DETAILED ACTION
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 .
***
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications—U.S. Application No. 18/487,945, filed October 16, 2023, now U.S. Patent No. 12,089,116; U.S. Application No. 17/746,976, filed May 18, 2022, now Patent No. 11,825,382; U.S. Application No. 17/132,730, filed December 23, 2020, now U.S. Patent No. 11,368,815; U.S. Application No. 17/021,447, filed September 15, 2020, now U.S. Patent No. 10,911,904; U.S. Application No. 16/892,165, filed June 3, 2020, now U.S. Patent No. 10,812,945; and U.S. Application No. 16/530,835, filed August 2, 2019, now U.S. Patent No. 10,708,722–fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The disclosure of a continuation application must be the same as the disclosure of the prior-filed application; i.e., the continuation must not include anything which would constitute new matter if inserted in the original application. The disclosure of a continuation or divisional application cannot include anything which would constitute new matter if inserted in the prior-filed application. A continuation-in-part application may include matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application. Please see MPEP § 211.05, 201.07, and 201.08.
The instant application’s independent claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite the following limitations which are not supported by the disclosures of the original applications: “determining, by the set of access points, which access point the tracking device is closest to; and providing, by the set of access points, the pre-known location of the access point the tracking device is closest to a tracking server”. In U.S. Application No. 16/530,835, now Patent No. 10,708,722, col. 46, lines 25-33 recites: “While the tracking server provides the identified instruction to all of the access points 1720A-F, each of which in turn is configured to transmit the instruction to the tracking device 1730, in practice, the tracking device 1730 may receive the instruction only from the access points closest to it, such as the access points 1720B-D. In some embodiments, when the tracking device 1730 receives the same instruction from multiple access points, the tracking device only performs the instruction once” and col. 46, lines 44-52 recites: “In some embodiments, the tracking server can notify the user (via the mobile device) to the areas within the geographic boundary 1705 in which access points nearest the tracking device are located. For instance, if one or more access points are coupled to the tracking device, or if the tracking device receives an instruction from one or more access points, the tracking server can identify a location of the access points, for instance within the geographic boundary.” However, nowhere in any of the prior-filed applications is recited the specific limitation of this instant application’s independent claims, specifically that the set of access points determines which access point is closes to the tracking device and subsequently providing the location of the determined closest access point to the server. Thus, these limitations of the instant application’s independent claims would constitute new matter if inserted into the original application(s). Accordingly, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications. Similarly, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, which depend from independent claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications.
Additionally, the instant application’s dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 each recite the following limitations which are not supported by the disclosures of all of the original applications: “wherein the set of access points are configured to provide locations of the tracking device to the tracking server when the tracking device is within a communicative range of the set of access points but not communicatively coupled to the set of access points”. This limitation did not appear in the following parent documents: U.S. Application No. 17/746,976, filed May 18, 2022, now Patent No. 11,825,382; U.S. Application No. 17/132,730, filed December 23, 2020, now U.S. Patent No. 11,368,815; U.S. Application No. 17/021,447, filed September 15, 2020, now U.S. Patent No. 10,911,904; U.S. Application No. 16/892,165, filed June 3, 2020, now U.S. Patent No. 10,812,945; and U.S. Application No. 16/530,835, filed August 2, 2019, now U.S. Patent No. 10,708,722. However, it was included in the following parent document: U.S. Application No. 18/487,945, filed October 16, 2023, now U.S. Patent No. 12,089,116 (see U.S. Patent No. 12,089,116, claims 6, 13, and 20). If there is a continuous chain of copending nonprovisional applications, each copending application must disclose the claimed invention of the later-filed application in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in order for the later-filed application to be entitled to the benefit of the earliest filing date. Please see MPEP § 211.05, 201.08, and 608.04. Accordingly, this limitation (i.e., claims 6, 13, and 20) would be entitled to the priority date of 2023-10-16; however, these claims depend from independent claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, and therefore are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications.
This application repeats a substantial portion of the following prior-filed applications: U.S. Application No. 18/487,945, filed October 16, 2023, now U.S. Patent No. 12,089,116; U.S. Application No. 17/746,976, filed May 18, 2022, now Patent No. 11,825,382; U.S. Application No. 17/132,730, filed December 23, 2020, now U.S. Patent No. 11,368,815; U.S. Application No. 17/021,447, filed September 15, 2020, now U.S. Patent No. 10,911,904; U.S. Application No. 16/892,165, filed June 3, 2020, now U.S. Patent No. 10,812,945; and U.S. Application No. 16/530,835, filed August 2, 2019, now U.S. Patent No. 10,708,722; and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application (i.e., the limitations of the independent claims discussed above). Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
***
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2024-12-05 and 2025-04-10 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
***
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the view numbers must be larger than the numbers used for reference characters. Specifically, in Figure 1, “FIG. 1” is the same size as the numbers used for reference characters, i.e. “100”, “104n”, etc. “FIG. 1” must be larger than the numbers used for reference characters.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
***
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in lines 2-3 of claim 1, “a tracking device within a proximity of the set of access point” should read “a tracking device within a proximity of the set of access points”; a similar correction should be made in lines 6-7 of claim 8 and lines 4-5 of claim 15; and
in lines 7-8 of claim 1, “providing, by the set of access points, the pre-known location of the access point the tracking device is closest to a tracking server” should read “providing, by the set of access points, the pre-known location of the access point to which the tracking device is closest to a tracking server”; a similar correction should be made in lines 11-12 of claim 8 and lines 9-10 of claim 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
***
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0232189 to Loushine in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0103351 to Emmanuel et al. (“Emmanuel”).
As to claim 8 (and similarly applied to claims 1 and 15), Loushine discloses an access point for locating a tracking device (Loushine, Figs. 4, 8, and 10, access point 430; ¶0077 and ¶¶0085-0090), comprising: detecting, by a set of access points, a tracking device within a proximity of the set of access points (Loushine, Figs. 4, 8, and 10; ¶¶0085-0089: the WLAN client (i.e., tracking device) communicates with a set of access points which have a known service area (i.e., the tracking device is within a proximity of the set of access points)), each of the set of access points associated with a pre-known location (Loushine, Figs. 4, 8, and 10; ¶0085, "the physical location of the WLAN client is based on the location of an access point within the WLAN network. Specifically, as is known, each access point 430 within a WLAN network has a specific geographic location and a specific geographic area that it services, this being determined by the strength of the signals the access point transmits. In accordance with this example location method, each access point is configured with its physical locati … The physical location and service area information are stored within a register of the access point"); providing, by the set of access points, the pre-known location of the access point to which the tracking device is closest to a tracking server, the tracking server configured to store the pre-known location as a location of the tracking device (Loushine, Figs. 4, 8, and 10; ¶¶0085-0087, "based on the indicated access point, that access point is then queried for its physical location and service area, this location thereby representing the approximate location of the WLAN client"; see also ¶0115).
Loushine does not disclose: a hardware processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions that, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the hardware processor to perform steps comprising: determining, by the set of access points, which access point the tracking device is closest to.
However, Emmanuel discloses: a hardware processor (Emmanuel, Fig. 17: Processor 1702; ¶¶0090-0093); and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions (Emmanuel, Fig. 17: Memories 1706 and 1710; Storage Medium 1726; Instructions 1704, 1708, 1728; ¶¶0090-0093) that, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the hardware processor to perform steps comprising: determining, by the set of access points, which access point the tracking device is closest to (Emmanuel, Fig. 6, ¶0011 and ¶0052, "one or more of the nodes 602a-c in FIG. 6 may detect (e.g., using BLE) that device 606 is within a certain proximity even if the device 606 is not yet connected to the multi-band wireless network and is therefore not technically a client. In some embodiments, the system may identify a node that is closest to the device 606 to perform a proximity estimation").
Loushine and Emmanuel are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: methods and apparatus for determining the location (e.g., tracking) of subscribers, devices, and/or items associated with wireless tags within a defined area and/or within integrated cellular and LAN/WLAN networks and doing so through the use of wireless communications technology; proximity-based methods of position-fixing using radio waves; and/or services using short range communication (e.g., near-field communication, radio-frequency identification, low energy communication, Bluetooth, etc.). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Loushine to incorporate the teachings of Emmanuel to include: a hardware processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions that, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the hardware processor to perform steps comprising: determining, by the set of access points, which access point the tracking device is closest to. Doing so would allow for effectively tracking a receiving device indoors where GNSS-based tracking may be limited due to lack of a clear line-of-sight between the receiving device and transmitting satellites (see Emmanual, ¶¶0003-0005 and ¶0024), and would be useful for "a number of different areas such as pet tracking, asset tracking (e.g., phone tracking, shopping mall asset tracking, etc.), indoor navigation, asset troubleshooting, wireless network configuration calibration, intrusion detection, various analytics" (Emmanuel, ¶0026). Additionally, implementing the method steps of Loushine with the processor and non-transitory computer readable storage medium with instructions of Emmanuel would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because: it is well-known and understood in the art that an access point would necessarily contain a hardware processor and memory storing instructions in order to be able to perform the method; and it would automate the process of location monitoring/device tracking. Finally, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Emmanuel and Loushine because doing so merely combines these prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 9 (and similarly applied to claims 2 and 16), Loushine in view of Emmanuel discloses the access point of claim 8, wherein the tracking device and the set access points communicatively couple via Bluetooth (Loushine, ¶0052).
As to claim 10 (and similarly applied to claims 3 and 17), Loushine in view of Emmanuel discloses the access point of claim 8, wherein the set of access points are associated with a geographic boundary (Loushine, ¶0085, "each access point 430 within a WLAN network has a specific geographic location and a specific geographic area that it services, this being determined by the strength of the signals the access point transmits … Each access point may also be configured with its geographic coverage/service area. Again, this coverage area can be expressed in any known way, such as a radial measurement…").
As to claim 11 (and similarly applied to claims 4 and 18), Loushine in view of Emmanuel discloses the access point of claim 10, wherein the set of access points and the tracking device are configured to be communicatively coupled in response to the tracking device being inside the geographic boundary (Loushine, ¶¶0085-0086: the WLAN client connects to the WLAN network through the access point(s) that provide the strongest signal, and the WLAN client must be within the geographic boundary (i.e., service area) of the access point(s) to receive the connection signal).
As to claim 13 (and similarly applied to claims 6 and 20), Loushine in view of Emmanuel discloses the access point of claim 8, wherein the set of access points are configured to provide locations of the tracking device to the tracking server when the tracking device is within a communicative range of the set of access points but not communicatively coupled to the set of access points (Emmanuel, ¶0052, "a system may utilize proximity estimation techniques (e.g., using Bluetooth or BLE) to detect when device (e.g., a client device) is within or outside a particular range of the one or more nodes of a multi-band wireless network. For example, one or more of the nodes 602a-c in FIG. 6 may detect (e.g., using BLE) that device 606 is within a certain proximity even if the device 606 is not yet connected to the multi-band wireless network and is therefore not technically a client").
As to claim 14 (and similarly applied to claim 7), Loushine in view of Emmanuel discloses the access point of claim 8, wherein the set of access points includes a router (Loushine, ¶¶0112-0115).
*
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loushine in view of Emmanuel and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0142549 to Herbert et al. (“Herbert”).
As to claim 12 (and similarly applied to claims 5 and 19), Loushine in view of Emmanuel discloses the access point of claim 11.
Loushine in view of Emmanuel does not disclose: wherein the tracking server is configured to provide a notification for display by a client device of a user in response to and indicating that the tracking device has moved outside of the geographic boundary.
However, Herbert discloses: wherein the tracking server is configured to provide a notification for display by a client device of a user in response to and indicating that the tracking device has moved outside of the geographic boundary (Herbert, Fig. 1 and ¶0050, "Once the server 130 has received the message, the server 130 can issue a notification to the user on their user device 116 to alert them that an item has entered or left the defined area 106").
Loushine, Emmanuel, and Herbert are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: methods and apparatus for determining the location (e.g., tracking) of subscribers, devices, and/or items associated with wireless tags within a defined area and/or within integrated cellular and LAN/WLAN networks and doing so through the use of wireless communications technology; proximity-based methods of position-fixing using radio waves; and/or services using short range communication (e.g., near-field communication, radio-frequency identification, low energy communication, Bluetooth, etc.). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Loushine in view of Emmanuel to incorporate the teachings of Herbert to include: wherein the tracking server is configured to provide a notification for display by a client device of a user in response to and indicating that the tracking device has moved outside of the geographic boundary. Doing so would "provide for tracking of objects in consumer environments with low implementation costs, high accuracy, straightforward operation, and using compatible wireless technologies. Advantageously, this allows for widespread consumer use of wireless tracking. [Additionally, it would] provide for tracking of objects within a home or office environment. Advantageously, this allows for quick and efficient location of objects within specific rooms or other indoor locations" (Herbert, ¶¶0037-0038). Additionally, Herbert's notification provided when a tracked device leaves an area provides a "more sophisticated [approach] to determining location and other information relative to tracking device use" (Herbert, ¶0005), and would allow for immediate notification that the item/person attached to the device (e.g., keys, wallet, purse, pet, children, furniture, documents, etc.) has left the area (please see Herbert, ¶0033, as well as Emmanuel, ¶0026). Finally, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Emmanuel, Herbert, and Loushine because doing so merely combines the relevant prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
References Cited
Emmanuel et al. (2018). Indoor positioning and tracking using a multi-band wireless networking system (US 2018/0103351 A1). Filed 2017-06-23.
Herbert et al. (2017). System and method for tracking items within a defined area (US 2017/0142549 A1). Filed 2016-11-04.
Loushine M. (2005). Location based services for integrated cellular and LAN networks (US 2005/0232189 A1). Filed 2005-02-28.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Akpinar, Ismail Ege et al. (2016). Mobile device positioning system and method (US 20160330584 A1). Filed 2016-04-21.
Ambrosino, Gary S. (2005). System and method for integrated wireless wan/lan location of a device (US 20050105496 A1). Filed 2004-03-26.
Bosnjakovic, Miroslav et al. (2010). System and method for determining the location of a location tracking device (US 20100035630 A1). Filed 2006-12-28.
Chen, Byron et al. (2016). Method and apparatus for indoor position tagging (US 9506761 B2). Filed 2014-01-10.
Goldfain, Albert (2016). Metrics to assess collar fit quality of a wearable device (US 20160165852 A1). Filed 2015-12-15.
Greenberg, Stephen Jay (2008). Pet tracking systems, other tracking systems, and portable virtual fence (US 7411492 B2). Filed 2006-03-07.
Gulick, Jr., Franklyn W. et al. (2021). Geo-radius based mobile device management (US 20210144557 A1). Filed 2021-01-20.
Hess, Brian K. (2014). Portable alarm device (US 8643486 B2). Filed 2008-10-20.
Ingerson, David Craig (2012). Tracking system (US 20120270559 A1). Filed 2010-09-24.
Jin, Haojian et al. (2016). System and method for detection of indoor tracking units (US 9363644 B2). Filed 2014-08-19.
Klinkner, Steven R. et al. (2020). Tracking device location detection using access point collections (US 10575138 B1). Filed 2019-08-02.
Klinkner, Steven R. et al. (2020). Tracking device presence detection and reporting by access points (US 10708722 B1). Filed 2019-08-02.
Klinkner, Steven R. et al. (2020). Access point queries for tracking device smart alerts (US 10735909 B1). Filed 2019-08-02.
Shamim et al. (2019). Systems and methods for tracking a device in zero-infrastructure and zero power conditions, and a tracking device therefor (US 10237693 B2). Filed 2016-09-13.
Vang, Nipong (2020). Keyway illumination and key-loss prevention system and method (US 10665083 B1). Filed 2019-02-25.
Variyath, Girish S. et al. (2013). Tracking an object utilizing location information associated with a wireless device (US 8570373 B2). Filed 2007-06-08.
Vega, Jose Pons et al. (2017). Location history access for lost tracking device (US 20170134898 A1). Filed 2015-11-11.
De La Broise, Josselin et al. (2020). Commissioning electronic devices for use in a tracking system (US 10757676 B1). Filed 2019-03-08.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights