DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 07/31/24 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form or PTO/SB/08A and 08B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 10-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharma et al. (U.S. 20140120945).
For claim 1, Sharma et al. disclose a method comprising:
generating a representation of a constellation of access points of a wireless local area network area using inter-access point range finding (at least [0046]. Clustering groups of APs close to each other based on distance and the HDOP analysis allows for a reliable removal of APs from individual clusters while maintaining position performance.), wherein data from the inter-access point range finding is filtered based on a quality indicator associated with respective links between the access points (at least [0046]. The AP clusters may then be ranked based on their impact on location performance. For example, one can calculate the horizontal dilution of precision (HDOP) under some conservative signal strength threshold such as -70. If the HDOP does not degrade with thinning of the clusters (removal of AP in a cluster) then the AP can be safely removed from the assistance database without adversely affecting coverage, or only provide it if the mobile requests the full database. Clustering groups of APs close to each other based on distance and the HDOP analysis allows for a reliable removal of APs from individual clusters while maintaining position performance. In some embodiments, in addition to or alternative to removing the clusters, recordation and assistance data generation for those clusters may be skipped with least impact on performance to reduce assistance data necessary to be held in a database.);
matching the representation of the constellation of access points to features of a map of a predetermined space (at least claims 1-3. Receiving location information for a plurality of APs on a floor plan map wherein the received location information for the plurality of APs is provided in a plurality of conventions for identifying locations on the floor plan map; automatically placing a first AP of the plurality of APs on the floor plan map at a location identified using a first convention in the plurality of conventions; and automatically placing a second AP of the plurality of APs on the floor plan map at a location identified using a second convention in the plurality of conventions, wherein the first AP is different from the second AP and the first convention is different from the second convention. One of the plurality of conventions for identifying location comprises latitude/longitude coordinates and receiving location information for the plurality of APs on the floor plan map further comprises: receiving a latitude/longitude coordinate of at least one of the plurality of APs.); and
identifying a location for each access point in the representation of the constellation of access points based on location information associated with the map space (at least claims 1-3 and [0037]-[0041]. Receiving location information for a plurality of APs on a floor plan map wherein the received location information for the plurality of APs is provided in a plurality of conventions for identifying locations on the floor plan map; automatically placing a first AP of the plurality of APs on the floor plan map at a location identified using a first convention in the plurality of conventions; and automatically placing a second AP of the plurality of APs on the floor plan map at a location identified using a second convention in the plurality of conventions, wherein the first AP is different from the second AP and the first convention is different from the second convention. One of the plurality of conventions for identifying location comprises latitude/longitude coordinates and receiving location information for the plurality of APs on the floor plan map further comprises: receiving a latitude/longitude coordinate of at least one of the plurality of APs. APs that are already visually marked on floor plan map images may be automatically placed in a computer system by performing feature analysis or other image recognition techniques. In yet other examples, AP locations may contain only room number descriptions, or merely a MAC address mapping. In other cases, some APs may be described by a short abbreviation of their locations, e.g. "Room.sub.--212_AP.sub.--1," or "AP.sub.--2_NW," etc.)
For claim 2, Sharma et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the quality indicator comprises a received signal strength value (at least [0046]. The AP clusters may then be ranked based on their impact on location performance. For example, one can calculate the horizontal dilution of precision (HDOP) under some conservative signal strength threshold such as -70. If the HDOP does not degrade with thinning of the clusters (removal of AP in a cluster) then the AP can be safely removed from the assistance database without adversely affecting coverage, or only provide it if the mobile requests the full database. Clustering groups of APs close to each other based on distance and the HDOP analysis allows for a reliable removal of APs from individual clusters while maintaining position performance. In some embodiments, in addition to or alternative to removing the clusters, recordation and assistance data generation for those clusters may be skipped with least impact on performance to reduce assistance data necessary to be held in a database.)
For claim 3, Sharma et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the matching is performed with an anchor-free procedure (at least [0046]. Clustering groups of APs close to each other based on distance and the HDOP analysis allows for a reliable removal of APs from individual clusters while maintaining position performance.)
For claim 10, Sharma et al. disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising matching the representation of the constellation of access points to features of a map of a predetermined space based on an unsymmetrical shape of the predetermined space (at least Fig. 3A-3B and [0039]. Embodiments therefore may automatically place APs on floor plan maps based on a number of conventions provided by entities supplying the AP location information, including venue owners of the buildings to which the floor plans pertain.)
For claims 11-13, the claims have features similar to claims 1-3. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reasons in claims 1-3.
For claims 18-20, the claims have features similar to claims 1-3. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reasons in claims 1-3.
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 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (U.S. 20140120945) in view of Bilstad (U.S. 20200245286).
For claim 4, Sharma et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the matching is performed with a combination of an anchor free procedure and an anchor-based procedure.
In the same field of endeavor, Bilstad discloses the matching is performed with a combination of an anchor free procedure and an anchor-based procedure (at least [0061]. The anchor nodes can be within a same constellation grouping of the access point or be adjacent to the constellation grouping of the access point.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Sharma et al. as taught by Bilstad for purpose of carrying out a display switching operation to switch between a plurality of application software when they are activated and processed in parallel in a portable information apparatus, and the like.
For claim 5, the combination of Sharma et al. and Bilstad disclose the method of claim 4. Bilstad discloses designating at least one access point as an anchor access point (at least [0061]. The cloud network entity (or wireless device of the localization space) sends instructions (e.g., commands) to anchor nodes within the localization space to prepare for localization of the wireless arbitrary device. In one example, the anchor nodes are within close proximity of the access point that is associated with the wireless arbitrary device. The anchor nodes can be within a same constellation grouping of the access point or be adjacent to the constellation grouping of the access point.)
For claims 14-15, the claims have features similar to claims 4-5. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reasons in claims 4-5.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (U.S. 20140120945) in view of Bilstad (U.S. 20200245286) and further Raghu et al. (U.S. 20210306975).
For claim 6, the combination of Sharma et al. and Bilsta do not disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising establishing a location of the anchor access point based on Global Navigation Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) or Global Positioning System (GPS) data.
In the same field of endeavor, Raghu et al. disclose establishing a location of the anchor access point based on Global Navigation Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) or Global Positioning System (GPS) data (at least [0031]. Such known access points may be referred to as anchor points, and the location of at least three anchor points is generally required to resolve the mapping of the proximity matrix in 3D space. However, the actual number of anchor points required may depend on the particular circumstances. The location of the anchor points may be determined by any means, including, but not limited to, use of GPS (Global Positioning System) data to provide the needed coordinates.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Sharma et al. as taught by Raghu et al. for purpose of providing the needed coordinates.
For claim 16, the claim has features similar to claim 6. Therefore, the claim 6 is also rejected for the same reasons in claim 6.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (U.S. 20140120945) in view of Bilstad (U.S. 20200245286) and further in view of Patwardhan et al. (U.S. 20190069216).
For claim 7, the combination of Sharma et al. and Bilsta do not disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising identifying the location of selected access points in the representation of the constellation of access points using a convex hull methodology.
In the same field of endeavor, Raghu et al. disclose identifying the location of selected access points in the representation of the constellation of access points using a convex hull methodology (at least [0030]. The network device can identify the at least one access point by: performing a convex hull calculation on the plurality of access points from which the plurality of notifications are received; and determining that the at least one access point is located inside the convex hull and operates on the particular wireless communication channel.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Sharma et al. as taught by Patwardhan et al. for purpose of determining that the at least one access point is located inside the convex hull.
For claim 17, the claim has features similar to claim 7. Therefore, the claim 6 is also rejected for the same reasons in claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (U.S. 20140120945) in view of Bilstad (U.S. 20200245286) and further in view of Venkatraman et al. (U.S. 20170094470).
For claim 8, the combination of Sharma et al. and Bilsta do not disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising identifying the location of selected access point in the representation of the constellation of access points based on locations of ellipses obtained as a result of deficient Global Navigation Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) or Global Positioning System (GPS) data.
In the same field of endeavor, Venkatraman et al. disclose identifying the location of selected access point in the representation of the constellation of access points based on locations of ellipses obtained as a result of deficient Global Navigation Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) or Global Positioning System (GPS) data (at least [0001]. An access point may be deployed in a location that lacks access to a global positioning system (GPS) signal or that has poor availability of a GPS signal, such as an urban location, an indoor location, or the like. The access point may be provided with location information describing a location at which the access point is deployed, such as information identifying a street address, a floor, a room, or the like. Location information associated with an access point is important in determining appropriate spectrum usage, ensuring equipment security, and providing enhanced 9-1-1 (E911) services to user devices.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Sharma et al. as taught by Venkatraman et al. for purpose of identifying location information of the access point such as a street address, a floor, a room, or the like.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (U.S. 20140120945) in view of Sheriff et al. (U.S. 20230007976).
For claim 9, Sharma et al. do not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the inter-access point range finding comprises fine timing measurement.
In the same field of endeavor, Sheriff et al. disclose the inter-access point range finding comprises fine timing measurement (at least [0002] and [0009]. The access point measures the time intervals between receptions of the FTM ranging bursts to estimate a distance and/or direction from the user device to the access point.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Sharma et al. as taught by Sheriff et al. for purpose of estimate a distance and/or direction between devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAI PHUONG whose telephone number is 571-272-7896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached on 571-270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-7687.
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).
/DAI PHUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights