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
Claims 1, 12, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The various uses of the word “bacons” should be read “beacons. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “obtaining location information of a target device” which is indefinite, because it is unclear what Applicant means by “obtain” in this context. Applicant does not appear to disclose an embodiment of the invention, which otherwise matches the claimed invention, where the “processing device” (i.e., the service entity 502 in Figure 5) can be said to “obtain” location information of a target device. Instead, as shown in Figure 5, the service entity 502 receives the scanning report 525 from the management entity 503, and then the service entity 502 itself performs the snapshot scanning analysis 526. Thus, the service entity 502 may be said to determine or calculate the location information based on the scanning report, but a POSITA would not say that the service entity 502 is obtaining the location information from the management entity 503, i.e., in a useful or cognizable sense. Instead, as discussed in para. [0065], “the service entity 502 may determine location information of the target device 506.” A POSITA would not equate such a determination to “obtaining” the location information, as determining and obtaining are distinguishable from one another. Claims 12 and 20 are likewise rejected, and dependent claims 2-11 and 13-1 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “obtaining location information of a target device, transmission time information of first one or more beacons transmitted by the target device, transmission channel information of the first one or more beacons, or a combination thereof” and then subsequently recites “configuring a first set of electronic shelf label (ESL) devices…based on the location information, the transmission time information, the transmission channel information, or a combination thereof” which is indefinite, because the two lists do not share the same scope in terms of their requirements. In other words, in an embodiment of the invention where only the transmission time information is “obtained” in the first step, then logically the ESL devices cannot be “configured…based on the location information” that was never obtained in the first place. However, such an illogical embodiment is currently encompassed by the claims. Claims 12 and 20 are likewise rejected, and dependent claims 2-11 and 13-1 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 3 recites “the second set of ESL devices for the snapshot scanning operation is determined based on an offline setting” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, it is unclear what it means to “determine” the second set of ESL devices. There appears not to be a broader superset of ESL devices available from which the second set is chosen. Additionally, it is unclear if said determination is part of the method, or whether the determination happens outside of the scope of the method, since it is not recited in an active voice as a method step. Second, it is unclear what “an offline setting is referring to, e.g., a setting of the processing device, the ESL devices, or some other unclaimed device? Claim 14 is likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7, 12-13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liang et al. (US 12,136,362 B1), hereinafter Liang.
Regarding claim 1, Liang discloses a method of operating a processing device, the method comprising:
obtaining location information of a target device, transmission time information of first one or more beacons transmitted by the target device, transmission channel information of the first one or more beacons, or a combination thereof (col. 4, lines 46-52, regarding step S101, calculating a positioning result for each position-unknown electronic shelf label by using coordinate information of position-known electronic shelf labels and obtaining a candidate electronic shelf label with a fuzzy positioning result and a plurality of matching electronic shelf labels matched with the candidate electronic shelf label; col. 5, lines 21-25, regarding step S201, sending, by a server, a full-field positioning message to all the base stations, so that the base stations broadcast to notify all the electronic shelf labels to arbitrarily send identity information at a predetermined time-window);
configuring a first set of electronic shelf label (ESL) devices to perform a targeted scanning operation arranged for scanning the first one or more beacons from a target scanning zone based on the location information, the transmission time information, the transmission channel information, or a combination thereof (col. 8, lines 15-20, regarding step S102, pairing the candidate electronic shelf label with the plurality of matching electronic shelf labels one by one to obtain a plurality of candidate-matching shelf label pairs, and sequentially sending a distance measurement instruction to each of the candidate-matching shelf label pairs through a base station; col. 9, lines 41-51, regarding the issued distance measurement instruction should at least include the following information: the IDs of the two to-be-measured distance shelf labels; the identities of the two shelf labels (e.g., the candidate shelf label is a master shelf label and the neighbor shelf label is a slave shelf label); the distance measurement start time; the frequency point range for the distance measurement, the duration for a measurement signal transmission, the signal transmission power, the reception time-window length, the duration for a single measurement, and the number of times of measurement);
receiving one or more targeted scanning reports from the first set of ESL devices based on the targeted scanning operation, each one of the one or more targeted scanning reports indicating an ESL identifier of a reporting ESL device, a device identifier of the target device, a number of one or more received bacons received by the reporting ESL device, one or more reception timestamps of the one or more received bacons received by the reporting ESL device, one or more reception signal strengths of the one or more received bacons received by the reporting ESL device, or any combination thereof (col. 9, lines 60-67, regarding sequentially executing, by each of the candidate-matching shelf label pairs, the distance measurement task according to the distance measurement instruction to obtain the measured distance between the candidate electronic shelf label and each of the matching electronic shelf labels includes: sending, by the candidate electronic shelf label in the current candidate-matching shelf label pair, an i-th measurement signal; col. 11, lines 4-5, regarding after the specified number of times of measurements are completed, the two shelf labels stop the measurement mode); and
engaging in a positioning procedure for determining an estimated location of the target device based on the one or more targeted scanning reports (col. 13, lines 54-57, regarding revising the fuzzy positioning result of the candidate electronic shelf label based on all the measured distances to determine an actual positioning result for the candidate electronic shelf label).
Regarding claim 2, Liang discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses the invention further comprising: configuring a second set of ESL devices to perform a snapshot scanning operation arranged for scanning second one or more beacons from a scanning space encompassing the target scanning zone (see again col. 8, lines 15-20, which encompasses performing the scanning as many times as warranted); receiving one or more snapshot scanning reports from the second set of ESL devices based on the snapshot scanning operation (see again col. 9, lines 60-67, which encompasses receiving reports as many times as warranted); and determining the target scanning zone based on the one or more snapshot scanning reports (see again col. 13, lines 54-57, which encompasses determining the scanning zone as many times as warranted).
Regarding claim 7, Liang discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein: the first set of ESL devices is communicatively coupled to an ESL network, and the target device is communicatively coupled to the ESL network as a camped ESL device (see again col. 4, lines 46-52, where the target device is one of the electronic shelf labels).
Regarding claim 12, Liang discloses a processing device (abstract, regarding a positioning method for an electrical shelf label, a computer device, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium), comprising:
one or more memories (abstract);
one or more transceivers (as shown in fig. 2); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers (see col. 2, lines 7-15), the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to:
obtain location information of a target device, transmission time information of first one or more beacons transmitted by the target device, transmission channel information of the first one or more beacons, or a combination thereof (see again col. 4, lines 46-52; col. 5, lines 21-25);
configure a first set of electronic shelf label (ESL) devices to perform a targeted scanning operation arranged for scanning the first one or more beacons from a target scanning zone based on the location information, the transmission time information, the transmission channel information, or a combination thereof (see again col. 8, lines 15-20; col. 9, lines 41-51);
receive, via the one or more transceivers, one or more targeted scanning reports from the first set of ESL devices based on the targeted scanning operation, each one of the one or more targeted scanning reports indicating an ESL identifier of a reporting ESL device, a device identifier of the target device, a number of one or more received bacons received by the reporting ESL device, one or more reception timestamps of the one or more received bacons received by the reporting ESL device, one or more reception signal strengths of the one or more received bacons received by the reporting ESL device, or any combination thereof (see again col. 9, lines 60-67; col. 11, lines 4-5); and
engage in a positioning procedure for determining an estimated location of the target device based on the one or more targeted scanning reports (see again col. 13, lines 54-57).
Regarding claim 13, Liang discloses the invention in claim 12, and further discloses wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: configure a second set of ESL devices to perform a snapshot scanning operation arranged for scanning second one or more beacons from a scanning space encompassing the target scanning zone (see again col. 8, lines 15-20); receive, via the one or more transceivers, one or more snapshot scanning reports from the second set of ESL devices based on the snapshot scanning operation (see again col. 9, lines 60-67); and determine the target scanning zone based on the one or more snapshot scanning reports (see again col. 13, lines 54-57).
Regarding claim 18, Liang discloses the invention in claim 12, and further discloses wherein: the first set of ESL devices is communicatively coupled to an ESL network, and the target device is communicatively coupled to the ESL network as a camped ESL device (see again col. 4, lines 46-52, where the target device is one of the electronic shelf labels).
Regarding claim 20, Liang discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions (abstract, regarding a positioning method for an electrical shelf label, a computer device, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium) that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to:
obtain location information of a target device, transmission time information of first one or more beacons transmitted by the target device, transmission channel information of the first one or more beacons, or a combination thereof (see again col. 4, lines 46-52; col. 5, lines 21-25);
configure a first set of electronic shelf label (ESL) devices to perform a targeted scanning operation arranged for scanning the first one or more beacons from a target scanning zone based on the location information, the transmission time information, the transmission channel information, or a combination thereof (see again col. 8, lines 15-20; col. 9, lines 41-51);
receive, via the one or more transceivers, one or more targeted scanning reports from the first set of ESL devices based on the targeted scanning operation, each one of the one or more targeted scanning reports indicating an ESL identifier of a reporting ESL device, a device identifier of the target device, a number of one or more received bacons received by the reporting ESL device, one or more reception timestamps of the one or more received bacons received by the reporting ESL device, one or more reception signal strengths of the one or more received bacons received by the reporting ESL device, or any combination thereof (see again col. 9, lines 60-67; col. 11, lines 4-5); and
engage in a positioning procedure for determining an estimated location of the target device based on the one or more targeted scanning reports (see again col. 13, lines 54-57).
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.
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:
a) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 12,136,362 B1), hereinafter Liang.
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Liang discloses the invention in claims 7 and 18, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the ESL network is based on a BLUETOOTH® low energy (BLE) standard.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the invention such that the ESL network is based on a BLUETOOTH® low energy (BLE) standard, since the equivalence of a BLE network and a generic wireless network for their use in the network communication art and the selection of any known equivalents to BLUE networks would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The purpose would be to ensure that the devices can be easily connected to the network without requiring too much power.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8-10, and 14-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights