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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/23/2026, have been fully considered.
The 35 USC 112 interpretation of claims 1-6 has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (US 20220006892 A1) in view of 村上 文吾 (JP 5402969 B2), hereinafter Murakami.
As per claim 1, Perkins teaches the claimed:
1. A search device comprising:
an antenna having directivity;
(Perkins [0217]: “Each device may include one or more antennas for transmitting and/or detecting UWB signals. A UWB signal transmitted by a transmitting device propagates in all directions or in one or more directions from a transmitting device, and the transmitted signal may be detected by one or more receiving devices.”
Perkins teaches a device that includes one or more antennas that can transmit signal in one or more directions (directivity).)
a communication interface that wirelessly communicates with a search-target wireless tag using the antenna;
(Perkins [0170]: “The embodiments herein are generally directed to a device, such as a small, battery-powered tag, puck, or other object of convenient size and shape, that can be physically and/or geographically located using wireless communications systems and techniques. For example, a tag may include an antenna that emits a wireless signal or beacon that is detectable by another electronic device such as a smartphone. Using the detected wireless signal (and using localization techniques such as time of flight, received signal strength indication, triangulation, etc.), the smartphone may be able to determine the position of the tag relative to the smartphone, and, using an absolute location of the smartphone from a GPS, the absolute location of the tag as well.”
Perkins teaches a tag that includes an antenna that can emit wireless signals detectable by other devices to communicate its location.)
a processor configured to determine a relative position of the wireless tag with respect to the antenna based on a state of communication between the communication interface and the search-target wireless tag;
(Perkins [0170]: “The embodiments herein are generally directed to a device, such as a small, battery-powered tag, puck, or other object of convenient size and shape, that can be physically and/or geographically located using wireless communications systems and techniques. For example, a tag may include an antenna that emits a wireless signal or beacon that is detectable by another electronic device such as a smartphone. Using the detected wireless signal (and using localization techniques such as time of flight, received signal strength indication, triangulation, etc.), the smartphone may be able to determine the position of the tag relative to the smartphone, and, using an absolute location of the smartphone from a GPS, the absolute location of the tag as well.”
Perkins teaches the device that can determine the position of the tag that includes an antenna, where the location is determined based on the wireless signal given by the tag and received by the device.)
a camera that obtains an image of an imaging range defined as a direction of orientation of the antenna; and
(Perkins [0877]: “The device 14100 may display an AR interface 14104 on a display. The AR interface may include a live preview of the environment from a camera of the device 14100. The device 14100 may determine the position and/or location of the tag 14102 using techniques described herein (e.g., using time of flight analysis on a UWB signal from the tag 14102). Based on the tag's position and the orientation of the device 14100 relative to the tag (e.g., the direction that the camera of the device 14100 is pointing relative to the position of the tag 14102), the device may determine how the device's orientation would need to be changed in order to bring the tag 14102 into the camera's field of view.”
Perkins teaches the camera (imaging unit) that obtains a live preview of the environment (image of an imaging range), where the direction of the camera is pointing relative to the position of the tag, which includes an antenna.)
a display configured to display a screen on which a guide image for bringing the antenna close to the position determined by the processor is superimposed on the image obtained by the camera,
(Perkins [0208]: “Further, if and when the device 106 is within range of a wireless communication protocol such as UWB, the device 106 may display a direction indicating interface that leads the user directly to the tag 100 (e.g., with a direction indicating arrow overlaid on an image of the real-world environment).”
Perkins [0877]: “The device may then display a directional indicator 14106, such as an arrow, that indicates to the user where to point or reorient the device 14100 to locate the tag 14102.”
Perkins, in Fig. 140, 141a, and 141b, shows a diagram of a smartphone (display unit), which has a camera (imaging unit), that displays an image with directional indicators (guide image superimposed on the image), which has been determined by the determination unit, as explained in the claim limitation above.)
Perkins alone does not explicitly teach all the remaining claim limitations.
However, Perkins in combination with Murakami teaches the claimed.
wherein the guide image includes a first guide for prompting a user to move the search device by movement of the user, and a second guide for prompting the user to change a direction of the search device, and
(Murakami (page 6, line 23-28): “FIG. 4A shows a state of imaging before reading the RFID tag. FIG. 4B shows a preview image 141 including marks 81 and 82 in the previous reading position and the previous reading direction. FIG. 5 shows how the guided RFID tag 31 is read. FIG. 6 shows a preview image 142 including an instruction mark 83 for turning the imaging direction to the left. FIG. 7 shows a preview image 143 including the previous reading position and the approaching marks 84 and 85.”
Murakami teaches the different marks that are used to prompt a user to move and to move in a specific direction. In FIG. 4b and 7, it shows a flag marker that prompts to the user to move to that position, which is the first guide image, and in FIG. 4b, 6, and 7, it shows an arrow marker that prompts the user to turn the device to a certain direction, which is the second guide image.)
the display alternately displays the first guide and the second guide as the guide image.
(Murakami (page 17, line 22-24): “a mark as guide information indicating the previous reading position information, the previous reading direction information, and the like may be displayed on the display unit 14 in a state where no preview image is displayed.”
Murakami indicates that the marks, which are the first and second guides, can be displayed without an image to overlay them, thus the marks are displayed as the guide image.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the transceiver device as taught by Murakami with the system of Perkins in order to be able to display multiple indicators that guide a user to a specific destination and to change direction.
As per claim 6, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 1, and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Murakami and in further view of Santarone (US 20220229947 A1).
As per claim 2, Perkins and Murakami alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Perkins and Murakami in combination with Santarone teaches the claimed:
2. The search device according to claim 1, wherein the communication interface changes a transmission intensity of the signal for prompting the wireless tag to respond, in accordance with a communication quality with the wireless tag.
(Santarone [0464]: “Transceiver devices may be operative to employ various methods to improve accuracy of location determination, including but not limited to varying a frequency of transmission and reception of logical communications; varying a pulse pattern transmission and reception of logical communications, and varying intensity of emissions used in transmitting a logical communication.”
Santarone [0162]: “The Node attached to the Smart Device may communicate information from and to the Smart Device including calculated results received from or about another Node, such as a Node fixed as a Reference Point Transceiver or a Node with dynamic locations, wherein the wireless communications are conducive to generation of data useful for determination of a position (e.g., timing data, angles of departure and/or arrival, amplitude, strength, phase change, etc.).”
Sartarone teaches the transceiver devices (communication unit) that can change the intensity of emissions used in transmitting a communication (changes a transmission intensity). Santarone also shows that the node attached to the smart device (wireless tag) being able to communicate back and forth with other nodes that include a reference point transceiver, which corresponds to the communication unit. Therefore, since the transceiver devices can communicate with the node attached to the smart device to determine a position, it is obvious to say that the transceiver device prompts the node attached to the smart device for a response to determine its location, further, it is in accordance with a communication quality, as stated in paragraph 162, where amplitude and strength of signal is a factor in the tag’s response.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the transceiver device as taught by Santarone with the system of Perkins as modified by Murakami in order to have multiple methods to improve accuracy through varying intensities in transmitting communication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use nodes in order to communicate back to the transceiver device to easily determine a more precise location of the tag.
As per claim 3, Perkins teaches the claimed:
3. The search device according to claim 2, wherein the display changes the guide image in accordance with the transmission intensity of the communication interface.
(Perkins [0185]: “In other cases, the device may determine or estimate the location of the tag with greater accuracy. For example, the device may use time of flight (TOF), angle of arrival (AOA), time difference of arrival (TDOA) received signal strength indication (RSSI), triangulation, synthetic aperture, and/or any other suitable technique, to determine a location of the tag relative to the user's device.”
Perkins [0208]: “Further, if and when the device 106 is within range of a wireless communication protocol such as UWB, the device 106 may display a direction indicating interface that leads the user directly to the tag 100 (e.g., with a direction indicating arrow overlaid on an image of the real-world environment).”
Perkins teaches the device that uses a received signal strength indication (RSSI), which receives the strength of the transmission signal, and using this indicator, the device can display an image with directional indicators (guide image).)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Murakami and in further view of Santarone and in further view of Yoon (US 20230246722 A1).
As per claim 4, Perkins, Murakami and Santarone alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Perkins, Murakami and Santarone in combination with Yoon teaches the claimed:
4. The search device according to claim 3, wherein the display changes the guide image depending on whether the transmission intensity of the communication interface is a lower limit value of a predetermined variable range, an upper limit value of the variable range, or an intermediate value excluding the lower limit value and the upper limit value within the variable range.
(Yoon [0185]: “For example, the electronic apparatus 100 may initially determine whether the strength of the received wireless signal exceeding the upper threshold parameter value R.sub.th is maintained for the duration D.sub.th, determine whether a wireless signal strength value less than the lower threshold parameter value R.sub.pre exists in the duration D.sub.pre prior to the duration D.sub.th,”.
Yoon [0230]: “… the user may increase a difference between a signal strength upper threshold value and a signal strength lower threshold value by setting a signal strength upper threshold parameter Rth to a high value and setting a signal strength lower threshold parameter Rpre to a low value, … the user may reduce the difference between the signal strength upper threshold value and the signal strength lower threshold value by setting the signal strength upper threshold parameter Rth to a relatively low value and setting the signal strength lower threshold parameter Rpre to a relatively high value.”
Perkins [0185]: “In other cases, the device may determine or estimate the location of the tag with greater accuracy. For example, the device may use time of flight (TOF), angle of arrival (AOA), time difference of arrival (TDOA) received signal strength indication (RSSI), triangulation, synthetic aperture, and/or any other suitable technique, to determine a location of the tag relative to the user's device.”
Yoon teaches the signal strength of an upper and lower threshold, where the user can set them, which corresponds to the upper and lower limit value that are predetermined. Additionally, since the device can determine whether or not the strength of the signal exceeds or is lower than the upper and lower threshold, it is obvious to say that it can determine whether the strength of the signal is between the two threshold values. Therefore, given the system of Perkins that can determine the signal strength with RSSI, similar to the claim limitations above, the device can use this indicator to display an image with directional indicators (guide image).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the upper and lower threshold values as taught by Yoon with the system of Perkins as modified by Murakami and Santarone in order to determine a specific range of signal strength to create proximity zones since RSSI is correlated with distance.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Murakami and in further view of Murasawa (JP 2019121142 A).
As per claim 5, Perkins and Murakami alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Perkins and Murakami in combination with Murasawa teaches the claimed:
5. The search device according to claim 1, wherein the display displays different guidance images depending on which of a plurality of guidance modes is selected, even when the position determined by the processor is the same.
(Murasawa (Page 7, line 28): “The normal display mode selection unit 75 compares the evaluation of the operation data for each display mode collected by the operation data evaluation unit 74, and displays a display mode with high evaluation, usually displaying the left guidance image 110 and the right guidance image 120.”
Murasawa (Page 6, line 14): “The display mode changing unit 73 sequentially changes the display mode of the left guidance image 110 and / or the right guidance image 120 and causes the HUD device 1 (image display unit 10) to display the display mode.”
Murasawa (Page 9, line 27): “The process of selecting the normal display mode … may be performed by the [user’s] operation.”
Murasawa teaches “the change of the display mode of the guidance image performed by the display mode changing unit” on page 6, line 23, which can also be selected by the user’s operation. Therefore, even if the position is determined to be the same, if the user decides to select a different guide image, then the display unit can display a different guide image.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the display mode changing unit as taught by Murasawa with the system of Perkins as modified by Murakami in order to change how information is presented to a user, based on different needs, the environment, or specific tasks.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSHUA SUO whose telephone number is (571)272-8387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached at 571-272-7642. 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.
/JOSHUA JUNGWOOK SUO/Examiner, Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights