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.
Claim 8 is 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. The claim recites “wherein the location circuit is separate from the location circuit and the lower power circuit”. It is not clear what the actual intended claim language is meant to be interpreted as.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-12, 14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Saha et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0244686 (hereinafter Saha).
Regarding claims 1, 18, and 19, Saha discloses an apparatus for a mobile device [fig. 1: ref. 100], the apparatus comprising: memory [fig. 1: ref. 120]; and processing circuitry [fig. 1: ref. 110] coupled to the memory, the processing circuitry configured to: receive, via a first wireless connection, location support data [paragraph 0045]; store the location support data in the memory [paragraph 0045]; in response to initiation of a location operation, transition, a location circuit of the mobile device from a lower-power state to a higher-power acquiring state [paragraphs 0046, 0053]; and generate, using the location circuit in the higher-power acquiring state, location state data, wherein the location circuit uses signals from a second wireless connection and the location support data [paragraph 0053].
Regarding claims 2 and 20, Saha discloses wherein the location state data is generated further using information from a real-time clock [paragraph 0081].
Regarding claim 3, Saha discloses wherein the location support data is received by a higher-power circuit [paragraph 0088].
Regarding claim 4, Saha discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: communicate the location state data to the higher-power circuit for storage in the memory [paragraph 0088]; and returning the location circuit to a lower-power state [paragraph 0088].
Regarding claim 5, Saha discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: transition the higher-power circuit to a lower-power state [paragraph 0007].
Regarding claim 6, Saha discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: before the receive, transition the higher-power circuit to a higher-power state from a lower-power state [paragraph 0007].
Regarding claim 7, Saha discloses wherein a lower power circuit transitions the location circuit of the apparatus from the lower-power state to the higher-power acquiring state [paragraph 0008].
Regarding claim 9, Saha discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive the location support data from a client device [paragraph 0039].
Regarding claim 10, Saha discloses wherein the location data is satellite almanac data and wherein the second wireless connection receives signals from a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) [paragraph 0024].
Regarding claim 11, Saha discloses wherein the location operation is initiated at the mobile device in response to receipt of an input signal indicating a control of an image capturing device was selected [paragraph 0034 wherein it is inherent in the art to determine meta data (location) when capturing an image].
Regarding claim 12, it is inherent in the art to provide a location fail indication when the location cannot be determined.
Regarding claim 14, Saha discloses wherein the location state data comprises a plurality of location parameters, the plurality of location parameters comprising an indication of a time when the location state data was determined and an indication of a location [paragraph 0077].
Regarding claim 16, Saha discloses wherein the location state data is generated further based on data from an inertial measurement unit [paragraph 0065].
Regarding claim 17, Saha discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: send via the first wireless connection, the generated location state data [paragraph 0053].
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) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saha.
Regarding claim 13, Saha does not specifically disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: in response to a camera sensor of the mobile device capturing one or more images and the location state data indicating the location fail indication, associating the one or more images with previously cached location state data. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is notoriously well known in the art to use a last known location when current location data cannot be found. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Saha to include this feature. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art element according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, Saha does not specifically disclose wherein the location operation is further initiated at the mobile device in response to a determination by determining, using a neural network, that the mobile device has been in a worn state during for at least a threshold period of time. However, Saha does teach that the mobile device comprises components to detects its orientation (worn state) as well as its location [paragraph 0038]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include initiating a location operation when the device is in a determined worn state in order to provide location finding. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Saha to include this feature. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art element according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 15, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,582,453. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are generic to all that is recited in the patented claims and are therefore an obvious variant thereof. Specifically, instant independent claims 1, 18, and 19 are taught in patented claim 1. The instant claims are broader as they omit the limitations regarding high-speed circuitry and the real-time clock. Instant dependent claims 2-5 and 20 are taught in patented claim 1. Instant dependent claim 15 is taught in patented claim 11.
Claims 1, 2, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,972,984. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are generic to all that is recited in the patented claims and are therefore an obvious variant thereof. Specifically, instant independent claims 1, 18, and 19 are taught in patented claim 1. The instant claims are broader as they omit the limitations regarding high-speed circuitry and the real-time clock. Instant dependent claims 2 and 20 are taught in patented claim 1.
Claims 1-3, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are generic to all that is recited in the patented claims and are therefore an obvious variant thereof. Specifically, instant independent claims 1, 18, and 19 are taught in patented claim 1. The instant claims are broader as they omit the limitations regarding high-speed circuitry and the real-time clock. Instant dependent clams 2 and 20 are taught in patented claim 1. Instant dependent claim 3 is taught in patented claim 3.
Claims 1-6, 10, and 12-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, and 12-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,606,755. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are generic to all that is recited in the patented claims and are therefore an obvious variant thereof. Specifically, instant independent claims 1, 18, and 19 are taught in patented claim 1. The instant claims are broader as they omit the limitations regarding high-speed circuitry and the real-time clock. Instant dependent clams 2, 3, and 20 are taught in patented claim 1. Instant dependent claims 4-6 are taught in patented claims 4-6, respectively. Instant dependent claim 10 is taught in patented claim 3. Instant dependent claims 12-14 are taught in patented claims 8-10, respectively. Instant dependent claims 15-17 are taught in patented claims 12-14, respectively.
Claims 1-7, and 9-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,105. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are generic to all that is recited in the patented claims and are therefore an obvious variant thereof. Specifically, instant independent claims 1, 18, and 19 are taught in patented claim 1. The instant claims are broader as they omit the limitations regarding the real-time clock. Instant dependent clams 2 and 20 are taught in patented claim 1. Instant dependent claims 3-7 are taught in patented claims 2-6, respectively. Instant dependent claims 9-17 are taught in patented claims 8-16, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jayakumar et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0011196, disclose methods and apparatuses for use in providing location parameters to mobile applications.
Ignaczak et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0321351, disclose a wearable device journey informer.
Schuchman et al., US RE38,808, disclose a cellular positioning system.
Gronemeyer et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0039316, disclose a system and method for operating a GPS device in a micro power mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIKA WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/EAW/
April 21, 2026
/ERIKA A WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights