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 April 18, 2024, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Specifically, legible copies in the English language of CN 110986952A, CN 114554389A, and CN110187308A have not been provided. Examiner specifically notes that, given the subject matter and complexity of the instant application, the translated English abstracts of said foreign references alone is insufficient.
Furthermore, the information disclosure statement filed April 18, 2024, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of the 4,379 page document for the IEEE Std 802.11-2020 “Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications.” A concise explanation of the relevance of said reference is required in order for it to be considered, including but not limited to specific sections, passages, or quotations from the reference that are relevant to the claims of the instant application. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein as detailed above has not been considered.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “correcting the step information based on the one or more reference position estimates in response to receiving the motion event signal” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, the limitation defies logic because it is unclear how the step information might be corrected based solely on the reference position estimate, since the reference position estimate is present from the beginning and is otherwise unrelated to the step information. Second, Applicant’s own disclosure suggests that the motion event signal is required in order to correct the step information, which would explain the entire purpose of the motion event signal in the claim. For example, para. [0145] in Applicant’s specification details that, “The step correction block 835 performs the step information correction based on the stored position estimates, the stored step information, and the motion event signal, and then feed the corrected step information…to the positioning engine 840 and the CU 830.” Thus, in additional to be logically required, from Applicant’s own disclosure the motion event signal itself is necessary as a basis for correcting the step information, and not merely as an event that the correction step is responsive to. Claim 11 is likewise rejected, and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the motion event signal is received between two most recent reference position estimates” which is indefinite. Assuming that the “between” is talking about timing, it is unclear to claim that the motion event signal is received between the reception of the two most recent reference position estimates because there is no previously claimed step of receiving a reference position estimate in the first place, much less two reference position estimates. Claim 1 only recites a step of storing one or more reference position estimates, meaning that claim 1 encompasses storing only a single reference position estimate. Therefore, the exact meaning of claim 8 cannot be understood clearly. Claims 9, 18, and 19 are likewise rejected.
Claim 18 is additionally rejected based on identical wording to claim 8 because it appears to be a method step rather than a structural limitation. In an apparatus claim, it is logically impossible to claim or specify when a hypothetical motion event signal is received, because it has not been received yet and is not necessarily ever received.
Claim 11 recites “the processor configured to cause: storing one or more reference position estimates for the device in a first buffer…” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if Applicant intends to claim that the processor has some sort of unique structural configuration that allows it to be specifically used for the claimed steps, i.e., without any additional programming or instructions, or if Applicant means that the processor is a generic, off-the-shelf processor that includes instructions, or is operably connected to a memory containing instructions, for such method steps. For Applicant to claim a unique structural configuration of a processor, Applicant would logically need to have invented such a processor, which does not appear to be the case here. Dependent claims 12-20 fail to cure the deficiency.
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 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.
Claims 1, 8, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kong et al. (CN 106840162 A), hereinafter Kong.
Regarding claim 1, Kong discloses a method for estimating a position of a moving object (abstract, regarding an indoor path matching method based on inertial navigation), the method comprising:
storing one or more reference position estimates for the moving object in a first buffer (see translation of the description of fig. 1, regarding initializing the algorithm parameters according to the input path; Examiner notes that such parameter initialization using a smart device would inherently involve storing a reference position in a memory such as a buffer);
storing step information in a second buffer, the step information including one or more step sizes and one or more step headings (see again description of fig. 1, including the distance calculation of the current location of the path and the path angle);
receiving a motion event signal indicating the moving object moves continuously with a bounded direction (see translation of the description of fig. 1, regarding when the path ID is changed and the path ID change is detected, the scale of the inertia is updated according to the path length and the accumulated distance of the inertial navigation on the path);
correcting the step information based on the one or more reference position estimates in response to receiving the motion event signal (see translation of the description of fig. 1, regarding use the angle and scale to correct the direction and size of the step and add it to the last position or corner to update the location); and
estimating the position of the moving object using the corrected step information (see translation of the description of fig. 1, regarding outputting the current position).
Regarding claim 8, Kong discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the motion event signal is received between two most recent reference position estimates (see translation of the description of fig. 1, regarding when the path ID is changed and the path ID change is detected, the scale of the inertia is updated according to the path length and the accumulated distance of the inertial navigation on the path; see also related rejection under §112(b) detailed hereinabove).
Regarding claim 11, Kong discloses a device for estimating a position of the device (abstract), comprising:
a sensor configured to generate step information, the step information including one or more step sizes and one or more step headings (see translation, regarding an inertia-based indoor path matching and positioning method, which uses the known path data and pedometer data to do map matching to solve a positioning navigation problem); and
a processor coupled to the sensor (inherent given the use of smartphones), the processor configured to cause:
storing one or more reference position estimates for the device in a first buffer (see translation of the description of fig. 1, regarding initializing the algorithm parameters according to the input path; see also related rejection under §112(b) detailed hereinabove);
storing the step information generated from the sensor in a second buffer (see again description of fig. 1, including the distance calculation of the current location of the path and the path angle);
receiving a motion event signal indicating the device moves continuously with a bounded direction from the sensor (see translation of the description of fig. 1, regarding when the path ID is changed and the path ID change is detected, the scale of the inertia is updated according to the path length and the accumulated distance of the inertial navigation on the path);
correcting the step information based on the one or more reference position estimates in response to receiving the motion event signal (see translation of the description of fig. 1, regarding use the angle and scale to correct the direction and size of the step and add it to the last position or corner to update the location); and
estimating the position of the device using the corrected step information (see translation of the description of fig. 1, regarding outputting the current position).
Regarding claim 18, Kong discloses the invention in claim 11, and further discloses wherein the motion event signal is received between two most recent reference position estimates (see translation of the description of fig. 1, regarding when the path ID is changed and the path ID change is detected, the scale of the inertia is updated according to the path length and the accumulated distance of the inertial navigation on the path; see also related rejection under §112(b) detailed hereinabove).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 9, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al. (CN 106840162 A), hereinafter Kong, in view of Lowe et al. (US 2023/0105698 A1), hereinafter Lowe.
Regarding claim 4, Kong discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to further disclose the invention further comprising: storing one or more ranging measurements provided from a ranging device in a third buffer, the one or more ranging measurements including distances between the moving object and a set of anchor points.
However, Lowe is in the field of object-positioning systems (abstract) and teaches storing one or more ranging measurements provided from a ranging device in a third buffer, the one or more ranging measurements including distances between the moving object and a set of anchor points (para. [0070], regarding the node 102 and/or 104 may transmit their observables (range, signal waveform, temperature, RSSI, and/or the like) to the server 208, and the server 208 calculates the positions of the target nodes 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kong to include storing one or more ranging measurements provided from a ranging device in a third buffer, the one or more ranging measurements including distances between the moving object and a set of anchor points as taught by Lowe, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the ability to potentially take range, or relative distances between two objects, into account in estimating the position of the moving object.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Kong as modified discloses the invention in claims 4 and 14, and further discloses wherein the step information stored in the second buffer and the one or more ranging measurements stored in the third buffer are generated between two most recent reference position estimates (see again the translation of Kong hereinabove related to step information and para. [0070] of Lowe; see also related rejection under §112(b) detailed hereinabove).
Regarding claim 14, Kong discloses the invention in claim 11, but does not appear to specifically disclose the invention further comprising: a ranging device configured to generate one or more ranging measurements including distances between the device and a set of anchor points; and the processor is further configured to cause: storing the one or more ranging measurements generated from the ranging device in a third buffer.
However, Lowe teaches a ranging device configured to generate one or more ranging measurements including distances between the device and a set of anchor points; and the processor is further configured to cause: storing the one or more ranging measurements generated from the ranging device in a third buffer (para. [0070], regarding the node 102 and/or 104 may transmit their observables (range, signal waveform, temperature, RSSI, and/or the like) to the server 208, and the server 208 calculates the positions of the target nodes 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kong to include a ranging device configured to generate one or more ranging measurements including distances between the device and a set of anchor points; and the processor is further configured to cause: storing the one or more ranging measurements generated from the ranging device in a third buffer as taught by Lowe, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the ability to potentially take range, or relative distances between two objects, into account in estimating the position of the moving object.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 10, 12-13, 15-17, and 20 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.
Specifically, the prior art does not appear to disclose the combined limitations of the aforementioned dependent claims.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights