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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to communications filed November 24, 2025. No claims have been amended. Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shogo (JP2017-116290A).
As per claim 1, Shogo discloses an information processing system comprising:
a plurality of wireless devices arranged in a real space (paragraph [0015]: NFC tag 21, 22, 23, 24 attached to desk 31, 32, 33, 34 on a floor);
a reading apparatus that includes a reading unit configured to read identification information stored in each wireless device and a measuring unit configured to measure a relative amount of movement in the real space (paragraph [0017]: smartphone 1 with an NFC reader 14; paragraph [0018]: smartphone 1 having acceleration sensor 12); and
a management unit configured to manage a database in which a position in the real space at which each wireless device should be arranged is registered in association with identification information of the wireless device (paragraph [0016], [0030] and [0035]),
wherein the reading apparatus is configured to provide the management unit with the identification information read by the reading unit (paragraph [0020]) and movement amount information indicating the amount of movement measured by the measuring unit at the time of the reading (paragraphs [0032] & [0033]), and
the management unit is configured to determine, for two or more wireless devices arranged in the real space, whether a first positional relationship among the two or more wireless devices estimated based on the identification information and the movement amount information matches a second positional relationship among corresponding registered positions stored in the database (paragraph [0022]: database; paragraph [0023]: distance from a first desk 21 to a second desk 22).
As per claim 2, Shogo discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the management unit is configured to,
in a case where it is determined that the first positional relationship does not match the second positional relationship (paragraph [0032]), present a result of the determination to a user (paragraph [0033]: displays the floor map FM), and
cause the user to perform one or more of:
correction of arrangement of a wireless device in the real space (paragraph [0032]);
designation of a wireless device that has been arranged at a corresponding registered position (paragraph [0032]); and
designation of a wireless device of which corresponding registered position should be corrected in the database (paragraph [0022]: database; paragraph [0032]).
As per claim 3, Shogo discloses the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the management unit is configured to, after presenting the result of determination that the first positional relationship does not match the second positional relationship to the user and in a case where a wireless device that has been arranged at a corresponding registered position is designated by the user, further determine, based on comparison between the first positional relationship and the second positional relationship, which wireless device has been incorrectly arranged other than the designated wireless device from among the two or more wireless devices (paragraph [0032]: desk 21 position has not changed and desk 25 position has changed).
As per claim 4, Shogo discloses the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the management unit is configured to, after presenting the result of determination that the first positional relationship does not match the second positional relationship to the user and in a case where a wireless device of which corresponding registered position should be corrected in the database is designated by the user, correct a registered position corresponding to the designated wireless device to a position estimated based on the first positional relationship (paragraph [0022]: database; paragraph [0032]).
As per claim 5, Shogo discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the management unit is configured to, in a case where it is determined that the first positional relationship does not match the second positional relationship, correct the corresponding registered position stored in the database such that it matches the first positional relationship (paragraph [0032]: update position information for each desk).
As per claim 6, Shogo discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the two or more wireless devices includes:
a first type of wireless device arranged in the real space in a fixed manner (paragraph [0015]); and
a second type of wireless device that is attached to an item and moves together with the item (paragraph [0032]: changing the arrangement position of desk 25);
wherein the management unit is configured to determine, based on comparison between the first positional relationship and the second positional relationship, whether the second type of wireless device has been arranged at a corresponding registered position assuming that the first type of wireless device has been arranged at a corresponding registered position stored in the database (paragraph [0032]: position of desk 21 and desk 25 relative to one another).
As per claim 9, Shogo discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the database is configured to store a registered position of each wireless device in association with one of a plurality of places within the real space (paragraph [0022]: map-storing unit 118), and
the management unit is configured to determine whether the first positional relationship matches the second positional relationship for the two or more wireless devices associated with the same place (paragraph [0032]: desk 21 and desk 25 located on the same floor in a building).
As per claim 10, Shogo discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the database is configured to further store map information representing maps of places that are associated with the two or more wireless devices (paragraph [0022]: map-storing unit 118), and
the management unit is configured to, in a case where it is determined that the first positional relationship does not match the second positional relationship, cause a screen of a user terminal to display, based on the map information, a map of the place on which a position of at least one of the two or more wireless devices is mapped (paragraph [0022]: map-generating unit 113; paragraph [0032]: update position location for desk 21 and desk 25).
As per claim 11, Shogo discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the wireless device is a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag (paragraphs [0015] & [0016]), and
the reading unit of the reading apparatus is configured to emit an electromagnetic wave to a reading range and read the identification information sent back from the RFID tag utilizing energy of the electromagnetic wave (paragraph [0014]).
As per claim 14, Shogo discloses an information processing apparatus that manages a database in which a position in a real space at which each of a plurality of wireless devices should be arranged is registered in association with identification information of the wireless device (paragraph [0015]: NFC tag 21, 22, 23, 24 attached to desk 31, 32, 33, 34 on a floor), comprising:
a communication unit configured to receive, from a reading apparatus that is capable of reading identification information stored in each wireless device and is capable of measuring relative amount of movement in the real space, the read identification information and movement amount information indicating the amount of movement measured at the time of the reading (paragraph [0017]: smartphone 1 with an NFC reader 14; paragraph [0018]: smartphone 1 having acceleration sensor 12); and
a determination unit configured to determine, for two or more wireless devices arranged in the real space, whether a first positional relationship among the two or more wireless devices estimated based on the identification information and the movement amount information matches a second positional relationship among corresponding registered positions stored in the database (paragraph [0022]: database; paragraph [0023]: distance from a first desk 21 to a second desk 22).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shogo in view of Moetteli (US Pub No. 2020/0219204 A1).
As per claim 7, Shogo teaches the information processing system according to claim 6.
Shogo does not expressly teach wherein an expected position for the second type of wireless device is further registered in the database in association with expected time information, and
the management unit is configured to determine, based on comparison between the first positional relationship and the second positional relationship, whether the second type of wireless device has been arranged at the expected position at a time indicated by the expected time information.
Moetteli teaches wherein an expected position for the second type of wireless device is further registered in the database in association with expected time information, and
the management unit is configured to determine, based on comparison between the first positional relationship and the second positional relationship, whether the second type of wireless device has been arranged at the expected position at a time indicated by the expected time information (paragraph [0294]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the timed chair arrangement as taught by Moetteli, since Moetteli states in paragraph [0294] that such a modification would result in positioning furniture based on a desired/select event outcome.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shogo in view of Cox et al. (Cox; US Pub No. 2010/0235012 A1).
As per claim 8, Shogo teaches the information processing system according to claim 1.
Shogo does not expressly teach wherein the management unit is configured to determine that the first positional relationship matches the second positional relationship in a case where a misalignment of a position in the first positional relationship with respect to a corresponding registered position in the second positional relationship falls below a tolerance for any wireless device from among the two or more wireless devices.
Cox teaches wherein the management unit is configured to determine that the first positional relationship matches the second positional relationship in a case where a misalignment of a position in the first positional relationship with respect to a corresponding registered position in the second positional relationship falls below a tolerance for any wireless device from among the two or more wireless devices (paragraph [0089]: likelihood a device is positioned relative to a first location is less than a predetermined value).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the position determination as taught by Cox, since Cox states in paragraph [0089] that such a modification would result in determining whether or not a device is correctly positioned relative to an object.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shogo in view of Ko et al. (US Pub No. 2015/0326704 A1).
As per claim 12, Shogo teaches the information processing system according to claim 1.
Shogo does not expressly teach wherein the measuring unit is configured to measure the relative amount of movement based on sensor data output from a three-axis acceleration sensor, a gyro sensor, and a geomagnetic sensor.
Ko teaches wherein the measuring unit is configured to measure the relative amount of movement based on sensor data output from a three-axis acceleration sensor, a gyro sensor, and a geomagnetic sensor (paragraph [0193]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the select sensor devices as outlined above and taught by Ko, since the Ko states in paragraph [0193] that the use of the specified combination of sensors is well known in the art.
As per claim 13, Shogo teaches the information processing system according to claim 1.
Shogo does not expressly teach wherein the information processing system comprises:
a server apparatus arranged in a cloud environment and including the management unit,
wherein the reading apparatus is configured to transmit the identification information and the movement amount information to the server apparatus directly or indirectly via another apparatus.
Ko teaches wherein the information processing system comprises:
a server apparatus arranged in a cloud environment and including the management unit (paragraph [0215]),
wherein the reading apparatus is configured to transmit the identification information and the movement amount information to the server apparatus directly or indirectly via another apparatus (paragraph [0215]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the cloud server as taught by Ko, since Ko states in paragraph [0215] that such a modification is well known in the art for remote storage purposes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant’s argument that the prior art of Shogo does not disclose “wherein the reading apparatus is configured to provide the management unit with the identification information read by the reading unit and movement amount information indicating the amount of movement measured by the measuring unit at the time of the reading, and
the management unit is configured to determine, for two or more wireless devices arranged in the real space, whether a first positional relationship among the two or more wireless devices estimated based on the identification information and the movement amount information matches a second positional relationship among corresponding registered positions stored in the database” as claimed above (Remarks, pgs. 2-4), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art of Shogo discloses counting a number of steps taken by a user carrying a smartphone, where the smartphone reads a tag attached to a first piece of furniture and then the user walks to another piece of furniture and the smartphone reads the tag attached to that piece of furniture. Steps are a form of movement and counting the steps teaches determining an amount of movement. Therefore, due to the broadness of the claim limitations, the prior art of Shogo teaches “wherein the reading apparatus is configured to provide the management unit with the identification information read by the reading unit and movement amount information indicating the amount of movement measured by the measuring unit at the time of the reading” as outlined in the rejection above.
Additionally, the prior art of Shogo teaches generating a map based on the determined position of furniture having tags attached thereto and the step count associated with the tagged furniture. Shogo then teaches updating the map when new furniture position information is determined to be different from previously determined furniture position information (Shogo, paragraphs [0032] & [0033]). Therefore, due to the broadness of the claim limitations, the prior art of Shogo teaches “the management unit is configured to determine, for two or more wireless devices arranged in the real space, whether a first positional relationship among the two or more wireless devices estimated based on the identification information and the movement amount information matches a second positional relationship among corresponding registered positions stored in the database” as outlined in the rejection above.
The above arguments are equally applied to independent claim 14 and all dependent claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NAOMI J SMALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/NAOMI J SMALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685