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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on June 21, 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “detecting a presence, determining a distance based on signal strength, and comparing that distance to a threshold”. which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas that can be performed in the human mind or by a human with a pencil and paper.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because generic processors and wireless communication interfaces, when considered separately and in combination, are recited to detect a signal, determine a distance based on signal strength, and generate an alert. These are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions (data collection, mathematical calculation, and notification) as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Specifically, the use of a "first device" and "second device" to exchange "signals" represents the most basic functionality of such devices. Determining distance based on the "strength of the received signal" (RSSI) is a long-standing, conventional mathematical technique in the field of radio frequency engineering and does not represent a technical improvement to the device itself.
Dependent claims 2-19 do not comprise any further limitations which cause the abstract idea to be integrated into a practical application or recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2-19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to ATA 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 15 1, 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 1,4-5, 7, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0341541 (hereinafter, "Barratt").
Regarding claim 1, Barratt discloses a processor-implemented method of generating a proximity-based alert in a remote environment, the method comprising:
detecting, at a first device, presence of a second device (“detecting proximity between at least one first, preferably mobile, transceiver and at least one second, preferably mobile, transceiver” (para 0008)) based on a signal received from the second device (“estimate a primary distance value between the primary radio module of the first transceiver and the primary radio module of the second transceiver from a measurement of the strength of at least one signal” (para 0011)), wherein the signal is received directly from the second device (“the primary radio module of the first transceiver is able to communicate with the primary radio module of the second transceiver” (para 0009));
determining, at the first device, a distance between the first device and the second device based at least in part on a strength of the received signal (“measuring the strength of a received signal so as to estimate the distance of the emitter by knowing beforehand the original strength of the signal” (para 0080)); and
generating an alert based on comparing the determined distance to a threshold distance (“if the estimated secondary distance value is less than a predetermined notification distance 500, the transceiver 110 is configured to notify a proximity detection. Indeed, as soon as the distance between the two transceivers 110 is below a predetermined threshold, each transceiver 110 will notify that they are too close to each other” (para 0097) and “the transceiver 110 comprises at least one human-machine interaction module 160. It is this human-machine interaction module 160 that has the function of generating said notification” (para 0098)).
Regarding claim 4, Barratt discloses the method of claim 1. Additionally, Barratt discloses wherein generating the alert includes causing at least one of a tactile alert, an audio alert, or a visual alert (“the notification of the proximity detection comprises at least one from among: a vibration, a sound, a light signal, etc.” (para 0063)).
Regarding claim 5, Barratt discloses the method of claim 4. Additionally, Barratt discloses wherein the at least one of the tactile alert, the audio alert, or the visual alert is performed at a secondary device coupled to the first device (“the notification of the proximity detection comprises at least one from among: a vibration, a sound, a light signal, etc.” (para 0063) and “if the estimated secondary distance value is less than a predetermined notification distance 500, the transceiver 110 is configured to notify a proximity detection. Indeed, as soon as the distance between the two transceivers 110 is below a predetermined threshold, each transceiver 110 will notify that they are too close to each other” (para 0097)).
Regarding claim 7, Barratt discloses the method of claim 1. Additionally, Barratt discloses wherein the first device comprises a wearable device (“This transceiver 110 is preferably mobile. For example, it may be worn by a user, such as a badge, a bracelet or a belt” (para 0069)).
Regarding claim 12, Barratt discloses the method of claim 1. Additionally, Barratt discloses wherein the first device and the second device do not communicate via a cellular network (“the first transceiver and the second transceiver each comprising at least one primary radio module and one secondary radio module” (para 0008) and “the primary radio module of the first transceiver is able to communicate with the primary radio module of the second transceiver, according to a first frequency band and according to a first amplitude” (para 0009)).
Regarding claim 20, Barratt discloses a method for detecting devices in a remote environment without cellular coverage comprising:
receiving a first signal from a first device via a non-cellular network and through a direct transmission (“one signal received by the primary radio module of the first transceiver from the primary radio module of the second transceiver” (para 0011));
determining a first distance of the first device based on the first signal (“measuring the strength of a received signal so as to estimate the distance of the emitter by knowing beforehand the original strength of the signal” (para 0080)); and
generating an alert at a second device when the first distance is under a threshold (“if the estimated secondary distance value is less than a predetermined notification distance 500, the transceiver 110 is configured to notify a proximity detection. Indeed, as soon as the distance between the two transceivers 110 is below a predetermined threshold, each transceiver 110 will notify that they are too close to each other” (para 0097) and “the transceiver 110 comprises at least one human-machine interaction module 160. It is this human-machine interaction module 160 that has the function of generating said notification”(para 0098)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to ATA 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 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 2-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0341541 (hereinafter, "Barratt") as applied to claim 1 above in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0230795 (hereinafter, "Rentz").
Regarding claim 2, Barratt discloses the method of claim 1. However, Barratt does not explicitly teach wherein the first device is part of a first group of devices the second device is part of a second group of devices, separate from the first group.
Rentz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the first device is part of a first group of devices, the second device is part of a second group of devices, separate from the first group (“Group management master controller 300 controls the formation and management of user groups” (para 0090) and Fig. 18, #470A- #470B).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Barratt with the teachings of Rentz in order to ensure safety for all members of the group; see Rentz at least at [0006].
Regarding claim 3, Barratt discloses the method of claim 1. However, Barratt does not explicitly teach determining at least one of a speed, an acceleration, or a direction of the first device or the second device, wherein generating the alert is further based on the speed, the acceleration, or the direction.
Rentz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determining at least one of a speed, an acceleration, or a direction of the first device or the second device, wherein generating the alert is further based on the speed, the acceleration, or the direction (“provides information regarding each member in a group that the current vehicle is associated with. Exemplary information includes group member name 812, vehicle speed” (para 0100) and “when a group member enters into a distress situation, the group member can issue a request for assistance to his or her group. An exemplary request may be a text message. The request will display as an alert on the displays associated with the other group members. The request may also be automatically triggered based on a sensor value ” (para 0136)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Barratt with the teachings of Rentz in order to automatically trigger an alert based on a sensor value; see Rentz at least at [0136].
Regarding claim 8, Barratt discloses and Rentz teaches the method of claim 2. Additionally, Barratt discloses wherein the first device is associated with a first user and the second device is associated with a second user (“detecting proximity between at least one first, preferably mobile, transceiver and at least one second, preferably mobile, transceiver” (para 0008));
However, Barratt does not explicitly teach
wherein the first group of devices is associated with a first group of users and the second group of devices is associated with a second group of users.
Rentz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the first group of devices is associated with a first group of users and the second group of devices is associated with a second group of users (“Group management master controller 300 controls the formation and management of user groups” (para 0090) and Fig. 18, #470A- #470B).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Barratt with the teachings of Rentz in order to ensure safety for all members of the group; see Rentz at least at [0006].
Regarding claim 9, Barratt discloses and Rentz teaches the method of claim 8. However, Barratt does not explicitly teach wherein the first user is an operator of a first off-road vehicle and the second user is an operator of a second off-road vehicle.
Rentz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the first user is an operator of a first off-road vehicle and the second user is an operator of a second off-road vehicle (“the first computing device being associated with a location of a first recreational vehicle, a second computing device being associated with a location of a second recreational vehicle” (para 0007)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Barratt with the teachings of Rentz in order to ensure safety for all members of the group; see Rentz at least at [0006].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0341541 (hereinafter, "Barratt") as applied to claim 1 above in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0190325 (hereinafter, "Abu-Hakima").
Regarding claim 6, Barratt discloses the method of claim 1. However, Barratt does not explicitly teach determining a user class or type associated with the second device, wherein generating the alert is further based on the user class or type.
Abu-Hakima, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determining a user class or type associated with the second device, wherein generating the alert is further based on the user class or type (“prioritized broadcast of alert messages to selected groups of recipients and their communications devices” (para 0042) and “the operational priorities of such functionality may be determined by user classes of service and other scheduling parameters” (para 0219)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Barratt with the teachings of Abu-Hakima in order to ensure the expedited delivery of an alert broadcast; see Abu-Hakima at least at [0219].
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0341541 (hereinafter, "Barratt") in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0230795 (hereinafter, "Rentz") as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0057453 (hereinafter, "Laws").
Regarding claim 10, Barratt discloses and Rentz teaches the method of claim 2. However, Barratt does not explicitly teach configuring the first device as a lead device of the first group of devices; and
providing, by the first device, the alert to other devices in the first group of devices.
Laws, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
configuring the first device as a lead device of the first group of devices (“use one or more of its sensors (e.g., a camera) to also identify a visual or otherwise distinguishing mark (e.g., a reflective cross or an RF beacon) on the lead vehicle to confirm its identity. The marking may comprise permanent markings on the cab of a tractor-trailer truck, quick response (QR) codes painted onto the rear of the lead vehicle, or identifiable markings held in place (e.g., using magnets) that a driver can attach to a portion of the lead vehicle visible from behind” (para 0065)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Barratt with the teachings of Laws in order to confirm the identity of the leading vehicle; see Laws at least at [0065].
Rentz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
providing, by the first device, the alert to other devices in the first group of devices (“The request will display as an alert on the displays associated with the other group members” (para 0136) and Fig. 18, #470A- #470B).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Barratt with the teachings of Rentz in order to ensure safety for all members of the group; see Rentz at least at [0006].
Regarding claim 11, Barratt discloses and Rentz teaches the method of claim 10. However, Barratt does not explicitly teach wherein the first device is configured as the lead device using a quick response (QR) code associated with the first device.
Laws, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the first device is configured as the lead device using a quick response (QR) code associated with the first device (“the second vehicle may be directed to use one or more of its sensors (e.g., a camera) to also identify a visual or otherwise distinguishing mark (e.g., a reflective cross or an RF beacon) on the lead vehicle to confirm its identity. The marking may comprise permanent markings on the cab of a tractor-trailer truck, quick response (QR) codes painted onto the rear of the lead vehicle, or identifiable markings held in place (e.g., using magnets) that a driver can attach to a portion of the lead vehicle visible from behind” (para 0065)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Barratt with the teachings of Laws in order to confirm the identity of the leading vehicle using quick response (QR) codes; see Laws at least at [0065].
Claims 13-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0341541 (hereinafter, "Barratt") in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0230795 (hereinafter, "Rentz").
Regarding claim 13, Barratt discloses a notification device comprising:
a transceiver (“a transceiver, preferably mobile, is also provided” (para 0021));
a processor (“at least one microprocessor” (para 0099)); and
a memory (“the transceiver 110 preferably comprises a memory” (para 0099)) carrying instructions that, when executed, cause the notification device to:
estimate, by the processor, a distance between the notification device and the unrelated device (“detecting proximity between at least one first, preferably mobile, transceiver and at least one second, preferably mobile, transceiver” (para 0008)) based at least in part on a strength of the signal (“estimate a primary distance value between the primary radio module of the first transceiver and the primary radio module of the second transceiver from a measurement of the strength of at least one signal” (para 0011)); and
generate an alert based on comparing the estimated distance to a threshold distance (“if the estimated secondary distance value is less than a predetermined notification distance 500, the transceiver 110 is configured to notify a proximity detection. Indeed, as soon as the distance between the two transceivers 110 is below a predetermined threshold, each transceiver 110 will notify that they are too close to each other” (para 0097) and “the transceiver 110 comprises at least one human-machine interaction module 160. It is this human-machine interaction module 160 that has the function of generating said notification”(para 0098));
However, Barratt does not explicitly teach
detect presence of an unrelated device based on a signal received from the unrelated device via the transceiver, wherein the notification device is part of a first group of devices that is separate and unrelated to a second group of devices and the unrelated device is part of the second group of devices.
Rentz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
detect presence of an unrelated device (“receive a current location for each recreational vehicle in the first available user group and to provide an indication of the current location for each recreational vehicle in the first available user group” (para 0012) and Fig. 18, #470A- #470B) based on a signal received from the unrelated device via the transceiver (“a location determiner 184 which determines a current location of recreational vehicle 100. An exemplary location determiner 184 is a GPS unit which determines the position of recreational vehicle 100 based on interaction with a global satellite system” (para 0079)), wherein the notification device is part of a first group of devices that is separate and unrelated to a second group of devices and the unrelated device is part of the second group of devices (“Group management master controller 300 controls the formation and management of user groups” (para 0090), “, group management controller 186 controls adding vehicle/rider 100 to a group, creating a new group, leaving a group, setting a privacy setting for the group, communicating location updates with group management master controller 300” (para 0080), and Fig. 18, #470A- #470B).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Barratt with the teachings of Rentz in order to ensure safety for all members of the group; see Rentz at least at [0006].
Regarding claim 14, Barratt discloses and Rentz teaches the notification device of claim 13. However, Barratt does not explicitly teach wherein estimating the distance is further based on geolocation data of the notification device, geolocation data of the unrelated device, or both.
Rentz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein estimating the distance is further based on geolocation data of the notification device, geolocation data of the unrelated device, or both (“An exemplary location determiner 184 is a GPS unit which determines the position of recreational vehicle 100 based on interaction with a global satellite system.” (para 0079) and “provide information regarding a selected group member. An example response from group management master controller 300 and displayed by group management controller 186 is shown in FIG. 34. The information may include name 440, distance away 442, altitude 444, last location update time 446, a graphical representative of last location 448 on a map 449” (para 0097)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Barratt with the teachings of Rentz in order to provide information regarding a selected group member including distance; see Rentz at least at [0097].
Regarding claim 15, Barratt discloses and Rentz teaches the notification device of claim 13. Additionally, Barratt discloses at least one of:
a display configured to provide a visual component of the alert via a graphical user interface;
a speaker configured to provide an auditory component of the alert (“module 160 may comprise for example a vibrator, a loudspeaker or a light source, etc” (para 0098)); or
an electric motor configured to provide a tactile component of the alert (“module 160 may comprise for example a vibrator, a loudspeaker or a light source, etc” (para 0098)).
Regarding claim 18, Barratt discloses and Rentz teaches the notification device of claim 13. However, Barratt does not explicitly teach wherein the instructions further cause the notification device to:
determine at least one of a speed, an acceleration, or a direction associated with the unrelated device, wherein generating the alert is further based on the speed, the acceleration, or the direction.
Rentz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determine at least one of a speed, an acceleration, or a direction associated with the unrelated device, wherein generating the alert is further based on the speed, the acceleration, or the direction (“provides information regarding each member in a group that the current vehicle is associated with. Exemplary information includes group member name 812, vehicle speed” (para 0100) and “when a group member enters into a distress situation, the group member can issue a request for assistance to his or her group. An exemplary request may be a text message. The request will display as an alert on the displays associated with the other group members. The request may also be automatically triggered based on a sensor value ” (para 0136)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Barratt with the teachings of Rentz in order to automatically trigger an alert based on a sensor value; see Rentz at least at [0136].
Regarding claim 19, Barratt discloses and Rentz teaches the notification device of claim 13. However, Barratt does not explicitly teach at least one sensor configured to capture sensor data associated with the notification device, wherein the instructions further cause the notification device to transmit the captured sensor data to the unrelated device via the transceiver.
Rentz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
at least one sensor configured to capture sensor data associated with the notification device (“at least one sensor coupled to monitor at least one characteristic of the power system” (para 0011) and “controller, the location determiner, the network controller, and the group management controller are an integrated device” (para 0013)), wherein the instructions further cause the notification device to transmit the captured sensor data to the unrelated device via the transceiver (The request may also be automatically triggered based on a sensor value, The request will display as an alert on the displays associated with the other group members” (para 0136)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Barratt with the teachings of Rentz in order to automatically trigger an alert based on a sensor value; see Rentz at least at [0136].
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0341541 (hereinafter, "Barratt") in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0230795 (hereinafter, "Rentz") as applied to claim 13 above, and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0190325 (hereinafter, "Abu-Hakima").
Regarding claim 16, Barratt discloses and Rentz teaches the notification device of claim 13. However, Barratt does not explicitly teach wherein the instructions further cause the notification device to:
establish a connection with the unrelated device via a wireless mesh network (WMN) or a wireless mobile ad hoc network (MANET) to receive the signal.
Abu-Hakima, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
establish a connection with the unrelated device via a wireless mesh network (WMN) or a wireless mobile ad hoc network (MANET) to receive the signal (“communicate with a different, nearby network source, which may be wired or wireless, such as a respective wireless access point (WAP) (or wireless network transceiver, more generally) in a wireless network attached to a LAN (which may itself be a wireless mesh network, which may be extended over significant distances wherein many wireless access points are not directly corrected to a wired network access point directly, but only indirectly though other wireless access points in the mesh network)” (para 0153)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Barratt with the teachings of Abu-Hakima in order to communicate with a different, nearby network source; see Abu-Hakima at least at [0153].
Regarding claim 17, Barratt discloses and Rentz teaches the notification device of claim 13. However, Barratt does not explicitly teach wherein the instructions further cause the notification device to:
determine a user class or type associated with the unrelated device, wherein generating the alert is further based on the user class or type.
Abu-Hakima, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determine a user class or type associated with the unrelated device, wherein generating the alert is further based on the user class or type (“prioritized broadcast of alert messages to selected groups of recipients and their communications devices” (para 0042) and “the operational priorities of such functionality may be determined by user classes of service and other scheduling parameters” (para 0219)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Barratt with the teachings of Abu-Hakima in order to ensure the expedited delivery of an alert broadcast.; see Abu-Hakima at least at [0219].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ALHARBI whose telephone number is (313)446-6621. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00AM – 7:30PM 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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ADAM M ALHARBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663