DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/924,895 filed on 18 November 2024. Claims 1-4 are subject to examination.
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 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.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted step is an output in the motion state determination block. The.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 recites the limitations “a first parameter is an access point identifier, typically a MAC address of the access point;” and “a second parameter is a signal quality parameter received by the device, which can be measured by several metrics, with RSSI being the simplest and most effective;” which is broader than the limitation "extracts MAC address and RSSI values" from claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramakrishnan et al. (US 20160174185 A1, hereinafter "Ramakrishnan").
Regarding Claim 1, Ramakrishnan teaches A system for detecting a motion state of a device based on radio signal information comprises three blocks:
a radio signal reception block: receives signals from access points (Ramakrishnan: At operation 502, a primary wireless scan is performed (for example, with a location estimation device including a transceiver, such as the Wi-Fi scan module 210 of the system 200) to identify a first set of access points at a user location, see Fig. 5 and Paragraph [0050]), extracts MAC address (Ramakrishnan: At operation 502, a primary wireless scan is performed; method 500 further includes identifying (for example, with the location estimation device) a presence of one or more duplicate entries in the first set of access points and the set of access points corresponding to the each secondary wireless scan, respectively, by disregarding last nibble of media access control (MAC) identification (IDs), see Paragraphs [0050] and [0053]. [Examiner contends MAC address data is captured during the primary wireless scan and subsequent scans]) and RSSI values (Ramakrishnan: At operation 502, a primary wireless scan is performed; a difference in received signal strength indication (RSSI) measurements between the first set of access points and a set of access points corresponding to the each secondary wireless scan, see Paragraphs [0050] and [0038]. [Examiner contends that RSSI values are captured during a primary scan and subsequent scans]), and stores them in memory (Ramakrishnan: In an embodiment, the method 500 further includes identifying (for example, with the location estimation device), for each secondary wireless scan, a number of shared access points between the first set of access points and a set of access points corresponding to each secondary wireless scan; a secondary wireless scans is performed at every ten second interval (for example, at 10, 20, 30 seconds and so on and so forth) from the completion of the primary wireless scan, see Paragraphs [0054] and [0051]. [Examiner contends that to compare a first set of access points and a second set of access points from a different point in time requires the first set of access points to be stored in memory]);
a useless radio signal removal block: removes signals that could affect accuracy of a motion state determination from a set of detected access points (Ramakrishnan: In an embodiment, the method 500 further includes eliminating the one or more mobile access points from the first set of access points and the set of access points corresponding to the each secondary wireless scan; The term ‘mobile access point’ as used herein refers to a non-stationary access point identified to be present across one or more distant locations. For example, consider an access point deployed in a vehicle of the user, see Fig. 5 and Paragraphs [0052] and [0029]);
a motion state determination block: compares and checks whether obtained WiFi access point sets meet predefined conditions to determine the motion state of device (Ramakrishnan: At operation 506, the method 500 includes detection (for example, with the location estimation device) of: (1) a presence of user motion if the number of shared access points is less than or equal to the pre-defined threshold value, see Fig. 5 and Paragraph [0056]).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramakrishnan in view of Srinivasan (US 20200029295 A1, hereinafter "Srinivasan").
Regarding Claim 2, Ramakrishnan teaches The system according to claim 1, wherein the radio signal reception block performs two steps:
step 1: scans and receives broadcast messages from surrounding access points (Ramakrishnan: At operation 502, a primary wireless scan is performed (for example, with a location estimation device including a transceiver, such as the Wi-Fi scan module 210 of the system 200) to identify a first set of access points at a user location, see Fig. 5 and Paragraph [0050]); from these messages, extracts two important parameters for subsequent blocks, including: a first parameter is an access point identifier, typically a MAC address of the access point (Ramakrishnan: At operation 502, a primary wireless scan is performed; method 500 further includes identifying (for example, with the location estimation device) a presence of one or more duplicate entries in the first set of access points and the set of access points corresponding to the each secondary wireless scan, respectively, by disregarding last nibble of media access control (MAC) identification (IDs), see Paragraphs [0050] and [0053]. [Examiner contends MAC address data is captured during the primary wireless scan and subsequent scans]); a second parameter is a signal quality parameter received by the device, which can be measured by several metrics, with RSSI being the simplest and most effective (Ramakrishnan: At operation 502, a primary wireless scan is performed; a difference in received signal strength indication (RSSI) measurements between the first set of access points and a set of access points corresponding to the each secondary wireless scan, see Paragraphs [0050] and [0038]. [Examiner contends that RSSI values are captured during a primary scan and subsequent scans]);
