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 .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a system and a method and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claim(s) 1, 14, and 20:
Claim 1:
A system for determining a device location comprising a computer device comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, wherein the at least one processor programmed to: receive a plurality of wireless signals from a plurality of sources; determine a signal strength for each wireless signal of the plurality of wireless signals; select one or more wireless signals of the plurality of wireless signals based upon a comparison of signal strengths; randomly select one or more additional wireless signals of the remaining plurality of wireless signals; and determine a location of the computer device based upon the one or more wireless signals and the one or more additional wireless signals.
Claim 14:
A method for determining a device location implemented on a computer device comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, wherein the method comprises: receiving a plurality of wireless signals from a plurality of sources; determining a signal strength for each wireless signal of the plurality of wireless signals; selecting one or more wireless signals of the plurality of wireless signals based upon a comparison of signal strengths; randomly selecting one or more additional wireless signals of the remaining plurality of wireless signals; and determining a location of the computer device based upon the one or more wireless signals and the one or more additional wireless signals.
Claim 20:
At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, when executed by at least one processor, the computer-executable instructions may cause the processor to: receive a plurality of wireless signals from a plurality of sources; determine a signal strength for each wireless signal of the plurality of wireless signals; select one or more wireless signals of the plurality of wireless signals based upon a comparison of signal strengths; randomly select one or more additional wireless signals of the remaining plurality of wireless signals; and determine a location of the processor based upon the one or more wireless signals and the one or more additional wireless signals.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. Claim 14 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Independent claim(s) 14 and 20 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain sufficiently the same limitations as those noted for claim 1 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes.
The focus of the claim is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are simply mathematical concepts (e.g., algorithms, spatial relationships, geometry). When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, the claim is simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitation(s) are recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further limitation(s) are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The limitation(s) represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic devices, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). The additional limitation(s) represent no more than mere attempt to recite a field in which the device is intended to be applied.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1.
The limitation(s) are recited in a manner that is well understood, generic and conventional. The additional recitation(s) do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation(s) are at a high level of generality and are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation(s) are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1 and does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 1 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim(s) 1, 14, and 20 are ineligible.
Claims 2-10, 12-13, and 15-19:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 2-10 and 12-13 recite a system, and therefore, fall under a machine/ manufacture. Claims 15-19 recite a series of steps, and therefore, fall under a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 3-10, 12-13, and 15-19 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same or sufficiently similar defects as those noted for claim 2 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the device of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from the abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 2-10, 12-13, and 15-19 are ineligible.
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) 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alizadeh-Shabdiz et al. (US 2013/0184003 A1 “ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ”), in view of Gan et al. (US 2002/0136268 A1 “GAN”).
Regarding claim 1, ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ discloses (Examiner’s note: What ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ does not disclose is ) a system for determining a device location comprising a computer device comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device (a scanning device [0052]), wherein the at least one processor programmed to:
receive a plurality of wireless signals from a plurality of sources (a scanning vehicle [701] contains a scanning device [702] that continuously scans the airways for radio signals from GPS satellites [708] and 802.11 access points [707] [0052])
determine a signal strength for each wireless signal of the plurality of wireless signals (the client positioning software receives signal beacons from the 802.11 access points in range and calculates the geographic location of the computing device using characteristics from the signal beacons. Those characteristics include the unique identifier of the 802.11 access point, known as the MAC address, and the strengths of the signal reaching the client device [0042])
select one or more wireless signals of the plurality of wireless signals based upon a comparison of signal strengths (the Locator passes this collection of location information along with the signal characteristics returned from each access point to the Bad Data Filter [907]. This filter applies a number of comparison tests against each access point to determine if any of the access points have moved since they were added to the access point database [0044])
and determine a location of the computer device based upon the one or more wireless signals the client software compares the observed 802.11 access points with those in its reference database [104] of access points, which may or may not reside on the device as well. The reference database contains the calculated geographic locations or power profile of all the access points the gathering system has collected. The power profile is a collection of readings that represent the power of the signal from various locations. Using these known locations, the client software calculates the relative position of the user device [101] and determines its geographic coordinates in the form of latitude and longitude readings [0042])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, GAN teaches that some or all of the 79 channels may be tested to determine a received signal strength indication (RSSI) or by checking transmission quality based on transmission errors [0066]. Furthermore, GAN teaches that a new set of communications channels is used to supplement an existing set of communications channels. A specified number of channels may be randomly selected for testing, and if found to have acceptable performance, used to add to those channels of the first set that still have acceptable performance [0077]. Information on which channels are selected and/or not selected in block 132 (e.g., channels 0-24 and 31-78) [0069].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ to include the teachings of GAN, because doing so would reduce the effect of interference and improve system communication, as recognized by GAN.
Regarding claim 2, ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ/ GAN discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the wireless signals are Wi-Fi signals (detect and identify the various Wi-Fi access points [ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ 0052]).
Regarding claim 3, ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ/ GAN discloses the system of Claim 2, wherein the plurality of sources are access points (a scanning vehicle [701] contains a scanning device [702] that continuously scans the airways for radio signals from GPS satellites [708] and 802.11 access points [707] [ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ 0052], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ/ GAN discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more additional wireless signals include a number of wireless signals greater than or equal to the one or more wireless signals (information on which channels are selected and/or not selected in block 132 (e.g., channels 0-24 and 31-78) [GAN 0069], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ/ GAN discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein each wireless signal of the plurality of wireless signals includes identifying information (the client positioning software receives signal beacons from the 802.11 access points in range and calculates the geographic location of the computing device using characteristics from the signal beacons. Those characteristics include the unique identifier of the 802.11 access point, known as the MAC address, and the strengths of the signal reaching the client device [ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ 0042], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ/ GAN discloses the system of Claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to transmit, to a remote server, the identifying information for the one or more wireless signals and the one or more additional wireless signals (the scanner passes this array of access points to the Locator [906] which checks the MAC addresses of each observed access point against the Access Point Reference Database [905]. This database can either be located on the device or remotely over a network connection [ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ 0044]).
Regarding claim 8, ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ/ GAN discloses the system of Claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to receive, from the remote server, the location of the computer device (the Access Point Reference Database returns the location data for each of the observed access points that are known to the system [ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ 0044]).
Regarding claim 9, ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ/ GAN discloses the system of Claim 6, wherein the identifying information includes a MAC address for the source of the wireless signal and a signal strength of the wireless signal (the client positioning software receives signal beacons from the 802.11 access points in range and calculates the geographic location of the computing device using characteristics from the signal beacons. Those characteristics include the unique identifier of the 802.11 access point, known as the MAC address, and the strengths of the signal reaching the client device [ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ 0042], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ/ GAN discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to scan for the plurality of wireless signals (a scanning vehicle [701] contains a scanning device [702] that continuously scans the airways for radio signals from GPS satellites [708] and 802.11 access points [707] [ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ 0052], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ/ GAN discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the computer device is in transit between a first location and a second location (the target scan areas typically represent a large metropolitan area including every single drivable street in 15-20 mile radius. These vehicles are equipped with scanning devices [202] designed to record the locations and characteristics of 802.11 signals while traversing the coverage area [ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ 0047]).
Regarding claim 13, ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ/ GAN discloses the system of Claim 1, further comprising a database of known sources of wireless signals, and wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to determine the location of the computer device by looking up the one or more wireless signals and the one or more additional wireless signals in the database of known sources of wireless sources (the scanner passes this array of access points to the Locator [906] which checks the MAC addresses of each observed access point against the Access Point Reference Database [905]. This database can either be located on the device or remotely over a network connection. The Access Point Reference Database returns the location data for each of the observed access points that are known to the system [ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ 0044]).
Regarding claim 14, ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ discloses a method for determining a device location implemented on a computer device comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device (a scanning device [0052]), wherein the method comprises:
receiving a plurality of wireless signals from a plurality of sources (a scanning vehicle [701] contains a scanning device [702] that continuously scans the airways for radio signals from GPS satellites [708] and 802.11 access points [707] [0052])
determining a signal strength for each wireless signal of the plurality of wireless signals (the client positioning software receives signal beacons from the 802.11 access points in range and calculates the geographic location of the computing device using characteristics from the signal beacons. Those characteristics include the unique identifier of the 802.11 access point, known as the MAC address, and the strengths of the signal reaching the client device [0042])
selecting one or more wireless signals of the plurality of wireless signals based upon a comparison of signal strengths (the Locator passes this collection of location information along with the signal characteristics returned from each access point to the Bad Data Filter [907]. This filter applies a number of comparison tests against each access point to determine if any of the access points have moved since they were added to the access point database [0044])
and determining a location of the computer device based upon the one or more wireless signals the client software compares the observed 802.11 access points with those in its reference database [104] of access points, which may or may not reside on the device as well. The reference database contains the calculated geographic locations or power profile of all the access points the gathering system has collected. The power profile is a collection of readings that represent the power of the signal from various locations. Using these known locations, the client software calculates the relative position of the user device [101] and determines its geographic coordinates in the form of latitude and longitude readings [0042])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, GAN teaches that some or all of the 79 channels may be tested to determine a received signal strength indication (RSSI) or by checking transmission quality based on transmission errors [0066]. Furthermore, GAN teaches that a new set of communications channels is used to supplement an existing set of communications channels. A specified number of channels may be randomly selected for testing, and if found to have acceptable performance, used to add to those channels of the first set that still have acceptable performance [0077]. Information on which channels are selected and/or not selected in block 132 (e.g., channels 0-24 and 31-78) [0069].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ to include the teachings of GAN, because doing so would reduce the effect of interference and improve system communication, as recognized by GAN.
Regarding claim 16, ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ/ GAN discloses the method of Claim 14, wherein the one or more additional wireless signals include a number of wireless signals greater than or equal to the one or more wireless signals (information on which channels are selected and/or not selected in block 132 (e.g., channels 0-24 and 31-78) [GAN 0069], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14), and where the method further comprises: transmitting, to a remote server, the identifying information for the one or more wireless signals and the one or more additional wireless signals; and receiving, from the remote server, the location of the computer device (the scanner passes this array of access points to the Locator [906] which checks the MAC addresses of each observed access point against the Access Point Reference Database [905]. This database can either be located on the device or remotely over a network connection. The Access Point Reference Database returns the location data for each of the observed access points that are known to the system [ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ 0044]).
Regarding claim 17, ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ/ GAN discloses the method of Claim 16, wherein the identifying information includes a MAC address for the source of the wireless signal and a signal strength of the wireless signal (the client positioning software receives signal beacons from the 802.11 access points in range and calculates the geographic location of the computing device using characteristics from the signal beacons. Those characteristics include the unique identifier of the 802.11 access point, known as the MAC address, and the strengths of the signal reaching the client device [ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ 0042], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14).
Regarding claim 18, ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ/ GAN discloses the method of Claim 14, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to scan for the plurality of wireless signals (a scanning vehicle [701] contains a scanning device [702] that continuously scans the airways for radio signals from GPS satellites [708] and 802.11 access points [707] [ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ 0052], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14).
Regarding claim 19, ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ/ GAN discloses the method of Claim 14 further comprising determining the location of the computer device by looking up the one or more wireless signals and the one or more additional wireless signals in a database of known wireless sources (the scanner passes this array of access points to the Locator [906] which checks the MAC addresses of each observed access point against the Access Point Reference Database [905]. This database can either be located on the device or remotely over a network connection. The Access Point Reference Database returns the location data for each of the observed access points that are known to the system [ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ 0044]).
Regarding claim 20, ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ discloses at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, when executed by at least one processor, the computer-executable instructions may cause the processor to:
receive a plurality of wireless signals from a plurality of sources (a scanning vehicle [701] contains a scanning device [702] that continuously scans the airways for radio signals from GPS satellites [708] and 802.11 access points [707] [0052])
determine a signal strength for each wireless signal of the plurality of wireless signals (the client positioning software receives signal beacons from the 802.11 access points in range and calculates the geographic location of the computing device using characteristics from the signal beacons. Those characteristics include the unique identifier of the 802.11 access point, known as the MAC address, and the strengths of the signal reaching the client device [0042])
select one or more wireless signals of the plurality of wireless signals based upon a comparison of signal strengths (the Locator passes this collection of location information along with the signal characteristics returned from each access point to the Bad Data Filter [907]. This filter applies a number of comparison tests against each access point to determine if any of the access points have moved since they were added to the access point database [0044])
the client software compares the observed 802.11 access points with those in its reference database [104] of access points, which may or may not reside on the device as well. The reference database contains the calculated geographic locations or power profile of all the access points the gathering system has collected. The power profile is a collection of readings that represent the power of the signal from various locations. Using these known locations, the client software calculates the relative position of the user device [101] and determines its geographic coordinates in the form of latitude and longitude readings [0042])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, GAN teaches that some or all of the 79 channels may be tested to determine a received signal strength indication (RSSI) or by checking transmission quality based on transmission errors [0066]. Furthermore, GAN teaches that a new set of communications channels is used to supplement an existing set of communications channels. A specified number of channels may be randomly selected for testing, and if found to have acceptable performance, used to add to those channels of the first set that still have acceptable performance [0077]. Information on which channels are selected and/or not selected in block 132 (e.g., channels 0-24 and 31-78) [0069].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ to include the teachings of GAN, because doing so would reduce the effect of interference and improve system communication, as recognized by GAN.
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ, in view of GAN, and further in view of Dietrich et al. (US 2005/0208952 A1 “DIETRICH”).
Regarding claim 4, ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ/ GAN discloses the system of Claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, DIETRICH teaches that wireless node location module 59 selects the M infrastructure radio transceivers 58 that report the strongest signal strengths (where M is a configurable parameter). Wireless node location module 59 collects the signal strength (e.g., RSSI) measurements corresponding to the selected infrastructure radio transceivers 58 (104), and identifies the RF coverage maps to be used in estimating the location of the wireless node based on selected infrastructure radio transceivers 58 (106) [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ to include the teachings of DIETRICH, because doing so would improve the accuracy of estimating the location of a wireless node based on signals detected among a plurality of radio transceivers, as recognized by DIETRICH.
Regarding claim 15, ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ/ GAN discloses the method of Claim 14,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, DIETRICH teaches that wireless node location module 59 selects the M infrastructure radio transceivers 58 that report the strongest signal strengths (where M is a configurable parameter). Wireless node location module 59 collects the signal strength (e.g., RSSI) measurements corresponding to the selected infrastructure radio transceivers 58 (104), and identifies the RF coverage maps to be used in estimating the location of the wireless node based on selected infrastructure radio transceivers 58 (106) [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ to include the teachings of DIETRICH, because doing so would improve the accuracy of estimating the location of a wireless node based on signals detected among a plurality of radio transceivers, as recognized by DIETRICH.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ, in view of GAN, and further in view of Kalbag (US 2012/0033594 A1 “KALBAG”).
Regarding claim 11, ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ/ GAN discloses the system of Claim 10,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, KALBAG teaches that the Wi-Fi activation system 121 may be configured not to autonomously turn power on to the Wi-Fi data communication system, notwithstanding detection of an operational condition of the wireless mobile communication device by the operational condition detection system, when the battery power level detector detects that the charge level of the battery is below a pre-determined threshold. This may be particularly useful when the operational condition is nearness to a Wi-Fi access point, based on triangulation. In this circumstance, it may take a long time for a user to come within access range of a popular access point, which may be too long of a drain on a weak battery [0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ALIZADEH-SHABDIZ to include the teachings of KALBAG, because doing so would enable automation and effective use of power, as recognized by KALBAG.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights