DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
CON, CIP and/or DIV Acknowledgement
This application is a Continuation application (“CON”) and a Continuation-In Part application (“CIP”). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application(s). Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application(s) is/are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application(s) need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicant(s) are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application(s) is/are relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Priority Status
Domestic Benefit/National Stage under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or indicate National Stage entry from a PCT application per Application Data Sheet is acknowledged by The Examiner.
Status of Claims
Preliminary Amended Claim(s) 2-10 is/are examined in this office 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 .
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.
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) 2-3, 5, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20140136414 A1 (“Abhyanker”).
As to Claim 2, Abhyanker discloses A system (e.g., “system”) for tracking an apparatus (e.g., “autonomous neighborhood vehicle 100” from fig. 2) (see at least Abstract and Fig. 2 with associated text), comprising:
a first electronic tag (e.g., “Global Positioning System 218”) at the apparatus, the first electronic tag having a first transceiver and a first antenna (see at least Fig. 2 and 42 with associated text; in particular, [0118]. Note that a transceiver receives and transmits thus it performs like an antenna.);
a second electronic tag (e.g., “Radar Unit 222”) at the apparatus, the second electronic tag having a second transceiver and a second antenna spatially separated from the first antenna by a fixed and known distance (see at least [0171], Fig. 2 with associated text; in particular, [0120]. All the sensors are installed in set locations on said autonomous neighborhood vehicle 100.); and
a network apparatus (e.g., “commerce server 4200”) at a fixed location external to the apparatus and configured to track the apparatus during movement of the apparatus (see at least [0118]), the network apparatus configured to determine a relative position of the apparatus from RF signals received from the first antenna and the second antenna and from the fixed and known distance between the first antenna and the second antenna (see at least [0124], [0171], and Fig. 2, 42, 55 with associated text. The autonomous neighborhood vehicle 100 fuses all the data collected from all the sensors in the sensor system 102 together via sensor fusion algorithm 238.).
As to Claim 3, Abhyanker discloses wherein the apparatus is a vehicle that is unmanned and autonomously driven (see at least Abstract, and Fig. 1-2 and 56 with associated text; in particular, [0508]. Observe in Fig. 56 that autonomous neighborhood vehicle and the two passenger vehicles 5406 in garage are autonomous vehicles.)
As to Claim 5, Abhyanker discloses wherein the network apparatus is part of a navigation system (see at least [0020]-[0023], [0132] and Fig. 42 with associated text. Commerce server 4200 a part of a social network system wherein said social network system has mapping capability.).
As to Claim 8, Abhyanker discloses a control system (e.g., “computer system 200”) configured to control the vehicle in response to the relative position of the apparatus (see at least Fig. 42 and 55 with associated text; in particular, [0132]).
As to Claim 9, Abhyanker discloses wherein the apparatus is configured to direct at least one of (Only one option is required to satsify an "at least one of" limitation.) the first and second receivers to include the absolute position (e.g., “geo-spatial coordinates”) of the apparatus in the RF signals (see at least [0008], [0016]-[0017], [0024], [0171], and Fig. 2 with associated text. The autonomous neighborhood vehicle 100 fuses all the data collected from all the sensors in the sensor system 102 together via sensor fusion algorithm 238.).
Claim 10 stands or falls with Claim 2 because they are directed to the same invention. In this case, Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected; therefore, so too is/are Claim(s) 10. If Applicant does not believe the claims are directed to the same invention a restriction will be issued.
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 of this title, 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Abhyanker and further in view of WO 2010068980 A1 (“Clare”).
Abhyanker discloses wherein the apparatus is a vehicle (see at least Fig. 56 with associated text).
Abhyanker does not directly disclose a boat.
However, Clare discloses a boat (“According to a first aspect of the invention, there is provided a tag for applying to an article or asset”… “The article/asset may be a fixed or working asset. For example, the article/asset may be a computer, a piece of furniture, a vehicle, a document, plant machinery, or the like, and no limitation is meant thereby” … “References herein to vehicle are not to be regarded as limiting, and are intended to include all variations and manners of vehicles including road vehicles, water vehicles, and air vehicles. For example, cars, four wheel drives, utes or utility vehicles, vans, caravans, campervans, trailers, trucks, busses, boats, planes, trains, and the like.” – see at least Page 2, Line(s)10-11 and 16-18; Page 8, Line(s) 23-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abhyanker’s invention by incorporating easy and efficient fastening tags as taught by Clare in order to easily attach a tag to all types of vehicles (see Page 8, Line(s) 23-26; Page 10, Line(s) 22-25).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Abhyanker and further in view of US 20110241942 A1 (“Hill”).
As to Claim 6, Abhyanker discloses wherein the network apparatus determines a relative position of the apparatus (see at least [0125], Fig. 42 and 55 with associated text; in particular, [0132]. The autonomous neighborhood vehicle has collision avoidance functionality while travelling.).
Abhyanker discloses does not directly disclose by processing one or more of time difference of arrival (TDOA), time different of departure (TDOD), phase difference of arrival (PDOA), or phase different of departure (PDOD) measurements.
However, Hill teaches by processing one or more of (Only one option is required to satisfy a “one or more of” limitation.) time difference of arrival (TDOA) (see at least [0020]-[0021]), time different of departure (TDOD), phase difference of arrival (PDOA), or (Additionally, only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.) phase different of departure (PDOD) measurements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abhyanker’s invention by incorporating signal strength comparison function as taught by Hill in order to compare the signal amplitude (see [0010]).
As to Claim 7, Abhyanker discloses wherein the network apparatus determines a relative position of the apparatus (see at least [0125], Fig. 42 and 55 with associated text; in particular, [0132]).
Abhyanker discloses does not directly disclose by processing RSSI signals.
However, Hill teaches by processing RSSI signals (see at least [0010]). (Same motivation and rationale to combine as Claim 6)
Communications via The Internet and Authorization
MPEP § 502.03 II, “Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application by the examiner. except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the office and the applicant including applicant’s representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview, such as an interview agenda, it must be placed in the application. THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION MAY BE SUBMITTED VIA EFS-WEB, MAIL, OR FAX. It cannot be submitted by email.”
Contact Information
Primary Examiner Calvin Cheung’s contact information is listed at the bottom, and he is typically reached MONDAY-THURSDAY, 0700-1700 ET. If attempts to reach the primary by telephone are unsuccessful, the primary’s supervisor, HELAL ALGAHAIM, is available at telephone number (571) 270-5227.
Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice for scheduling an examiner interview that will be performed over telephone or video conferencing (using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CALVIN CHEUNG/
Direct Office Number (571) 270-7041
Email and Fax send to Calvin.Cheung@USPTO.GOV
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666