DETAILED ACTION
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 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 § 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.
Claims 1-8, 11-20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayers et al. US2021/0176600 hereinafter referred to as Ayers in view of Hu et al. US2019/0333233 hereinafter referred to as Hu.
As per Claim 1, Ayers teaches a method of operating a real-time location services (RTLS) system, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a processing device of the RTLS system, location information identifying an object or person and a building-area location of the object or person; (Ayers, Paragraph[0031], “In various implementations, the boundary 104 and the thresholds 106-1 and 106-2 can be identified using a boundary map. The boundary map may represent the locations of various boundaries and thresholds within the environment 100” and Paragraph [0032], “In various implementations, the tag 102 may be identified at a first location 108 within the environment 100 by the location system. The first location 108 may be represented in the x-y coordinate system by the coordinates (x.sub.1, y.sub.1)”)
obtaining, by the processing device, access-event information of access of a physical access portal associated with the building-area location; and (Ayers, Paragraph [0122], “The location system 1200 overcomes this challenge by using a plurality of detection devices 1240 that detect the passage of an asset through a threshold such as a doorway or hallway segment”)
Ayers does not explicitly teach matching the location information of the identified object or person and the
Hu teaches matching the location information of the identified object or person and the
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Hu into Ayers because by utilizing another sensor such as a thermal imager will allow another means to verify the tracking of the object/asset in conjunction with the tag of Ayers.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the two references to obtain the invention in Claim 1.
As per Claim 2, Ayers in view of Hu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining the access-event information includes the processing device receiving an indication of the access of the physical access portal from an access detector device that includes one of an infrared (IR) detector, a light curtain, or a thermal imager. (Hu, Paragraph [0093], use of thermal camera)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 3, Ayers in view of Hu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining the access-event information includes the processing device receiving information of a direction of the access of the physical access portal from an access detector device that includes a thermal imager. (Hu, Paragraph [0069], [0081], sequence of thermal images and Ayers, Paragraph [0065], [0122], direction determined by positional relationship of tag and likelihood determination)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 4, Ayers in view of Hu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining the access-event information includes the processing device obtaining a sequence of thermal images of the physical access portal and determining a direction of the access of the physical access portal using the thermal image sequence. (Hu, Paragraph [0069], [0081], sequence of thermal images and Ayers, Paragraph [0065], [0122], direction determined by positional relationship of tag and likelihood determination)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 5, Ayers in view of Hu teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the obtaining the access-event information further includes processing circuitry of the processing device performing thresholding to detect a person in the thermal image sequence and tracking the detected person in the thermal image sequence to determine the direction of the access of the physical access portal. (Hu, Paragraph [0069], [0081], sequence of thermal images and Ayers, Paragraph [0065], [0122], direction determined by positional relationship of tag and likelihood determination)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 4 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 6, Ayers in view of Hu teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the obtaining the access-event information further includes: inputting the thermal image sequence into a neural network implemented by processing circuitry of the processing device; and receiving from the neural network a classification of the access of the physical access portal as one of an entry-event, an exit-event, or other event. (Hu, Paragraph [0122] and Ayers, Paragraph [0122])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 4 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 7, Ayers in view of Hu teaches the method of claim 4,including the processing device tracking a number of people in the building-area location using access event information of multiple accesses of the physical access portal. (Ayers, Paragraph [0028], [0035] and [0122])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 4 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 8, Ayers in view of Hu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the processing device is associated with the building-area location and wherein the obtaining the location information identifying an object or person includes receiving, by the processing device, a beacon signal identifying the object or person; and wherein the matching the building-area location includes confirming the building-area location of the identified object or person using the received beacon signal and the access event information. (Hu, Paragraph [0069], [0081], sequence of thermal images and Ayers, Paragraph [0065], [0122], direction determined by positional relationship of tag and likelihood determination)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 11, Claim 11 claims real-time location services (RTLS) system (Ayers, Paragraph [0033]) performing the method as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 1.
As per Claim 12, Ayers in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 11 including: multiple receiver devices configured to receive beacon signals identifying objects or people, each receiver device associated with at least one building-area location; and multiple access detector devices, each access detector device configured to detect access of a physical access portal associated with the at least one building-area location of a receiver device. (Ayers, Paragraph [0007] and [0122])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 11 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 13, Ayers in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the memory stores instructions that cause the at least one hardware processor to: receive information of a direction of the access of the physical access portal from the access detector device; and match the building-area location of the identified object or person using the direction of the access. (Hu, Paragraph [0069], [0081], sequence of thermal images and Ayers, Paragraph [0065], [0122], direction determined by positional relationship of tag and likelihood determination)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 11 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 14, Ayers in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 11,wherein the memory stores instructions that cause the at least one hardware processor to: receive a sequence of thermal images of the physical access portal; determine a direction of the access of the physical access portal using the thermal image sequence; and confirm the building-area location of the identified object or person using the direction of the physical access event. (Hu, Paragraph [0069], [0081], sequence of thermal images and Ayers, Paragraph [0065], [0122], direction determined by positional relationship of tag and likelihood determination)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 11 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 15, Ayers in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the memory stores instructions that cause the at least one hardware processor to: apply a thresholding detection algorithm to the thermal image sequence to detect a person in the sequence of thermal images; and track position of the detected person in the thermal image sequence to determine the direction of the access of the physical access portal. (Hu, Paragraph [0069], [0081], sequence of thermal images and Ayers, Paragraph [0065], [0122], direction determined by positional relationship of tag and likelihood determination)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 14 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 16, Ayers in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the memory stores instructions that cause the at least one hardware processor to: input the thermal image sequence into a neural network implemented by processing circuitry of the processing device; and output a classification from the neural network of the access of the physical access portal as one of an entry-event, an exit-event, or other event. (Hu, Paragraph [0069], [0081], [0122] and Ayers, Paragraph [0065], [0122], direction determined by positional relationship of tag and likelihood determination)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 14 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 17, Ayers in view of Hu teaches the system of claim 11,wherein the memory stores instructions that cause the at least one hardware processor to: receive information of multiple accesses of the physical access portal; and track a number of people in the building-area location using information of the multiple accesses. (Ayers, Paragraph [0028], [0035] and [0122])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 11 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 18, Claim 18 claims a processing device for a real-time location service (RTLS) system as claimed in Claim 11. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 11.
As per Claim 19, Ayers in view of Hu teaches the processing device of claim 18, including: a thermal imager configured to produce a sequence of thermal images of the physical access portal; wherein the memory stores instructions that cause the at least one hardware processor to determine a direction of the access of the physical access portal using the thermal image sequence; and confirm the building-area location of the object or person using the determined direction of the physical access event. (Hu, Paragraph [0069], [0081], sequence of thermal images and Ayers, Paragraph [0065], [0122], direction determined by positional relationship of tag and likelihood determination)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 18 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 20, Ayers in view of Hu teaches the processing device of claim 19, including: a communication port configured to receive an indication of the access of the physical access portal from a separate device; and wherein the thermal imager is configured to produce the sequence of thermal images of the physical access portal in response to receiving the indication of the access. (Hu, Paragraph [0069], [0081], sequence of thermal images and Ayers, Paragraph [0065], [0122], direction determined by positional relationship of tag and likelihood determination)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 19 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 22, Ayers in view of Hu teaches the processing device of claim 19,wherein the memory stores instructions that cause the at least one hardware processor to perform a thresholding algorithm to detect a person in the thermal image sequence and to track the detected person in the thermal image sequence to determine the direction of the access of the physical access portal. (Hu, Paragraph [0069], [0081], sequence of thermal images and Ayers, Paragraph [0065], [0122], direction determined by positional relationship of tag and likelihood determination)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 19 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 23, Ayers in view of Hu teaches the processing device of claim 19,wherein the memory stores instructions that cause the at least one hardware processor to: input the thermal image sequence into a neural network implemented by the at least one hardware processor; and output a classification by the neural network of the access of the physical access portal as one of an entry-event, an exit-event, or other event. (Hu, Paragraph [0069], [0081], [0122] and Ayers, Paragraph [0065], [0122])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 19 has been incorporated herein.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayers et al. US2021/0176600 hereinafter referred to as Ayers in view of Hu et al. US2019/0333233 hereinafter referred to as Hu as applied to Claim 8 and further in view of Swart US2019/0124475.
As per Claim 9, Ayers in view of Hu teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the obtaining the access-event information includes:
generating, by the processing device, a sequence of thermal images of the physical access portal in response to the indication of the access; and determining one or both of a direction of the access of the physical access portal using the thermal image sequence, and a number of persons included in the access. (Hu, Paragraph [0069], [0081] and Ayers, Paragraph [0065], [0122])
Ayers in view of Hu does not explicitly teach receiving an indication
Swart teaches receiving an indication
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Swart into Ayers in view of Hu because by utilizing another sensor as a passive-infrared sensor will supplement the tracking means utilized by Ayers and Hu.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the three references to obtain the invention in Claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayers et al. US2021/0176600 hereinafter referred to as Ayers in view of Hu et al. US2019/0333233 hereinafter referred to as Hu and Swart US2019/0124475 as applied to Claim 9 and further in view of Halverson et al. US2016/0033336 hereinafter referred to as Halverson.
As per Claim 10, Ayers in view of Hu and Swart teaches the method of claim 9,
the processing device generating a sequence of thermal images(Hu, Paragraph [0069], [0081])
Ayers in view of Hu and Swart teaches does not explicitly teach that have a resolution of less than thirty-two pixels by thirty-two pixels.
Halverson teaches that have a resolution of less than thirty-two pixels by thirty-two pixels. (Halverson, Paragraph [0060], “The thermal sensor (e.g., thermopile array) has a resolution of, for example, 32 pixels by 32 pixels (32×32)”)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Halverson into Ayers in view of Hu and Swart because by capturing the thermal images in a low resolution and save processing resources will maintain the information needed by Hu to track assets.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the four references to obtain the invention in Claim 10.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayers et al. US2021/0176600 hereinafter referred to as Ayers in view of Hu et al. US2019/0333233 hereinafter referred to as Hu as applied to Claim 19 and further in view of Halverson et al. US2016/0033336 hereinafter referred to as Halverson.
As per Claim 21, Ayers in view of Hu teaches the processing device of claim 19,
wherein the thermal imager produces a sequence of thermal images (Hu, Paragraph [0069], [0081])
Ayers in view of Hu teaches does not explicitly teach that have a resolution of less than thirty-two pixels by thirty-two pixels.
Halverson teaches that have a resolution of less than thirty-two pixels by thirty-two pixels. (Halverson, Paragraph [0060], “The thermal sensor (e.g., thermopile array) has a resolution of, for example, 32 pixels by 32 pixels (32×32)”)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Halverson into Ayers in view of Hu because by capturing the thermal images in a low resolution and save processing resources will maintain the information needed by Hu to track assets.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the three references to obtain the invention in Claim 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING HON whose telephone number is (571)270-5245. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached on 571-270-3717. 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.
/MING Y HON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights