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 Interpretation/Construction
2. Claim 1 discloses,
a) determining, by the information processing terminal, whether the information processing terminal is in short-range wireless communication with the electronic device;
b)detecting, by the information processing terminal, position information indicative of a position of the information processing terminal;
C) in response to determine that the information processing terminal is in short-range wireless communication with the electronic device, determining, by the information processing terminal, a place where the information processing terminal lies based on the detected position information and registered position information containing a registered position registered in advance and a registered place associated with the registered position; and d) outputting, by the information processing terminal, place determination information indicative of the determined place of the information processing terminal.
Here, the limitation, c) in response to determine that the information processing terminal is in short-range wireless communication with the electronic device, determining, by the information processing terminal, a place where the information processing terminal lies based on the detected position information and registered position information containing a registered position registered in advance and a registered place associated with the registered position” This is contingent/conditional limitation(s). The contingent/conditional limitations are not positively recited in the claim(s) and are thus only executed [or performed or implemented], when the condition is true/met.
[See, (MPEP 2111.04) II. CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent is not met.].
In present claim 1 for instance determining, by the information processing terminal, a place where the information processing terminal lies based on the detected position information and registered position information containing a registered position registered in advance and a registered place associated with the registered position, is only performed determine that the information processing terminal is in short-range wireless communication with the electronic device; otherwise, this step is not performed, and the prior art is not required to teach this element when the condition is not met. And subsequently limitation d) would not be required. Therefore, examiner has considered only limitations a) and b) for examination purpose. Claims 2 and 3 the outputting only if the determined that the information processing terminal is at registered place or not at the registered place, is contingent limitation.
Claim 4 limitation, in response to determine that the information processing terminal is at the second registered place, outputting, by the information processing terminal, the position information of the information processing terminal, is contingent limitation.
Claims 5 and 6 are also contingent limitations. acquiring a current time by the information processing terminal; and determining, by the information processing terminal, whether the acquired current time is within a predetermined period of time, wherein the outputting place determination information includes in response to determine that the current time is not within the predetermined period of time, outputting the place determination information. Similarly, claim 6, in response to determine that the current time is within the predetermined period of time, outputting, by the information processing terminal, the position information of the information processing terminal, is also contingent limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In claim 20, a "computer-readable storage medium" is being recited; the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media.
Therefore, a transitory computer readable medium would reasonably be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art as signal, per se. Thus, this subject matter "computer-readable storage medium" is not limited to that which falls within a statutory category of invention because it is limited to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter. Signal per se is a function descriptive material and a function descriptive material is non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamamoto (US 2022/0292946) (hereafter Yamamoto).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Yamamoto discloses a communication method for a communication system (see, Fig. 2) including an electronic device (see, Fig. 2, 10) and an information processing terminal (see, Fig. 2, 20), the communication method comprising:
determining, by the information processing terminal, whether the information processing terminal is in short-range wireless communication with the electronic device (see, Fig. 1, the short range wireless communication, (BLE) communication, between 10 and 20a, see, para [0038], [0049], when receiving the identification information transmitted by the first communication unit 13 of the target person terminal 10, the detecting unit 24 can detect the target person terminal 10 as the communicable target person terminal 10);
detecting, by the information processing terminal, position information indicative of a position of the information processing terminal (see, Fig. 6, the terminal for detection, 20 determine identification information, s202 and identification information, is position information, see, Figs. 7A -7C, the notification about the person moves out of area and determining positional information, para [0050] When the target person terminal 10 is detected by the detecting unit 24, the control unit 21 functions as a transmitting unit and transmits identification information of the target person terminal 10 to the server 30, and identification information is position information [0121], [0122]);
in response to determine that the information processing terminal is in short-range wireless communication with the electronic device, determining, by the information processing terminal, a place where the information processing terminal lies based on the detected position information and registered position information containing a registered position registered in advance and a registered place associated with the registered position; and outputting, by the information processing terminal, place determination information indicative of the determined place of the information processing terminal (Yamamoto teaches these limitations of the claim, the Examiner did not need to present evidence of the method steps that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, See MPEP 2111.04 II. Ex parte Schulhauser).
Yamamoto further discloses a computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon, which when executed by an information processing terminal, as per claim 20 (see, para [0116]).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto further discloses the communication method, wherein the determining a place of the information processing terminal includes determining whether the information processing terminal is at the registered place based on the position information and the registered position information, and wherein the outputting place determination information includes in response to determine that the information processing terminal is at the registered place, outputting place determination information indicative of the registered place where the information processing terminal lies (Yamamoto teaches these limitations of the claim, the Examiner did not need to present evidence of the method steps that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, See MPEP 2111.04 II. Ex parte Schulhauser).
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto further discloses the communication method, wherein the outputting place determination information includes in response to determine that the information processing terminal is not at the registered place, outputting place determination information indicating that the information processing terminal is not at the registered place (Yamamoto teaches these limitations of the claim, the Examiner did not need to present evidence of the method steps that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, See MPEP 2111.04 II. Ex parte Schulhauser).
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto further discloses the communication method, wherein the determining a place of the information processing terminal includes determining whether the information processing terminal is at a first registered place or a second registered place different from the first registered place, and wherein the outputting place determination information includes in response to determine that the information processing terminal is at the first registered place, outputting place determination information indicative of the first registered place, the communication method further comprising: in response to determine that the information processing terminal is at the second registered place, outputting, by the information processing terminal, the position information of the information processing terminal (Yamamoto teaches these limitations of the claim, the Examiner did not need to present evidence of the method steps that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, See MPEP 2111.04 II. Ex parte Schulhauser).
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto further discloses the communication method, wherein the communication system includes a server connected via a network to the electronic device and the information processing terminal (see, Fig. 6, the server, 30 connected to the target person terminal, 10, see, para [0030], [0048], [0116]), the communication method further comprising: receiving, by the server, the place determination information output from the information processing terminal; and setting an access right of the electronic device to the server based on the place determination information (Yamamoto teaches this limitation of the claim, the Examiner did not need to present evidence of the method steps that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, See MPEP 2111.04 II. Ex parte Schulhauser).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto further discloses the communication method, wherein the communication system includes a server connected via a network to the electronic device and the information processing terminal (see, Fig. 6, the server, 30 connected to the target person terminal, 10, see, para [0030], [0048], [0116]), the communication method further comprising: receiving, by the server, the place determination information output from the information processing terminal; and limiting an operation of the electronic device based on the place determination information (Yamamoto teaches all the limitations of the claim 8, the Examiner did not need to present evidence of the method steps that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, See MPEP 2111.04 II. Ex parte Schulhauser).
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto further discloses the communication method, wherein the communication system includes a server connected via a network to the electronic device and the information processing terminal (see, Fig. 6, the server, 30 connected to the terminal, 10 and terminal for detection, 20, see para [0030], [0048]), the communication method further comprising: receiving, by the server, the position information output from the information processing terminal; and detecting a position of the electronic device based on the position information (see, Fig. 6, terminal for detection 20 sends the positional information (step S202) to the server, 30 and S301 specify and register position).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
8. Claims 14-19 are allowed.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamamoto (US 2023/0177940) discloses location positioning system.
Yang et al. (US 2023/0026812) discloses device positioning method and related apparatus.
Kang et al. (US 2015/0022381) discloses apparatus and method for recognizing position of vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHAVAL V PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8:00am-4:30pm).
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, Hannah Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/DHAVAL V PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights