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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on January 23, 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609, and therefore has been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1–9 in the reply filed on September 19, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 3 and 6 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites the term “WiFi” several times as part of its intended scope. The term Wi-Fi® is a live, registered trademark (serial no. 75799629) of the Wi-Fi Alliance®. Trademarks are designations of source and do not necessarily define the precise technical specifications of a product. The technical standards associated with the Wi-Fi® brand have evolved significantly over time (e.g., from IEEE 802.11b to 802.11ax and beyond), and the Wi-Fi Alliance® retains the authority to certify, decertify, or change the standards required for a device to be considered Wi-Fi® certified.
Therefore, the scope of “WiFi” is subject to change based on the business decisions of a third party (the Wi-Fi Alliance®) and is not limited to a specific, unchanging technical standard. This ambiguity fails to apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the objective metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites, “wherein the plurality of beacons comprises a plurality of Bluetooth beacons.” The term Bluetooth® is a live, registered trademark (serial no. 75643769) of the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG)®. Thus, much like the term Wi-Fi® discussed in the rejection of claim 3, the technical standards for what constitutes “Bluetooth” technology have changed over time (e.g., Bluetooth 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 5.0), and continue to change. Furthermore, Bluetooth SIG® controls the licensing of the trademark and the technical specifications required for a device to be marketed as "Bluetooth" compatible.
Consequently, the scope of “Bluetooth” is dependent on the business decisions of the Bluetooth SIG, rather than the objective standard of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and is not fixed to a particular technical implementation. This renders the term indefinite, as it does not provide a clear and stable definition of the claimed feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the exact scope of the claim, as the definition of “Bluetooth” could change in the future.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
I. High discloses claims 1–4, 6, and 7.
Claims 1–4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0311794 A1 (“High”).
Claim 1
High discloses:
A digital sign for use in a building, the digital sign comprising:
High discloses an “electronic shelf label (ESL) 102 disposed within a building.” High ¶ 24. The ESL 102 also operates within the context of a broader system 100 in the building (shown in FIG. 1), which will be discussed together with the relevant claim limitations.
a housing;
“FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of an exemplary embodiment of the electronic shelf label 102 used in the system 100.” High ¶ 28. As shown in both FIGS. 1 and 2, all of the components of each ESL 102 are self-contained as a single device. High FIG. 2.
a display housed by the housing, wherein the display is viewable from outside of the housing;
“The electronic shelf label 102 can further include an electronic display 218,” which is meant to display information intended for public consumption (e.g., price of a product, discounts, merchandise descriptors, etc.). High ¶ 31.
a wireless interface that supports one or more wireless protocols;
“In some embodiments, the electronic shelf label 102 includes a first power level (FPL) communication module 211 and a second power level (SPL) communication module 212,” High ¶ 29, which, in some embodiments, may be implemented as “a single communication module that is configured to selectively transmit data/information at a single power level.” High ¶ 30.
Either way, “SPL communication module 212 is configured to transmit data at the lower power level using at least one of low level Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, low energy Bluetooth, near field communication (NFC), or RFID capabilities,” and “FPL communication module 211 is configured to receive signals at a first power level via wireless communication 106 transmitted from the computing system 104 and/or transmit signals at a first power level.” High ¶ 29.
a controller housed by the housing and operatively coupled to the display and the wireless interface, the controller configured to:
“The electronic shelf label 102 includes a microprocessor 202,” High ¶ 28, which, as shown in FIG. 2, is connected to both the display driver 220 and the FPL/SPL communication modules 211, 212 via a single bus line. See also High ¶¶ 31–32 (describing how the microprocessor 202 controls each of the aforementioned modules).
identify a current location of the digital sign in the building;
“The electronic shelf label can execute a localization method to determine where the electronic shelf label is located within [a stored] 3D model [of the facility], and can associate the electronic shelf label with the electronic display device using the 3D model.” High ¶ 17.
obtain via the wireless interface one or more key performance indicators of the building
“The microprocessor 202 of the shelf label 102 is configured to receive the data 205 from the computing system 104 to configure the electronic shelf label 102 to display particular information on the electronic display 218, such as a new price for a product associated with the electronic shelf label 102.” High ¶ 32. Other examples of the data include “a price per item of the product, a price per unit, a special offer, a number of items of the product in stock, an expected number of merchandise on a shelf, space management information, or an indicator field.” High ¶ 31.
Any of the foregoing examples fall within the scope of “key performance indicators of the building” (hereafter “KPIs”) for two reasons.
For one, at a minimum, the expected number of merchandise on the shelf of the facility and/or space management information for the facility are clearly both indications of the facility’s performance with respect to available space and available merchandise.
But more fundamentally, “[w]here the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art.” MPEP § 2112.02(subsection III.) (citing In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In other words, when a claim recites descriptive content, the prior art only needs to disclose the functions that are claimed for the content, and not the underlying “message or meaning [conveyed] to a human reader independent of the intended computer system.” MPEP § 2111.05(subsection III.); see also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
In this case, claim 1 recites up to three functional relationships between the digital sign and the KPIs, and High discloses all three of them:
(1) the digital sign must obtain the KPIs via the wireless interface (addressed above via the citation to High ¶ 32);
(2) the KPIs must depend upon the digital sign’s self-determination of its current location (location dependence addressed below via citation to High ¶ 14, and self-determination of location addressed above via citation to High ¶ 17); and
(3) the digital sign must display the KPIs that it obtained (addressed below via discussion of High ¶ 31).
Accordingly, High discloses this claim element both because it discloses the necessary functional relationship between the KPIs and the digital sign, but also because it discloses the actual message or meaning of the KPIs.
that are dependent on the current location of the digital sign in the building;
“In some embodiments, the data received by one or more of the electronic shelf labels can be based on a location at which the one or more electronic shelf labels are disposed.” High ¶ 14.
and display on the display the one or more key performance indicators of the building that are dependent on the current location of the digital sign in the building.
“The electronic display 218 can display product information, stored in memory 204 as [the] data 205, in different fields of the electronic display 218.” High ¶ 31.
Claim 2
High discloses digital sign of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to
identify the current location of the digital sign in the building using an indoor positioning system associated with the building.
“The electronic shelf label can execute a localization method to determine where the electronic shelf label is located within [a stored] 3D model [of the facility], and can associate the electronic shelf label with the electronic display device using the 3D model.” High ¶ 17. High further discloses a few different ways to do this; for example, “[i]n some embodiments, the electronic shelf labels 102 wirelessly communicate 108 with the electronic display device 103 at a lower power level,” and this lower power level “reduces the range of the transmissions of the electronic shelf labels 102 such that each electronic shelf label 102 can communicate with the electronic display device 103 within range of the transmissions at the lower power level, but cannot communicate with electronic display devices outside the range of the transmissions at the lower power level.” High ¶ 27.
Claim 3
High discloses the digital sign of claim 2,
wherein the indoor positioning system comprises a plurality of WiFi access points each positioned at a different location in the building, and wherein the wireless interface of the digital sign is configured to communicate with one or more in-range WiFi access points of the plurality of WiFi access points depending on the current location of the digital sign in the building,
“The SPL communication module 212 is configured to transmit signals at a lower power level via wireless communication 108 [with] the electronic display device 103 . . . using at least one of low level Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, low energy Bluetooth, near field communication (NFC), or RFID capabilities,” High ¶ 29, and as shown in FIG. 7, a plurality of electronic display devices 103a–103c may be positioned at different locations in the facility 700. High ¶ 45.
wherein the current location of the digital sign is identified based at least in part on an identity and location of the one or more in-range WiFi access points.
Due to the use of the low power level Wi-Fi®, “each electronic shelf label 102 can communicate with the electronic display device 103 within range of the transmissions at the lower power level, but cannot communicate with electronic display devices outside the range of the transmissions at the lower power level.” High ¶ 27. Consequently, “the electronic shelf labels 102 can be selectively associated with the electronic display devices 103 to form a group.” High ¶ 45. “For example, electronic shelf label 102a, initially in a group associated with an electronic display device 103b, when moved from a location or area (e.g., based on coordinates) associated with the electronic display device 103b to a location or area (e.g., based on coordinates) associated with the electronic display device 103c, becomes part of a group associated with the electronic display device 103c.” High ¶ 45.
Claim 4
High discloses the digital sign of claim 1,
wherein the indoor positioning system comprises a plurality of beacons each positioned at a different location in the building, and wherein the wireless interface of the digital sign is configured to communicate with one or more in-range beacons of the plurality of beacons depending on the current location of the digital sign in the building,
“The SPL communication module 212 is configured to transmit signals at a lower power level via wireless communication 108 [with] the electronic display device 103 . . . using at least one of low level Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, low energy Bluetooth, near field communication (NFC), or RFID capabilities,” High ¶ 29, and as shown in FIG. 7, a plurality of electronic display devices 103a–103c may be positioned at different locations in the facility 700. High ¶ 45.
wherein the current location of the digital sign is identified based at least in part on an identity and location of the one or more in-range beacons.
Due to the use of the low power level Wi-Fi®, Bluetooth, BLE, NFC, or RFID, “each electronic shelf label 102 can communicate with the electronic display device 103 within range of the transmissions at the lower power level, but cannot communicate with electronic display devices outside the range of the transmissions at the lower power level.” High ¶ 27. Consequently, “the electronic shelf labels 102 can be selectively associated with the electronic display devices 103 to form a group.” High ¶ 45. “For example, electronic shelf label 102a, initially in a group associated with an electronic display device 103b, when moved from a location or area (e.g., based on coordinates) associated with the electronic display device 103b to a location or area (e.g., based on coordinates) associated with the electronic display device 103c, becomes part of a group associated with the electronic display device 103c.” High ¶ 45.
Claim 6
High discloses the digital sign of claim 4,
wherein the plurality of beacons comprises a plurality of Bluetooth beacons.
“The SPL communication module 212 is configured to transmit signals at a lower power level via wireless communication 108 [with] the electronic display device 103 . . . using at least one of low level Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, low energy Bluetooth, near field communication (NFC), or RFID capabilities.” High ¶ 29
Claim 7
High discloses the digital sign of claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to obtain the one or more key performance indicators of the building that are dependent on the current location of the digital sign in the building from a remote server.
“The microprocessor 202 of the shelf label 102 is configured to receive the data 205 from the computing system 104 to configure the electronic shelf label 102 to display particular information on the electronic display 218.” High ¶ 32. “The computing system 104 can be in wireless communication 106 with the electronic shelf labels 102. The computing system 104 transmits data via wireless communication 106 to the electronic shelf labels 102 and/or can be in wireless communication 110 with the electronic display device 108,” High ¶ 24, and thus falls within the scope of “remote.” Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 4, High labels computing system 104 as a “server.”
II. Horst discloses at least claims 1 and 7–9.
Claims 1 and 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0279608 A1 (“Horst”)1
Claim 1
Horst discloses:
A digital sign for use in a building, the digital sign comprising:
Horst discloses a “dashboard device 24 and/or 26,” either one of which falls within the scope of the claimed invention. For brevity, this rejection will focus on the dashboard device 26 embodiment shown in FIGS. 6 and 22(a)–27(i), also known as a “LEED Dynamic Plaque™” (or “LDP”) 26, since it most closely aligns with the Applicant’s intended use of a public-facing sign within a building. See Horst ¶ 88. However, it should be understood that the claims are broad enough to also read on the embodiments of dashboard device 24 (shown in FIGS. 7–11) in which “[a]t least one of a mobile phone, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a personal data assistant (PDA) and a touchscreen device may be employed as the dashboard device.” Horst ¶ 40.
a housing;
“FIGS. 25(a), 25(b) and 25(c) show one embodiment of LDP 26 from top perspective, side and bottom perspective views,” including its “housing 31.” Horst ¶ 173.
a display housed by the housing, wherein the display is viewable from outside of the housing;
“In FIG. 25(a), a LEED logo 81 is initially displayed on display 27 of LDP 26. Housing 31 contains . . . display 27.” Horst ¶ 173.
a wireless interface that supports one or more wireless protocols;
“Any of devices 22, 24 and 26 may comprise one or more of . . . connectivity to a remote server over any viable communication channel like Wireless, Ethernet, Bluetooth, Cellular etc.” Horst ¶¶ 57–61. More specifically, housing 31 further contains a “hardware system 100,” Horst ¶ 173 (also illustrated as “110” in FIG. 23),2 with a “gigabit ethernet controller” providing the communication component. Horst FIG. 23.
a controller housed by the housing and operatively coupled to the display and the wireless interface,
“As shown in FIG. 23, and in one embodiment, LDP hardware system 110 includes a central processor 112, and a number of other hardware components that are configured to carry out the operation of LDP 26 (or dashboard 24) and its associated processor 112.” Horst ¶ 167. FIG. 23 further illustrates that that the display 27 and gigabit ethernet controller are each connected to the central processor 112.
the controller configured to:
“The following computer pseudo-code illustrates one embodiment of software configured to be loaded in and executed by LDP 26, and that is further configured to operate in conjunction with CWS 50. In particular, the pseudo-code shown below can be stored in a computer readable medium associated with LDP 26 for execution in processor 112 thereof (see FIG. 23), and used to execute the display of LEED building performance scores and/or other data and information on display 27.” Horst ¶ 147.
identify a current location of the digital sign in the building;
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a current location of the digital sign in the building” includes simply identifying the location of the building, along with the mere presence of the digital sign within the building, without any further localization to a particular sub-area of the building, due to the presence of dependent claims that explicitly require a more precise location than the building itself (e.g., claims 3 and 5). See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.”).
With that scope in mind, Horst explicitly discloses that “[a] unique IP address is preferably associated with the building or structure so that its location and other data associated therewith may be satisfactorily identified by the system.” Horst ¶ 31.
obtain via the wireless interface one or more key performance indicators of the building that are dependent on the current location of the digital sign in the building;
“LDP 26 sends a request to [a server, “CWS 50”] for updated or new information concerning the performance scores associated with building or structure 1,” and “CWS 50 responds to the request from LDP 26 and sends authorized information to LDP 26 concerning the performance scores associated with the identified building or structure 1.” Horst ¶ 165.
and display on the display the one or more key performance indicators of the building that are dependent on the current location of the digital sign in the building.
“Upon receiving such performance scores through, for example, the internet 48, LDP 26 displays such scores on a screen or other user interface associated with or incorporated into LDP 26.” Horst ¶ 165.
Claim 7
Horst discloses the digital sign of claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to obtain the one or more key performance indicators of the building that are dependent on the current location of the digital sign in the building from a remote server.
“In one embodiment, such requests are sent via the internet 48 between LDP 26 located near or in building or structure 1 and remotely located CWS 50.” Horst ¶ 165. CWS 50 “is a cloud-hosted central server that collects data from devices 22, 24 and/or 26, and performs analysis on the data received therefrom. Such analyses include benchmark analysis using anonymous data from various devices 22, 24 and/or 26 in different builds or structures, which information can then be provided back to specific buildings about their performance relative to other buildings.” Horst ¶ 46. The acronym “CWS” stands for Central Web Server. See Horst ¶¶ 119–120.
Claim 8
Horst discloses the digital sign of claim 1,
wherein the current location of the digital sign corresponds to a particular tenant space of a plurality of tenant spaces in the building,
“Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure,” MPEP § 2111.04, and in this case, the existence of a correspondence between the sign’s location and a particular tenant, let alone “a plurality of tenant spaces in the building” that aren’t even the particular tenant space, are clearly not elements of the claimed digital sign.
Indeed, the Federal Circuit has “repeatedly distinguished a description of the environment in which a claimed invention operates from a limitation on the claimed invention itself.” Nazomi Communications, Inc., v. Nokia Corp., 739 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed Cir. 2014) (citing Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies, Inc., 607 F.3d 784, 794-95 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and Advanced Software Design Corporation v. Fiserv, Inc., 641 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). In this case, the existence of “a particular tenant space of a plurality of tenant spaces in the building” is merely a description of the environment in which the claimed digital sign operates, and therefore fails to limit the claim. The prior art need not disclose claim language that does not limit a claim.
and wherein the one or more key performance indicators that are displayed on the display include one or more of:
The Examiner observes that all three claimed KPIs use the format of “a reduction in [the KPI] relative to a baseline,” and notes that there are at least two ways to interpret this phrasing. Under a narrow interpretation, the KPI must depict a representation of the true arithmetical difference (e.g., if the measurement drops from 55 to 50 units, then a representation of 5 units must be depicted). Under a broad interpretation, it is sufficient if the KPI is simply an update of a prior, higher measurement (e.g., if the measurement drops from 55 to 50 units, then a representation of 50 units may be depicted) because the updated version of the KPI, assuming it was a reduction, is still a reduction that is “relative to” the prior measurement.
In the instant case, among the three alternative KPIs listed in claim, Horst discloses the broad version for two of those alternatives (energy consumption and carbon footprint), and further discloses the narrow version for at least one of the alternatives (energy consumption).
a reduction in energy consumption of the particular tenant space relative to a baseline energy consumption for the particular tenant space;
Narrow interpretation: “Plaque 26 can be configured to display a LEED score and the latest level of certification corresponding to the building or structure,” Horst ¶ 88, and the score may be based on “trends of energy use,” with credit in the score given for “energy reduction changes occurring over time.” Horst ¶ 112. In other words, per the narrow interpretation, plaque 26 displays a score that describes the actual change, rather than merely the updated measurement.
Broad interpretation: “[T]he process of requesting and providing performance scores” mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 “is repeated, which in one embodiment is carried out according to a predetermined schedule (e.g., weekly, daily, hourly, every 10 minutes, etc.),” resulting in an updated version of the performance scores being displayed during the second iteration of step 105 in method 100. Horst ¶ 165. The aforementioned performance scores include an “energy score” that is calculated based on “energy used” in the building. Horst ¶ 103.
a reduction in energy costs associated with the particular tenant space relative to a baseline energy cost for the particular tenant space;
Horst does not further disclose separately monitoring energy costs (i.e., in addition to energy consumption), but claim 8 only requires a showing of “one or more” of the three alternatives recited in the claim.
and a reduction in carbon footprint associated with the particular tenant space relative to a baseline carbon footprint for the particular tenant space.
Broad interpretation: “[T]he process of requesting and providing performance scores” mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 “is repeated, which in one embodiment is carried out according to a predetermined schedule (e.g., weekly, daily, hourly, every 10 minutes, etc.),” resulting in an updated version of the performance scores being displayed during the second iteration of step 105 in method 100. Horst ¶ 165. The aforementioned performance scores include “carbon dioxide equivalents associated with the commuting methods, and carbon dioxide equivalents associated with the commuting distances” to the building where the sign is located. Horst ¶ 43.
Claim 9
Horst discloses the digital sign of claim 1,
wherein the current location of the digital sign corresponds to a particular tenant space of a plurality of tenant spaces in the building, and
“Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure,” MPEP § 2111.04, and in this case, the existence of a correspondence between the sign’s location and a particular tenant, let alone “a plurality of tenant spaces in the building” that aren’t even the particular tenant space, are clearly not elements of the claimed digital sign.
Indeed, the Federal Circuit has “repeatedly distinguished a description of the environment in which a claimed invention operates from a limitation on the claimed invention itself.” Nazomi Communications, Inc., v. Nokia Corp., 739 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed Cir. 2014) (citing Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies, Inc., 607 F.3d 784, 794-95 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and Advanced Software Design Corporation v. Fiserv, Inc., 641 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). In this case, the existence of “a particular tenant space of a plurality of tenant spaces in the building” is merely a description of the environment in which the claimed digital sign operates, and therefore fails to limit the claim. The prior art need not disclose claim language that does not limit a claim.
wherein the one or more key performance indicators that are displayed on the display include one or more of:
a current occupancy count of the particular tenant space; and a healthy building score for the particular tenant space, wherein the healthy building score is dependent on one or more of the current occupancy count of the particular tenant space, one or more current air quality parameters associated with the particular tenant space, and one or more current behaviors of occupants of the particular tenant space.
“By way of example, at least one of indoor air quality, carbon dioxide levels, occupancy rates, occupant satisfaction, and absentee rates may be included in the human experience data when determining the score. At least one of commuting methods, commuting distances, and carbon dioxide equivalents associated with the commuting methods, and carbon dioxide equivalents associated with the commuting distances may be included in the transportation data when determining the score. At least one of water use in the building or structure space, water use for equipment located in the building or structure, water use in cooling towers associated with the building or structure, and irrigation associated with the building or structure may be included in the water data when determining the score.” Horst ¶ 43.
“Upon receiving such performance scores through, for example, the internet 48, LDP 26 displays such scores on a screen or other user interface associated with or incorporated into LDP 26.” Horst ¶ 165.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over High as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0295376 A1 (“Geng”).
Claim 5
High teaches the digital sign of claim 4,
wherein the controller is configured to receive a signal strength from each of the in-range beacons, and wherein
Due to the use of the low power level Wi-Fi®, Bluetooth, BLE, NFC, or RFID, “each electronic shelf label 102 can communicate with the electronic display device 103 within range of the transmissions at the lower power level, but cannot communicate with electronic display devices outside the range of the transmissions at the lower power level.” High ¶ 27. Consequently, “the electronic shelf labels 102 can be selectively associated with the electronic display devices 103 to form a group.” High ¶ 45. “For example, electronic shelf label 102a, initially in a group associated with an electronic display device 103b, when moved from a location or area (e.g., based on coordinates) associated with the electronic display device 103b to a location or area (e.g., based on coordinates) associated with the electronic display device 103c, becomes part of a group associated with the electronic display device 103c.” High ¶ 45.
High does not appear to explicitly disclose using triangulation to determine the current location of its electronic shelf labels 102.
Geng, however, teaches an enhancement technique for High’s electronic shelf labels 102, characterized by the following:
wherein the controller is configured to receive a signal strength from each of the in-range beacons,
“In the method, the received signals from the beacons may be converted into estimated distance (802) based on beacon information (e.g. type of beacons, location of the beacons, environment),” based on a received signal strength indicator (“RSSI”). Geng ¶ 35.
and wherein the controller is configured to triangulate the current location of the digital sign in the building based on the signal strength from each of the in-range beacons and the location of each of the in-range beacons.
“Once the receiver distance from each beacon is estimated, a geometric calculation 804-812 may be performed to obtain the best location estimate. As shown, the method may determine the number of beacons heard by the BLE enabled object and use different methods to determine location,” including a “trilateration process 808” in cases where there are “more than two beacon signals.” Geng ¶ 35.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve High’s electronic shelf labels 102 with Geng’s method for improving the real time location of a device in the same type of environment. One would have been motivated to improve High’s electronic shelf labels 102 with Geng’s method because the method used in High alone (i.e., location based on only the closest wireless node) is vulnerable to “obstruction, multiple-path, fading etc.” in “a complex indoor environment,” thus necessitating Geng’s method “to detect and minimize the noises, and combine with additional information to intelligently determine the location of an object in the complex indoor environment.” Geng ¶ 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
1 In this rejection, the Examiner’s quotations of Horst’s disclosure incorporate amendments that the Horst applicant submitted during prosecution to correct typographical errors in the published specification. A copy of those amendments are available in the file wrapper of Application No. 14/213,990 via Patent Center
2 Reference numeral “100” appears to be a typographical error for “110,” as Horst refers to those reference numerals interchangeably with respect to the LDP hardware system 100/110 shown in FIG. 23. See Horst ¶¶ 167–168.