DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claim fails to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claim 7, the claims are rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a sensor configured to measure inertial data.
Regarding claim 7, it recites the limitation “the mobile device” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
It is Applicant’s responsibility to draft a clear and concise set of claims defining the metes and bounds of Applicant’s invention. Applicant should review all of the outstanding claims in response hereto. All of the claims should be reviewed for issues related to clarity and scope as the errors/issues are not constrained to those listed above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 7-10, and 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-6, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,066,561. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because even though there are variations in the wording of the claims, the differences in the claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Application 18/805,974
Claim 1. A tracking system comprising:
a mobile device, comprising:
at least one antenna configured to receive radiofrequency (RF) signals transmitted by at least one RF transmission source for determining a position of the mobile device; and
at least one processor in communication with the at least one antenna, the at least one processor of the mobile device configured to:
receive inertial measurement data;
calculate, from position information of the RF signals, a first position of the mobile device;
compare the position information of the RF signals and inertial measurement data to modify a position stability of the RF signals; and
calculate, from the inertial measurement data and the calculated first position, a second position of the mobile device for tracking the mobile device, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to reduce power to the at least one receiver antenna when the sensor does not detect motion for a period.
U.S. Patent No. 12,066,561
Claim 1. A mobile device comprising:
multiple receiver antennae each configured to receive radiofrequency (RF) signals transmitted by at least one RF transmission source for determining a position of the mobile device;
a sensor configured to measure inertia of the mobile device; and
at least one processor in communication with the sensor and the at least one receiver antenna, the at least one processor being configured to:
receive inertial measurement data measured by the sensor;
calculate, from position information of the RF signals, a first position of the mobile device;
compare the position information of the RF signals and the inertial measurement data to modify a position stability of the RF signals; and
calculate, from the inertial measurement data measured by the sensor and the calculated first position, a second position of the mobile device for tracking the mobile device, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to reduce power to the at least one receiver antenna when the sensor does not detect motion for a period.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are allowed over prior art. However, 35 USC 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph and 35 USC 101 rejections must be overcome.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,082,584 discloses various different techniques are used to determine a location of a device, including 3-dimensional (3D) mapping techniques as well as one or more of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) techniques, wireless signal detection techniques, and inertial sensor techniques. The locations determined by these various techniques are combined to determine the location of the device and/or user of the device. In addition to the location of the device, an orientation or direction of view of the device and/or user of the device can optionally be determined as well.
US 7,248,964 discloses a navigation system with resume logic and mode logic provides as an output an accurate navigation solution using multiple RF sensors. The resume logic determines which sensors are currently providing good data to the navigation system. The mode logic selects an operating mode of the navigation system and selects which data to use for calculating corrections to the navigation solution. The mode logic makes the selections based on the results of the resume logic. The resume logic continues to test data from the sensors. If a sensor that has previously provided erroneous data starts providing good data, the mode logic will automatically select that data for use in calculating the corrections to the navigation solution. The tracking of RF transmitters by the multiple RF sensors is controlled using a plurality of available inertial and non-inertial sensors.
US 2003/0135327 discloses a low-cost, portable, strap-down, navigation system including: an Inertial Navigation System (INS); a GPS receiver; and a 3-Axis Magnetometer (MAG). A microprocessor controls and filters the data from the INS, GPS and MAG. In a preferred embodiment the system provides an indication of: True Heading; 3-D Position; 3-D Velocity; 3-D Acceleration; 3-D Attitude; and 3-D Angular Rate. A filter weighs the trustworthiness of each sensor, favoring the GPS and MAG sensors for relatively low rate movements and steady state conditions and the INS sensors for transient movements.
EP 3,726,252 discloses a method and a system for controlling a GNSS device that can reduce power consumption by acquiring position information through a GPS only at necessary point in time. According to an aspect of the present invention, a GNSS device control method for controlling a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) device installed in a movement means includes by a GNSS device control system, acquiring map data; by a GNSS device control system, periodically performing a predetermined first process while the GNSS device is active; and by a GNSS device control system, periodically performing a predetermined second process while the GNSS device is deactivated.
CN 103257355 discloses an electron device capable of positioning method and device for electronic device comprises a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) or Global Positioning System (GPS), and includes an inertial navigation system (INS), a locating method comprises the following steps: receiving satellite signals by GNSS, determining the electronic device based on the satellite signal, a position of the electronic device based on the determined using satellite signal of the satellite information and position information of at least one of determining a GNSS position information of electronic device; the reliability of position information of the electronic device, determining INS for operation level and an operating INS pass through. INS according to the determined level to compensate the location of the electronic device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
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) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights