Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication, as preliminary amendment, filed on 02/12/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-9 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for entering a national stage benefit from PCT application as ADS filed on 02/12/2024 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 37 CFR 1.78 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. 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:
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.
6. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds et al. Pub. No.: US 2016/0381510 A1 in view of Farrell Patent No.: US 10,440,499 B2 and Kato et al. Pub. No.: US 2020/0068586 A1.
Claim 1
Reynolds discloses a management server (a computer cloud 102 of fig. 1 having one or more servers 104 in fig. 1, see fig. 2-13), comprising:
processing circuitry (processing structure 122 in fig. 2) to
receive location information items (BLE within in step 184 in fig. 4A see position with position of Dev_A with timestamp in 186 of fig. 4B) transmitted from a plurality of information terminals associated with a mobile device (186 in fig. 4A, the possible position of the lost device in fig. 4A, see location items or information of beacon regions, i.e., items or UUID as explained in par. 0089 and fig. 9-10),
a location information item corresponding to an information terminal having a highest priority level of priority levels (recently reported lost items have the highest priority weight in par. 0083 and see fig. 4A in view of fig. 9-10, see timestamp in 186 in fig. 4B) assigned to the plurality of information terminals (prioritized device identity of target devices and items matching device identities in fig. 10B).
Although Reynolds does not disclose: “a plurality of information terminals associated with a user; select, when a distance between the plurality of information terminals that is based on the received location information items is less than or equal to a threshold, indicate a current location of the user based on the selected location information item”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
PNG
media_image1.png
546
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Firstly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitations “a plurality of information terminals associated with a user; and indicate a current location of the user based on the selected location information item”, recall that Reynolds calculates the location of the device associated with the owner (fig. 4A and the highest priority of position information based on timestamp as depicted in fig. 9-10A). In Particular, Farrell teaches identifying user’s devices and other devices to determine user’s location (525 in fig. 5) and determining user’s location based on the selected location from the multiple locations received, as to the location information items (fig. 9). Additionally, Farrell teaches the location given the highest priority (1025 in fig. 10 and see lines 1-35 of col. 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify locating a mobile device and a cloud computer of Reynolds by providing a user location and identity awareness as taught in Farrell. Such a modification would have provided an identity awareness to determine the location of a user based on the person’s mobile device so that the user could utilize the automated services and features conveniently based on the location as suggested in lines 5-20 of col. 1 of Farrell.
Lastly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitations “select, when a distance between the plurality of information terminals that is based on the received location information items is less than or equal to a threshold”, it’s to note that claim limitations could be reasonably interpreted. See MPEP 2111.04, II Contingent Limitations. In fact, Reynolds discloses beacon location region with UUID as location item with latitude and longitude (fig. 8-10), the highest priority as the most recent timestamp (par. 0083 & 0087 and see fig. 4A-B & 11-13) and short-distance communication between mobile devices and the range (par. 0073 and see fig. 4-7). What’s more, Farrell explains determining the user’s location and the highest priority for selected location (see fig. 3-11) based on the a predetermined distance from home or a location (fig. 3-11 and see Table in col. 16-17).
It means that from the teachings mentioned above, the combination of Reynolds and Farrell teaches to compare if the short distance between the devices based on the received the location information is less than or equal to a threshold (in fig. 8 of Farrell, 20 feet is a threshold, or 1 mile is a threshold; and short distance communication between devices in fig. 5-7). The short-distance communication of Reynolds may be arguable to application as a distance between two terminals and thus, further evidence for measuring distance is provided herein. It’s to note that the distance between two devices is an intrinsic feature in wireless communication and there are many methods for measuring the distance. In particular, Kato teaches distance calculation unit (25 in fig. 2) for calculating a distance between each of the BLE beacons (par. 0041, 0052-0053) and calculating distance between terminal position and base station (St1 in fig. 11 and par. 0104).
Alternatively, In accordance with MPEP 2111.04, if the addressing claim limitations are reasonably interpreted under II Contingent Condition, even claim requires both distance and comparing to a threshold, the prior art teaches calculating distance between two devices (fig. 3-4 & 11 of Kato) and comparing the distance to a threshold (fig. 8 of Reynolds).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify locating a mobile device and a cloud computer of Reynolds in view of Farrell by providing a calculating distance unit as taught in Kato to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a communication terminal a calculating distance unit for determining a distance between BLE beacons or two devices to select a base station so that throughput of the communication terminal could not be decreased from a service interruption as suggested in par. 0007-0008 of Kato.
Claim 2
Reynolds, in view of Farrell and Kato, discloses the management server according to claim 1, wherein
the processing circuitry
stores in a storage the location information items as proximity range information when the distance between the plurality of information terminals is less than or equal to the threshold (Farrell, if the distance within 20 feet, the location is stored under within 20 feet in fig. 8), and
when the distance between the plurality of information terminals is greater than the threshold, from the received location information items (Farrell, if the location is greater than 20 feet in fig. 8), a location information item indicating a farthest location from a range indicated by the proximity range information stored in the storage (Farrell, user location stored in fig. 8 indicated by the range within 20 feet, if farther, the next will be stored under within 1 mile or within 10 miles in fig. 8; and hence, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 3
Reynolds, in view of Farrell and Kato, discloses the management server according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry
receives location information items detected in an indoor place or an outdoor place by the plurality of information terminals (Farrell, in fig. 8, in home or outside home), and
clears, based on indication place information defining one of the indoor place or the outdoor place as a display target (Farrell, as depicted in fig. 8 in view of fig. 9-11, it’ll clear user location in living room or outside home and location with timestamp in fig. 4 and 8-13 of Reynolds), the priority level of an information terminal with the location information item detected in the other of the indoor place or the outdoor place that is not defined as the display target (Farrell, displaying a content recommendation as depicted in fig. 8 and see priority in fig. 10 for default in fig. 8), and excludes the location information item from a selection target (Farrell, as depicted in fig. 8, for instance, for living room, except default, the rest will be excluded; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim).
Claim 4
Reynolds, in view of Farrell and Kato, discloses the management server according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry
edits correspondences between (i) terminal IDs that are each for identification of a corresponding information terminal of the plurality of information terminals (Reynolds, UUID for device in fig. 8-13) and (ii) a user ID for identification of a user (Farrell, determining identifiers for user in 510 in fig. 5), and
receives, based on the edited correspondences, the location information items transmitted from the plurality of information terminals indicated by the terminal IDs that are each associated with the user ID (Farrell, storing location of devices associated with user location under user profile in fig. 5 and see fig. 8; and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 5
Reynolds, in view of Farrell and Kato, discloses the management server according to claim 1,
wherein the processing circuitry issues a command for lowering a detection frequency that is a frequency at which the location information item is detected (Reynolds, a limited number of BLE beacon scanning in par. 0049 & 0086, and par. 0095 for number of slots needed for target mobile device positioning; Farrell, fig. 9-11 see for notifying user, notifying content permission changes, notifying user new priority; Kato, counting number times for discontinuing in fig. 11), to an information terminal of the plurality of information terminals except the information terminal having the highest priority level of the priority levels assigned to the plurality of information terminals (Farrell, highest priority location in fig. 10-11; for these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Claim 6
Reynolds, in view of Farrell and Kato, discloses the management server according to claim 5, wherein, when selecting a location information item received from the information terminal to which the command for lowering the detection frequency is issued (Reynolds, a limited number of BLE beacon scanning in par. 0049, 0086 & 0095; Farrell, user x leaves location, removing user x from the list of users at location in fig. 11), the processing circuitry issues to the information terminal a command for restoring the detection frequency (Reynolds, fig. 4 & 9-13; Farrell, notifying user location, content permission and new priority; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have performed the command for lowering and restoring in the same way of notifying user in fig. 9-11 of Farrell; see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale C).
Claim 7
Reynolds, in view of Farrell and Kato, discloses the management server according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry stores, in a storage (Farrell, hard drive 205 in fig. 2 and awareness database 424 in fig. 4), content of control specified by the user for facility equipment installed in a building (Reynolds, SDK with monitored beacon regions in fig. 9A; Farrell, storing user profile in fig. 5 and see fig. 9-11), and
controls the facility equipment based on the content of control stored in the storage, when the selected location information item indicates a location in the building (Reynolds, beacons in fig. 9-13; Farrell, see fig. 8 for location in the building and fig. 9-11 for content permission based on location; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 8
Reynolds discloses a management system (a computer cloud system 102 of fig. 1 having one or more servers 104 in fig. 1, see fig. 2-13), comprising:
a plurality of information terminals (108 in fig. 1 and fig. 4B); and
a management server (a cloud in fig. 1-13) to manage the plurality of information terminals (location information such as range and possible position of devices in fig. 4A), wherein each of the plurality of information terminals includes first processing circuitry (processing structure or controlling structure in fig. 2) to identify a location of the information terminal (location information such as latitude and longitude of devices in fig. 8-13), and
PNG
media_image2.png
316
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
transmit, to the management server (cloud in fig. 4-13), a location information item indicating the identified location (fig. 4B and fig. 8 for location information to the cloud), and
the management server includes second processing circuitry (processing structure or controlling structure in fig. 2) to
receive location information items transmitted from the plurality of information terminals (location information in fig. 4 and see fig. 8-13),
a location information item corresponding to an information terminal having a highest priority level of priority levels (recently reported lost items have the highest priority weight in par. 0083 and see fig. 4A in view of fig. 9-10, see timestamp in 186 in fig. 4B) assigned to the plurality of information terminals (prioritized device identity of target devices and items matching device identities in fig. 10B).
Although Reynolds does not disclose: “a plurality of information terminals associated with a user; select, when a distance between the plurality of information terminals that is based on the received location information items is less than or equal to a threshold, indicate a current location of the user based on the selected location information item”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitations “a plurality of information terminals associated with a user; and indicate a current location of the user based on the selected location information item”, recall that Reynolds calculates the location of the device associated with the owner (fig. 4A and the highest priority of position information based on timestamp as depicted in fig. 9-10A). In Particular, Farrell teaches identifying user’s devices and other devices to determine user’s location (525 in fig. 5) and determining user’s location based on the selected location from the multiple locations received, as to the location information items (fig. 9). Additionally, Farrell teaches the location given the highest priority (1025 in fig. 10 and see lines 1-35 of col. 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify locating a mobile device and a cloud computer of Reynolds by providing a user location and identity awareness as taught in Farrell. Such a modification would have provided an identity awareness to determine the location of a user based on the person’s mobile device so that the user could utilize the automated services and features conveniently based on the location as suggested in lines 5-20 of col. 1 of Farrell.
Secondly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitations “select, when a distance between the plurality of information terminals that is based on the received location information items is less than or equal to a threshold”, it’s to note that claim limitations could be reasonably interpreted. See MPEP 2111.04, II Contingent Limitations. In fact, Reynolds discloses beacon location region with UUID as location item with latitude and longitude (fig. 8-10), the highest priority as the most recent timestamp (par. 0083 & 0087 and see fig. 4A-B & 11-13) and short-distance communication between mobile devices and the range (par. 0073 and see fig. 4-7). What’s more, Farrell explains determining the user’s location and the highest priority for selected location (see fig. 3-11) based on the a predetermined distance from home or a location (fig. 3-11 and see Table in col. 16-17). It means that from the teachings mentioned above, the combination of Reynolds and Farrell teaches to compare if the short distance between the devices based on the received the location information is less than or equal to a threshold (in fig. 8 of Farrell, 20 feet is a threshold, or 1 mile is a threshold; and short distance communication between devices in fig. 5-7). The short-distance communication of Reynolds may be arguable to application as a distance between two terminals and thus, further evidence for measuring distance is provided herein. It’s to note that the distance between two devices is an intrinsic feature in wireless communication and there are many methods for measuring the distance. In particular, Kato teaches distance calculation unit (25 in fig. 2) for calculating a distance between each of the BLE beacons (par. 0041, 0052-0053) and calculating distance between terminal position and base station (St1 in fig. 11 and par. 0104).
Alternatively, In accordance with MPEP 2111.04, if the addressing claim limitations are reasonably interpreted under II Contingent Condition, even claim requires both distance and comparing to a threshold, the prior art teaches calculating distance between two devices (fig. 3-4 & 11 of Kato) and comparing the distance to a threshold (fig. 8 of Reynolds).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify locating a mobile device and a cloud computer of Reynolds in view of Farrell by providing a calculating distance unit as taught in Kato to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a communication terminal a calculating distance unit for determining a distance between BLE beacons or two devices to select a base station so that throughput of the communication could be avoided decreasing from a service interruption as suggested in par. 0007-0008 of Kato.
Claim 9
Reynolds discloses a location display method implementable by a management server, the location display method comprising:
receiving location information items (BLE within in step 184 in fig. 4A see position with position of Dev_A with timestamp in 186 of fig. 4B) transmitted from a plurality of information terminals (186 in fig. 4A, the possible position of the lost device in fig. 4A, see location items or information of beacon regions, i.e., items or UUID as explained in par. 0089 and fig. 9-10); and
a location information item corresponding to an information terminal having a highest priority level of priority levels (recently reported lost items have the highest priority weight in par. 0083 and see fig. 4A in view of fig. 9-10, see timestamp in 186 in fig. 4B) assigned to the plurality of information terminals (prioritized device identity of target devices and items matching device identities in fig. 10B).
Although Reynolds does not disclose: “a plurality of information terminals associated with a user; select, when a distance between the plurality of information terminals that is based on the received location information items is less than or equal to a threshold, indicate a current location of the user based on the selected location information item”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitations “a plurality of information terminals associated with a user; and indicate a current location of the user based on the selected location information item”, recall that Reynolds calculates the location of the device associated with the owner (fig. 4A and the highest priority of position information based on timestamp as depicted in fig. 9-10A). In Particular, Farrell teaches identifying user’s devices and other devices to determine user’s location (525 in fig. 5) and determining user’s location based on the selected location from the multiple locations received, as to the location information items (fig. 9). Additionally, Farrell teaches the location given the highest priority (1025 in fig. 10 and see lines 1-35 of col. 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify locating a mobile device and a cloud computer of Reynolds by providing a user location and identity awareness as taught in Farrell. Such a modification would have provided an identity awareness to determine the location of a user based on the person’s mobile device so that the user could utilize the automated services and features conveniently based on the location as suggested in lines 5-20 of col. 1 of Farrell.
Secondly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitations “select, when a distance between the plurality of information terminals that is based on the received location information items is less than or equal to a threshold”, it’s to note that claim limitations could be reasonably interpreted. See MPEP 2111.04, II Contingent Limitations. In fact, Reynolds discloses beacon location region with UUID as location item with latitude and longitude (fig. 8-10), the highest priority as the most recent timestamp (par. 0083 & 0087 and see fig. 4A-B & 11-13) and short-distance communication between mobile devices and the range (par. 0073 and see fig. 4-7). What’s more, Farrell explains determining the user’s location and the highest priority for selected location (see fig. 3-11) based on the a predetermined distance from home or a location (fig. 3-11 and see Table in col. 16-17). It means that from the teachings mentioned above, the combination of Reynolds and Farrell teaches to compare if the short distance between the devices based on the received the location information is less than or equal to a threshold (in fig. 8 of Farrell, 20 feet is a threshold, or 1 mile is a threshold; and short distance communication between devices in fig. 5-7). The short-distance communication of Reynolds may be arguable to application as a distance between two terminals and thus, further evidence for measuring distance is provided herein. It’s to note that the distance between two devices is an intrinsic feature in wireless communication and there are many methods for measuring the distance. In particular, Kato teaches distance calculation unit (25 in fig. 2) for calculating a distance between each of the BLE beacons (par. 0041, 0052-0053) and calculating distance between terminal position and base station (St1 in fig. 11 and par. 0104).
Alternatively, In accordance with MPEP 2111.04, if the addressing claim limitations are reasonably interpreted under II Contingent Condition, even claim requires both distance and comparing to a threshold, the prior art teaches calculating distance between two devices (fig. 3-4 & 11 of Kato) and comparing the distance to a threshold (fig. 8 of Reynolds).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify locating a mobile device and a cloud computer of Reynolds in view of Farrell by providing a calculating distance unit as taught in Kato to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a communication terminal a calculating distance unit for determining a distance between BLE beacons or two devices to select a base station so that throughput of the communication could be avoided decreasing from a service interruption as suggested in par. 0007-0008 of Kato.
Contact Information
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
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, Jinsong Hu can be reached on 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights