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 statements (IDS) filed on 6/26/2024 and 10/25/2024 were considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 11, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 7983691 B1) in view of Hwang (KR 20180047490 A).
Regarding claim 1, Wong discloses a method for estimating geographical location of a target mobile device, the method comprising: obtaining measurement data from individual locations, the measurement data comprising a distance estimate to the target mobile device from an apparatus and the individual locations (Col. 11, Lines 3-22 and Fig. 4A, wired landmarks send data packets to the target mobile device. A network delay 452 is calculated after a certain amount of data packets (“measurements”) are sent from all the landmarks to the device. Then a distance estimate, known here as a “distance constraint”, to the target device is created for each individual landmark. A distance constraint takes the shape of a circle centered around the landmark and bordering the target device); adding the measurement data to a measurement data queue (Col. 12, Lines 1-22 and Fig. 6, data (here the IP address of a mobile device) is added and stored to a first database, and is later sent to a second database to gain a rough geographic region (e.g. Mountain View, CA) corresponding to the IP address of the mobile device. In this case, the databases act as “queues” for the data, or IP addresses, because they are periodically updated and retrieved from (via lookups) when needed); and determining intersection points of circles having radiuses of measured distances and locations of a corresponding individual location of the individual locations as center points, when a given number of measurement data is present in the measurement data queue (Fig. 2 and Col. 6, Line 62 through Col. 7 Line 4, the estimated geographic localization or location of a target mobile device is further refined, by overlapping distance constraints (distance estimates in the form of circles with radii that are centered around an individual landmark and are bordering the target device device) with each other. These constraints are created by taking all the landmarks that have communicated with the target device and putting them in a queue. A certain amount of data packets is sent from all the landmarks to the device to create each constraint).
Wong differs from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically disclose the device determining intersection points closest to each other, and determining an estimated location of the target mobile device as a center point of a vector connecting the intersection points closest to each other.
However, in the same field of invention, Hwang discloses the device determining intersection points closest to each other ((Based on translated foreign document of Hwang: [Page 6, Paragraph 12], two neighboring (closest to each other) intersection points of two or more circles are identified and calculated), and determining an estimated location of the target mobile device as a center point of a vector connecting the intersection points closest to each other ((Based on translated foreign document of Hwang: [Page 6, Paragraph 9-13], there may be two pairs of intersection points that are calculated when it comes to two or more intersecting circles, creating two distances. One distance is chosen, and the average (can be considered as finding a center point) of two intersection points corresponding to that distance is determined as the position of a mobile device. [Page 1, Paragraph 1], a location calculation unit is described as being used for calculating the distance between two neighboring intersection points of two or more circles. It can be inferred that this unit is equivalent to a vector).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the filing date of the claimed application to combine the method for estimating geographical location of a target mobile device taught by Wong with the functionalities of Hwang (determining intersection points closest to each other; and determining an estimated location of the target mobile device as a center point of a vector connecting the intersection points closest to each other) to enhance or improve an estimated location of a target mobile device using the position of multiple other devices.
Regarding claim 7, Wong further teaches the concept of adding the estimated location of the target mobile device to a location queue (Col. 6, Lines 47-61, Col. 12, Lines 1-22, and Fig. 6, traceroute and ping commands are sent from several landmarks to the target device’s IP address. The IP address is also added to a first database, or queue associated with the last hop router that serves the target device in a network. Then, the estimated geographical location corresponding to the IP address is determined and is stored in a secondary database or queue and is determined as the estimated location of target mobile device); and utilizing values in the location queue to determine an overall estimated location of the target mobile device (Fig. 6 and Col. 12, Lines 31-39, if there are multiple location estimations in the secondary database or queue, a composite region that has the maximum likelihood of being the correct estimated location for a device can be made).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, Wong discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Col. 16, Lines 33-53) comprising computer program code, which, when executed by one or more microprocessors causes the one or more microprocessors (Col. 15, Lines 14-26) to execute steps of: obtaining measurement data from individual locations, the measurement data comprising a distance estimate to the target mobile device from an apparatus (Col. 15, Lines 14-20) and the individual locations (Col. 11, Lines 3-22 and Fig. 4A, wired landmarks send data packets to the target mobile device. A network delay 452 is calculated after a certain amount of data packets are sent from all the landmarks to the device. From there, a distance estimate, known as a “distance constraint”, to the target device is created for each individual landmark. A distance constraint takes the shape of a circle centered around the landmark and bordering the target device); adding the measurement data to a measurement data queue (Col. 12, Lines 1-22 and Fig. 6, data (here the IP address of a mobile device) is collected and stored in a first database, and is later sent to a second database to gain a rough geographic location of the mobile device. In this case, the databases act as “queues” for the data, or IP addresses, because they are periodically updated and retrieved from (via lookups) when needed); and determining intersection points of circles having radiuses of measured distances and locations of a corresponding individual location of the individual locations as center points, when a given number of measurement data is present in the measurement data queue (Fig. 2 and Col. 6, Line 62 through Col. 7 Line 4, the estimated geographic localization or location of a target mobile device is further refined, by overlapping distance constraints (distance estimates in the form of circles with radii that are centered around an individual landmark and are bordering the target device device) with each other. These constraints are created by selecting multiple landmarks that surround the target device and putting them in a queue. A certain amount of data packets is sent from all the landmarks to the device to create each constraint).
Wong differs from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically disclose the device determining intersection points closest to each other, or determining an estimated location of the target mobile device as a center point of a vector connecting the intersection points closest to each other.
However, in the same field of invention, Hwang discloses the device determining intersection points closest to each other ((Based on translated foreign document of Hwang: [Page 6, Paragraph 12], two neighboring (closest to each other) intersection points of two or more circles are identified and calculated), and determining an estimated location of the target mobile device as a center point of a vector connecting the intersection points closest to each other ((Based on translated foreign document of Hwang: [Page 6, Paragraph 9-13], there may be two pairs of intersection points that are calculated when it comes to two or more intersecting circles, creating two distances. One distance is chosen, and the average (can be considered as finding a center point) of two intersection points corresponding to that distance is determined as the position of a mobile device. [Page 1, Paragraph 1], a location calculation unit is described as being used for calculating the distance between two neighboring intersection points of two or more circles. It can be inferred that this unit is equivalent to a vector).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the filing date of the claimed application to combine the method for estimating geographical location of a target mobile device taught by Wong with the functionalities of Hwang (determining intersection points closest to each other; and determining an estimated location of the target mobile device as a center point of a vector connecting the intersection points closest to each other) to enhance an estimated location of a device using the position of multiple other objects.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 7983691 B1) in view of Hwang (KR 20180047490 A) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Prakash (US 20110039576 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wong and Hwang differ from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach the concept of comparing the obtained measurement data to predefined thresholds and selecting the measurement data to the measurement data queue based on the comparing.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Prakash discloses the concept of comparing the obtained measurement data to predefined thresholds and selecting the measurement data to the measurement data queue based on the comparing ([0051], from a device 10, obtaining location estimate with estimated error exceeding a preconfigured value, and then adding it to assistance data 100, which is similar to a queue in that it [0007] may be stored in memory while obtaining new location information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the filing date of the claimed application to combine the method disclosed by the combination of Wong and Hwang with the concept of comparing the obtained measurement data to predefined thresholds and selecting the measurement data to the measurement data queue based on the comparing, as taught by Prakash, in order to more accurately obtain an estimated location of a device.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 2.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 7983691 B1) in view of Hwang (KR 20180047490 A) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Chen (US 20240300555 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wong and Hwang differs from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach the concept of (prior to the adding) pre-filtering the measurement data to exclude some of the measurement data.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Chen discloses the concept of (prior to the adding) pre-filtering (meaning before actually using the data) the measurement data to exclude some of the measurement data (Fig. 1, S103, filtering and discarding error data from ranging data that comprises positions and measurements of base stations / mobile devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the filing date of the claimed application to combine the method of claim 1 disclosed by Wong and Hwang with the concept of (prior to the adding) pre-filtering the measurement data to exclude some of the measurement data, in order to make more accurate estimations of device locations.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 3.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 7983691 B1) in view of Hwang (KR 20180047490 A) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Handly (US 20160132930 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wong and Hwang differ from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach the concept of determining whether circles formed based on the measurement data intersect each other at least in one point and adding the measurement data to the measurement data queue based on the determination.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Handly discloses the concept of determining whether circles formed based on the measurement data intersect each other at least in one point ([0046], and Fig. 2, trilateration is used to find intersection points of at least 3 circles that are overlapping each other) and adding the measurement data to the measurement data queue based on the determination ([0051], the type of location (essentially measurement data) of the beacon / mobile device is identified and is then stored in a database in association with beacon information 320, the database may be considered similar to a queue due to it being able to be accessed and added with additional beacon information at will).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the filing date of the claimed application to combine the method of claim 1 disclosed by Wong and Hwang with the concept of determining whether circles formed based on the measurement data intersect each other at least in one point and adding the measurement data to the measurement data queue based on the determination, in order to help and find and keep track of mobile devices detected.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 4.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 7983691 B1) in view of Hwang (KR 20180047490 A), and further in view of Zakharov (US 20200330003 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wong and Hwang differ from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach the concept of obtaining the measurement data in a spherical coordinate system; and performing spherical coordinate conversion to a cartesian coordinate system to the measurement data in the measurement data queue.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Zakharov discloses the concept of obtaining the measurement data in a spherical coordinate system ([0020], reference data for coordinate points of objects may optionally be stored as Spherical coordinates); and performing spherical coordinate conversion to a cartesian coordinate system to the measurement data in the measurement data queue ([0034], coordinate points / locations of devices may be converted between Spherical and Cartesian points).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the filing date of the claimed application to combine the method of claim 1 disclosed by the combination of Wong and Hwang, with the concept of the concept of obtaining the measurement data in a spherical coordinate system and conversions between Spherical and Cartesian, in order to more consistently store location data for devices.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 5.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 7983691 B1) in view of Hwang (KR 20180047490 A) and Zakharov (US 20200330003 A1) as applied to claims 5 and 14 above, and further in view of Santarone (US 20210286915 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wong, Hwang, and Zakharov differ from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching that the conversion includes adjusting coordinates of the cartesian coordinate system by placing a first measurement at origin and adjusting the coordinates of subsequent measurements accordingly.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Santarone discloses that the conversion includes adjusting coordinates of the cartesian coordinate system by placing a first measurement at origin and adjusting the coordinates of subsequent measurements accordingly ([0021], the coordinates of a mobile communication node or device position may be Cartesian. [0226] An example of a node (which may include antennas) may be situated at (0,0,0) and can also [0327-0328] be dynamically tracked as the coordinate system origin while the rest of the space (including the measurements / other positions of other mobile devices) are subsequently adjusted in the space relative to said origin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the filing date to combine the device tracking method from the combination of Wong, Hwang and Zakharov with the coordinate adjustment feature as taught by Santarone, in order to more accurately track a mobile device’s position.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 6.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 7983691 B1) in view of Hwang (KR 20180047490 A) as applied to claims 7 and 17 above, and further in view of Yu (US 20230152415 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wong and Hwang differs from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach that when a given minimum number of locations of the target mobile device is present in the location queue, the device is determining a geometrical median of the locations in the location queue, and outputting the geometrical median of the locations as the overall estimated location of the target mobile device.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Yu discloses that when a given minimum number of locations of the target mobile device is present in the location queue, the device is determining a geometrical median of the locations in the location queue, and outputting the geometrical median of the locations as the overall estimated location of the target mobile device ([0046], deciding unit 150 can generate multiple triangles when 4 or more peripheral devices are included in the device group (acting as a queue). The triangle positions are based on the location of the 4 devices. The unit then determines one of a mean or median position of circumcenter coordinates of the triangles as the estimated location of a device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the filing date of the claimed application to combine the method of claim 7 disclosed by the combination of Wong and Hwang, with the concept of calculating medians of coordinates and choosing them as the estimated location of a device, as taught by Yu, in order to more accurately estimate the position of a mobile device.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 8.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 7983691 B1) in view of Hwang (KR 20180047490 A) and Yu (US 20230152415 A1) as applied to claims 8 and 17 above, and further in view of Seo (US 20240196162 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wong, Hwang and Yu differ from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach discarding an oldest location before adding a newer location to the location queue when a given maximum number of locations of the target mobile device is present in the location queue.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Seo discloses discarding an oldest location before adding a newer location to the location queue when a given maximum number of locations of the target mobile device is present in the location queue ([0224], if a number of obtained locations in a memory unit exceeds a certain number, the processor may delete locations by order of oldest to newest. [0153] memory (for example memory 130) as depicted in the prior art may be considered similar to a queue, due to it being able to store locations that can be accessed later by application processor 210).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the filing date of the claimed application to combine the method of claim 8 disclosed by the combination of Wong, Hwang and Yu, with the concept of deleting old measurements as taught by Seo, in order to more accurately store location data for devices.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 7983691 B1) in view of Hwang (KR 20180047490 A) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Stitt (US 9794753 B1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Wong and Hwang differ from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach the concept of utilizing machine learning on the values in the location queue to determine the overall estimated location.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Stitt discloses the concept of utilizing machine learning on the values in the location queue to determine the overall estimated location (Col. 33, Lines 32-43, the device may use machine learning and AI techniques to determine the motion, position or orientation of an equipment, or device. (Col. 14, Lines 47-57, machine learning techniques may include back propagation, gradient descent, linear regression, logistic regression, etc).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the filing date of the claimed application to combine the method of claim 1 disclosed by the combination of Wong and Hwang, with the concept of utilizing machine learning on the values in the location queue to determine the overall estimated location, as taught by Stitt, in order to enhance location finding of mobile devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ramachandran (US 20250184689 A1) discloses an apparatus (e.g., at a mobile user device (e.g., UE) or an access device (e.g., gNB) or a managing entity or a core network device/function) for providing a location estimate of a target mobile device in a wireless network, wherein the apparatus is adapted to: configure one or more ranging capable devices to form one or more anchor devices of a ranging constellation that acts as a proxy for a positioning service provided in a geographical area; and use ranging measurements obtained from the ranging constellation with respect to the target mobile device to support the positioning service.
Jurdi (US 20240369672 A1) discloses measuring distance to another device (e.g., an anchor point) involves wireless signaling between the two devices, known as ranging. The ranging process is facilitated by various wireless technologies, either explicitly through a standard ranging mechanism or implicitly through capabilities such as receive power or channel impulse response measurements.
Edge (US 11678134 B2) discloses a location server that may support positioning for terminals and may be operated or leased by the location provider or some other entity. Location server may perform various functions to support positioning, e.g., calculate location estimates, deliver assistance data to terminals, perform functions for security, etc. Positioning refers to a process to determine a geographic or civil location estimate for an LCS target (e.g., obtain latitude, longitude and altitude coordinates for geographic location or a street address for civil location).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN HUYTAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)482-9975. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
/BENJAMIN HUY DINH NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2649
/GEORGE ENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights