DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 10/24/2024 has been reviewed and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show details regarding the blocks contained in figure 1 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “200” has been used to designate both a mobile device (p. 13, l. 8) and a plurality of mobile devices (p. 13, l. 12). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 1, lines 7-9, “a mobile device … can detect the device location use various technologies include” should read “a mobile device … can detect the device location using various technologies including”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On pages 1 and 7, lines 8 and 34, respectively, it is unclear what the term “IPS SDK” is intended to mean. If IPS and SDK are acronyms then they should be defined at first use.
On page 1, line 9, “blue tooth” should read “Bluetooth®”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 1, line 13, “location describe with latitude” should read “location described with latitude”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On pages 1 and 8, lines 16-17 and 19-20, respectively, the meaning of the sentence “When the indoor positioning system was designed for indoor navigation application, the expected number of mobile devices that generate location is limited” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English. The Examiner suggests the sentence should read “When indoor positioning systems were initially designed for indoor navigation applications, a limited number of mobile devices were expected to generate location data”.
On pages 1 and 18, lines 19 and 21-22, respectively, it is unclear what “the how” in the phrase “the how and where the customer visit and stay” is intended to refer to because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
On pages 1 and 18, lines 20 and 23, respectively, “large amount data” should read “large amounts of data”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On pages 1 and 18, lines 22 and 25, respectively, “thus will increase the cost and decrease the system stability” should read “thus increasing the cost and decreasing the system stability”.
On page 2, line 3, “remote serve” should read “remote server”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 2, line 6, “high business values” should read “high business value”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 2, lines 12-13, referring to claims in the disclosure is not clear because the subject matter in the claim may be amended or cancelled during prosecution.
On pages 2 and 14, lines 33 and 4-5, respectively, “thus cannot allocate” should read “thus it cannot allocate”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 3, line 6, “sufficient processing resource” should read “sufficient processing resources”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On pages 3 and 14, lines 7 and 9, respectively, “capable to carry out” should read “capable of carrying out”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 3, lines 11-12, “Based on the configuration information. the pre-processing step is then used” should read “Based on the configuration information, the pre-processing step is then used”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 3, lines 31-32, the sentence “In one example, a two-dimensional grid to a pixelated floorplan, wherein each rectangular grid cell comprises a (same) integer number of pixels” appears to be incomplete.
On pages 5 and 12, lines 2 and 4, respectively, the term BLUETOOTH, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
On page 7, line 1, “schedule computing resource” should read “schedule computing resources”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 7, line 5, “handle huge amount of data” should read “handle huge amounts of data”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 7, lines 7-9, “the cloud server may take into account … the business hours of that site into account” should read “the cloud server may take into account … the business hours of that site”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 7, lines 9-10, “more resource will be reserved” should read “more resources will be reserved”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 8, lines 7-8, the meaning of the phrase “defines zone that each is a polygon with several points on the floorplan image” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
On page 8, lines 14-17, the description “divides the floorplan into non-overlapping grid in square shape … determines to which grid each reported location belongs to, then uses the center of such grid” is unclear whether the floorplan is divided into a non-overlapping grid of square cells, or into non-overlapping square grids.
On page 8, lines 30-31, “the follow processing” should read “the following processing”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 8, lines 32-33, the steps “Divide the floorplan into grid…” and “Calculate to which grid the location belongs…” make it unclear whether the floorplan is divided into a single fixed-size grid with fixed or variable sized cells, a single grid with fixed size cells, or a plurality of fixed-size grids.
On page 9, lines 1-2, “take into account” should read “taking into account”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 9, line 3, “by calculate” should read “by calculating”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 9, lines 5-6, “reduce the amount of computation centrally in a local server” should read “reduce the amount of computation centrally performed in a local server”.
On page 9, line 33-34, “one grid belongs to multiple zones” should read “one grid belonging to multiple zones”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 10, line 8, the acronym JSON should be defined.
On page 12, line 22, the operation CEIL should be defined.
On page 12, line 22, the disclosed equation appears to provide an integer value, however, it is unclear how a single value is used to reference a position of a two-dimensional grid.
On page 14, line 3, “such as handheld scanner” should read “such as a handheld scanner”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 14, lines 3-4, “sometime the mobile device could be busy” should read “sometimes the mobile device could be busy”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 14, lines 15-19, the meaning of the phrase “capable to compute based on the raw localization data … or to derive the gridIndex, zone, zoneGroup in case one or more out of which are missing from the data received” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
On page 14, line 20, “optimize it computation resource” should read “optimize its computation resources”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 8 and 10-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 10-13, lines 8, 8, 8, 9 and 9, respectively, “send[ing] pre-processed localization data” should read “sending the pre-processed localization data” to make it clear that it is the same pre-processed localization data recited earlier in each claim.
In claims 1 and 10-13, lines 11, 10, 10, 11 and 11, respectively, it is unclear how a pixel is different than an absolute length unit because a pixel is an absolute length unit despite not possessing an inherent size. The Examiner suggests the claims would be clearer if they recited “a grid size in pixels or another absolute length unit”.
Claims 1 and 10-13 should be limited to a single colon because using multiple colons in a single sentence to form nested lists is grammatically incorrect which makes it confusing to determine the relationships between its limitations.
In claim 2, line 2, “sending raw localization data” should read “sending the raw localization data” to make it clear that it is the same raw localization data detected in claim 1, line 5.
In claim 8, line 3, the term BLUETOOTH, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, should be capitalized or include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
In claim 14, line 2, “schedule computing resource” should read “schedule a computing resource” to provide sufficient antecedent basis in the claim for the computing resource.
Appropriate correction is required.
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] computing resource … for handling localization data” in claim 14, lines 2-3.
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.
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.
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 1-8 and 10-14 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 10-13, lines 5, 5, 5, 6 and 6, respectively, the limitation “detect[ing] raw localization data” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a mobile device detects raw data. Page 12, lines 3-5, describe different indoor positioning technologies that may be used by mobile devices for obtaining localization information, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that detecting raw localization data comprises obtaining raw localization information from one or more indoor positioning technologies.
Regarding claim 3, lines 2-3, the limitation “a collection of grid indexes” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it includes the grid index that is mapped to in claim 1, line 14. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the collection of grid indexes in dependent claim 3 includes the grid index of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, lines 2-3, the limitation “[a] computing resource … for handling localization data” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Although page 14, lines 20-26, disclose the cloud server may try to optimize its computation resource, it is unclear if the computation resources are physical processors/servers, virtual processors/servers, storage, databases, task allocations, software, time allocations, schedules, etc. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 14, line 3, the limitation “handling localization data” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the pre-processed localization data sent to the cloud server in claim 11, line 8. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that both claims are directed to the same pre-processed localization data.
Regarding claim 14, line 3, the limitation “submitted by a mobile device” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same mobile device recited in claim 11, lines 2-3. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that both claims are directed to the same mobile device.
Claims 2-8 and 14 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP § 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP § 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG ONE): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG TWO): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP § 2106.05
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a data processing method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP § 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)-(c) Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the analysis. Claim 1 recites:
A data processing method for indoor positioning comprising steps of:
providing configuration information to a mobile device by a cloud server or a local server on premises, wherein the configuration information comprises a dimension in pixels of a floorplan and a grid size in pixels or in an absolute length unit, and the grid size is configurable and defines the precision of the pre-processed localization data;
detecting raw localization data [mental process/step] by the mobile device;
pre-processing the raw localization data by using the configuration information, upon determining by the mobile device to carry out preprocessing locally [mental process/step];
sending pre-processed localization data to the cloud server or the local server on premises;
wherein the pre-processing step further comprises:
mapping the raw localization data to a grid index; wherein the pre-processed localization data comprises the grid index [mental process/step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “detecting raw localization data” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing a position of a mobile device on a building map. “Pre-processing the raw location data … upon determining … to carry out preprocessing…” in the context of this claim encompasses the person visualizing a numbered grid overlaid on the map, and their decision to perform said visualization. The limitation “…mapping the raw localization data to a grid index…” in the context of this claim encompasses the person determining the number of the grid cell that the mobile device is located in. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A data processing method for indoor positioning comprising steps of:
providing configuration information to a mobile device by a cloud server or a local server on premises, wherein the configuration information comprises a dimension in pixels of a floorplan and a grid size in pixels or in an absolute length unit, and the grid size is configurable and defines the precision of the pre-processed localization data [pre-solution activity (sending data)];
detecting raw localization data by the mobile device [applying the abstract idea using a generic computer];
pre-processing the raw localization data by using the configuration information, upon determining by the mobile device to carry out preprocessing locally;
sending pre-processed localization data to the cloud server or the local server on premises [insignificant post-solution activity (sending data)];
wherein the pre-processing step further comprises:
mapping the raw localization data to a grid index; wherein the pre-processed localization data comprises the grid index.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “providing configuration information…” and “sending pre-processed localization data…”, the examiner submits that the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (mobile device and cloud or local server) to perform the process. In particular, the providing and sending steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of providing information to the mobile device and the cloud or local server), and amount to merely sending data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “mobile device” is/are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing the generic computer function(s) of identifying and matching data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a mobile device to perform the “detecting raw localization data”, “pre-processing the raw location data … upon determining … to carry out preprocessing…”, and “…mapping the raw localization data to a grid index…” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner submits that the additional limitation(s) of “providing configuration information…” and “sending pre-processed localization data…” is/are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 except drawn to an indoor positioning system (i.e., a machine) which falls under one of the statutory categories in step 1. Therefore, claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under step 2 for the same reasons above.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8 and 14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 and 14 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejections of claim 1 and 11.
Therefore, claims 1-8 and 10-14 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huberman et al. (US 2022/0205808) in view of Vangell et al. (US 11,030,549), hereinafter Huberman and Vangell, respectively.
Regarding claims 1 and 10-13, as best understood, Huberman discloses a data processing method for indoor positioning comprising steps of: providing configuration information to a mobile device (Huberman; para. 40: In the preparatory phase, the planner 160 and the indexer 170 of the server 130 can cooperatively prepare a grid map of the indoor space, which can be then used for providing indoor location-based services to the mobile device 110.) by a cloud server (Huberman; para. 33: server computing device 130, interchangeably referred to as server 130, may be a computing device, such as a cloud server) or a local server (Huberman; para. 31: FIG. 1 illustrates, in an example embodiment, a network environment 100 for localization of mobile devices 110-1, 110-2, . . . 110-N in an indoor space.; fig. 1: server 130); detecting raw localization data by the mobile device (Huberman; para. 19: spatial data generated by the mobile device can be any information which can be indicative of an instantaneous location, for instance, a global or absolute location of the mobile device); pre-processing the raw localization data by using the configuration information, upon determining by the mobile device to carry out preprocessing locally (Huberman; para. 43: In the executory phase, as an example, the localizer 180 of the mobile device 110 can use the grid map generated by the indexer 170 above for, amongst other things, providing one or more indoor-location based services by localizing the mobile device 110 in the indoor space. For the purpose, for instance, the localizer 180 can localize the mobile device 110 present in the indoor space for which the grid map, as explained above has been prepared.); wherein the configuration information comprises a dimension in pixels of a floorplan and a grid size in pixels or in an absolute length unit (Huberman; paras. 48-49: planner 160 may obtain the floor plan of the indoor space in any raster [i.e., pixel-based] format, and begin by dividing the floor plan into a plurality of polygonal tiles … planner 160 may use polygonal tiles of various shapes and sizes for creating the grid [because the grid is created by dividing the pixel-based floor plan into tiles, the tile dimensions comprise pixels]), and the grid size is configurable and defines the precision of the pre-processed localization data (Huberman; para. 44: localizer 180 can select the hierarchical level in the grid for localization, based on whether to determine a pin-pointed location of the mobile device 110 or to determine the general region in which the mobile device 110 is located. For example, the localizer 180 may select a high resolution or low level of granularity, i.e., localization at lower hierarchical level having small polygonal tiles, when localizing a single mobile device); wherein the pre-processing step further comprises: mapping the raw localization data to a grid index; wherein the pre-processed localization data comprises the grid index (Huberman; para. 43: The localizer 180 can compare the spatial data of the mobile device 110 with the set of georeferences for the indoor space, and identify a polygonal tile in the size-wise hierarchy in which the mobile device 110 can be potentially instantaneously located.; para. 55: an identifier can be associated with each of the polygonal tiles).
Huberman does not explicitly disclose the local server is on premises; and sending pre-processed localization data to the cloud server or the local server on premises.
Vangell, in the same field of endeavor (location-based services), discloses an on-premises server (Vangell; col. 6, ll. 57-63: A server component may be included to record and speak to each capturing device using industry protocols over a secure network and update schedule and inform client capture device of times and schedule information. An Internet link insures the transmission of the data to the cloud or host on premise server but can be intermittent.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the local server of Huberman to be located on-premises, as disclosed by Vangell, to yield the predictable result of restricting the transmission of personal information offsite.
Although Huberman, in paragraph 20, discloses retrieving large amounts of data from a plurality of mobile devices for analytics, Huberman, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose sending pre-processed localization data to the cloud server or the local server on premises.
Vangell further discloses sending pre-processed localization data to a cloud server or a local server on premises (Vangell; col. 3; ll. 26-35: an application that runs on a mobile device may continuously retrieve location information from the mobile device GPS device (or Bluetooth, etc.), which itself is continuously computing its physical location based on satellite location information received from multiple GPS satellites, and the application running on the mobile device may, in turn, transmit the computed physical location of the mobile device to a nearby server that checks whether the mobile device physical location is within a known geofence area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the spatial data and identifier of the tile localized by the mobile device of Huberman, as modified, to be transmitted to the on-premises or cloud server, as disclosed by Vangell, to yield the predictable result of aggregating the user data in a central location.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Huberman, as modified, discloses sending raw localization data to the cloud server or the local server (Vangell; col. 3; ll. 26-35: an application that runs on a mobile device may continuously retrieve location information from the mobile device GPS device (or Bluetooth, etc.), which itself is continuously computing its physical location based on satellite location information received from multiple GPS satellites, and the application running on the mobile device may, in turn, transmit the computed physical location of the mobile device to a nearby server that checks whether the mobile device physical location is within a known geofence area).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Huberman, as modified, discloses the configuration information further comprises a zone definition represented by a collection of grid indexes (Huberman; para. 48: a polygonal tile higher in the hierarchical structure can contain within it a plurality of smaller polygonal tiles that are lower in the hierarchical structure).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Huberman, as modified, discloses the pre- processing step further comprises: mapping the raw localization data to a zone index; wherein the pre-processed localization data comprises the zone index (Huberman; para. 43: The localizer 180 can compare the spatial data of the mobile device 110 with the set of georeferences for the indoor space, and identify a polygonal tile in the size-wise hierarchy in which the mobile device 110 can be potentially instantaneously located.; para. 55: an identifier can be associated with each of the polygonal tiles).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Huberman, as modified, discloses a zone is defined according to a category of products or a functional space (Huberman; para. 48: a polygonal tile higher in the hierarchical structure can contain within it a plurality of smaller polygonal tiles [i.e., functional spaces of the floor plan] that are lower in the hierarchical structure).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Huberman, as modified, discloses the configuration information further comprises a zone group definition represented by a collection of zones (Huberman; para. 48: Each plane is made of tessellated polygonal tiles, i.e., polygonal tiles abutting adjacent polygonal tiles and the multi-planar structure forms a hierarchically-related structure of such polygonal tiles in which the polygonal tiles in one plane of the hierarchical structure bear a relationship with the polygonal tiles in the plane above and below that plane.).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Huberman, as modified, discloses the pre- processing step further comprises: mapping the raw localization data to a zone group index (Huberman; para. 53: each child polygonal tile can be hierarchically linked to the parent polygonal tile at a higher level in the hierarchical structure so as to spatially index the grid into a tree-like hierarchical structure; para. 26: localization may also include determining a floor within the building, and thus involve determining not only horizontal planar (x, y) coordinates, but also include a vertical, or z, coordinate of the mobile device, the latter embodying a floor number within a multi-floor building); wherein the pre-processed localization data comprises the zone group index (Huberman; para. 43: The localizer 180 can compare the spatial data of the mobile device 110 with the set of georeferences for the indoor space, and identify a polygonal tile in the size-wise hierarchy in which the mobile device 110 can be potentially instantaneously located.; para. 55: an identifier can be associated with each of the polygonal tiles).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Huberman, as modified, discloses the raw localization data is detected by the mobile device via visible light communication, a Bluetooth Low Energy radio, an Ultra-wideband radio, or a combination therefrom (Huberman; para. 65: the fingerprint map data stored in the fingerprint data repository further associates particular positions along pedestrian route of the facility or indoor area with any combination of fingerprint data, including gyroscope data, accelerometer data, wireless signal strength data, wireless connectivity data, magnetic data, barometric data, acoustic data, line-of sight data, and ambient lighting data stored thereon; para. 62: sensor mobile devices may include inertial sensors such as an accelerometer and a gyroscope, and magnetometer or other magnetic field sensing functionality, barometric or other ambient pressure sensing functionality, humidity sensor, thermometer, and ambient lighting sensors such as to detect ambient lighting intensity. The mobile device 110 may also include capability for detecting and communicatively accessing ambient wireless communication signals including but not limited to any of Bluetooth® and Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE); Huberman; para. 54: the spatial data, used for the georeferencing in said example, can include variations, temporal or otherwise, in sensor data obtained from the mobile device which can indicate the instantaneous location of the mobile device. In said example embodiments, the sensor data can include mobile device wireless signal data including signal strength and connectivity, inertial data, barometric data, magnetic data and other mobile device data that may be gathered at positions along a trajectory of motion. In addition, the sensor data may include Wi-Fi received signal strength and connectivity measurements, Bluetooth received signal strength measurements).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Huberman, as modified, discloses the cloud server is configured to schedule computing resource on the cloud server for handling localization data submitted by a mobile device (Huberman; para. 33: the server 130 can facilitate in the localization of the mobile device 110 based on, for example, a dynamically selectable level of granularity of representation of the indoor space. For the purposes, the server 130 can include a planner 160 and an indexer 170 (i.e., the cloud server schedules the planner and indexer computing resources)) according to a processing capability of the mobile device (Huberman; para. 73: localizer 180 may be configured to select different resolutions in different regions of the indoor space given the resolution requirements that may vary amongst different regions or environments in the indoor space. For example, in case of a crowded space, such as a narrow hallway, the localizer 180 may select a higher resolution of the grid such that the speed of localization remains substantially unaffected even with a greater amount of spatial data being processed upon such a selection. In case of an open spaces, in contrast, the localizer 180 select a lower resolution of the grid since a large amount of data may have to be processed and a high resolution may involve expenditure of considerable time and processing resources) and/or business hours of a site that the mobile device is located.
Supplemental References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van der Heijden et al., in US 2023/0267134, disclose an indoor localization service wherein locations on a geographic grid are mapped into human-friendly domain names.
Elliott et al., in US 2023/0099770, disclose methods for generating walking paths through a facility wherein indoor locations are mapped into a grid of cells that are used to track a user’s position as they walk along a path.
Gooch, in US 2015/0341754, discloses methods for indoor localization of a mobile device wherein a plurality of networked sensors in a facility define a coordinate grid that is overlaid on a map of a building and used to precisely locate the position of the mobile device.
Garin et al., in US 2013/0257657, disclose a method for merging a building floor plan map with a wireless access point map, such that a user’s mobile device can be tracked as it moves throughout a facility.
Rappaport et al., in US 2006/0019679, disclose a method for estimating the position of wireless devices within a wireless communication network by representing the site as a mesh wherein the position of each vertex is correlated with predicted RF channel characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665