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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 3, elements S190 and S200 are both illustrated as “1-SIDE POSITIONING”, inconsistent with specification para. [0162] “Next, a 2-side positioning step S190 will be described with reference to FIG. 3.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
In the claims:
“coordinate setting” is understood in view of paras. [0068]-[0069] of the specification;
“anchor consistency verification” is understood in view of paras. [0102]-[0127] and Figs. 7-8;
“cross-root calculation” is understood in view of paras. [0128]-[0135] and Fig. 3
“cross-root consistency verification” is understood in view of paras. [0136]-[0141];
“cross-root residual calculation” is understood in view of paras. [0142]-[0154];
“outdoor anchor filtering” is understood in view of Fig. 5 and paras. [0081]-[0089]);
“indoor region consistency verification” is understood in view of paras. [0105]-[0114];
“trunk region consistency verification” is understood in view of paras. [0115]-[0121];
“outdoor region consistency verification” is understood in view of paras. [0122]-[0127]);
“1-side”, “2-side”, and “3-side” positioning are understood in view of para. [0017].
Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of method claim(s) 16-19 requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.
The steps recited in claim 16 lines 8-11 and 17-23, claim 17 lines 5-15, claim 18 lines 3-8, and claim 19 lines 2-5 are not required to be performed unless the precedent conditions are met. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these claims therefore does not require these steps. See MPEP 2111.04 II and Ex parte Schulhauser.
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 2-9, 10, and 12-19 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.
Regarding claim 2 lines 5-6, the scope of “perform calculation of a distance between the plurality of anchors including Anchor 1 and Anchor 2” (emphasis added) cannot be clearly determined. “Anchor 1” and “Anchor 2” lack antecedent basis in the claim, and it is unclear what X1, X2, Y1, and Y2 comprise.
Regarding claim 3 line 3, “the initialization step” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Basis for this step is provided in claim 2, however claim 3 is recited as depending on claim 1.
Regarding claim 3 lines 3-4, “perform... receive data detected by the anchors” is ungrammatical and its scope cannot be clearly determined.
Regarding claim 3 lines 6-7, it is unclear in “power (ranging power) and distance (ranging distance)” what is meant by “ranging power” and “ranging distance”.
Regarding claim 4 lines 3-4, “the data detected by the anchors” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 4 line 13, in “determining a positioning coordinate” it is unclear what the positioning coordinate is a coordinate of.
Regarding claim 5 line 3, it is unclear what “distance information of the anchors” comprises. Claim 2 recites “calculation of a distance between the plurality of anchors” but claim 5 does not depend on claim 2. In lines 7-8 “on the basis of minimum distance (i.e., ranging distance)”, the exemplary language “i.e., ranging distance” makes it is unclear what falls within the scope of “minimum distance”. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In line 9 “the received anchor” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5 appears to recite two positioning algorithm selection steps, the first being “perform positioning algorithm selection” in claim 4 lines 3-4, on which claim 5 depends, the second being “perform positioning algorithm determination to select the positioning algorithm” in claim 5 lines 5-6. This is inconsistent with the specification, which does not appear to recite two positioning algorithm selection steps, and makes it unclear how many times the positioning algorithm selection is performed.
Regarding claim 6, six conditions are set forth for determining the outdoor anchor to be excluded from the positioning algorithm. However none of the conditions appear to result in a determination of an outdoor anchor to be excluded. Further, the language is replete with terms that have not been clearly explained and which bear no clear relationship to the preceding claim language. For example, what is “min (indoor anchor)” and “min (outdoor anchor)” in “Condition 1”, and what is “A7” and “2_Dxymn” in “Condition 2”? Further, exemplary language “i.e., no cross-root at least with first and second anchors in all anchor ranging according to anchor ranging result” makes the scope unclear, see MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 7 lines 1-2 “in a received anchor calculation step of a positioning algorithm determination step” it is unclear if “a positioning algorithm determination step” is meant to refer to the positioning algorithm determination step recited in claim 5 lines 5-6, or to another positioning algorithm determination step. If the former, “a” should be changed to “the”.
Regarding claim 7 line 3, “the corresponding positioning algorithm” lacks clear antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 9 lines 4-5, it is unclear if “a positioning algorithm selection” and “consistency verification process” refer to the positioning algorithm selection and consistency verification process recited in claim 4 lines 3-4 and 5-6. If so Examiner recommends using “the positioning algorithm selection and consistency verification process”.
Regarding claim 11 “A processor-implemented method...”, it is unclear how a processor can implement the method steps “providing a vehicle key...” and “providing a plurality of anchors...” in lines 3-6, as these steps do not appear to be capable of being performed by a processor.
Regarding claim 11 lines 7-8, “detecting a position of the vehicle key by using based on the plurality of anchors” (emphasis added) is unclear and its scope cannot be clearly determined.
Claims 12-17 and 19 recite the same language as claims 2-7, and 9 and are rejected as indefinite for the same reasons.
The remaining claims are dependent.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 10 recites a method of detecting a vehicle key position and is therefore a process.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of a Judicial Exception
Claim 10 recites:
performing... positioning algorithm selection on the basis of data detected by an anchor;
performing ... anchor consistency verification after performing the positioning algorithm selection;
performing ... cross-root calculation when the consistency verification is completed;
performing ... cross-root consistency verification after performing the cross-root calculation;
performing ... cross-root residual calculation after performing the cross-root consistency verification; and
performing ... a process of determining a positioning coordinate when the cross-root residual calculation is performed.
These steps fall within the mathematical concepts and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Claim 10 therefore recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
Claim further recites the steps performed by a processor. However the processor comprises generic computer equipment that is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. In performing the abstract idea the processor merely performs generic computer functions. The courts have found that generic computer equipment does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d) I). This element therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional element recited in the claim comprises generic computer equipment. The courts have found that generic computer equipment does not amount to significantly more, i.e. it does not amount to an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.5 A). This element therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, i.e. it does not amount to an inventive concept. Claim 10 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co.v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mazraani (DE 102018130876, cited on IDS; translation attached).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Mazraani teaches an apparatus for detecting a vehicle key position (para. [0001] “locating a mobile identification transmitter of a vehicle”), the apparatus comprising:
a vehicle key (mobile identification transmitter 10, Fig. 1) including an ultra-wideband (UWB) communication-based digital key (para. [0031] “UWB”);
a plurality of anchors configured to perform UWB communication with the vehicle key (para. [0041] “the vehicle may have one or more anchor points... with at least one sensor arranged at each anchor point”; para. [0031] “UWB”); and
a processor configured to detect a position of the digital key based on the plurality of anchors (para. [0021] “at least one processor”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazraani (DE 102018130876, cited on IDS; translation attached) in view of Jain (US 20200005566 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Mazraani does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to:
perform, in an initialization step, coordinate setting on each of the anchors; and
perform calculation of a distance between the plurality of anchors including Anchor 1 and Anchor 2, wherein a distance between the Anchor 1 and the Anchor 2 is calculated on the basis of Dxy(1,2) = sqrt((x1-x2)^2 + (y1-y2)^2).
Regarding (1), it is well-known to perform coordinate setting on anchors in an apparatus such as Mazraani’s. For example, see Jain’s anchors 20, Fig. 1, the coordinates of which are set as per para. [0037] “the coordinates of the slave system nodes S.sub.j are denoted by (x.sub.j, y.sub.j, z.sub.j)”. Jain’s coordinate setting facilitates the calculation of position of target portable device 30 as described using the equations in para. [0037].
PNG
media_image1.png
324
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify Mazraani by setting coordinates as taught by Jain in order to facilitate the calculation of Mazraani’s mobile identification transmitter 10.
Regarding (2), Mazraani teaches that distances between the anchors are used to discard measured values (para. [0017]), but does not teach that the distance between, for example, and Anchor 1 and Anchor 2 is calculated on the basis of Dxy (1,2) = sqrt((x1-x2)^2 + (y1-y2)^2). However this is a conventional method of calculating the distance between two points. For example see the distance equations in Jain’s para. [0037]. It would have been obvious to further modify Mazraani by calculating the distances between the anchors as taught by Jain because the distances must be determined somehow in order to used them for discarding measured values as taught in para. [0017], and Dxy (1,2) = sqrt((x1-x2)^2 + (y1-y2)^2) is a conventional method that could be used with predictable results.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazraani (DE 102018130876).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Mazraani teaches [NOTE: limitations not taught by Mazraani are lined through] wherein the processor is further configured to:
perform, in a data acquisition step after the initialization step, receive data detected by the anchors (para. [0044] “ToF (“Range”) and signal strength measurement (“RXP”)” data is necessarily received at the processor in order to perform the location calculation; also see receipt of Range and RXP data at neural network in Fig. 3B); and
perform data filtering (para. [0015] “Bayesian filter or a Kalman filter”), wherein the received data include power (ranging power) (para. [0044] signal strength measurement (“RXP”)) and distance (ranging distance) (para. [0044] “ToF (“Range”)”) information inputted from the anchors
As indicated by the lined through language above, Mazraani does not teach the data filtering is performed by using a moving window average filter or a low pass filter. However Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is well-known to performing data filtering using a moving window average filter or a low pass filter, and such filtering has the advantage of reducing noise. It would have been obvious to further modify Mazraani by using a moving window average filter or a low pass filter in order to reduce noise in the data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 4-9 and 14-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Smith (US 12022356 B2) teaches an apparatus for detecting a vehicle key position (abstract “determining location information of a portable device”), the apparatus comprising:
a vehicle key including a UWB communication-based digital key (portable device 20, Fig. 15),
a plurality of anchors configured to perform UWB communication with the vehicle key (40U, 40U+B, Fig. 15), and
a processor (210, Fig. 4) configured to detect a position of the vehicle key based on the plurality of anchors (12:48-52 “The locator 210 may include a core function or locator algorithm 212 that is configured to receive the one or more inputs 216 and to generate the one or more outputs 218 indicative of a location of the portable device 20 relative to the object”).
Uddin (US 20160059827 A1) teaches an apparatus for detecting a vehicle key position (abstract “key fob”), the apparatus comprising:
a vehicle key including a UWB communication-based digital key (para. [0025] “Key fob 34 is in wireless communication (e.g., radio communication) with satellite ultra-wideband antennas 22, 24, 26, 28”),
a plurality of anchors configured to perform UWB communication with the vehicle key (para. [0025] “ultra-wideband antennas 22, 24, 26, 28”), and
a processor configured to detect a position of the vehicle key based on the plurality of anchors (inherent to abstract “predetermined functions in a vehicle are actuated depending on the position of a user”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, WILLIAM KELLEHER can be reached at (571)272-7753. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648