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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, a processor is to determine error projection(s) associated with initial estimated position and is further associated with locators. It is unclear how the estimated position is acquired/received since there is no device to receive information (per claim 2) to process AOA information and further used to estimate position. It is known in the art, this estimate can be processed locally with a wireless TRX or acquired straight from a server. This is missing a device to do so (a communication device wireless/wired).
The limitation “the plurality of error projections” lacks antecedence basis.
Further, in the step of “identify a group of locators based on overlaps, between error projections of a plurality of error projections”. It is unclear how the error or overlap is defined/found and the word between appears based on itself—between error projections and a plurality of error projections.
In the last step of refined estimate does not seem to be refined since it is based on initial estimated positions.
Applicant needs to refine the claim language to better define/relate the claimed features in order to overcome the rejections.
For the dependent claims 2-20, there seems no device claimed to overcome the 112 rejection for claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY K LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1338. The examiner can normally be reached on every M-F 10 AM to 6:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please leave a voice message with application serial number and nature of call, a response within 24 hours can be expected during regular business days. Also, the Examiner’s supervisor Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2338.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY K LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 Tel: (571) 270-1338
Fax: (571) 270-2338
Email: harry.liu@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights