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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 1000. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 4, “performing” should be –perform--.
Claims 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims require the computing device is “further comprising operations to:”. However, per independent claim 7, the computing device itself does not comprise “operations” as is worded in he claims, rather one or more processors are configured to execute instructions stored in one or more memories to perform operations.
Claims 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims require the computer-readable medium is “further comprising operations to:”. However, per independent claim 15, the medium itself does not comprise “operations” as is worded in the claims, rather it stores instructions that when executed cause the one or more processors to perform operations. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 13-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rahmati et al. (WO 2025/042411).
performing, by a first device:
Rahmati discloses a method (Fig. 4) and associated computing device having memory and processor ([0025]), the method comprising performing, by a first device:
at a first time: performing, using a first sensor (UWB), a first ranging measurement with a second device to obtain a first distance ([0092]); and
performing, using a second sensor (barometer), a first altitude measurement to obtain a first altitude ([0089]);
at a second time:
performing, using the first sensor, a second ranging measurement with the second device to obtain a second distance ([0092]); and
performing, using the second sensor, a second altitude measurement to obtain a second altitude ([0089]);
determining a ranging difference between the first distance and the second distance ([0092]); and
determining an altitude difference between the first altitude and the second altitude ([0089]).
Regarding claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20, it is implicit from the disclosure of Rahmati that in order to determine the disclosed change in elevation by use of the barometer ([0089]), first and second air pressure measurements are performed and first and second altitudes are calculated, as is the function of a barometer.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahmati as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Garin et al. (US 2012/0176525).
Rahmati discloses applying the technology to direct the user of one device to the other device by way of a graphical depiction of distance and direction on a display of the user device ([0002]) but does not disclose determining whether the second device is on a different floor of a building than the first device and displaying a notification on the display indicating that the second device is on a different floor of the building than the first device.
Garin similarly discloses directing a user of a device to another ([0024]) via display [0033], and teaches determining whether the second device is on a different floor of a building than the first device and displaying a notification on the display indicating that the second device is on a different floor of the building than the first device ([0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the technology of Rahmati to include a step and functionality to determine whether the second device is on a different floor of a building than the first device and displaying a notification on the display indicating that the second device is on a different floor of the building than the first device so that the user may move or shift the location efforts onto another floor when necessary as described by Garin at [0049].
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recite(s):
performing, by a first device (Fig. 4):
at a first time: performing, using a first sensor, a first ranging measurement with a second device to obtain a first distance; and
performing, using a second sensor, a first altitude measurement to obtain a first altitude;
at a second time:
performing, using the first sensor, a second ranging measurement with the second device to obtain a second distance; and
performing, using the second sensor, a second altitude measurement to obtain a second altitude;
determining a ranging difference between the first distance and the second distance; and
determining an altitude difference between the first altitude and the second altitude.
Claims 8 and 15 recite corresponding operations, attributable to processor(s) of a computing device.
Analysis
Step 2A, Prong One
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 1 recites:
“determining a ranging difference between the first distance and the second distance; and
determining an altitude difference between the first altitude and the second altitude.”
Claims 8 and 15 recite equivalent operations.
These encompass mental evaluations, performable by a human in the mind or via pen and paper.
Thus, the claims recite mental processes, which are recognized abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claims recite the additional elements of:
performing, using a first sensor, a first ranging measurement with a second device to obtain a first distance; and
performing, using a second sensor, a first altitude measurement to obtain a first altitude;
at a second time:
performing, using the first sensor, a second ranging measurement with the second device to obtain a second distance; and
performing, using the second sensor, a second altitude measurement to obtain a second altitude;
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20 specify that the altitude measurements are calculated by way of taking air pressure measurements.
These steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform the evaluations. The steps represent insignificant extra-solution activity and do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Concerning the “first sensor” and “second sensor” specifically, use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05 (b), III).
Claims 8 and 15 also recite the additional elements of processor(s) and memory/computer readable medium.
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Here the claims invoke generic computer elements as a tool for performing the recited idea rather than improving the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitations represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer and does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B:
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the re-evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here, the step of generating first and second ranging measurements by a first sensor is mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality, and as shown by Rahmati et al., is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (e.g. [0092]). Therefore, this limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
The step of generating first and second altitude measurements by a second sensor (i.e. air pressure measurements via barometer) is mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality, and as shown by Rahmati et al., is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (e.g. [0089]). Therefore, this limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the processor(s) and computer readable medium were found to represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Concerning claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 19, the claims set forth additional mental observations or evaluations and do not introduce any additional elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on a part time schedule, typically M-Fri 8:00 AM-4:30 PM Eastern Time, but having off alternating Monday-Tuesdays and Fridays.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights