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 Status
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11-14 and 17 are cancelled. Claims 2-3, 5, 8, 10, 15-16 and 18-27 are pending. Claims 23-27 are new.
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, 3, 5, 8, 15, 16 and 18-22 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitations:
"…the data conveyed…" in 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; and
"…the external source…" in 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3, 5, 8, 15, 16 and 18-22 are rejected for the same reasons as they depend from base claim 2.
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 2, 10 and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,000,947 to Hill. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of obvious wording variations.
Regarding claim 2,
Claim 2 of Hill teaches, “A method of tracking an object, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving, by at least two receiver antennae, a radiofrequency signal transmitted by a mobile device, the at least two receiver antennae having known spatial coordinates;
calculating a signal characteristic of the RF signal received by the at least two receiver antennae;
calculating, based on the calculated signal characteristic and the known spatial coordinates of the at least two receiver antennae, a physical location of the mobile device from which the RF signal was transmitted; and
associating the data conveyed by the RF signal and the external source from which the data was collected with the calculated physical location of the mobile device.”
Regarding claims 10 and 25,
Claim 18 of Hill teaches, “A system for associating data with a physical location,
the system comprising:
a mobile device including a transmitter and at least one antenna configured to transmit a radiofrequency (RF) signal, the RF signal conveying data collected by the mobile device from an external source;
at least two receiver antennae having known spatial coordinates, the at least two receiver antennae configured to receive the RF signal transmitted by the mobile device;
and
a processor configured to:
calculate, based on the RF signal received by the at least two receiver antennae and the known spatial coordinates, a physical location of the mobile device from which the RF signal was transmitted; and
associate the data conveyed by the RF signal and the external source from which the data was collected with the calculated physical location from where the mobile device transmitted the RF signal.”
Claims 3, 5, 8, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21-24, 26 and 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,000,947 to Hill in view of WISHERD (US 2012/0013509).
Regarding claim 3,
Hill teaches the method of claim 2, but fails to further teach that the object includes multiple objects tracked by the external source.
Wisherd teaches a system, method, and computer program products for real-time object locating and position determination wherein the object includes multiple objects tracked by the external source (Wisherd teaches tracking multiple objects within an operating environment. Specifically, Wisherd discloses a system in which tags attached to objects transmit signals that are received by multiple receivers and processed by a central computer to determine object positions (see [0023]-[0026], [0032]). Because the system determines positions of transmitting tags within the environment, and the system architecture contemplates multiple tagged assets transmitting signals that are processed by the external system, Wisherd teaches tracking multiple objects by the external source.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the Hill system/method as disclosed by Wisherd for the purpose of determining the location of a plurality of objects within storage, shipping, retail, and/or manufacturing situations as wireless transmitters or tags are commonly attached to or embedded in objects to provide wireless position determination signals to one or more wireless receivers or readers.
Regarding claims 5, 26 and 27,
Wisherd teaches that the signal characteristic includes at least one of a signal strength, a phase time of arrival, angle of arrival, and a time difference of arrival of the RF signal (Wisherd teaches determining signal characteristics based on the arrival of RF signals at multiple receivers. In particular, Wisherd discloses determining the position of a transmitting tag based on differences in the arrival times of signals received at receivers located at known positions (see [0031]-[0034]). Determining location based on differences in signal arrival times corresponds to determining signal characteristics such as time-of-arrival and time-difference-of-arrival of the RF signal. Accordingly, Wisherd teaches determining signal characteristics of the RF signal used to calculate the position of the object.)
Regarding claim 8,
Wisherd teaches that the wherein the at least one antenna transmits a timestamp to the external source which calculates the position of the object using the timestamp and the fixed and predetermined distance (Wisherd teaches determining the location of a transmitting tag based on signal arrival times measured at receivers ([0031]-[0034]; [0044] teaches computing the distance between each receiver and the object and further teaches reliance upon location methodology, such as Time of arrival).
Regarding claims 15 and 23,
Wisherd teaches that the first data includes a combination of identifier information and information about the object (Wisherd teaches transmitting identifying information associated with a tagged object. In particular, Wisherd discloses that signals transmitted by the tag include identifying information such as a tag identifier (“TAG ID”) identifying the transmitting object tag (see [0037]-[0039]; FIGS. 8–10). Because the transmitted RF signal contains identifying information associated with the tagged object, Wisherd teaches transmitting data including identifier information relating to the object.)
Regarding claim 16,
Wisherd teaches that the calculating the position of the object by the external source further comprises: measuring a signal strength of the first data transmitted by each of the at least two active transceivers (Wisherd determines object position based on differences in arrival times of RF signals received at multiple receivers ([0031]-[0034]); [0029] teaches using various forms of data to determine the position of an object, such as received signal strength indication (RSSI)); and determining the distance between each active transceiver and the external source based at least in part on the measured signal strength ([0029] teaches to determine the position of an object using received signal strength indication (RSSI)).
Regarding claims 18 and 24,
Wisherd teaches storing the calculated position of the object in a database for tracking (Wisherd discloses a central computer that receives information from receivers and determines the position of tagged objects (see [0026]-[0029]; FIG. 1). Because the central computer determines the positions of tagged objects within the system, the determined positions are necessarily stored or maintained within the system for purposes such as tracking objects within the environment. Accordingly, Wisherd teaches storing the data and calculated object positions within the system.)
Regarding claim 19,
Wisherd teaches determining successive positions of the mobile device calculated over time(Wisherd discloses repeatedly receiving signals from transmitting object tags and determining their positions within an operating environment (see [0023]-[0026], [0031]-[0034]). Because the receivers continually receive transmitted signals from the tags and the system repeatedly calculates the positions of the tags, the system necessarily determines successive positions of the tagged objects over time.)
Regarding claim 21,
Wisherd teaches that the data of the RF signal transmitted by the mobile device includes an identifier of the object being tracked(Wisherd teaches that RF signals transmitted by the tag include identifying information associated with the tagged object. In particular, the transmitted position-determination signal includes fields such as a “TAG ID” identifying the transmitting object tag ([0037]-[0039]; see FIGS. 8–10). Accordingly, the RF signal transmitted by the object includes an identifier of the object being tracked).
Regarding claim 22,
Wisherd teaches that the external source associates the identifier with the calculated position(Wisherd teaches associating identifying information with the calculated position of a tagged object. Signals transmitted by the object tag include identifying information such as a tag identifier (“TAG ID”) ([0037]-[0039]). These signals are received by multiple receivers and processed by a central computer that determines the position of the transmitting tag ([0026]-[0034]). Because the identifier is included in the transmitted signal used to determine the location of the object, the system associates the identifier of the object with the calculated position determined by the external processing system.)
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,000,947 to Hill in view of O’Connor (US 5,227,803).
Regarding claim 20,
Hill teaches the method of claim 2 but fails to expressly teach that the signal characteristic comprises calculating the angle-of-arrival using phase differences between two or more antennas of at least one receiver antenna.
O’Connor teaches in col. 5:56-60 that the phase angle difference between two channels of the same receiver 107 or 108 is then used to calculate the angle-of-arrival of the wavefront between the two antenna elements associated with the two channels.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the Hill system per the teachings of O’Conner as recited, for the purpose of obtaining directional information about received RF signals and thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of the determined position of the object in question.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DIONNE PENDLETON whose telephone number is (571)272-7497. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/DIONNE PENDLETON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights