the first devices 10 detects that it is stationary, it sends out the second signal and stops sending the first signal during the period in which it is stationary), and performing the one or more ranging operations in accordance with the first set of ranging parameters comprises using a first ranging operation that consumes less energy, as compared to a second ranging operation (see again para. [0068]; Examiner notes that, logically, any ranging operation consumes less energy than a (unclaimed) ranging operation that consumes more energy).
Regarding claim 3, Rumar discloses the invention in claim 2, and further discloses wherein: the second movement information indicates that the client device is moving above the threshold (see again para. [0068]), and performing the one or more ranging operations in accordance with the second set of ranging parameters comprises using the second ranging operation (para. [0034], regarding by suppressing sending of localization enabling information by tags that are no longer moving, energy consumption in tags and compute resources in anchor points is saved).
Regarding claim 4, Rumar discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein: the first movement information indicates that the client device is not moving (see again para. [0068]), performing the one or more ranging operations in accordance with the first set of ranging parameters comprises performing ranging to a single ranging anchor device (para. [0068], regarding first and second signals are received or detected by at least one of the second devices 20), the second movement information indicates that the client device is moving (see again para. [0068]), and performing the one or more ranging operations in accordance with the second set of ranging parameters comprises performing ranging to a plurality of ranging anchor devices (see again para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 6, Rumar discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein performing the one or more ranging operations in accordance with the second set of ranging parameters comprises transmitting, to an access point, an indication that the client device is moving (see again para. [0068]; as shown in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Rumar discloses the invention in claim 6, and further discloses the invention further comprising performing ranging in response to the indication (see again para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 8, Rumar discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses the invention further comprising: determining, at the second time, a location of the client device in a physical space (see again the positioning system 40 as shown in fig. 4, para. [0068]); and selecting the second set of ranging parameters based further on the location (para. [0070], regarding by means of the proposed first, second and third devices, 10, 20, 30, as well as the positioning system 40 described above, robust and accurate position estimation of moving first devices 10 is realized and waste of resources for stationary first devices 10 is prohibited).
Regarding claim 10, Rumar discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first movement information is determined using an accelerometer of the client device (para. [0019], regarding the sensor comprises an inertial measurement unit, IMU; in particular the sensor comprises at least one of the following: a gyro-sensor, or an accelerometer, or a compass or a magnetometer).
Regarding claim 11, Rumar discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media collectively comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a processing system, cause the processing system to perform an operation (abstract) comprising:
determining, by a client device at a first time, first movement information for the client device (para. [0068], regarding as long as a first device 10 in the system 40 is moving, as detected by its sensor, the device 10 periodically sends the first signal having localization enabling information; fig. 4);
selecting, by the client device and based on the first movement information, a first set of ranging parameters (see again para. [0068]);
performing, by the client device one or more ranging operations in accordance with the first set of ranging parameters (see again para. [0068]);
determining, by the client device at a second time, second movement information for the client device (para. [0068], regarding as soon as one of the first devices 10 detects that it is stationary, it sends out the second signal and stops sending the first signal during the period in which it is stationary);
selecting, by the client device and based on the second movement information, a second set of ranging parameters different from the first set of ranging parameters (para. [0068], regarding upon detection of the second signal, the second device 20 learns that the first device 10 identified in the second signal is stationary and subsequently releases computing and storage resources allocated to the identified first device 10; Examiner notes that the second signal will inherently comprise different ranging parameters from the first signal because the second signal relates to localization information from a stationary device, rather than a moving device); and
performing, by the client device, one or more ranging operations in accordance with the second set of ranging parameters (see again para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 12, Rumar discloses the invention in claim 11, and further discloses wherein: the first movement information indicates that the client device is moving below a threshold speed (see again para. [0068]), and performing the one or more ranging operations in accordance with the first set of ranging parameters comprises using a first ranging operation that consumes less energy, as compared to a second ranging operation (see again para. [0068]; Examiner notes that, logically, any ranging operation consumes less energy than a (unclaimed) ranging operation that consumes more energy).
Regarding claim 13, Rumar discloses the invention in claim 11, and further discloses wherein: the first movement information indicates that the client device is not moving (see again para. [0068]), performing the one or more ranging operations in accordance with the first set of ranging parameters comprises performing ranging to a single ranging anchor device (para. [0068], regarding first and second signals are received or detected by at least one of the second devices 20), the second movement information indicates that the client device is moving (see again para. [0068]), and performing the one or more ranging operations in accordance with the second set of ranging parameters comprises performing ranging to a plurality of ranging anchor devices (see again para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 15, Rumar discloses the invention in claim 11, and further discloses wherein performing the one or more ranging operations in accordance with the second set of ranging parameters comprises transmitting, to an access point, an indication that the client device is moving (see again para. [0068]; as shown in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Rumar discloses a system (abstract) comprising:
one or more computer processors; and logic encoded in one or more non-transitory media, the logic collectively executable by operation of the one or more computer processors to perform an operation (para. [0032], regarding a computer program product for tracking a location of a mobile device based on measurements of beacon signals transmitted between the mobile device and wireless reference nodes of a localization network) comprising:
determining, by a client device at a first time, first movement information for the client device (para. [0068], regarding as long as a first device 10 in the system 40 is moving, as detected by its sensor, the device 10 periodically sends the first signal having localization enabling information; fig. 4);
selecting, by the client device and based on the first movement information, a first set of ranging parameters (see again para. [0068]);
performing, by the client device one or more ranging operations in accordance with the first set of ranging parameters (see again para. [0068]);
determining, by the client device at a second time, second movement information for the client device (para. [0068], regarding as soon as one of the first devices 10 detects that it is stationary, it sends out the second signal and stops sending the first signal during the period in which it is stationary);
selecting, by the client device and based on the second movement information, a second set of ranging parameters different from the first set of ranging parameters (para. [0068], regarding upon detection of the second signal, the second device 20 learns that the first device 10 identified in the second signal is stationary and subsequently releases computing and storage resources allocated to the identified first device 10; Examiner notes that the second signal will inherently comprise different ranging parameters from the first signal because the second signal relates to localization information from a stationary device, rather than a moving device); and
performing, by the client device, one or more ranging operations in accordance with the second set of ranging parameters (see again para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 17, Rumar discloses the invention in claim 16, and further discloses wherein: the first movement information indicates that the client device is moving below a threshold speed (see again para. [0068]), and performing the one or more ranging operations in accordance with the first set of ranging parameters comprises using a first ranging operation that consumes less energy, as compared to a second ranging operation (see again para. [0068]; Examiner notes that, logically, any ranging operation consumes less energy than a (unclaimed) ranging operation that consumes more energy).
Regarding claim 18, Rumar discloses the invention in claim 16, and further discloses wherein: the first movement information indicates that the client device is not moving (see again para. [0068]), performing the one or more ranging operations in accordance with the first set of ranging parameters comprises performing ranging to a single ranging anchor device (para. [0068], regarding first and second signals are received or detected by at least one of the second devices 20), the second movement information indicates that the client device is moving (see again para. [0068]), and performing the one or more ranging operations in accordance with the second set of ranging parameters comprises performing ranging to a plurality of ranging anchor devices (see again para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 20, Rumar discloses the invention in claim 16, and further discloses wherein performing the one or more ranging operations in accordance with the second set of ranging parameters comprises transmitting, to an access point, an indication that the client device is moving (see again para. [0068]; as shown in fig. 4).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumar et al. (US 2023/0161023 A1), hereinafter Rumar.
Regarding claims 5, 14, and 19, Rumar discloses the invention in claims 1, 11, and 16, and further discloses wherein the first movement information indicates that the client device is moving below a threshold (see again para. [0068]), performing the one or more ranging operations in accordance with the first set of ranging parameters comprises performing ranging at a first frequency (Examiner notes that the ranging is inherently performed at a certain frequency), the second movement information indicates that the client device is moving above the threshold (see again para. [0068]).
Rumar does not appear to specifically disclose performing the one or more ranging operations in accordance with the second set of ranging parameters comprises performing ranging at a second frequency that is higher than the first frequency.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the invention to include performing the one or more ranging operations in accordance with the second set of ranging parameters comprises performing ranging at a second frequency that is higher than the first frequency, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The purpose would be to ensure that the two signals do not interfere with one another.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 27, 2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive in part.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pp. 10-11) with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under §112(b) are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claim and Applicant’s explanation of the claim and disclosure. The rejection has been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under §101, the rejections have been considered and have been maintained even in light of Applicant’s attempts to cure the deficiency. Examiner notes that simply adding a “client device”—i.e., a generic computer performing a generic computing function—is insufficient to overcome what is otherwise clearly a mental process of receiving and considering data. Examiner encourages Applicant to explore incorporating subject matter from para. [0032] of the specification in addition to the scope of claim 2, in essence answering the question of how and why the client device might operate dynamically based on the changing movement information (e.g., less power is needed as the client device realizes it is traveling slower or stopping, or vice versa).
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under §102/103, the rejections have been considered and have been maintained even in light of Applicant’s attempts to cure the deficiency. Examiner notes that upon further consideration, and given the exceedingly broad scope of the claim as it currently stands (per Applicant’s admission in Remarks, pp. 10-11), the ranging parameters and subsequent ranging operations would necessarily change when the client device goes from moving to stationary, as explained in the rejection detailed hereinabove. Examiner further notes that claim 9 has not been rejected by prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights