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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Restriction/Election
1. Applicant’s response filed on 05/04/2015 includes restriction election with traverse of Species A covering claims 1-14. The response has been acknowledged but not found persuasive because claim 1 is different from claim 15.
Therefore the requirement is still deemed proper and made FINAL. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The Applicant also has the right to file a divisional application to claims 15-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Donald Hart et al., (US 2007/0082677), (hereinafter, Donald) in view of Kao et al., (US 2015/0358936), (hereinafter, Kao).
Regarding claim 1, Donald discloses method for detecting occupancy within a space
(= method for determining relative location of an AP, see [0056]) comprising:
at a first wireless sensor, detecting a set of radio signals transmitted between a set of computing devices and a set of access points arranged in the space (= various sensors and mechanisms may be used to collect data that allows for determination of the relative location of APs, see [0054]; and module 10 selects APs for determining relative locations and then instructs the APs to conduct a predetermined series of wireless frame transmissions, see [0056]; whereby the APs are being associated with the “set of computing devices and set of access points);
for each radio signal in the set of radio signals: extracting a source unique identifier representing an initial computing device, in the set of computing devices, from the radio signal (= each non-transmitting AP can record the MAC address of the transmitting AP, see [0056]);
extracting a unique destination identifier representing an initial access point, in the set of access points, from the radio signal (= each non-transmitting AP can record the MAC address of the transmitting AP, see [0056]); and
retrieving a set of device characteristics associated with the initial computing device from the radio signal (= module 10 also collects data associated with the attributes and orientation of each of the antennas of the APs, see [0058 and 0060]; and all data can be stored in database, see [0056]);
storing source unique identifiers, unique destination identifiers, and sets of device characteristics, extracted from the set of radio signals, in a first set of containers (= all data can be stored in database, see [0056]);
and at a computer system accessing a known position of the first wireless sensor (= various sensors and mechanisms may be used to collect data that allows for determination of the relative location of APs; and collected data, at each AP, may include signal strength data corresponding to neighboring APs, the arrival time of packets transmitted by neighboring APs, see [0054]);
accessing a signal transmission range of a first access point, in the set of access points, based on the first set of containers (= module 10 waits for a predetermined amount of time after issuing commands to selected APs to allow time for the APs to complete the transmissions and data collection and then gathers the data from the APs, see [0056]).
Donald explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“deriving a first signal strength of a first radio signal, in the set of radio signals, based on the known position of the first wireless sensor and the signal transmission range of the first access point;
in response to the first signal strength exceeding a threshold signal strength, deriving a first location unit occupied by the first access point; and
defining the first location unit in a localization map representing locations of the set of access points within the space”.
However, Kao which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
deriving a first signal strength of a first radio signal, in the set of radio signals, based on the known position of the first wireless sensor and the signal transmission range of the first access point (= as AP 10 operates, nearby MS 12a and/or 12b may detect radio frequency signals of the AP 10 from a number of locations…MS 12a may the measure the signal strengths of the RF signals, see [0024]);
in response to the first signal strength exceeding a threshold signal strength, deriving a first location unit occupied by the first access point (= position of AP 10 may be determined based on the measured signal strengths and the corresponding locations where the signal strength measurements are taken, see [0024]; and server 16 can determine the position of the maximum signal strength as the position of the signal source, see [0026]); and
defining the first location unit in a localization map representing locations of the set of access points within the space (= estimate the position of the peak or maximum signal strength in form of xy coordinates, and determine the position of the peak or maximum strength as the position of the signal source, see [0029]).
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 combined the teaching of Kao with Donald for the benefit of achieving a communication system that uses signals from plurality of transmitters to determine a location of an access point.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 2-14 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.
CONCLUSION
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KWASI KARIKARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8566. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat: 6am-10pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904. 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.
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.
Prosecution Insights