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 Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 18, the meaning of “BLE” should be spelled out upon its first occurrence in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
In claim 2 lines 1-2, “a primary selection processing unit that primarily selects a plurality of the communication devices to be used for position measurement” is understood in view of para. [0065] “The primary selection processing unit F1 primarily selects a plurality of communication devices 2 to be used for position measurement. This selection processing by the primary selection processing unit F1 can be defined as processing of selecting the communication devices 2 before performing communication processing for distance measurement using the phase-based method (communication for measuring the phase 6 at each frequency) with the communication devices 2 in order to output one result of position measurement” (emphasis added).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are, in claims 1-20:
determination processing unit
primary selection processing unit
reselection processing unit
distance measurement control unit.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Corresponding structure comprises:
determination processing unit – para. [0064] “CPU”, para. [0077]
primary selection processing unit - para. [0064] “CPU”, para. [0067]
reselection processing unit - para. [0064] “CPU”, paras. [0083], [0084], [0086], [0152]-[0158]
distance measurement control unit – para. [0119] “CPU”; para. [0122]; Fig. 21.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claims 1 and 16 recite an information device comprising a determination processing unit. As discussed above, the determination processing unit has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
An apparatus claim that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is required to recite a combination of elements. Claims 1 and 16, however, recite only a single element, the determination processing unit. The claims are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because:
Claim 20 is directed to “A program readable by a computer device”. A program has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03.
Claims 1-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more...
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 recites an information processing device and is therefore an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of a Judicial Exception
Claim 1 recites:
determines, based on reliability information on distance measurement or position measurement obtained by performing communication processing for distance measurement using a phase-based method with a selected communication device, whether or not reselection of a communication device to be used for position measurement is required or whether or not to perform distance measurement using a method other than the phase-based method.
This step falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, as the human mind is capable of determining, based on reliability information, whether or not reselection of a communication device to be used for position measurement is required or whether or not to perform distance measurement using a method other than the phase-based method.
Examiner notes that the information processing device is not recited as performing the communication processing for distance measurement using a phase-based method, or performing any position measurements, or making a reselection, but merely determines whether or not reselection is required based on the reliability information.
Claim 1 therefore recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
Claim 1 further recites the determining performed by a determination processing unit.
According to the specification, the determination processing unit comprises generic computer equipment (para. [0064] CPU). In performing the abstract idea the CPU merely performs generic computer functions. The courts have found that generic computer equipment does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d) I). This element therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements recited in the claim include generic computer equipment. The courts have found that generic computer equipment does not amount to significantly more, i.e. it does not amount to an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.5 A). This element therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, i.e. it does not amount to an inventive concept. Claim 1 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 2-16 recite further steps for selecting and reselecting communication devices that can be performed in the human mind, where the steps are recited as performed by “a primary selection processing unit”, “the determination processing unit”, and “a reselection processing unit”, all described in the specification as comprising generic computer equipment (para. [0064] CPU). These steps therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Claim 19 differs from claim 1 in recited a method performed by an information processing device. According to para. [0013] of the specification, the information processing device comprises a “computer device”, which includes within its scope generic computer equipment. Generic computer equipment does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sendonaris (US 9964647 B2) in view of Boer (“Performance of High-Accuracy Phase-Based Ranging in Multipath Environments”).
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20 Sendonaris teaches [NOTE: limitations not taught by Sendonaris are lined through] an information processing device (120, Figs. 1A-B and 2A-D; Fig. 7; 18:54-19:22) comprising a determination processing unit (processor 710 and memory 720, Fig. 7) that
determines, based on reliability information on distance measurement (abstract “each ranging signal that exceeds a quality criterion”; 330, Fig. 3 “Calculate values of the quality metric for each transmitter/signal”) or position measurement (12:22-48, esp. “a ranging signal from a transmitter that corresponds to a quality metric value that does not meet the quality metric threshold condition... used to compute the estimate of the receiver’s position... when it is determined that using such a ranging signal results in a more accurate estimate of the receiver’s position, compared to not using the ranging signal” and “it may be determined that utilizing this signal... would improve the DOP so much that the overall resulting position measurement error would likely be improved”) obtained by performing communication processing for distance measurement (18:54-64 “Bluetooth”) (330, Fig. 3), whether or not reselection of a communication device to be used for position measurement is required (340, 350, Fig. 3) or whether or not to perform distance measurement using a method other than the phase-based method.
Sendonaris does not teach the distance measurement performed using a phase based method. However Sendonaris teaches the distance measurement performed using Bluetooth (18:54-64), and Boer teaches Bluetooth distance measurement to be performed using a phase based method (abstract “Bluetooth” and “phase-based ranging”). Boer further teaches “The current solution based on signal strength, does not offer enough accuracy to support these services. Phase-based ranging is much more accurate” (abstract). In view of Boer, it would have been obvious to modify Sendonaris by measuring distance using a phase-based method in order to increase distance measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 2, Sendonaris teaches including a primary selection processing unit that primarily selects a plurality of the communication devices to be used for position measurement (310, Fig. 3; 8:53-61), wherein the determination processing unit determines, based on the reliability information obtained for the communication devices primarily selected by the primary selection processing unit, whether or not reselection of the communication devices to be used for position measurement is required (340, 350, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Sendonaris teaches wherein the primary selection processing unit performs the primary selection based on received signal strength indicators from the communication devices (12:40-48).
Regarding claim 4, Sendonaris teaches wherein the primary selection processing unit performs the primary selection based on position coordinate information indicating positions at which the communication devices are arranged (310, Fig. 3; 8:53 – 9:41).
Regarding claim 5, Sendonaris teaches wherein the primary selection processing unit performs the primary selection based on received signal strength indicators from the communication devices (12:40-48 “SNR”) and position coordinate information indicating positions at which the communication devices are arranged (8:53 – 9:41).
Regarding claim 7, Sendonaris teaches wherein the determination processing unit determines whether or not the reselection is required, based on distance measurement reliability information that is the reliability information on distance measurement (340, Fig. 3; 10:46-53 10:63-67).
Regarding claim 8, Sendonaris teaches wherein the determination processing unit determines whether or not the reselection is required, based on position measurement reliability information that is the reliability information on position measurement (351, 353, Fig. 3; 12:22-48, esp. “a ranging signal from a transmitter that corresponds to a quality metric value that does not meet the quality metric threshold condition... used to compute the estimate of the receiver’s position... when it is determined that using such a ranging signal results in a more accurate estimate of the receiver’s position, compared to not using the ranging signal” and “it may be determined that utilizing this signal... would improve the DOP so much that the overall resulting position measurement error would likely be improved”).
Regarding claim 9, Sendonaris teaches a reselection processing unit that reselects the communication device to be used for position measurement when the determination processing unit determines that the reselection is required (340, 350, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Sendonaris teaches wherein the reselection processing unit performs the reselection based on the reliability information on distance measurement obtained for each of the primarily selected communication devices (330, Fig. 3 “Calculate values of the quality metric for each transmitter/signal”; 340, Fig. 3 “Identify transmitters/signals with quality metric values that do not meet a threshold condition”).
Regarding claim 11, Sendonaris teaches wherein the reselection processing unit performs the reselection based on received signal strength indicators from the communication devices (12:40-44 “SNR”).
Regarding claim 12, Sendonaris teaches wherein the reselection processing unit performs the reselection based on position coordinate information indicating positions at which the communication devices are arranged (351, 353, Fig. 3 in view of 12:44-48 “if this signal is the only signal to the west of the receiver, then it may be determined that utilizing this signal... would improve the DOP so much that the overall resulting position measurement error would likely be improved”, where using position coordinate information of the communication device is inherent to determining if the signal is “west of the receiver”).
Regarding claim 13, Sendonaris teaches wherein the reselection processing unit performs the reselection based on: position coordinate information of a device to be subjected to position measurement obtained by position measurement based on a result of distance measurement using the phase-based method performed for each of the primarily selected communication devices (351, 353, Fig. 3 in view of 12:44-48 “if this signal is the only signal to the west of the receiver, then it may be determined that utilizing this signal... would improve the DOP so much that the overall resulting position measurement error would likely be improved”, where using position coordinate information of the device to be positioned is inherent to determining if the signal is “west of the receiver”, and device position is determined using phase-based method as discussed above with respect to claim 1); and position coordinate information indicating positions at which the communication devices are arranged (similarly, communication device position coordinates are required in order to determine if the communication device is “west of the receiver”).
Regarding claim 14, Sendonaris teaches wherein the reselection processing unit performs the reselection so that the number of the communication devices that will be in a selected state after reselection matches a prescribed number for position measurement (16:11-13 “the estimated position is determined using at least three range measurements”, where “three” matches a prescribed number).
Regarding claim 15, Sendonaris teaches wherein the reselection processing unit performs the reselection so that the number of the communication devices that will be in a selected state after reselection is greater than a prescribed number for position measurement (16:11-13 “the estimated position is determined using at least three range measurements”, where “at least three” includes within its scpe a number greater than the prescribed number ‘three’).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sendonaris (US 9964647 B2) in view of Boer (“Performance of High-Accuracy Phase-Based Ranging in Multipath Environments”) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Cheong (US 20220159543 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Sendonaris teaches wherein the primary selection processing unit performs the primary selection based on: position coordinate information of a device to be subjected to position measurement arranged (8:53-55 “transmitters (or signals) are associated with one or more groups based on a characteristic of each transmitter (310)” and 8:62-64 “the characteristic relates to the location of the transmitter with respect to an initial estimate of the receiver’s position”).
Sendonaris does not teach the primary selection based on position coordinate information of a device to be subjected to position measurement calculated based on received signal strength indicators from the communication devices.
However, Sendonaris teaches Bluetooth distance measurement (18:54-64 “Bluetooth”) and that “initial range measurements... may be used to determine hypothesized receiver locations and then use this information to relate locations of the transmitters to the hypothesized locations of the receiver” (6:50-56). Cheong teaches using Bluetooth received signal strength indicators to obtain a coarse estimation of location (para. [0062] “proximity/location detection may be provided by initially using a low power consuming transceiver's proximity detection function (e.g., Bluetooth RSSI) to obtain a coarse estimation of location”). It would have been obvious to further modify Sendonaris by performing the initial range measurements using Bluetooth signal strength indicators as taught by Cheong because it would provide a low power solution to the problem of determining the initial range measurements and determine hypothesized receiver locations.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sendonaris (US 9964647 B2) in view of Boer (“Performance of High-Accuracy Phase-Based Ranging in Multipath Environments”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayakawa (US 20210048504 A1) and Uga (US 20140228057 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Sendonaris does not teach wherein the determination processing unit determines whether or not to perform distance measurement using a method other than the phase-based method, based on the reliability information on distance measurement.
However, other distance measurement methods are well-known - for example, Hayakawa teaches RSSI or TOA distance estimation using LAN, Bluetooth, UWB, or acoustic waves (para. [0053]). Further, Uga teaches performing location estimation by another method when a first method has a low degree of reliability (paras. [0183]-[0191]).
It would have been obvious to modify Sendonaris in view of Hayakawa and Uga by determining whether or not to perform distance measurement using a method other than the phase-based method based on the reliability information in order to increase the reliability of the resulting position.
Regarding claim 17, a distance measurement control unit that controls distance measurement using the other method is considered inherent to the combination of Sendonaris, Hayakawa, and Uga.
Regarding claim 18, Sendonaris performs the phase-based method through wireless communication using Bluetooth (18:61), but does not teach Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE). However, BLE is well-known – for example, see Boer’s abstract (“Bluetooth low-energy (BLE)”). It would have been obvious to further modify Sendonaris by implementing Bluetooth using BLE in order to reduce power consumption.
Regarding controlling distance measurement through wireless communication that uses a wider frequency band than BLE, as the distance measurement using the other method, Hayakawa teaches distance estimation using UWB, which is known to have a wider frequency band than BLE, as well as higher accuracy. It would have obvious to further modify Sendonaris by using UWB as the distance measurement using the other method because it is a known method with the advantage of high accuracy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dey (US 20170289951 A1) teaches determining whether or not to perform distance measurement (para. [0013] “ranging”) using a method (“WLT 2” at 74 and 80, Fig. 5) other than a first method (“WLT 1” at 68 and 70, Fig. 5), based on reliability information on distance measurement of the first method (68, 69, Fig. 5; para. [0033] “accuracy/validity of the location data output by each WLT”). Dey teaches that reliable positioning is thereby achieved (abstract).
Cai (US 20170171714 A1) teaches reselecting communication devices to be used for position measurement based on reliability information of measurements (Figs. 1, 2, esp. 204, Fig. 2).
Feki (US 20220353637 A1) teaches selecting a new positioning method when a positioning accuracy condition is not satisfied (para. [0176]).
Bottazzi (US 20160302044 A1) teaches UWB has having greater accuracy in distance measurement than BLE (para. [0005]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648