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
Priority
The present application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/161,122, filed on January 28, 2021, now a U.S. Patent. No. 12114230 B2, which in turn claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/967,678, filed on January 30, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) is submitted on 9/27/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. According, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a location module in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“a location module that receives the location data” – The tracking devices 101, 102, and 110 collect data from the nodes 107, 108, 109 and 111 and send it to a processing unit (discussed below) of, for example, a location module, to determine the location of the nodes 107, 108, 109 and 111 (Paragraph 0044). According to some examples, circuitry may also include an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or a field programmable gate array (FPGA), and modules may be implemented as hardware elements of the ASIC or the FPGA (Paragraph 0118).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent Number 12114230 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application 18/818,887
US Patent No.
12114230 B2
Interpretation/Differences
1. A real time location system (RTLS) for determining three-dimensional locations of nodes in an environment, the RTLS system comprising:
at least one node associated with an asset in the environment, the at least one node having an unknown location;
at least one tracking device that communicates with the at least one node to obtain location data associated with the unknown location of the at least one node; and
a location module that receives the location data associated with the unknown location of the at least one node and determines a real-time three-dimensional current location of the at least one node based on the location data, the real-time three-dimensional current location having x, y and z coordinates and the z coordinate indicates a height of the at least one node in the environment.
1. A real time location system (RTLS) for determining three-dimensional locations of nodes in an environment, the RTLS comprising:
at least one node associated with an asset in the environment, the at least one node having an unknown location;
at least one tracking device that communicates with the at least one node to obtain location data associated with the unknown location of the at least one node; and
a location module that receives, from the tracking device, the location data associated with the unknown location of the at least one node and determines a real-time three-dimensional current location of the at least one node based on the location data, the real-time three-dimensional current location having x, y and z coordinates and the z coordinate indicates a height of the at least one node in the environment, wherein the location module further:
creates a list of heights (z) for the at least one node;
performs a binary search of the list of heights (z);
selects two heights (z) from the list of heights (z), one of the two heights (z) being a low height and one of the two heights being a high height;
determines a middle height between the low and high heights;
calculates x and y coordinates for each of the low, middle and high heights;
calculates an error factor for each of the calculated x and y coordinates;
selects a new pair of low and high heights based on where the calculates error factor fall between the low and middle heights or between the middle and high heights; and
repeating the determining, the calculating x and y coordinates, the calculating the error factor and the selecting the new pair of low and high heights until a final height of the at least one node is determined; wherein the environment is a multi-story building;
wherein the at least one tracking device comprises at least one tracking device on each floor of the multi-story building and the at least one tracking device transmits and receives data; and
wherein the at least one tracking device on each floor operates independently of the at least one tracking device on all other floors.
As can be seen from the side-by-side comparison, US Patent 12114230 B2 has every feature/limitation that the present application does with slight word changes with the exception of the bolded, italicized, and underlined feature in the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kulkarni et al. (US 20180330293 A1 and Kulkarni hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Kulkarni teaches a real time location system (RTLS) (Figure 6B and Paragraph 0196; real time location system RTLS) for determining three-dimensional locations of nodes in an environment (Figure 6B and Paragraph 0305; given known locations for each of the reader nodes, the unknown location (x,y,z) of the leaf node may then be estimated), the RTLS system comprising:
at least one node associated with an asset in the environment (Figures 6A, 6B and 8B, and Paragraph 0033; at least one leaf node is deployed as an asset tag on a physical asset), the at least one node having an unknown location (Figures 6A, 6B and 8B, and Paragraph 0305; the unknown location (x,y,z) of the leaf node);
at least one tracking device that communicates with the at least one node to obtain location data associated with the unknown location of the at least one node (Figures 6B and 8B, and Paragraphs 0285 and 0305; a reader node 2000 [interpreted as tracking device] may determine the location of a device [interpreted as node with unknown location], such as a leaf node 1000, in embodiments, based on the known radiation pattern of the antenna and the signal strength of the signal from a leaf node 100. Paragraphs 0352 and 0353; a reader node may operate to obtain signal strength, proximity, and phase angle information collected via BLE signals from a plurality of leaf nodes); and
a location module that receives the location data (Figure 8B and Paragraphs 0352 and 0353; the system may operate to obtain signal strength, proximity, and phase angle information collected via BLE signals from a plurality of leaf nodes, deliver the information to a remote computation facility, such as a cloud server [interpreted as a location module]) associated with the unknown location of the at least one node (Figures 6A, 6B and 8B, and Paragraph 0305; the unknown location (x,y,z) of the leaf node) and determines a real-time three-dimensional current location of the at least one node based on the location data (Figures 6B and 8B, and Paragraphs 0305 and 0352; process the information at the remote computation facility in real time to determine the respective locations of the leaf nodes. Location of the leaf nodes may be expressed with three-dimension location (x,y,z)), the real-time three-dimensional current location having x, y and z coordinates and the z coordinate indicates a height of the at least one node in the environment (Figures 6B and 8B, and Paragraphs 0305 and 0352; process the information at the remote computation facility in real time to determine the respective locations of the leaf nodes. Location of the leaf nodes may be expressed with three-dimension location (x,y,z). Examiner asserts that z-axis coordinate denotes height of the leaf node in the environment).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huberman et al. (US 20200051007 A1) discloses tracking an item using a tracking device associated with an item that identify a location state of the tracking device based on at least one of satellite based data or connectivity to an access point. Wireless transceivers and sensors may be activated to provide for localization.
Maurer et al. (US 20140206307 A1) discloses tags may receive time signal and GPS satellite location information and transmit the information to central database and server for triangulation of the tag.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jing Gao whose telephone number is (571)270-7226. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 6pm M-F.
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 Slater can be reached on (571) 272-7769. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/JING GAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2647