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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/8/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/2/2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,943,621. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,943,621 teaches all the limitations of the pending claims.
Specification
The use of the term BLUETOOTH, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Bluetooth” should be capitalized or include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the data packet" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. They fail to further limit independent claim 1 because all the limitations of dependent claims 5 and 8 are in their parent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0021966 (hereinafter Wylie) in view of US 6,886,103 (hereinafter Brustoloni).
Regarding claim 1, Wylie teaches a method comprising: generating a first localization tone based on a second localization tone (FIG. 5C: details data packet structure, venue configuration message, location nodes; Tone ID, as first localization tone), the second localization tone having a first value (FIG. 5C; [0091][0113]: details receiving a phone locator signal from a beacon transmitter), wherein generating the first localization tone comprises generating the first localization tone such that, after whitening or encrypting, the first localization tone returns to the first value (no patentable weight because “such that…” may be interpreted as an intended use; Examiner suggests positively claiming this function with the data packet in the transmitting step); inserting the first localization tone into a data packet (FIG. 5C: details data packet structure, venue configuration message, location nodes; Tone ID, as first localization tone); and transmitting the processed data packet.
Wylie does not explicitly teach processing the data packet using whitening or encryption to generate a processed data packet; and transmitting the processed data packet.
However, Brustoloni teaches processing the data packet using whitening or encryption to generate a processed data packet (Figure 9, 816: details compute encryption data based on modified packet); and transmitting the processed data packet (Figure 9, 818: details Send packet out).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wylie to incorporate the teachings of Brustoloni and include processing the data packet using whitening or encryption to generate a processed data packet; and transmitting the processed data packet of Brustoloni with Wylie. Doing so would provide end-to-end security (Brustoloni, at Col. 5, ll. 54-55).
Regarding claim 2, Wylie teaches wherein the first localization tone precedes data of a payload of the data packet (FIG. 5C, 188D: details next to other fields of payload 188’, as immediately preceding).
Regarding claim 3, Wylie teaches wherein a last bit of the first localization tone immediately precedes a first bit of the data of the payload (FIG. 5C, 188D: details next to other fields of payload 188’, as immediately preceding).
Regarding claim 4, Wylie teaches wherein the first value is a predetermined value ([0036][0107]: details predetermined tone).
Regarding claim 5, Wylie teaches wherein processing the data packet comprises processing the data packet using whitening to generate the processed data packet (no patentable weight because whitening is claimed in the alternative and is not performed in the claim as rejected).
Regarding claim 6, Wylie teaches wherein processing the data packet using whitening comprises performing an exclusive-OR (XOR) logical operation between each bit of an output of a linear feedback shift register (LFSR) and each bit of data to be whitened (no patentable weight because whitening is claimed in the alternative and is not performed in the claim as rejected).
Regarding claim 7, Wylie teaches wherein processing the data packet using whitening comprises using a physical layer of a communication protocol stack (no patentable weight because whitening is claimed in the alternative and is not performed in the claim as rejected).
Regarding claim 8, Wylie does not explicitly teach wherein processing the data packet comprises processing the data packet using encryption to generate the processed data packet.
However, Brustoloni teaches wherein processing the data packet comprises processing the data packet using encryption to generate the processed data packet (Figure 9, 816: details compute encryption data based on modified packet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wylie to incorporate the teachings of Brustoloni and include wherein processing the data packet comprises processing the data packet using encryption to generate the processed data packet of Brustoloni with Wylie. Doing so would provide end-to-end security (Brustoloni, at Col. 5, ll. 54-55).
Regarding claim 17, Wylie teaches wherein the data packet comprises a length (a data packet inherently has a length) or beginning bit location of the first localization tone in the data packet.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wylie in view of Brustoloni, further in view of US 2017/0237777 (hereinafter Joch).
Regarding claim 9, Wylie does not explicitly teach further comprising estimating an effect of the whitening or the encryption on the first localization tone.
However, Joch teaches estimating an effect of the whitening or the encryption on the first localization tone ([0112]: details the contents of the application-layer payload are opaque due to encryption, an estimation of the QoE… can still be derived).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wylie to incorporate the teachings of Joch and include estimating an effect of the whitening or the encryption on the first localization tone of Joch with Wylie. Doing so would improve methods and systems to determine QoE when encryption is used (Joch, at [0006]).
Regarding claim 10, Wylie does not explicitly teach wherein estimating the effect of the whitening or the encryption comprises estimating the effect of the whitening or the encryption using an application layer of a communication protocol stack.
However, Joch teaches wherein estimating the effect of the whitening or the encryption comprises estimating the effect of the whitening or the encryption using an application layer of a communication protocol stack ([0112]: details the contents of the application-layer payload are opaque due to encryption, an estimation of the QoE… can still be derived).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wylie to incorporate the teachings of Joch and include wherein estimating the effect of the whitening or the encryption comprises estimating the effect of the whitening or the encryption using an application layer of a communication protocol stack of Joch with Wylie. Doing so would improve methods and systems to determine QoE when encryption is used (Joch, at [0006]).
Regarding claim 11, Wylie teaches further comprising estimating the effect of the whitening based on a seed value (no patentable weight because whitening is claimed in the alternative and is not performed in the claim as rejected).
Regarding claim 12, Wylie teaches wherein the seed value is based on a channel on which the processed data packet is to be transmitted (no patentable weight because whitening is claimed in the alternative and is not performed in the claim as rejected).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wylie in view of Brustoloni, further in view of US 2018/0375703 (hereinafter Kellogg).
Regarding claim 13, Wylie does not explicitly teach wherein transmitting the processed data packet comprises transmitting the data packet using an advertisement channel of a Bluetooth protocol.
However, Kellogg teaches wherein transmitting the processed data packet comprises transmitting the data packet using an advertisement channel of a Bluetooth protocol (claim 8: details transmits the second package of data in the Bluetooth Low Energy advertisements in multiple formats sequentially on each of the Bluetooth Low Energy advertisement channels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wylie to incorporate the teachings of Kellogg and include wherein transmitting the processed data packet comprises transmitting the data packet using an advertisement channel of a Bluetooth protocol of Kellogg with Wylie. Doing so would improve technology related to ad hoc file (Kellogg, at paragraph [0003]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wylie in view of Brustoloni, further in view of US 2018/0160394 (hereinafter Reunamäki).
Regarding claim 14, Wylie teaches wherein generating the first localization tone comprises generating the first localization tone (FIG. 5C: details data packet structure, venue configuration message, location nodes; Tone ID, as first localization tone) for a first channel (no patentable weight because the limitation is intended use).
Wylie does not explicitly teach wherein transmitting the processed data packet comprises transmitting the data packet using a second channel.
However, Reunamäki teaches wherein transmitting the processed data packet comprises transmitting the data packet using a second channel ([0086]: details a different channel is being used).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wylie to incorporate the teachings of Reunamäki and include wherein transmitting the processed data packet comprises transmitting the data packet using a second channel of Reunamäki with Wylie. Doing so would provide the advantage and capability for data packet preparation for the purpose of compensating for data whitening (Reunamäki, at paragraph [0001]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wylie in view of Brustoloni and Reunamäki, further in view of US 2018/0167235 (hereinafter Hu).
Regarding claim 15, Wylie does not explicitly teach notifying a device that the first localization tone is estimated for the first channel prior to transmitting the processed data packet using the second channel.
However, Hu teaches notifying a device that the first localization tone is estimated for the first channel prior to transmitting the processed data packet using the second channel ([0030]: details first channel estimation engine; pilot tone location, second channel estimation engine).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wylie to incorporate the teachings of Hu and include notifying a device that the first localization tone is estimated for the first channel prior to transmitting the processed data packet using the second channel of Hu with Wylie. Doing so would improve accuracy (Hu, at paragraph [0004]).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wylie in view of Brustoloni and Reunamäki, further in view of US 2019/0213145 (hereinafter Stitt).
Regarding claim 16, Wylie does not explicitly teach wherein the data packet comprises a marker indicating that the first localization tone is for the first channel.
However, Stitt teaches wherein the data packet comprises a marker ([0072]: details The tone position module 112 is configured to, based on a second portion of the shared secret key 102, the authenticated packet 110, and/or the communication channel, generate and pseudo-randomly insert the tone byte 113 (e.g., the de-whitened tone byte) into the authenticated packet 110 in order to generate the payload 114) indicating that the first localization tone is for the first channel (no patentable weight because “is for…” may be interpreted as an intended use; Examiner suggests positively claiming this feature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wylie to incorporate the teachings of Stitt and include wherein the data packet comprises a marker indicating that the first localization tone is for the first channel of Stitt with Wylie. Doing so would provide the advantage and capability for data packet preparation for the purpose of compensating for data whitening (Stitt, at paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 18, Wylie does not explicitly teach wherein the marker immediately precedes the first localization tone in the data packet.
However, Stitt teaches wherein the marker immediately precedes the first localization tone in the data packet (FIGS. 7A-7G; [0072]: details MAC_1 Byte(s), Nonce_1(Byte(s), etc. immediately precedes Tone Byte).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wylie to incorporate the teachings of Stitt and include wherein the marker immediately precedes the first localization tone in the data packet of Stitt with Wylie. Doing so would provide the advantage and capability for data packet preparation for the purpose of compensating for data whitening (Stitt, at paragraph [0041]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasper Kwoh whose telephone number is (408)918-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Friday, 10am to 4pm Pacific.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/JASPER KWOH/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights