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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “updating, based on the accuracy, a mapping between locations in the physical space and localization parameters” in claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Specifically, the nature of the map or mapping should be depicted in order to clarify the nature of the limitation. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “network device” in claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “selecting, based on the first movement information, a first set of localization parameters” which is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim is unclear. Specifically, the nature of the first movement information, i.e., what type of data actually make of the first movement information, must be understood in order for a selection to be reasonably be based on such information. Furthermore, it is unclear what it means for the selection to be based on the first movement information, e.g., what range, threshold, or condition are actually being considered in making the selection. Claims 11 and 16 are likewise rejected, and dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 2 recites “the first movement information indicates that the client device is moving below a threshold” which is indefinite, because the metes and bounds of moving below a threshold are unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whether the threshold is a structure, a particular location, a particular speed, a particular acceleration, etc. In other words, a threshold what? Claims 5, 12, 14, 17, and 19 are likewise rejected. Dependent claim 3 fails to cure the deficiency.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the network device determines to perform ranging to the client device based on the indication” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if the limitation is a method step, or a structural limitation of the network device which is not otherwise described or claimed by Applicant and therefore may be outside the scope of the invention.
Claim 9 recites “updating, based on the accuracy, a mapping between locations in the physical space and localization parameters” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, it is unclear whether the “locations in the physical space” relate back to the location of the client device recited in claim 8, or if the locations are independent of the location of the client device. Second, it is unclear how locations in physical space can be mapped in relation to localization parameters, i.e., the metes and bounds of the localization parameters will determine whether a map can actually be made and understood as it relates to the parameters and the locations.
Claim 11 recites “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a processing system, cause the processing system to perform an operation” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if, in an embodiment where there are two or more non-transitory computer-readable media, all of the media are identical such that the all have the exact same instructions, or whether each of the media only has a partial set of the instructions such that the invention is only operable if all of the media are operably connected. Claim 16 is likewise rejected. Dependent claims 12-15 and 17-20 fail to cure the deficiency.
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, based on the first movement information, a first set of localization parameters”, “performing one or more localization techniques in accordance with the first set of localization parameters”, “selecting, based on the second movement information, a second set of localization parameters”, “performing one or more localization techniques in accordance with the second set of localization 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the limitation of “determining, at a first time, first movement information for a client device” and “determining, at a second time, second movement information for a 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 a network device, 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 localization techniques” 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, at a first time, first movement information for a 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, based on the first movement information, a first set of localization parameters (see again para. [0068]);
performing one or more localization techniques in accordance with the first set of localization parameters (see again para. [0068]);
determining, 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, based on the second movement information, a second set of localization 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); and
performing one or more localization techniques in accordance with the second set of localization 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 (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 localization techniques in accordance with the first set of localization parameters comprises using a first localization technique that consumes less energy, as compared to a second localization technique (see again para. [0068]; Examiner notes that, logically, any localization technique consumes less energy than a (unclaimed) localization technique 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 localization techniques in accordance with the second set of localization parameters comprises using the second localization technique (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 localization techniques in accordance with the first set of localization 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 localization techniques in accordance with the second set of localization 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 localization techniques in accordance with the second set of localization parameters comprises transmitting, to a network device, 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 wherein the network device determines to perform ranging to the client device based on 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 localization 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 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, at a first time, first movement information for a client device (see again para. [0068]);
selecting, based on the first movement information, a first set of localization parameters (see again para. [0068]);
performing one or more localization techniques in accordance with the first set of localization parameters (see again para. [0068]);
determining, at a second time, second movement information for the client device (see again para. [0068]);
selecting, based on the second movement information, a second set of localization parameters (see again para. [0068]); and
performing one or more localization techniques in accordance with the second set of localization 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 (see again para. [0068]), and performing the one or more localization techniques in accordance with the first set of localization parameters comprises using a first localization technique that consumes less energy, as compared to a second localization technique (see again para. [0068]; Examiner notes that, logically, any localization technique consumes less energy than a (unclaimed) localization technique 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 localization techniques in accordance with the first set of localization 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 localization techniques in accordance with the second set of localization 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 localization techniques in accordance with the second set of localization parameters comprises transmitting, to a network device, 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, at a first time, first movement information for a client device (see again para. [0068]);
selecting, based on the first movement information, a first set of localization parameters (see again para. [0068]);
performing one or more localization techniques in accordance with the first set of localization parameters (see again para. [0068]);
determining, at a second time, second movement information for the client device (see again para. [0068]);
selecting, based on the second movement information, a second set of localization parameters (see again para. [0068]); and
performing one or more localization techniques in accordance with the second set of localization 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 (see again para. [0068]), and performing the one or more localization techniques in accordance with the first set of localization parameters comprises using a first localization technique that consumes less energy, as compared to a second localization technique (see again para. [0068]; Examiner notes that, logically, any localization technique consumes less energy than a (unclaimed) localization technique 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 localization techniques in accordance with the first set of localization 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 localization techniques in accordance with the second set of localization 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 localization techniques in accordance with the second set of localization parameters comprises transmitting, to a network device, 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 localization techniques in accordance with the first set of localization 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 localization techniques in accordance with the second set of localization 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 localization techniques in accordance with the second set of localization 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Specifically, the prior art does not appear to teach the combined limitations of claim 9.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
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