DETAILED 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 .
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, 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.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer (US 2022/0163655) and further in view Xu et al. (US 2020/0064456).
Regarding claim 1, Sauer discloses in figure 1 a architecture that teaches obtaining, by a first device (102), device information of the connectable UWB device (102) using a UWB signal (120) (see para. 0031, 0034, 0038, 0039, 0042); obtaining, by the first device (102) synchronously with the obtaining the device information, first three-dimensional position set data of a target object, the device information comprising the MAC address and first position information of the connectable UWB device (102, 104a, 104b); and determining, by the first device (102), the MAC address of the connectable UWB device (102, 104a, 104b) belonging to the target object based on the device information and the first three-dimensional position set data ( figure 1 and para. 0031, 0034, 0038, 0039, 0042).
However, Sauer fails to teach or suggest device (102 or 104a or 104b) information comprising MAC address.
While, Xu et al disclose technique using/obtaining MAC address for UWB devices (see para. 0102, 0104, 0107, 0113 and 0119).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of invention to include Xu’s teaching into Sauer’s disclosure to meet the design needs or requirements.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is similar to claim 1 in device format. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected as well as rejected in claim 1, such as: Sauer discloses in figure 1 a architecture that teaches obtaining, by a first device (102), device information of the connectable UWB device (102) using a UWB signal (120) (see para. 0031, 0034, 0038, 0039, 0042); obtaining, by the first device (102) synchronously with the obtaining the device information, first three-dimensional position set data of a target object, the device information comprising the MAC address and first position information of the connectable UWB device (102, 104a, 104b); and determining, by the first device (102), the MAC address of the connectable UWB device (102, 104a, 104b) belonging to the target object based on the device information and the first three-dimensional position set data ( figure 1 and para. 0031, 0034, 0038, 0039, 0042).
However, Sauer fails to teach or suggest device (102 or 104a or 104b) information comprising MAC address.
While, Xu et al disclose technique using/obtaining MAC address for UWB devices (see para. 0102, 0104, 0107, 0113 and 0119).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of invention to include Xu’s teaching into Sauer’s disclosure to meet the design needs or requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the obtaining the device information comprising the first position information of the connectable UWB device further comprises: positioning, by the first device, the connectable UWB device using the UWB signal to obtain a position coordinate of the UWB device; and mapping, by the first device, the position coordinate obtained by the positioning into a coordinate system corresponding to the first three-dimensional position set data to obtain the first position information of the connectable UWB device.
Claims 3-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the obtaining the first three-dimensional position set data of the target object further comprises: acquiring, by the first device while obtaining the device information, three-dimensional position set data of the target object using a depth camera; selecting, by the first device from the acquired three-dimensional position set data, three-dimensional position set data acquired at a time closest to a first time corresponding to a time when the device information is obtained; and obtaining, by the first device, the first three-dimensional position set data of the target object based on the selected three-dimensional position set data.
Claims 5-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the determining the MAC address of the connectable UWB device belonging to the target object further comprises: searching, by the first device, for the connectable UWB device belonging to the target object by matching a device position of the UWB device with a target space region based on the first position information and the first three-dimensional position set data, wherein the target space region is a space region corresponding to the first three-dimensional position set data of the target object; and obtaining, by the first device, the MAC address of the searched connectable UWB device based on the device information.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: after determining the MAC address of the connectable UWB device belonging to the target object, based on determining the target object is required to be repositioned, obtaining, by the first device, the MAC address and position information of the connectable UWB device using the UWB signal, and searching, by the first device, for position information that matches the determined MAC address from the obtained position information as current position information of the target object.
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: after determining the MAC address of the connectable UWB device belonging to the target object, sending, by the first device, information required for the target object to the connectable UWB device belonging to the target object using the determined MAC address.
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: after determining the MAC address of the connectable UWB device belonging to the target object, obtaining, by the first device, user tag information corresponding to the determined MAC address from a preset database; generating, by the first device, first push information based on the user tag information, the first push information comprising generation of a MAC address of the first device or contact information of a user owning the first device; and sending, by the first device, the first push information to the UWB device belonging to the target object based on the determined MAC address to trigger the target object to send information to the user owning the first device based on the MAC address or contact information of the user indicated by the first push information based on determining that the target object needs to interact with the user owning the first device based on the first push information.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein determining the target object comprises: based on determining the first device receives a preset target object setting instruction, determining, by the first device, an object which issues the target object setting instruction as the target object; or, wherein determining the target object comprises: based on determining the first device detects that a duration for which a user owning the first device gazes at an object reaches a preset threshold, determining, by the first device, the gazed object as the target object; or, wherein determining the target object comprises: based on determining the first device detects that an object in a currently captured picture is known to a user owning the first device, determining, by the first device, the object as the target object; obtaining, by the first device, first three-dimensional position set data of each second object using a depth camera, the second object being an object other than the target object within a preset first expanded region where the target object is located; in a presence of the second object, searching for a second object having a distance, less than a preset threshold, to each of the determined target objects from the second object based on the first three-dimensional position set data of the second object and the first three-dimensional position set data of the target object, and based on determining the search is successful, determining, by the first device, the searched second object as the target object; or, wherein determining the target object comprises: based on determining the first device monitors an object having a preset abnormal behavior, determining, by the first device, the object as the target object.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the device to: position the connectable UWB device using the UWB signal to obtain a position coordinate of the UWB device; and map the position coordinate obtained by the positioning into a coordinate system corresponding to the first three-dimensional position set data to obtain the first position information of the connectable UWB device.
Claims 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the device to: acquire while obtaining the device information, three-dimensional position set data of the target object using a depth camera; select from the acquired three-dimensional position set data, three-dimensional position set data acquired at a time closest to a first time corresponding to a time when the device information is obtained; and obtain the first three-dimensional position set data of the target object based on the selected three-dimensional position set data.
Claims 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the device to: search for the connectable UWB device belonging to the target object by matching a device position of the UWB device with a target space region based on the first position information and the first three-dimensional position set data, wherein the target space region is a space region corresponding to the first three-dimensional position set data of the target object; and obtain the MAC address of the searched connectable UWB device based on the device information.
Cited References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited references are related to instant application subject matters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM T MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-1807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-2pm eastern time.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at 571 272-2105. 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.
/LAM T MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights