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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the applicants' communication filed on August 15, 2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 42-61 are currently presented in the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on August 15, 2024 have been reviewed and accepted by the examiner.
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.
Claim 56-61 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim invention is not supported by a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In the state of the art, transitory signals are commonplace as a medium for transmitting computer instructions, i.e. computer program products. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and given a broadest reasonable interpretation, the scope of a “computer-readable medium” covers a signal per se. A transitory signal does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matters, and is non-statutory for that reason.
The examiner suggests amending the claim to state “A non-transitory computer-readable medium…” to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Official Gazette Notice 1351 OG 212, dated February 23, 2010.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 42-61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US-20140248898-A1 (herein “O’Brien”).
Claims 42, 49, and 56
Consider claim 42, O’Brien teaches a method comprising performing, by a first portable device: at a plurality of times while a user of the first portable device is moving with the first portable device:
performing ranging at a respective position with a second device to determine a respective distance, thereby determining a plurality of respective distances, wherein the second device is stationary (see O’Brien Fig. 5, [0038] note determining the initial distance vector between the wireless device 12 and the vehicle 18);
obtaining raw measurements from a motion sensor of the first portable device (see O’Brien Fig. 5, [0022], [0043] note receiving accelerometer and gyroscope information from the wireless device);
using the raw measurements at the plurality of times to determine relative positions at the plurality of times, the relative positions determined from an initial position (see O’Brien Fig. 5, [0044] note locate the wireless device within the vehicle space and reinitializing the initial position); and
estimating a second position of the second device that optimizes a loss function that includes differences between the respective distances at the relative positions and an actual distance between the relative positions and the second position (see O’Brien Fig. 5, [0045]-[0046] note calculating the present position of the wireless device using TOF and trilateration).
Claim(s) 49 and 56 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 42.
Claims 43, 50, and 57
Consider claim 43, O’Brien teaches wherein using the raw measurements to determine the relative positions comprises, at each of the plurality of times: integrating an acceleration of the first portable device to calculate a velocity of the first portable device (see O’Brien [0049] note vehicle system calculates the velocity by integrating the acceleration); and
integrating the velocity of the first portable device to calculate a relative position of the first portable device (see O’Brien [0049] note calculating the displacement by taking the second integral of the acceleration).
Claim(s) 50 and 57 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 43.
Claims 44, 51, and 58
Consider claim 44, O’Brien teaches further comprising: providing the raw measurements as input to a motion model (see O’Brien [0145] note performing dead reckoning with the wireless device accelerometer and gyroscope data); receiving a probability that the first portable device is at the relative position as output from the motion model (see O’Brien [0013] note analyzing the likelihood of the position data is correct); and updating the relative position of the of the first portable device based on the probability (see O’Brien [0044], [0047], [0061] note using adaptive predictability estimate to analyze the likelihood that the displacement is corrected based on the accelerometer data and reinitializing the position).
Claim(s) 51 and 58 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 44.
Claims 45, 52, and 59
Consider claim 45, O’Brien teaches wherein determining relative positions comprises, at each of the plurality of times: providing the raw measurements as input to a motion model (see O’Brien [0145] note performing dead reckoning with the wireless device accelerometer and gyroscope data); and receiving a probability that the first portable device is at a relative position as output from the motion model (see O’Brien [0013], [0061] note analyzing the likelihood of the position data is correct).
Claim(s) 52 and 59 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 45.
Claims 46, 53, and 60
Consider claim 46, O’Brien teaches wherein using the raw measurements comprises, at each of the plurality of times: assigning a confidence score to the raw measurements (see O’Brien [0013] note analyzing the likelihood of the position data is correct); and discarding the raw measurements if the confidence score is below a confidence threshold (see O’Brien [0013], [0061] note using the likelihood information to ignore the present position).
Claim(s) 53 and 60 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 46.
Claims 47, 54, and 61
Consider claim 47, O’Brien teaches wherein determining the plurality of respective distances comprises: detecting that movement of the first portable device is below a threshold (see O’Brien [0061] note adaptive predictability model indicates less movement or no movement); and prompting the user to move via an output system of the first portable device (see O’Brien [0021, [0024] note haptic feedback, piezo-sounder for audio feedback, lighting indicator for visual feedback for initiating operations).
Claim(s) 54 and 61 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 47.
Claims 48 and 55
Consider claim 48, O’Brien teaches wherein determining the plurality of respective distances comprises: detecting that movement of the first portable device is above a threshold (see O’Brien [0061] note adaptive predictability model indicates less movement or no movement); and prompting the user to continue moving via an output system of the first portable device (see O’Brien [0021, [0024] note haptic feedback, piezo-sounder for audio feedback, lighting indicator for visual feedback for initiating operations).
Claim(s) 55 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 48.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS C HAMMONDS whose telephone number is (571)270-3193. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00AM-6:00PM.
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, ALISON T. SLATER can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
/MARCUS HAMMONDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights