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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant's communication filed on 06/17/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in the instant application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9, 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. The claims of the instant application encompass the same subject matter except not including a lost device as in the Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to implement the instant application with a first device to do the same process as in Patent No. 12,047,834 B2.
Claims 2, 10, 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. The claims of the instant application encompass the same subject matter except not including a lost device as in the Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to implement the instant application with a first device to do the same process as in Patent No. 12,047,834 B2.
Claims 3, 11, 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. The claims of the instant application encompass the same subject matter except not including a lost device as in the Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to implement the instant application with a first device to do the same process as in Patent No. 12,047,834 B2.
Claims 4, 12, 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. The claims of the instant application encompass the same subject matter except not including a lost device as in the Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to implement the instant application with a first device to do the same process as in Patent No. 12,047,834 B2.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because omission of element and its function (i.e., lost) in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPS) 136 USPQ 184 (1863).
Claims 2, 10, 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. The claims of the instant application encompass the same subject matter as in the Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to implement the instant application with a first device to do the same process as in Patent No. 12,047,834 B2.
Claims 3, 11, 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. The claims of the instant application encompass the same subject matter as in the Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to implement the instant application with a first device to do the same process as in Patent No. 12,047,834 B2.
Claims 4, 12, 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. The claims of the instant application encompass the same subject matter as in the Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to implement the instant application with a first device to do the same process as in Patent No. 12,047,834 B2.
Claims 5, 13, 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4, 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. The claims of the instant application encompass the same subject matter as in the Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to implement the instant application with a first device to do the same process as in Patent No. 12,047,834 B2.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. The claims of the instant application encompass the same subject matter as in the Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to implement the instant application with a first device to do the same process as in Patent No. 12,047,834 B2.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. The claims of the instant application encompass the same subject matter as in the Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to implement the instant application with a first device to do the same process as in Patent No. 12,047,834 B2.
Claims 8, 14, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. The claims of the instant application encompass the same subject matter as in the Patent No. 12,047,834 B2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to implement the instant application with a first device to do the same process as in Patent No. 12,047,834 B2.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the same subject matter with different order in combination is obvious expedient if performing same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPS) 136 USPQ 184 (1863).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boross et al. (hereinafter “Boross”) (Pat # US 10,524,225 B1) in view of Farchmin et al. (hereinafter “Farchmin”) (Pub # US 2005/0070304 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15, Boross discloses a method comprising:
determining, based at least in part on a first signal strength associated with a first signal sent by a first device (see system 100 including device including management app 130 in Figure 1), an estimation of a first location in a premises (i.e., the locations are in rooms of a house, see col. 5 lines 8 – 21) at which the first signal is received (see S220, S240 in Figure 4, col. 5 lines 29 – 50, col. 6 lines 29 – 50, col. 7 lines 26 – 32, col. 10 lines 12 – 67 discussing that the system uses device connection data, which is received signal strength, i.e., RSSI, as received by and seen by the access point, the system then determines estimated locations (i.e., vicinity of the “Bedroom 1” router), see col. 7 lines 54 – 58, col. 10 lines 38 – 50, col. 11 lines 40 – 44 for the system is estimating which access point receives the signal based upon the RSSI, thus estimating the location the signal was received, i.e., the access point in the bedroom).
Boross is estimating that the location of the device is in the bedroom, thus discloses determining, based on the estimation of the first location, an estimation distances and/or angles of the device to APs to produce a location of the first device (see col. 10 lines 38 – 50, col. 11 lines 1 – 12 discussion the first location is used, thus obviously teaching estimation of a location of the first device. If in question, using Farchmin as below.
In an analogous art, Farchmin teaches determining, based on the estimation of the first location, an estimation of a location of the first device (see Farchmin, [0018], [0020], [0048], [0054], [0056], [0057] discussing that the first location estimate is used along with another location estimate to conclude a location of the wireless device, thus at least using the first estimated location to determine the location of the device sending the signal. In addition, Farchmin teaches wireless information device 30 comprising processor, memory, and software programs in Fig. 2a, 2b within a space, see [0050], [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made, to modify the invention of Boross, and add determining, based on the estimation of the first location, an estimation of a location of the first device, as taught by Farchmin, thereby increasing the accuracy of the location finding, as discussed by Farchmin (see Farchmin, [0013]).
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 16, Boross in view of Farchmin disclose determining, based at least in part on a second signal strength associated with a second signal sent by the first device, an estimation of a second location in the premises at which the second signal is received, wherein determination of the estimation of the location of the first device is further based on the estimation of the second location (see Boross, col. 8 lines 19 – 49, col. 10 lines 35 – 67, and col. 11 lines 1 – 12 discussing the system causes the device to send a signal to a second AP, uses both estimates via triangulation or other techniques to determine location).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 17, Boross in view of Farchmin disclose wherein the determining the estimation of the first location is based, at least in part, on an estimation of a gain associated with the first device (see Boross, col. 11 lines 18 – 31 discussing determining that the device was not moving (i.e., similar RSSI) or the device was moving away or toward an AP (if RSSI decreased or increased respectively), thus estimation a gain associated with the first device).
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 18, Boross in view of Farchmin disclose determining a map of the estimation of the location of the first device in the premises (see Boross, Figure 6, col. 16 lines 48 – 67).
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 19, Boross in view of Farchmin disclose causing output, on a computing device (see Boross, i.e., router management platform 120 in Figure 1), of the map of the estimation of the first location of the first device (see Boross, col. 16 lines 48 – 67).
Regarding claim 6, Boross in view of Farchmin disclose wherein the first signal strength is measured by a measuring device, and wherein the measuring device is not an intended recipient of the first signal (see Boross, col. 6 lines 29 – 58, the RSSI can be from a standard communication the device to make a call, thus the AP was not intended recipient).
Regarding claim 7, Boross in view of Farchmin disclose wherein the determining the estimation of the location of the first device is performed, at least in part, utilizing a computing device (see Boross, i.e., router management platform 120 in Figure 1) located outside of the premises (see Boross, Figure 1, col. 3 lines 47 – 67, col. 4 lines 15 – 27, col. 16 lines 48 – 67, discussing a management platform or server from another part of the communication network may aid in the location finding).
Regarding claims 8, 14, and 20, Boross in view of Farchmin disclose determining an estimation of gain associated with the first device, wherein the determining the estimation of the location of the first device is further based on the estimation of the gain (see Boross, col. 11 lines 18 – 31 discussing determining that the device was not moving (i.e., similar RSSI) or the device was moving away or toward an AP, i.e., if RSSI decreased or increased respectively).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONG-THUY THI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM - 6PM (IFP).
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, ANTHONY ADDY can be reached at (571)272-7795. 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.
/MONG-THUY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645