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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/09/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, 12-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Klinkner et al. published on US 10575138 B1 hereinafter “Klinkner”.
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20. Klinkner discloses a host (single-camera-based tracking system), comprising:
a tracking device, comprising a camera, wherein the camera is configured to obtain image data (Figures 1 and 5);
a storage circuit, configured to store a program code (Figure 3); and
a processor, coupled to the storage circuit and configured to access the program code to execute:
obtaining (the) image data through a (the) camera of a (the) tracking device, wherein the tracking device is configured to be disposed on a home location (Column 13 lines 32-40; Figure 4; “(58) In some configurations, the community mobile device 104 may include additional features. For example, the community mobile device 104 may allow a tracking system 100 to snap and download a photo using photo functionality of the community mobile device 104. In some configurations, this may be an opt-in feature by which a community user 105 permits a tracking system 100 to take a snap-shot and possibly provide a visual image of an area within a proximity of the tracking device 106.”);
determining that whether the tracking device is at the home location or not based on the image data (Column 15 lines 6-28; Figure 5; “(66) Alternatively, tracking device collections can be defined by the tracking system 100, based on common historical behavior/usage patterns associated with a set of tracking devices. For instance, if a set of tracking devices (e.g., a first tracking device coupled to a user's wallet, a second to a user's ID badge, and a third to a user's briefcase) commonly accompanies a user from a home location to a work location weekday mornings, and likewise from the work location to the home location weekday evenings, the set of tracking devices can be grouped together in a tracking device collection. As described above, tracking devices are coupled to objects, and the user can identify to the tracking system 100 (for instance, via the mobile device 102) the identity of the objects to which the tracking devices are attached. Accordingly, the tracking system 100 can define collections of tracking devices based on the identified types of objects to which a set of tracking devices are coupled. For example, if a user identifies an object to which a first tracking device is coupled as “luggage”, and identifies an object to which a second tracking device is coupled as “passport”, the tracking system 100 can define a “travel” tracking device collection based on a pre-determined likelihood that a user's luggage and passport are likely to be used together.”);
in response to the tracking device being not at the home location, performing a device tracking of the tracking device based on the image data (Column 36 lines 36-64 and column 38 lines 27-32; Figures 12A-12B; “(158) A user's location, or a user's presence within a geofence or other predefined area, can be used to configure the operating mode or state of an electronic device. For instance, the movement of a user into a geographic area can be used to configure an electronic device within the area. Examples of such devices include home security systems, home heating and cooling systems, door locks, computers, routers, television set-top boxes, scanning devices (such as tracking device scanning devices), Bluetooth devices, and the like. FIGS. 12A and 12B illustrate an example of configuring an electronic device based on the entry of a user into an area defined by a geographic boundary, according to one embodiment. In particular, FIG. 12A illustrates a user 1200 outside an area defined by a geographic boundary 1210, and FIG. 12B illustrates the entry of the user into the geographic boundary. In this example, the geographic boundary 1210 encloses an area that contains the user's house 1220. When the user 1200 is outside of the geographic boundary 1210, an electronic device 1230 is configured to operate in a first mode. In the embodiment of FIG. 12A, the first mode is an “off” mode, but in other embodiments, the first mode can be an “on mode”, an “active mode” (e.g., for a security system), a temperature range (e.g., “between 60 and 65 degrees Fahrenheit”), or any other suitable mode of operation. When the user 1200 enters the geographic boundary 1210, as illustrated in FIG. 12B, the electronic device 1230 is configured to operate in a second mode (such as the “on” mode) in response to the presence of the user within the geographic boundary.”);
determining a device coordinate of the tracking device based on the device tracking (Column 36 lines 36-64 and column 38 lines 27-32; Figures 12A-12B);
determining that whether the tracking device is disposed back to the home location or not based on the image data (Column 36 lines 36-64 and column 38 lines 27-32; Figures 12A-12B); and
in response to the tracking device being disposed back to the home location, determining that the device coordinate of the tracking device being same as a home coordinate of the home location (Column 22 lines 19-52; Figure 6; “(93) The tracking system 100 can identify a tracking device 106 as potentially lost in response to determining that the tracking device is more than a threshold distance from a selected geographic location (for instance, defined by geographic coordinates), or outside of an area defined by a selected geographic boundary (for instance, boundaries associated with a house or building, boundaries associated with property lines or a property lot, and the like). The geographic location or geographic boundary can be defined or selected by a user, for instance, via an interface of the mobile device 102 or of the tracking system 100. For example, a user can define a set of GPS coordinates as a selected location, or can draw a set of geographic boundaries within a map interface. … a user can select a threshold distance or can change a pre-set threshold distance for use in conjunction with a selected geographic location (such that tracking devices located more than the selected threshold distance are identified as potentially lost). (94) The geographic location or geographic boundary can also be selected (for instance, by the tracking system 100) based on historical location data associated with the tracking device 106, a user, or a mobile device 102 associated with the user. For instance, if a tracking device 106 is commonly located within a geographic boundary associated with a user's work building during week day working hours, the geographic boundary can be selected by the tracking system 100 for use in determining if the tracking device is potentially lost. Likewise, if a tracking device 106 is commonly located within a threshold distance of a user's home on the weekend, a geographic location corresponding to the user's home (e.g., a set of GPS coordinates over which the user's home is located) can be selected by the tracking system 100 for use in determining if the tracking device is potentially lost.”).
Method claim 20 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding device/system claimed in claims 1 and 12. Therefore method claim 20 corresponds to device/system claims 1 and 20 is rejected for same reasons of anticipated as used above.
Regarding claims 2 and 13. Klinkner discloses the host (single-camera-based tracking system) according to claim 1 (12), wherein the processor is further configured to access the program code to execute:
in response to the tracking device being at the home location, lock the device coordinate to the home coordinate (Column 17 line 60 – column 18 line 18; Figure 5; “(75) The tracking system 100 can identify a tracking device 106 as potentially lost or can predict a future state of the tracking device based on a number of factors, including but not limited to: a proximity of a tracking device to one or more additional tracking devices, a proximity of a tracking device to a user's mobile device, a movement of a tracking device to more than a threshold distance away from a mobile device or one or more additional tracking devices, a location of a tracking device relative to a particular or pre-defined geographic location (such as GPS coordinates, a user's home, a user's place of employment, etc.), a location of a tracking device relative to particular or pre-defined geographic boundaries (such as boundaries within a map, property lines, and the like), based on a usage or movement behavior of the tracking device, based on a usage or movement behavior of a user or owner of a tracking device, based on information received from an external source (for instance, via an API corresponding to the API), based on information received from sensors within the tracking device or a user's mobile device (such as motion sensors), based on a current time or date, based on a low battery level, based on a malfunction of the tracking device or a tracking device component, or based on any other suitable factors. Circumstances in which the tracking system 100 can identify a tracking device 106 as potentially lost or can predict a state of the tracking device are described in greater detail below.”).
Regarding claims 3 and 14. Klinkner discloses the host (single-camera-based tracking system) according to claim 1 (12), wherein the processor is further configured to access the program code to execute:
determining that whether a distance between the tracking device and the home location is greater than a threshold distance or not based on the device tracking (Figures 6-16);
in response to the distance being greater than the threshold distance, determining that the tracking device being not at the home location (Figures 6-16); and
in response to the distance being not greater than the threshold distance, determining that the tracking device being disposed back to the home location (Figures 6-16).
Regarding claims 4 and 15. Klinkner discloses the host (single-camera-based tracking system) according to claim 1 (12), wherein the processor is further configured to access the program code to execute:
determining that whether a change of the image data is greater than a threshold value or not (Figures 6-16);
in response to the change being greater than the threshold value, determining that the tracking device being not at the home location (Figures 6-16); and
in response to the change being not greater than the threshold value, determining that the tracking device being disposed back to the home location (Figures 6-16).
Regarding claims 5 and 16. Klinkner discloses the host (single-camera-based tracking system) according to claim 1 (12), wherein the processor is further configured to access the program code to execute:
determining that whether the camera is covered or not (Column 15; Figure 5);
in response to the camera being not covered, determining that the tracking device being not at the home location (Column 15; Figure 5); and
in response to the camera being covered, determining that the tracking device being disposed back to the home location (Column 15; Figure 5; “(68) In some embodiments, the tracking system 100 can identify a candidate tracking device likely to be related to a defined tracking device collection, and can present or suggest the candidate tracking device to the user to add to the tracking device collection. For example, if a user has defined a “travel” collection of tracking devices including a passport tracking device and luggage tracking device, and the tracking system 100 determines that a tracking device coupled to a camera bag is commonly co-located with the passport and luggage (or moves in conjunction with the passport and luggage), then the tracking system can suggest to the user (for instance, via the user's mobile device 102) that the user add the camera bag to the travel tracking device collection. If the user accepts the suggestion and adds the suggested tracking device to the tracking device collection, the tracking system 100 can update the stored tracking device collection to include the suggested tracking device.”).
Regarding claims 7, 9-10 and 18. Claim 7 has similar limitations as to those treated in the above rejections, and is met by the references as discussed above, and has been rejected for the same reasons of anticipations as used in the rejection to claims above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klinkner as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and in view of Boulanger et al. published on US 20250299550 A1 hereinafter “Boulanger”.
Regarding claims 6 and 17. Klinkner discloses the host (single-camera-based tracking system) according to claim 1, but failed to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to access the program code to execute:
obtaining a voltage value of a Hall effect sensor, wherein the Hall effect sensor is disposed on the home location;
in response to the voltage value being not greater than a threshold voltage, determining that the tracking device being not at the home location; and
in response to the voltage value being greater than the threshold voltage, determining that the tracking device being disposed back to the home location.
Boulanger, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows obtaining a voltage value of a Hall effect sensor, wherein the Hall effect sensor is disposed on the home location (0079 and 0148-0153; Figures 1A-1B and 3A-3B);
in response to the voltage value being not greater than a threshold voltage, determining that the tracking device being not at the home location (0079 and 0148-0153; Figures 1A-1B and 3A-3B); and
in response to the voltage value being greater than the threshold voltage, determining that the tracking device being disposed back to the home location (0079 and 0148-0153; Figures 1A-1B and 3A-3B).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the Hall effect sensor of the tracking device of Boulanger in the tracking device of Klinkner in order to improve the tracking of the host based on the relation to the home location and yield predictive result.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klinkner as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and in view of Huang published on US 12449893 B1 hereinafter “Huang”.
Regarding claims 8 and 19. Klinkner discloses the host (single-camera-based tracking system) according to claim 1 (12), but failed to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to access the program code to execute:
in response to the tracking device being disposed back to the home location, aligning a device coordinate system of the tracking device with a head coordinate system of a head-mounted display device, wherein the head-mounted display device is adapted to be disposed on a head of a user.
Huang, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows in response to the tracking device being disposed back to the home location, aligning a device coordinate system of the tracking device with a head coordinate system of a head-mounted display device, wherein the head-mounted display device is adapted to be disposed on a head of a user (Column 1 lines 42-49; Figure 1; “(7) However, since the coordinate system and/or scale used for characterizing the poses 100a, 110a, 120a of the HMD 100 and the handheld controllers 110 and 120 may be different from the coordinate system and/or scale used for characterizing the (3D) positions of each joint on the body skeleton 130a, the poses 100a, 110a, and 120a may not be properly aligned with the corresponding joints on the body skeleton 130a in the virtual world.”).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the incorporating of the HMD system as taught by Huang in the tracking system of Klinkner in order to increase the user’s satisfaction and yield predictable result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASMAMAW G TARKO whose telephone number is (571)272-7493. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am-5pm EST.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/ASMAMAW G TARKO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights