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 .
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.
Claims 44, and 56-57, are 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 44, recites the limitation " the at least one object" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 56, recites the limitation " the at least one object" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 57 rejected based on its dependency on the rejected claim and inherent the same deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 41-60, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 41:
Claim 41 is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: Claim 41 recites An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform: determining positions of a plurality of objects of a first type to form a first polygon; determining distances between devices of a plurality of devices to form at least one second polygon; and matching the first polygon with the at least one second polygon to determine one of the at least one second polygon as a third polygon corresponding to the first polygon. Thus, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A prong 1, the claimed determining position of objects, determining distances between devices, and matching polygons steps are directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps are processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas in that related to “mental processes grouping” more specifically, “collecting and comparing known information”, where said steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or with a pen and paper. More particularly determining position of objects, determining distances between devices, and matching polygons steps are capable of being done mentally (for instance, a person looking at the image/picture can determine position of objects to form first polygon and further can measure the distances between devices as shown in the image/picture and finally, can perform matching step mentally and/or with pen and paper). Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2, The Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Treating claim 41 as a whole, the claim limitations do not show inventive concept in applying the judicial exception. From the claim scope, the claim fail to address any improvement because merely determining position of objects, determining distances between devices, and matching polygons is not enough to tie the claim towards the technical improvement and can be performed in human mind and/or with pen and pencil. Thus, claim 41, as a whole is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Step 2B, The claim include additional elements “a processor” and “a memory comprising computer readable code”, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 42-43, 45-48.
Claims 42-43, 45-48, are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more, nothing in the claims element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or with a pen and paper. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, said claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 44.
Claim 44, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more. Furthermore, claim 44, further recites “calculating coordinates of the plurality of objects in a frame through camera positioning” (insignificant extra-solution activity—MPEP 2106.05(g))), simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 49.
Claim 49, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more. Furthermore, claim 49, further recites “adding the position of the at least one device of the third polygon into a database” (insignificant extra-solution activity— mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g))), simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 50.
Claim 50, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more. Furthermore, claim 50, further recites “tracking the position of the at least one object of the first polygon; and updating the position of the at least one device of the third polygon in the database in a case where the position of the at least one object corresponding to the at least one device changes” (insignificant extra-solution activity— mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g))), simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 51-57.
Claims 51-57, are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more, nothing in the claims element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or with pen and paper for said claims also please see the analysis of claim 50. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, said claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 58.
Claim 58, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more. Furthermore, claim 58, further recites “distances between the devices of the plurality of devices are determined through device-to-device radio distance measurement” (insignificant extra-solution activity— mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g))), simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 59.
Claim 59, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more. Furthermore, claim 58, further recites “distances between the devices of the plurality of devices are determined through laser distance measurement and/or supersonic distance measurement” (insignificant extra-solution activity— mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g))), simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 60:
Claim 60 is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: Claim 60 recites A method comprising: determining positions of a plurality of objects of a first type to form a first polygon; determining distances between devices of a plurality of devices to form at least one second polygon; and matching the first polygon with the at least one second polygon to determine one of the at least one second polygon as a third polygon corresponding to the first polygon. Thus, the claim is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A prong 1, the claimed determining position of objects, determining distances between devices, and matching polygons steps are directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps are processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas in that related to “mental processes grouping” more specifically, “collecting and comparing known information”, where said steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011), That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or with a pen and paper. More particularly determining position of objects, determining distance between devices, and matching polygons steps are capable of being done mentally (a person looking at the image can determine position of objects to form first polygon and further can measure the distances between devices as shown in the image and finally, can perform matching step mentally and/or with pen and paper). Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2, The Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Treating claim 60 as a whole, the claim limitations do not show inventive concept in applying the judicial exception. From the claim scope, the claim fail to address any improvement because merely determining position of objects, determining distances between devices, and matching polygons is not enough to tie the claim towards the technical improvement and can be performed in human mind and/or with pen and pencil. Thus, claim 60, as a whole is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Step 2B, The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the step of determining position of objects, determining distances between devices, and matching polygons, which is an act of evaluating/determining and comparing information that can be practically performed in the human mind, where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking) component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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) 60, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (NPL Document “EV-Loc: Integrating Electronic and Visual Signals for Accurate Localization”, provided by Applicant in the IDS filed on 1/05/2024, hereinafter Zhang).
As per claim 60, Zhang discloses a method (Zhang, Figs. 1-2) comprising:
determining positions of a plurality of objects of a first type to form a first polygon (Zhang, please see pages 1288-1289, discloses in section C. E-V match engine, which discloses “Suppose we have wireless devices and people” and “the set of the visual location descriptors is y=(y1……yn).sub.t”, where the object of first type are people and where (y1….yn) form a first polygon);
determining distances between devices of a plurality of devices to form at least one second polygon (Zhang, please see section C. E-V match engine, which discloses “the set of electronic location descriptor is x=(x1….xn).cub.t, and further page 1287 Column 2, paragraph 1, discloses A location descriptor of an object is a tuple of distances between this object and other objects, including the wireless detectors, i.e., access points (APs)” where the electronic location descriptor corresponds to wireless devices and where (x1….xn) form a second polygon); and
matching the first polygon with the at least one second polygon to determine one of the at least one second polygon as a third polygon corresponding to the first polygon (Zhang, page 1288, please see Fig. 2, E-V match engine and page 1289, Column 2, Equation 1, shows the matching of Yπi, i.e., the first polygon and x is the second polygon and x is also the third polygon).
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) 41-48, and 56-58, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (NPL Document “EV-Loc: Integrating Electronic and Visual Signals for Accurate Localization”, provided by Applicant in the IDS filed on 1/05/2024, hereinafter Zhang) and further in view of Aminaka (US PGPUB 2018/0192458 A1).
As per claim 41, Zhang discloses an apparatus (Zhang, page 1288, Fig. 2) comprising:
at least one processor to perform (Zhang, Fig. 2, discloses signal processing and E-V matching Engine)
determining positions of a plurality of objects of a first type to form a first polygon (Zhang, please see pages 1288-1289, discloses in section C. E-V match engine, which discloses “Suppose we have wireless devices and people” and “the set of the visual location descriptors is y=(y1……yn).sub.t”, where the object of first type are people and where (y1….yn) form a first polygon); determining distances between devices of a plurality of devices to form at least one second polygon (Zhang, please see section C. E-V match engine, which discloses “the set of electronic location descriptor is x=(x1….xn).cub.t, and further page 1287 Column 2, paragraph 1, discloses A location descriptor of an object is a tuple of distances between this object and other objects, including the wireless detectors, i.e., access points (APs)” where the electronic location descriptor corresponds to wireless devices and where (x1….xn) form a second polygon); and
matching the first polygon with the at least one second polygon to determine one of the at least one second polygon as a third polygon corresponding to the first polygon (Zhang, page 1288, please see Fig. 2, E-V match engine and page 1289, Column 2, Equation 1, shows the matching of Yπi, i.e., the first polygon and x is the second polygon and x is also the third polygon).
Although Zhang discloses a processor as being explained above, however, Zhang does not explicitly disclose at least one memory comprising computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor,
Aminaka discloses at least one memory comprising computer program code (Aminaka, Fig. 18:1303, and paragraph 140), the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor (Aminaka, Fig. 18:1303:1302),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang teachings by implementing a memory to the system, as taught by Aminaka.
The motivation would be to provide an improved system for device selection based on the determined distance (paragraph 68), as taught by Aminaka.
As per claim 42, Zhang in view of Aminaka further discloses the apparatus of claim 41, wherein differences between respective edges of the first polygon and respective edges of the third polygon are below a threshold (Zhang, page 1289, Column 2, discloses “if Xi is matched with Yj, Delta_ij, which is the square Euclidean distance between the Xi and Yj tuples, must be below a threshold with certain confidence”, where Xi and Yj are descriptor of a point belonging to an edge of, respectively, the second and the first polygon. Therefore Delta_Ji is a difference between edges of the second and first polygon. When (I,J) is a match then Delta_Ij is a difference between the corresponding edges of the third and the first polygon).
As per claim 43, Zhang in view of Aminaka further discloses the apparatus of claim 42, wherein the third polygon is determined through a series of comparisons between respective edges of the first polygon and respective edges of the at least one second polygon (Zhang, page 1289, Column 2, discloses comparisons between edges of polygons).
As per claim 44, Zhang in view of Aminaka further discloses the apparatus of claim 41, wherein the at least one object of the first type is in camera view scope (Zhang, page 1286, Column 2, discloses video camera and further page 1288, section C. E-V match engine), and the determining positions of the plurality of objects comprises calculating coordinates of the plurality of objects in a frame through camera positioning (Zhang, page 1291, second A. Rela-World Experiments, discloses “A person’s planar coordinates in the scene are calculated).
As per claim 45, Zhang in view of Aminaka further discloses the apparatus of claims 41, wherein the first polygon and the at least one second polygon are asymmetric (Zhang, page 1289, E-V match engine, and page 1291, A. Real world Experiments, shows asymmetric polygons).
As per claim 46, Zhang in view of Aminaka further discloses the apparatus of claim 41, wherein the first polygon and the at least one second polygon are scalene triangles (Zhang, page 1292, Fig. 6, and 1293).
As per claim 47, Zhang in view of Aminaka further discloses the apparatus of claim 41, wherein the determination of the positions of the plurality of objects is performed synchronously with the determination of the distances between the devices of the plurality of devices (Zhang, page 1294, section V. Discussion, discloses The cameras also need to be synchronized with the wireless network, as we need to match objects from both sensors).
As per claim 48, Zhang in view of Aminaka further discloses the apparatus of claim 41, the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to further perform:
determining position of at least one device of the third polygon based on position of at least one object of the first polygon (Zhang, Fig. 1, and page 1289, Eq. 1, shows that every Xi (device) is matched to an Yj (object). Therefore the device is associated to the object position).
As per claim 56, Zhang in view of Aminaka further discloses the apparatus of claim 41, wherein the at least one object is a person (Zhang, Section A. Design Overview and Fig. 1, discloses person in the vision).
As per claim 57, Zhang in view of Aminaka further discloses the apparatus of claim 56, wherein the person is identified based on a device associated with the person (Zhang, Section A. Design Overview, and Fig. 1, shows persons A-C and their corresponding association to devices A’-C’).
As per claim 58, Zhang in view of Aminaka further discloses the apparatus of claim 41, the distances between the devices of the plurality of devices are determined through device-to-device radio distance measurement (Aminaka, paragraph 68, discloses D2D distance determination).
Claim(s) 59, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (NPL Document “EV-Loc: Integrating Electronic and Visual Signals for Accurate Localization”, provided by Applicant in the IDS filed on 1/05/2024, hereinafter Zhang) and further in view of Fan (US PGPUB 2022/0109944 A1).
As per claim 59, Zhang in view of Aminaka further discloses the apparatus of claim 41, the Zhang in view of Aminaka does not explicitly disclose distances between the devices of the plurality of devices are determined through laser distance measurement and/or supersonic distance measurement.
Fan discloses distances between the devices of the plurality of devices are determined through laser distance measurement and/or supersonic distance measurement (Fan, paragraph 278, discloses The terminal device 101 may measure a distance by using an infrared ray or a laser).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang in view of Aminaka teachings by implementing a laser distance measurement to the system, as taught by Fan.
The motivation would be to improve accuracy of the determined position of the user relative to the device (paragraph 68), as taught by Fan.
Examiner’s Note: Any indication of allowable subject matter is being held in abeyance pending the response to the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 EST.
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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633