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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of a 371 of PCT/US2023/060968, filed 01/20/2023.
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 8/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument with respect to claim 1, arguments are not persuasive because they attack the references individually rather than the combined teachings properly considered under 103 and BRI.
First, Sobol does in fact teaches a portable wearable unit that periodically generates and transmits data at a configurable reporting interval. Sobol describes wearable devices that collect location proximity related data and send that data at predetermined intervals. Applicant’s reliance on the “five seconds” disclosure is too narrow. The rejection does not depend on that passage alone, but on Sobol’s express teaching of configurable periodic transmissions (see Sobol 0011, 0031-0032, 0075 and 0076).
Second, the claim’s requirement that the portable unit transmit the location package “to a beacon” is met by the combined teachings. Sobol expressly discloses wearable devices communicating with nearby beacons/peripheral nodes, and Kaseva expressly teaches a beacon mesh in which beacon devices relay data hop-by-hop to a gateway. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Sobol’s location/proximity data could be transported using Kaseva’s scalable beacon-relay architecture to improve coverage and reduce gateway burden (see Kaseva col. 5, lines 38-57, WMN devices communicate indirectly over multiple hops using other nodes. Also Kaseva’s beacon devices form a multi-hop WMN; data is communicated between beacon device and gateway device. Beacon devices providing bi-directional mesh connection and beacon devices form a multi-hop WMN where data is communicated between beacon device and gateway device.).
Third, Applicant’s assertion that Sobol operates in the “opposite direction” is overstated. Sobol discloses bidirectional communication within the PAN and expressly teaches communication with nearby beacons and peripheral nodes. The fact that Sobol emphasizes aggregation and uplink transmission does not prevent the claimed transmission path, especially where obviousness does not require the primary reference to disclose every feature in identical form.
Fourth, Kaseva is not limited to beacon management in the abstract. It teaches a multi-hop wireless mesh network of beacons relaying data to a gateway. The claim does not require that Kaseva itself disclose wearable generated packets, it is enough that Kaseva supplies the relay architecture that would have been applied to Sobol’s location data.
Regarding applicant’s argument with respect to claims 4 and 9, arguments are not persuasive because claim 9 is properly rejected over Sobol in view of Kaseva for the same reasons as claim 1, with the additional server side limitations being taught or rendered obvious by the cited disclosures.
First, Applicant’s assertion that claim 9 is allowable “for the same reason” as claim 1 is incorrect. The rejection is not limited to the network path alone. Sobol expressly teaches a wearable system that collects location-related data, transmits it to a gateway/backhaul, and performs server-side analytics including location determination, geofencing, and display/reporting functions. See Sobol para 0011, 0030-0038, 0061-0063, 0067-0076, 0081-0083. Kaseva supplies the multi-hop beacon mesh and gateway relay architecture. Together, these references support the claimed server process of receiving configuration information, receiving location packages from a wireless mesh network, generating location data, and providing that data for display.
Second, applicant’s argument that neither reference teaches a server that “maintain a point cloud of the location data” is not persuasive. Under BRI, “point cloud” reasonably encompasses a server-side spatial representation or collection of location points used to model device position in an environment. Sobol already teaches server-side storage, analytics, geofencing, RSSI-based location determination, and display of location information. Using a point-cloud representation to store or maintain such spatial location data would have been an obvious implementation choice to improve precision and spatial modeling in the same system.
Third, applicant’s challenge to the Examiner’s official notice is not persuasive. The Examiner took official notice only of the general proposition that point-cloud technology was known in cloud-based spatial modeling contexts. Applicant has not shown that this is beyond common technical knowledge. Moreover, even if the official notice were set aside, Sobol’s disclosure of server-side location processing and geofence-based mapping, combined with Kaseva’s scalable mesh network, renders the point-cloud limitation an obvious variation of known location-storage techniques.
In addition, newly provided reference Alpert et al (US 2016/0299661) provides evidence to support the official notice taken. Specifically, Alpert para 0006, 0007, 0033, 0065 and 0088 discloses a server computer, GPS coordinated 3D point cloud data related to a location, transmission of that point cloud data from server to client, periodic updating based on the user’s position in the point cloud, and rendering/display of the point cloud on the client side. This directly supports a server that stores, transmits, and renders point cloud data related to location, not merely generic cloud-hosted data. The point cloud here is explicitly tied to geospatial location and server-side handling.
Finally, claim 9 recites no additional structural or operational limitation that distinguishes it meaningfully from the combination already applied to claim 1. The recited server functions are broad and functional, and the cited references collectively teach or suggest the claimed receiving, processing, storing, and display operations. Accordingly, claim 9 remains unpatentable over Sobol in view of Kaseva.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102
and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and
the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobol et al (US 2021/0337355) in view of Kaseva (US 10,750,341).
Regarding claim 1, Sobol teaches a positioning system for monitoring a workforce within a site using a wireless mesh network (0016-0019, 0059 and 0075-0076 Sobol discloses monitoring people within a region using beacons and wearable electronic devices for tracking and geofencing; Sobol discloses a mesh or hybrid topologies for PAN/backhaul connectivity) comprising:
a plurality of beacon sets (Sobol 0018, 0044, 0071-0076 disclose beacons positioned to define rooms/geofences and using groups of beacons to define protected zones);
a plurality of portable units, each portable unit being worn or carried by a workforce member and being configured to: rate a location package at a predefined frequency and transmit the location package to a beacon (Sobol 0016-0019, 0024 and 0031-0034 discloses wearable/portable devices carried by people that periodically generate packages containing nearby beacon IDs and RSSI values and transmit those packages at configurable reporting intervals (e.g., default 5 seconds-configurable).
a gateway communicably coupled to the proxy and configured to transmit the location package to a server (Sobol 0019-0020 & 0035-0036 disclose gateway/proxy units that receive beacons’ packages and forward them to a server/backhaul);
and the server, wherein the server is configured to receive the location package and determine a location of the respective portable unit (Sobol 0032-0034 and 0038-0043 disclose server-side analytics that use RSSI/trilateration and geofence comparison to determine the portable unit’s location, and to present live tracking and analytics).
However, Sobol does not explicitly teach a plurality of beacon sets, each beacon set being positioned to define a geofence and comprising a plurality of beacons.
Kaseva discloses deployment of multiple beacon devices across a site (col. 5, lines 23-50).
While Sobol teaches mesh topologies and proxies/gateways collecting data from beacon, Sobol is silent to the beacon relays the location package to other beacons until the location package is collected by a proxy. However, Kaseva explicitly teaches beacon devices that relay data hop-by-hop within a WMN until reaching a gateway (Kaseva col. 5, lines 38-57).
As stated above Kaseva shows wherein the plurality of beacon sets and the plurality of portable units form the wireless mesh network (WMN formed by beacons, and Sobol contemplates mesh variants (beacons + portable units cooperating in mesh topology).
Both references address common technical problems: scalable, low-power coverage and remote management of many beacon/sensor nodes, and reliable delivery of sensor/package data to a central server. Sobol discloses the wearable devices, package formation, geofence definitions, and server processing but recognizes deployment and coverage concerns for sites. Kaseva provides the recognized solution of a multi-hop WMN to reduce gateway count, enable remote management, and permit beacon-to-beacon relaying to a gateway.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling data of the claimed invention to employ the WMN relay architecture of Kaseva in Sobol’s PAN/location-package system to provide scalable collection and forwarding of periodic location packages from portable units through beacons to a proxy/gateway and server.
Examiner’s note regarding possible “nonce” term proxy. It is examiner’s position that “proxy” has structural functional context as evident by the specification “The proxy 108 is explicitly described as a device (hardware) in the system figure 1. Including operates between the mesh network and the server which translates BLE messages into a server-processable format.
Regarding claim 2, Sobol teaches generating the location package comprises: identifying a plurality of nearby beacons; and obtaining a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) and a beacon ID for each of the plurality of nearby beacons (Sobol 0024- sensor finds three nearby beacons and reads their RSSIs and IDs).
Regarding claim 3, Sobol teaches the location package comprises the RSSI's and beacon IDs for each of the plurality of nearby beacons, a portable unit ID for the respective portable unit, and a timestamp (0019 and 0024- package contains beacon IDs, RSSIs, sensor ID, version, timestamp).
Regarding claim 4, Sobol teaches the server is configured to store the location package in a cloud (Sobol’s 0035 and 0036 AWS and other cloud services) but fails to specifically disclose a point cloud. However, official notice is taken that it is well known the cloud technology to use point cloud technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling data of the claimed invention to employ point cloud instead or within the Sobol’s existing cloud system in order to provide precise spatial data which is beneficial when dealing with accurate modeling and the need for intricate details of a complex environment such as object and structures.
Regarding claim 5, Sobol teaches a predefined frequency is configurable (0024, 0042, 0045, 0058- data is conveyed on certain triggering criteria and frequency of transmission may be adjusted - default five-second reporting interval; configurable by administrator). However fails to specifically discuss a specific range from about one second to about ten minutes. However, official notice is taken that it is inherent to Sobol to select a transmission frequency within a known range is a routine optimization based on power and bandwidth consideration.
Regarding claim 6, Sobol teaches the location of the respective portable unit comprises using a combination of geofencing and trilateration (Sobol 0072- server uses trilateration plus geofence comparison).
Regarding claim 7, Sobol teaches using a combination of geofencing and trilateration comprises: processing the RSSI's with a trilateration technique to determine a position; comparing the determined position to a configuration of the site, the configuration comprising the geofences defined by the plurality of beacon sets; determining that the position is within a geofence; and determining that the respective portable unit is located inside the geofence (Sobol 0072 and 0074-0076).
Regarding claim 8, Sobol discloses the server is configured to, in response to determining that the respective portable unit is located inside the geofence, cause live tracking information for the respective portable unit to be displayed on a client device (Sobol 0033, 0081-0084, Sobol’s analytics engine generates live maps on mobile device and notifications functions with analytics based assessment).
Regarding claim 9, Sobol teaches the server and instructions method: receive geofence configuration, receive packages, generate location data, maintain point cloud, provide data for display) is unpatentable over Sobol and Kaseva as applied to claim 1 and 4.
Regarding claim 10, same as claim 3, see rejection above (Sobol 0028, 0030, 0061).
Regarding claim 11, Sobol teaches the server is configured to receive a location package at a predefined frequency (Sobol 0024- periodic data transmission).
Regarding claim 12, same as claim 5, see rejection above- configurable frequency range.
Regarding claim 13, same as claim 6 above (geofence and trilateration – Sobol 0071-0072).
Regarding claim 14, same as claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, same as claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, Sobol teaches displaying live location data for the portable unit comprises: displaying a map of the site; demarcating the plurality of geofences of the site on the map; and displaying an indicator on the map indicating a current location of the portable unit (0084- thermal map hot-spot and multiroom building, 0071- geofence zones). Although not explicitly states a map with geofence overlay, it is implied and therefore inherent to Sobol’s display.
Regarding claim 17, Sobol teaches displaying the live location data for the portable unit further comprises updating the current location of the portable unit at a predefined frequency (Sobol 0058- adjustable frequency. The PAN P may be configured for resource management, such as the frequency of transmission between the wearable electronic device 100 as the FFD and the larger (IP) network or other backhaul infrastructure, as well as the adjustment of power-consuming functions (which could be initiated either on the wearable electronic device 100 or by a remote user, either automatically or by a system administrator) such as those tied to frequency or immediacy of certain data requirements, as well as for energy use throttling in situations where excessive energy use has been identified).
Regarding claim 18, Sobol teaches a geofence rule with the configuration; determine a violation of the geofence rule based on analyzing the location data of the portable unit; and generating an alert for display on the client device (Sobol 0030- enter or exit a designated geofenced area & 0031- alerts when within a preset distance).
Regarding claim 19, Sobol teaches the violation comprises at least one of: entering a restricted geofence; or approaching the restricted geofence (Sobol 0030- enter or exit a designated geofenced area & 0031- alerts when within a preset distance).
Regarding claim 20, Sobol as modified by Kaseva teaches a positioning system that tracks portable units carried by workforce members, determines the amount of time a portable unit remains within a geofence, and generates analytics based on that tracked duration (see rejection above). However Sobol modified above fails to specifically disclose the server is further configured to compute a labor cost associated with the portable unit. However, official notice is taken that is well known to compute a labor cost associated with the portable unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling data of the claimed invention to modify Sobol’s analytics engine to compute a labor cost associated with the portable unit because Sobol already determines time-in-geofence data, and computing cost from time-based workforce data is a predictable and conventional extension of such analytics. The combination merely uses known analytical techniques to obtain a known and expected result.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDAN ORGAD whose telephone number is (571)272-7884. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-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.
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.
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights