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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments on page 7, with respect to the objection to claim 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 7, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 8-11, 14-17, and 20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Li in view of Sendik do not disclose “distinct motion signatures with individual Wi-Fi-connected devices.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Li discloses “distinct motion signatures with individual… devices” in paragraph 30, Sendik discloses WiFi devices in paragraph 118 and it would be obvious to combine the two references for the reasons as discussed in the previous action. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Also regarding claim 1, Applicant also argues that Sendik does not disclose “identification of a population of devices that are connected to a common Wi-Fi network at a location and… Wi-Fi network membership as a prerequisite for subsequent processing,” “Wi-Fi-derived information obtained from those connected devices,” nor “[t]he matrix is … used to evaluate similarities and correlations among those signatures for device localization and selection purposes.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The instant claim does not require “identification of a population of devices that are connected to a common Wi-Fi network at a location and… Wi-Fi network membership as a prerequisite for subsequent processing.” The claim recites “identifying a set of devices at a location, the set of devices being devices connected to a Wi-Fi network at the location.” This does not require that the devices be identified based on being connected to a Wi-Fi network at a location, but rather merely that devices are identified, and that they are connected to a Wi-Fi network at a location. This is taught by the cited portions of Li in view of Sendik.
The instant claim does not require “[t]he matrix … is used to evaluate similarities and correlations among those signatures for device localization and selection purposes.” The claim recites “determining, for each of the set of devices, WiFi data; analyzing the WiFi data, and determining a set of motion signatures for each device.” This does not require that the data for each motion signature be based on the data of the associated device. Rather, one of ordinary skill in the art may reasonably interpret it as encompassing determining each motion signature based on the total WiFi data. This is taught by the cited portions of Li in view of Sendik.
The instant claim does not require “[t]he matrix is … used to evaluate similarities and correlations among those signatures for device localization and selection purposes.” The claim recites “the cross-correlation matrix configured as a data structuring storing information related to each of the set of motion signatures.” The term “related to” is broad such that one of ordinary skill in the art may reasonably interpret this limitation as encompassing the cross-correlation matrices as cited in Sendik. The claim also recites “determining, based on the cross-correlation matrix, a subset of the set of devices… executing, for each of the subset of devices, localization actions on the WiFi network.” This does not require that the localization be performed based on the correlation matrix, merely that a subset of devices is determined based on the cross-correlation matrix and that localization is performed for each of the subsets, including the subset determined based on the cross-correlation matrix. This is taught by the cited portions of Li in view of Sendik.
Thus, Li in view of Sendik do disclose all the features of the instant claim. Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 9 and 15 are based on their similarity to claim 1 and are respectfully disagreed with for similar reasons. Applicant’s arguments regarding the remaining claims are based on their dependence to claims 1, 9, and 15 and are respectfully disagreed with for similar reasons.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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(s) 1-3, 8-11, 14-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20160165643 A1) in view of Sendik (US 20130188069 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses:
“A method comprising: identifying a set of devices at a location… determining, for each of the set of devices, … data; analyzing the … data, and determining a set of motion signatures for each device…” ([¶ 0043]: “In step S301, the detection device acquires the first motion signature information of the motion object through the remote-sensing motion detection apparatus.”; [¶ 0030]: “For example, as shown in FIG. 1a, more detection device 10 detect the motion signature of the motion object, and acquire the motion signature information of the motion object by mutually matching, the connection between more detection device 10 can be established. In this case, the motion object including but not limited to any objects applicable in the present invention, which motion can be detected by remote-sensing motion detection apparatus, such as people, moving objects and so on.”)
“…determining… a subset of the set of devices, the subset of devices corresponding to devices being at least one of within a predetermined distance to a user and within a line of sight of the user; and executing, for each of the subset of devices, localization actions on the … network, the localization actions enabling modified control of how each device in the subset is capable of being identified and operated on the … network.” ([¶ 0059]: “In step S302, when the first motion signature information of the motion object acquired by the detection device matches with the second motion signature information of the motion object acquired by the other device, the detection device establishes connection with the other device.”; [¶ 0026]: “In this case, the remote-sensing motion detection apparatus including but not limited to any non-contact motion detection device that applicable in the present invention, more specifically, it includes a variety of sensing devices that non-contact detect the motion of a object within a certain range or within a certain distance, such as two-dimensional camera, three-dimensional camera, ultrasonic sensor, radio wave sensor, infrared motion sensor, pyroelectric infrared detector etc.”)
Li does not disclose “the set of devices being devices connected to a Wi-Fi network at the location” nor “determining, based on the set of motion signatures for each device, a cross-correlation matrix the cross-correlation matrix configured as a data structuring storing information related to each of the set of motion signatures.”
However, Sendik discloses the missing features:
“the set of devices being devices connected to a Wi-Fi network at the location” ([¶ 0118]: “The image sensing system 1000 may communicate by using Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX) 1030, a wireless local area network (WLAN) 1100…”)
“determining, based on the set of motion signatures for each device, a cross-correlation matrix the cross-correlation matrix configured as a data structuring storing information related to each of the set of motion signatures” ([¶ 0065]: “The motion estimator 211 shown in FIG. 3 estimates motion or shift between the first image IM1 and the second image IM2 by calculating a cross correlation matrix between the first image IM1 and the second image IM2. To reduce (e.g., minimize) effects of diversity of light, noise and exposure time, the motion estimator 211 may use a normalized cross correlation.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Li and Sendik, to modify the technique as disclosed by Li, to utilize the WiFi and cross-correlation matrices as disclosed by Sendik. The motivation for utilizing WiFi and cross-correlation matrices is to increase system interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li with Sendik to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Li in view of Sendik discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Li further discloses “wherein localization comprises performing at least one of device selection, device naming, grouping, timeout scheduling, localizing, and WiFi name and password assignment.” ([¶ 0059]: “In step S302, when the first motion signature information of the motion object acquired by the detection device matches with the second motion signature information of the motion object acquired by the other device, the detection device establishes connection with the other device.”)
Regarding claim 3, Li in view of Sendik discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Li further discloses “grouping the subset of devices according to a common parameter; and performing localization for the group via the grouping.” ([¶ 0059]: “In step S302, when the first motion signature information of the motion object acquired by the detection device matches with the second motion signature information of the motion object acquired by the other device, the detection device establishes connection with the other device.”)
Regarding claim 8, Li in view of Sendik discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Li further discloses “grouping the subset of devices according to a common parameter; and performing localization for the group via the grouping.” ([¶ 0097]: “The pre-trained classifier can be used to identify people hand, people face and gesture.”)
Claims 9-11, 14-17, and 20 are substantially similar to claim 1-3 and 8 with the differences amounting to that claims 1-3 and 8 are directed towards a method while claims 9-11, 14-17, and 20 are directed towards a system containing generic hardware and a non-transitory computer readable medium. Such hardware is taught by Li in paragraph 180. Thus, claims 9-11, 14-17, and 20 are rejected for similar reasons to claim 1-3 and 8, mutatis mutandis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-7, 12-13, and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4 of the closest prior arts Li (US 20160165643 A1) in view of Sendik (US 20130188069 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Li in view of Sendik does not disclose “wherein the WiFi data comprises channel frequency response (CFR) data and channel state information (CSI) data.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 4 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claim 5 depends on claim 4 and contains allowable subject matter based on their dependence. Claims 12 and 18 contain similar allowable subject matter to claim 4.
Regarding claim 6 of the closest prior arts Li (US 20160165643 A1) in view of Sendik (US 20130188069 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Li in view of Sendik does not disclose “analyzing the set of motion signatures; and determining characteristics of the motion signatures, wherein the cross-correlation matrix is further based on the determined characteristics.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 6 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claim 7 depends on claim 6 and contains allowable subject matter based on their dependence. Claims 13 and 19 contain similar allowable subject matter to claim 6.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights