DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 18/799,234 filed on August 9, 2024 in which claims 1-20 were presented for examination.
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
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed August 9, 2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the no copy of an English translation of the foreign document was provided, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(3). Specifically, 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(e) states “[a]ny information disclosure statement filed under § 1.97 shall include … A copy of the translation.” (Emphasis added). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. The remainder of the information disclosure statement complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609, and has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The claims refer to a “burst maximum.” This does not appear to be a known term of art. Therefore, it is the examiner’s duty to give claims “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP § 2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, if the specification is silent to the meaning of claim terminology, “words of the claim must be given their plain meaning.” See MPEP § 2111.01.
Here, the present specification does not appear to explicitly define this term. However, the specification does give some examples of a “burst maximum.” For example, the present specification at page 40, ll. 13-16 and Figs. 10A-10E appear to indicate that a burst maximum is the maximum received radio signal strength by the robot.
Therefore, the term “burst maximum” shall be interpreted in this manner.
If this is not the applicant’s intended interpretation, the examiner recommends either amending the claim language to better define the term or to provide the intended interpretation in either the specification or technical literature establishing the term as a term of art.
Claim 1 recites a method claim including the limitations “determining, via the one or more hardware processors, a subsequent virtual AP location using a Trilateration algorithm, if a prediction error at the current point exceeds a pre-defined threshold;” and “iteratively obtaining, via the one or more hardware processors, subsequent virtual AP locations as the mobile telerobot advances to the next move upon its traversal, wherein the subsequent virtual AP location is calculated at the current point if the prediction at that point exceeds the pre-defined threshold.” (Emphasis added).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the determining or the iteratively obtaining steps to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Ex parte Heil (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/512,669), at 6; Ex parte Frost (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/785,052) at 7; Ex parte Dawson (PTAB 2018) (App. S.N. 12/103,472) at 6; and Ex parte Candelore (PTAB 2017) (App. S.N. 14/281,158) at 5 (supporting the interpretation that “in response to” limitations are conditional). See, e.g., Reactive Surfaces v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914 (PTAB 2018) (“[t]he use of ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ does not change whether the method step is conditional”) (citing Ex parte Kaundinya, No. 2016-000917, 2017 WL 5510012, at *5-6 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2017) ("when" may indicate a conditional method step); Ex parte Zhou, No. 2016-004913, 2017 WL 5171533, at *2 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2017) (same); Ex parte Lee, No. 2014-009364, 2017 WL 1101681, at *2 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2017) (same)). See, e.g., Ex parte Sheinfeld Appeal No. 2018-007091 (PTAB 2019) at *13; Ex Parte Vdovjak 2018-007087 (PTAB 2019) at 18; Ex parte Ionescu 2018-002662 (PTAB 2018) at *4; Ex parte Shier 2017-011168 (PTAB 2019) at *23; and Ex parte Blight 2017-006004 (PTAB 2018) at *12 (supporting the interpretation that “upon” limitations are conditional). See, e.g., Ex parte Sabin (PTAB 2023) (App. S.N. 16/723,088), at 2-3; Ex parte Baltar (PTAB 2023) (App. S.N. 15/714,480) at *5; Ex parte Silvestre (PTAB 2023) (App. S.N. 15/532,953) at *11; and Ex parte Banescu (PTAB 2021) (App. S.N. 14/898,856) at *12 Ex parte Mehta, PTAB Appeal No. 2017-011252 at *20–22 (Application No. 13/422,647, Aug. 23, 2019) (“identifying, by the insurance computer system, the online group for an insurance offering update based on a size of the online group changing beyond a threshold amount”), Ex parte Carasso, PTAB Appeal No. 2018-005963 at *17–20 (Application No. 14/611,093) (Jan. 24, 2019) (“based on user input indicating that development of a text extraction rule is complete”), Ex parte Xiu, PTAB Appeal 2025-000743 at *5, ft. 3 (Application 17/211,498) (Aug. 29, 2025) (in the footnote, the Board recommends that the Examiner treat, as conditional language, the limitation of “based on the adaptive color space transform enablement indication indicating that the adaptive color space transform is disabled”) (supporting the interpretation that “based on” limitations are conditional).
Claim 2 recites a method claim including the limitation “wherein the subsequent virtual AP locations are estimated if error between predicted RSS value and received RSS value at the current point crosses a pre-defined threshold.” (Emphasis added). The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the subsequent locations to be estimated. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7).
Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. § 101
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite the limitation “revolving the mobile telerobot 360 degrees at the current position to obtain raw RSS values” or similar. When analyzed under current Office guidance, this limitation makes the machine, namely the telerobot, integral to achieve performance of the method. Thus, the claimed judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application and/or provide “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(b)(II).
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 10, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims lack a new line after a semi-colon, as is customary. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims alternate between using a lower case ‘i’ and a capital ‘I.’ These should be amended to consistently use the same case. Additionally, several instances of ‘i’ appear to be intended to be subscripts but are not formatted as such. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 17, the terms “effectively” and “spurious” are a relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “effectively” and “spurious” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner recommends removing the clause “that effectively omits the spurious readings due to associated static and dynamic environmental factors” in order to overcome this rejection.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, these claims include the formula d = anitlog10(
R
S
S
d
0
-
R
S
S
d
,
t
10
η
). This is subject to two, mutually exclusive interpretations due to the form in which this formula is written. First, this may be interpreted as antilog10. However, this interpretation is confusing because anitlog10 is more commonly, and less confusingly, written as 10, thus leading to the formula to be 10(
R
S
S
d
0
-
R
S
S
d
,
t
10
η
). However, this may also be interpreted as d = antilog(10 * (
R
S
S
d
0
-
R
S
S
d
,
t
10
η
)) because the use of “antilog” is less confusing in this interpretation.
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416 (PTAB 2017) (precedential) (affirming the holding in Ex parte Miyazaki).
Therefore, these claims are indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the examiner shall apply the first interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park et al., US Publication 2023/0079658 (hereinafter Park) in view of Chinnapalli, US Patent 11,290,977 (hereinafter Chinnapalli).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a method of sensing best-connected future path for a mobile telerobot, the method comprising “receiving, via one or more hardware processors, an odometry and a corresponding received radio signal strength (RSS) measurement at a current location of the mobile telerobot” (Park ¶ 45) by receiving a beacon signal that is used to derive the position coordinates (i.e., odometry) and RSSI value. Additionally, Park discloses “estimating, via the one or more hardware processors, a virtual access point (AP) location from the current location of the mobile telerobot comprising steps: obtaining a first virtual AP location in a trajectory of the mobile telerobot” (Park ¶ 48) by calculating the distance to the AP. Further, Park at least teaches and/or suggests that the estimating is “by, revolving the mobile telerobot 360 degrees at the current position to obtain raw RSS values” (Park ¶ 38) where the robot may move 360 degrees while performing the position calculation. Moreover, Park discloses “filtering the raw RSS values to obtain filtered RSS values” (Park ¶ 46) by removing RSSI values below a threshold value, which is a form of filtering within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. Likewise, Park discloses “determining a burst maximum of the filtered RSS values and corresponding peak to obtain a peak angle” (Park ¶ 48) by determining the highest predetermined RSSI value (i.e., a corresponding peak) of those values above the threshold (i.e., the burst maximum of the filtered RSS values). The statement “to obtain a peak angle” appears to be a statement of intended use and, therefore, does not receive any patentable weight.1 Park also discloses “estimating the first virtual AP location using the peak angle” (Park ¶ 55) by using the vertex to calculate the location of the first AP. A person of ordinary skill in the art understands a vertex to be the angular point connecting two line segments, making it a “peak angle” within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. In addition, Park discloses “determining, via the one or more hardware processors, a subsequent virtual AP location using a Trilateration algorithm, if a prediction error at the current point exceeds a pre-defined threshold” (Park ¶ 55) by using trilateration to obtained the distance to three APs, which is based on the RSSI being above a threshold value, as discussed above. Finally, Park discloses “iteratively obtaining, via the one or more hardware processors, subsequent virtual AP locations as the mobile telerobot advances to the next move upon its traversal, wherein the subsequent virtual AP location is calculated at the current point if the prediction at that point exceeds the pre-defined threshold” (Park ¶ 38) where the processes is performed “[a]s the mobile robot moves,” meaning that subsequent AP locations are calculated according to the process previously discussed, which includes the filtering step (i.e., if the prediction at that point exceeds the pre-defined threshold).
Park does not appear to explicitly disclose “calculating, via the one or more hardware processors, a virtual distance between the virtual AP location and a future point wherein the future point is the set of coordinates of an unvisited point along the trajectory of the mobile telerobot P steps ahead from the current positions of the mobile telerobot; and feeding, via the one or more hardware processors, the virtual distance into a path loss model to predict the RSS at the future point, wherein the predicted RSS at the future point assists a remote operator navigating the mobile telerobot via a controller to choose the best-connected path from the plurality of possible paths.”
However, Chinnapalli discloses a method of sensing best-connected future path for a mobile telerobot, the method comprising “calculating, via the one or more hardware processors, a virtual distance between the virtual AP location and a future point wherein the future point is the set of coordinates of an unvisited point along the trajectory of the mobile telerobot P steps ahead from the current positions of the mobile telerobot” (Chinnapalli col. 32, ll. 40-56, see also Fig. 6) by calculating a second estimated location that is further along the path by at least 1 step, for which Chinnapalli repeatedly discussed are in an X, Y coordinate system. Additionally, Chinnapalli discloses “feeding, via the one or more hardware processors, the virtual distance into a path loss model to predict the RSS at the future point, wherein the predicted RSS at the future point assists a remote operator navigating the mobile telerobot via a controller to choose the best-connected path from the plurality of possible paths” (Chinnapalli col. 25, ll. 17-27) where all signal strengths are determined using a path loss model, which would include the signal strength at the second estimated location. The limitation “wherein the predicted RSS at the future point assists a remote operator navigating the mobile telerobot via a controller to choose the best-connected path from the plurality of possible paths” also appears to be a statement of intended use and is not accorded any patentable weight for the reasons previously discussed.
Park and Chinnapalli are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of position determination based on signal strength.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Park and Chinnapalli before him or her to modify the position determination of Park to include the future position determination of Chinnapalli.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Park teaches the “base device” for determining the position of a robot using the received signal strength. Further, Chinnapalli teaches the “known technique” calculating future positions along a route of a robot based on the received signal strength that is applicable to the base device of Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because such a modification would have merely required adding the additional elements of Chinnapalli to the system of Park with no modifications to Park or Chinnapalli.
Regarding claim 8, it merely recites a system for performing the method of claim 1. The system comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Park and Chinnapalli comprises computer hardware (Park ¶ 82) and software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 8 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, it merely recites a non-transitory machine-readable information storage medium for performing the method of claim 1. The medium comprises computer software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Park and Chinnapalli comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, the combination of Park and Chinnapalli discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 8 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Park and Chinnapalli discloses “wherein the subsequent virtual AP locations are estimated if error between predicted RSS value and received RSS value at the current point crosses a pre-defined threshold” (Chinnapalli col. 32, l. 40-col. 33, l. 8) by describing the process for calculating the second estimated location to move the AMD to, which involves determining signal strength. Chinnapalli discusses, at col. 29, ll. 1-16, that the process for determining a location involves verifying that the signal strength is above a pre-defined threshold.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, the combination of Park and Chinnapalli discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 8 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Park and Chinnapalli discloses “wherein the first estimated virtual AP location, an odometry and the RSS of at least three points previously traversed by the mobile telerobot are provided as input parameters to a first round of Trilateration algorithm. (Park ¶ 55). Further, the combination of Park and Chinnapalli discloses “wherein previously estimated virtual AP location obtained from the previous iteration of Trilateration algorithm, an odometry and the RSS information of at least three points previously traversed by the mobile telerobot are provided as input parameters to a subsequent iterations of the Trilateration algorithm” (Chinnapalli col. 8, l. 63-col. 9, l. 12) where previous location data is used to train the neural network.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Park and Chinnapalli discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 15 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Park and Chinnapalli discloses “wherein the subsequent virtual AP locations are estimated if error between predicted RSS value and received RSS value at the current point crosses a pre-defined threshold” (Chinnapalli col. 32, l. 40-col. 33, l. 8) by describing the process for calculating the second estimated location to move the AMD to, which involves determining signal strength. Chinnapalli discusses, at col. 29, ll. 1-16, that the process for determining a location involves verifying that the signal strength is above a pre-defined threshold. Further, the combination of Park and Chinnapalli discloses “wherein the first estimated virtual AP location, an odometry and the RSS of at least three points previously traversed by the mobile telerobot are provided as input parameters to a first round of Trilateration algorithm.” (Park ¶ 55). Finally, the combination of Park and Chinnapalli discloses “wherein previously estimated virtual AP location obtained from the previous iteration of Trilateration algorithm, an odometry and the RSS information of at least three points previously traversed by the mobile telerobot are provided as input parameter to a subsequent iterations of the Trilateration algorithm” (Chinnapalli col. 8, l. 63-col. 9, l. 12) where previous location data is used to train the neural network.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Chinnapalli, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and in further view of Visvanathan et al., US Publication 2015/0206409 (hereinafter Visvanathan).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 17, the combination of Park and Chinnapalli discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1, 8, and 15 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Park and Chinnapalli does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein filtering of raw RSS involves passing the raw RSS through Butterworth order low pass filter with pre-defined cutoff frequency that effectively omits the spurious readings due to associated static and dynamic environmental factors.”
However, Visvanathan discloses a method for determining an object’s movement based on signal strength “wherein filtering of raw RSS involves passing the raw RSS through Butterworth order low pass filter with pre-defined cutoff frequency that effectively omits the spurious readings due to associated static and dynamic environmental factors.” (Visvanathan ¶¶ 92-93).
Park, Chinnapalli, and Visvanathan are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of determining an object’s location based on a received signal strength.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Park, Chinnapalli, and Visvanathan before him or her to modify the position detector of Park and Chinnapalli to include the Butterworth filter of Visvanathan.
The motivation for doing so would have been that Butterworth filters are well-known in the art to be simple to design and implement, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to be a cost and time effective solution.
Claims 5, 7, 12, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Chinnapalli, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and in further view of Pande et al., Robust Trilateration Based Algorithm for Indoor Positioning Systems, 2021, Tanzania Journal of Science, Vol. 47, No. 3, Pages 1195-1210 (hereinafter Pande), as cited on the Information Disclosure Statement dated August 9, 2024.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, the combination of Park and Chinnapalli discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1, 8, and 15 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Park and Chinnapalli does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the virtual AP location is calculated using an equation: xa = dsin(α) ya = dcos(α) where d is the Euclidean distance between the first location and the AP determined using the received RSS and wherein the Euclidean distance is calculated by equation: d = anitlog10(
R
S
S
d
0
-
R
S
S
d
,
t
10
η
) where, d0 is the reference distance usually 1m, RSSd0 is the received RSS at a reference distance, η is the environment dependent path loss parameter, and α is the peak angle corresponding to burst maximum values of filtered RSS obtained in the previous steps.”
However, Pande discloses a location calculating trilateration formula “wherein the virtual AP location is calculated using an equation: xa = dsin(α) ya = dcos(α) where d is the Euclidean distance between the first location and the AP determined using the received RSS.” (Pande 1201, equations 8, 9). Although Pande does not use the formulas as written, the provided equations in Pande appear to be calculating the sine and cosine, respectively. Additionally, Pande discloses “wherein the Euclidean distance is calculated by equation: d = anitlog10(
R
S
S
d
0
-
R
S
S
d
,
t
10
η
) where, d0 is the reference distance usually 1m, RSSd0 is the received RSS at a reference distance, η is the environment dependent path loss parameter, and α is the peak angle corresponding to burst maximum values of filtered RSS obtained in the previous steps.” (Pande 1204). Again, although Pande does not use the claimed formula, the claimed formula simplifies to the formula provided in Pande.
Park, Chinnapalli, and Pande are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of location determination.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Park, Chinnapalli, and Pande before him or her to modify the triangulation of Park and Chinnapalli to include the specific formula for triangulation of Pande.
The motivation for doing so would have been that this module is “widely used” (Pande 1204), making it easier to implement.
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, the combination of Park and Chinnapalli discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1, 8, and 15 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Park and Chinnapalli does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the coordinates of the future point are calculated using equation: xp = x + (P * sin(θ + β)) yp = y + (P * cos(θ + β)) wherein the future point is assumed to be P steps ahead from the current location (x,y), and in β direction with respect to the current pose of the mobile telerobot θ.”
However, Pande discloses a location calculating trilateration formula “wherein the coordinates … are calculated using equation: xp = x + (… sin(θ + β)) yp = y + (… cos(θ + β)) wherein … in β direction with respect to the current pose of the mobile telerobot θ.” (Pande 1201, equations 8, 9). Although Pande does not use the formulas as written, the provided equations in Pande appear to be calculating the sine and cosine, respectively.
Further, Chinnapalli discloses only a single future point is calculated, meaning that, when Pande was combined with Park and Chinnapalli, P would equal 1, which simplifies out of the equation. Therefore, the combination of Park, Chinnapalli, and Pande at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “wherein the coordinates of the future point are calculated using equation: xp = x + (P * sin(θ + β)) yp = y + (P * cos(θ + β)) wherein the future point is assumed to be P steps ahead from the current location (x,y), and in β direction with respect to the current pose of the mobile telerobot θ,” rendering it obvious.
Chinnapalli only does 1 look ahead so p=1 which normalizes out
Park, Chinnapalli, and Pande are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of location determination.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Park, Chinnapalli, and Pande before him or her to modify the triangulation of Park and Chinnapalli to include the specific formula for triangulation of Pande.
The motivation for doing so would have been that this module is “widely used” (Pande 1204), making it easier to implement.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Chinnapalli, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and in further view of Rose et al., 3D Trilateration Localization using RSSI in Indoor Environment, 2020, (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, Vol. 11, No. 2, Pages 385-391 (hereinafter Rose).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, the combination of Park and Chinnapalli discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1, 8, and 15 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Park and Chinnapalli does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the Trilateration algorithm is applied to predict the virtual AP location using the following set of equations: d1 =
x
a
-
x
1
2
+
(
y
a
-
y
1
)
2
d2 =
x
a
-
x
2
2
+
(
y
a
-
y
2
)
2
d3 =
x
a
-
x
3
2
+
(
y
a
-
y
3
)
2
wherein (xa,ya) is the estimated location of virtual AP, (xi,yi) corresponds of each point i already traversed by the mobile telerobot along its trajectory and di is the corresponding Euclidean distance of point I from the radio source computed using the RSS received at each point i.”
However, Rose discloses that the formula for determining distance in triangulation is d =
x
r
e
f
-
x
2
+
(
y
r
e
f
-
y
)
2
. (Rose 386). Thus, when Rose was combined with Park and Chinnapalli, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the triangulation formula of Rose would be used to compute the triangulation of Park and Chinnapalli with the use of at least three points. Therefore, the combination of Park, Chinnapalli, and Rose at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “wherein the Trilateration algorithm is applied to predict the virtual AP location using the following set of equations: d1 =
x
a
-
x
1
2
+
(
y
a
-
y
1
)
2
d2 =
x
a
-
x
2
2
+
(
y
a
-
y
2
)
2
d3 =
x
a
-
x
3
2
+
(
y
a
-
y
3
)
2
wherein (xa,ya) is the estimated location of virtual AP, (xi,yi) corresponds of each point i already traversed by the mobile telerobot along its trajectory and di is the corresponding Euclidean distance of point I from the radio source computed using the RSS received at each point I,” rendering it obvious.
Park, Chinnapalli, and Rose are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of trilateration calculations.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Park, Chinnapalli, and Rose before him or her to modify the trilateration calculation of Park and Chinnapalli to include the specific formula of Rose.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). The combination of Park and Chinnapalli differs from the claimed invention by including a generic recitation of trilateration in place of a specific formula. Further, Rose teaches that the specific formula for calculating trilateration was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the specific formula for trilateration of Rose for the generic recitation of trilateration of Park and Chinnapalli because both calculate trilateration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Goodall et al., US Publication 2007/0042716, System and method for detecting an object’s location using trilateration and received signal strength.
Huang et al., US Publication 2013/0317944, System and method for detecting an object’s location using trilateration and received signal strength.
Robertson et al., US Publication 2015/0031390, System and method for detecting an object’s location using trilateration and received signal strength.
Stevens et al., US Publication 2015/0205297, System and method for detecting an object’s location using trilateration and received signal strength.
Atia et al., US Publication 2015/0230100, System and method for detecting an object’s location using trilateration and received signal strength.
Zeng et al., US Publication 2020/0182995, System and method for detecting an object’s location using trilateration and received signal strength.
Miyatake et al., US Publication 2021/0250110, System and method for detecting an object’s location using trilateration and received signal strength.
Bolot et al., US Publication 2021/0258754, System and method for detecting an object’s location using trilateration and received signal strength.
Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al., US Publication 2022/0187841, System and method for detecting an object’s location using trilateration and received signal strength.
Booij et al., US Publication 2022/0299590, System and method for detecting an object’s location using trilateration and received signal strength.
Kim, US Publication 2022/0378269, System and method for detecting an object’s location using trilateration and received signal strength.
Peddireddy et al., US Publication 2023/0198641, System and method for detecting an object’s location using trilateration and received signal strength.
Pajovic et al., US Patent 9,282,531, System and method for detecting an object’s location using trilateration and received signal strength.
Zhu et al., US Patent 10,425,842, System and method for detecting an object’s location using trilateration and received signal strength.
de la Broise et al., US Patent 10,506,386, System and method for detecting an object’s location using trilateration and received signal strength.
Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al., US Patent 11,348,269, System and method for detecting an object’s location using trilateration and received signal strength.
Cotera et al., Indoor Robot Positioning using an Enhanced Trilateration Algorithm, 2016, International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 13:110, doi: 10.5772/63246, Pages 1-8, Method for calculating trilateration.
Valeria M. Salas Pacheco, Trilateration-Based Localization in Known Environments with Object Detection, October 2021, University of South Florida, Pages 1-47, Method for calculating trilateration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
1 “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).