DETAILED ACTION
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 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 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.
Request of Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission has been entered.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)/6th ¶
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/6th ¶ (hereinafter 112(f)):
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
· Claim(s) 1: positioning control apparatus.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/1st ¶:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/1st ¶, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 1 has been amended as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
572
1034
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Previously, the second limitation in the excerpt above was recited as being premised on the first position being close to the particular shaded area. However, that premise has been amended out, and the limitation is not indented under the limitation above it, such that the second limitation is not indicated as being based on the premise "based on the first position being close to the particular shaded area". Based on the amendment, the second limitation always occurs. However, in the originally-filed disclosure, whenever this step is disclosed, it is disclosed as happening when the first position is close to the particular shaded area (Fig. 4, where 450 is dependent on the result of 420 being YES; abstract; p. 3, ¶1; p. 3, ¶2; p. 7, ¶4; p. 11, ¶2; p. 13, final ¶, which is explicitly referring to step 450 in Fig. 4; p. 14, final ¶; p. 17, ¶6). By reciting the limitation as occurring even when the first position is not close to the particular shaded area the claim is reciting something that has not been disclosed by the originally-filed disclosure.
Claims 2-4 and 6 are dependent upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidhu '629 (US 2013/0018629 A1) in view of Ichihara (WO 2019/151158 A1) and Gum (US 2021/0333410 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Sidhu '629 discloses a seamless complex positioning method using heterogeneous positioning techniques, the method comprising:
performing, by a positioning control apparatus, satellite signal-based positioning in an area in which a satellite signal is received (302, 314, Fig. 3; 410, Fig. 4);
determining, by the positioning control apparatus, whether a first position of a mobile terminal determined using satellite signal-based positioning is close to a particular shaded area, based on whether a distance between (i) the first position of the mobile terminal and (ii) an outline of the particular shaded area or an entrance or exit point of the particular shaded area is within a predetermined threshold distance (420, Fig. 4; ¶44; ¶46-49) [where the recited distance is the distance is between the first position of the mobile terminal and an outline of the particular shaded area/edge of the dead zone].
In Sidhu '629, the positioning control apparatus may determine that a first position of a device in an open area (e.g. 410, Fig. 4). In this situation the step of "determining ... a non-satellite signal based positioning schemed supported in the particular shaded area" does not occur because the condition of based on the first position being close to the particular shaded area" is not met. According to Ex parte Schulhauser (Appeal 2013-007847, Application No. 12/184020, 22 pages), when a condition in a method claim is not met, the corresponding step need not be addressed. See also MPEP 2111.04 II. Therefore, this step does not occur.
Sidhu '629 further discloses performing determining, by the positioning control apparatus, satellite signal-based positioning and positioning according to the non-satellite signal-based positioning scheme simultaneously and determining a second position of the mobile terminal (¶36-37) [where ¶37, lines 8-10 recite dead reckoning performed based on a known starting position determined by GNSS module; where ¶37, lines 1-3 state the dead reckoning is based on an inertial sensor module; where inertial sensors measure change in position; and thus the inertial sensor positioning and the GNSS satellite signal-based positioning must inherently be active simultaneously for adding the inertial sensor change in position to the GNSS starting position to give the updated position of the device. In other words, the inertial sensor must be active at the starting time when the GNSS satellite signal-based positioning occurs for the change in position to be the change of position from the starting position. It is noted that the inertial sensor module is not limited to being used only when the device is close by a shaded area. ¶36 discloses various scenarios when the inertial sensor module can be active, including at regular intervals (lines 1-2).]
In Sidhu '629, the positioning control apparatus may determine that a second position of a device in an open area. In an embodiment when the inertial sensor module is active at a regular interval, when one of those activations occurs when the device is in an open area, in some of those cases the second position will not calculated as being inside a particular shaded area (i.e. the position will be calculated as being in an open area). In this situation the step of "stopping, by the positioning control apparatus, the satellite signal-based positioning and performing only positioning according to the non-satellite signal-based positioning scheme" does not occur because the condition of "based on the second position being inside the particular shaded area" is not met. According to Ex parte Schulhauser (Appeal 2013-007847, Application No. 12/184020, 22 pages), when a condition in a method claim is not met, the corresponding step need not be addressed. See also MPEP 2111.04 II. Therefore, this step does not occur.
Sidhu '629 further discloses determining a speed of the mobile terminal (¶49).
Sidhu '629 fails to disclose wherein the particular shaded area is set by adding a separation distance to an outline of a building extracted from map data, wherein the separation distance is determined based on location and height of the building and is proportional to the height of the building, and wherein an exclusion of a result obtained from the satellite signal-based positioning is determined based on the speed of the mobile terminal by the positioning control apparatus.
Ichihara teaches the particular shaded area is set by adding a separation distance to an outline of a building extracted from map data, and the separation distance is determined based on location and height of the building and is proportional to the height of the building (Fig. 5A; Fig. 7; p. 10, final ¶).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine the extent of the shaded area by determining where a signal from a satellite will be unavailable due to being blocked by a building.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the shaded area is being determined more accurately.
Gum teaches an exclusion of a result obtained from a satellite signal-based positioning is determined based on a speed of a mobile terminal by the positioning control apparatus (¶148, particularly p. 26, lines 25-30; ¶150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to not provide a user an incorrect position output when the position output would be based on a spoofed signal or spoofed signals, or a signal for which a determined position would correspond to in irrational change in speed.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that an incorrect position is not indicated to a user.
In regard to claim 6, Ichihara further teaches a shaded area is determined according to a position of a satellite transmitting a satellite signal and a position and a height of a building extracted from the map data (p. 10, final ¶), where the Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known to determine a satellite elevation based on the position of the satellite relative to the position of the point where the elevation is being measured relative to, here the building.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidhu '629, Ichihara, and Gum, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of You (US 2010/0228478 A1).
Sidhu '629 further discloses the positioning control apparatus is configured to determine whether the first position is close to the particular shaded area and the second position is inside the particular shaded area by using map data downloaded from a device or service (¶50).
Sidhu '629, Ichihara, and Gum fail to explicitly disclose that the device or service is a server.
You teaches a device/service that provides a map of a shaded area to a device is a server (409, Fig. 4; ¶65; ¶78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the device/service of Sidhu '629 with a known device/service in the art.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the map is provided to the device.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidhu '629, Ichihara, and Gum, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Horvitz (US 2007/0005243 A1).
Sidhu '629, Ichihara, and Gum fail to disclose determining whether the first position is close to the particular shaded area by querying the first position to an external server, and determine whether the second position is inside the particular shaded area by querying the second position to the external server.
Horvitz teaches determining whether the first position is close to the particular shaded area by querying the first position to an external server, and determine whether the second position is inside the particular shaded area by querying the second position to the external server (302, Fig. 3; Fig. 7; ¶53) [whereby sending the position to the server in 302, Fig. 3, the device is querying the server].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the power expended by the device by offloading processing from the device to the server.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that less power is expended by the device and the battery can power the device for a longer time.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidhu '629, Ichihara, and Gum, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lee '586 (US 2024/0019586 A1).
Sidhu '629, Ichihara, and Gum fail to disclose the non-satellite signal-based positioning scheme is at least one selected from a group of a Wi-Fi signal-based positioning scheme, a BLE signal-based positioning scheme, a mobile communication signal-based positioning scheme, and a geomagnetic signal-based positioning scheme.
Lee teaches a method similar to that of Sidhu '629 switching between a satellite signal-based positioning scheme and a non-satellite signal-based positioning scheme, where the non-satellite signal-based positioning scheme is a geomagnetic signal-based positioning scheme (110, Fig. 2; 210, 220, Fig. 2; ¶13; ¶24-27; ¶39-40; ¶45).
Replacing the inertial/dead reckoning non-satellite signal-based positioning scheme of Sidhu '629 with the geomagnetic signal-based non-satellite signal-based positioning scheme of Lee '586 is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to perform the same function and obtain predictable results. Because both elements are known systems for determining the position of a mobile when satellite signal-based positioning is unavailable, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other to achieve the predictable result of determining the position of the device when satellite signal-based positioning is unavailable.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
Zhou (Velocity Consistency Checking Based GNSS Spoofing Detection Method for Vehicles), which teaches detecting spoofed signals based on device velocity (speed plus direction) (p. 1976) [where Zhou is prior art for the current claims since the claims are not entitled to the dates of the priority documents since they do not support the new matter detailed above].
Choi (US 2017/0269232 A1), which teaches a shaded area is determined according to a height of a building (¶49).
Palella (US 2019/0033466 A1), which teaches determining a satellite signal-based positioning scheme and a non-satellite signal-based positioning scheme being implemented simultaneously (¶32; ¶207).
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on p. 5-8, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim now requires calculation of the distance to the shaded area's outline or entrance/exit, regardless of whether the terminal is actually close or not. However, Sidhu '629 disclose calculation of a distance to a shaded area's outline, as detailed in the rejection, above.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
388
1080
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, this limitation is claimed as a conditional step, and thus is not required by the claim if the condition is not met. The limitation occurs "based on the first position being close to the particular shaded area". But the first position doesn't have to be close to the particular shaded area, because the previous step determines "whether a first position ... is close to a particular shaded area" (emphasis added), not "that a first position ... is close to a particular shaded area". If you are determining whether something is true, that something could possibly not be true. If you are determining that something is true, it must be true.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
496
1082
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Gum has been added to show that this feature would have been obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai, can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648