Ramakrishnan fails to explicitly teach, step 2: stores a set of access point information obtained during the scan in a memory of the device, which can be either RAM or ROM, for use in the next motion state determination process.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Srinivasan teaches,
step 2: stores a set of access point information obtained during the scan in a memory of the device, which can be either RAM or ROM, for use in the next motion state determination process (Srinivasan: Memory 306 includes assembly of components 314, e.g., an assembly of software components, and data/information 316. Data/information 316 includes, e.g., received RSS measurements of beacons from a first wireless device, determined RSS deviations, e.g., determined RSSI standard deviations; Various embodiments are also directed to non-transitory machine, e.g., computer, readable medium, e.g., ROM, RAM, see Paragraphs [0044] and [0167]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the method of Ramakrishnan to include the teachings of Srinivasan as above, in order to improve location reliability (Srinivasan: Paragraph [0016]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ramakrishnan teaches The system according to claim 1, wherein in the useless radio signal removal block:
after completing the radio signal reception, the system obtains the current access point information set (Ramakrishnan: At operation 504, a secondary wireless scan is performed at pre-defined time intervals subsequent to the primary wireless scan (for example, by a location estimation device including a transceiver, such as the Wi-Fi scan module 210 of the system 200), see Fig. 5 and Paragraph [0051]) and the set of access point information saved from the previous scan (Ramakrishnan: In an embodiment, the method 500 further includes identifying (for example, with the location estimation device), for each secondary wireless scan, a number of shared access points between the first set of access points and a set of access points corresponding to each secondary wireless scan, see Fig. 5 and Paragraph [0054]), in the obtained access point parameter set, there may be parameters that could interfere with the final result, for instance, when using WiFi to determine motion, there may be cases where the access point itself moves with the device (e.g., a WiFi hotspot on a bus or a mobile phone hotspot), therefore, the solution includes an additional block to eliminate useless radio signals (Ramakrishnan: In an embodiment, the method 500 further includes eliminating the one or more mobile access points from the first set of access points and the set of access points corresponding to the each secondary wireless scan; The term ‘mobile access point’ as used herein refers to a non-stationary access point identified to be present across one or more distant locations. For example, consider an access point deployed in a vehicle of the user, see Fig. 5 and Paragraphs [0052] and [0029]), in this solution, a useless radio signal is defined as one where the access point parameters remain unchanged across three consecutive cycles (Ramakrishnan: In an embodiment, the Wi-Fi motion detector module 212 is configured to detect a presence of one or more mobile access points. The term ‘mobile access point’ as used herein refers to a non-stationary access point identified to be present across one or more distant locations, see Paragraph [0029]. [Examiner contends that three consecutive cycles are within one or more distant locations]),
Ramakrishnan fails to explicitly teach, while other access point parameters show variations, it is important to note that the MAC address of an access point is a fixed identifier, whereas RSSI values are variable, even if the device remains stationary, RSSI values between two scans can differ, with experimental results showing that the absolute difference in RSSI between two scans is less than 5 dBm, therefore, if the RSSI difference between two scans is less than 5 dBm, the access point parameter is considered unchanged.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Srinivasan teaches,
while other access point parameters show variations, it is important to note that the MAC address of an access point is a fixed identifier, whereas RSSI values are variable, even if the device remains stationary, RSSI values between two scans can differ, with experimental results showing that the absolute difference in RSSI between two scans is less than 5 dBm, therefore, if the RSSI difference between two scans is less than 5 dBm, the access point parameter is considered unchanged (Srinivasan: The system may be configured that as long as the RSSI fluctuates within +−5 dbm around the mean received RSSI, the system would consider the tag to be static, see Paragraph [0150]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the method of Ramakrishnan to include the teachings of Srinivasan as above, in order to improve location reliability (Srinivasan: Paragraph [0016]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramakrishnan in view of Sung (US 10064159 B1, hereinafter "Sung").
Regarding Claim 4, Ramakrishnan teaches The system according to claim 1, wherein in the motion state determination block, the predefined conditions for determining the motion state include:
if an intersection of the current access point parameter set and the previous access point parameter set is empty, then the device has moved (Ramakrishnan: At operation 506, the method 500 includes detection (for example, with the location estimation device) of: (1) a presence of user motion if the number of shared access points is less than or equal to the pre-defined threshold value; In an illustrative example, the pre-defined threshold value is chosen to be zero, see Fig. 5 and Paragraphs [0056] and [0031]);
Ramakrishnan fails to explicitly teach, if the proportion of access point parameters from the current scan with an RSSI difference of 25 dBm compared to the previous scan exceeds 30% of the total access points detected in the current scan, then the device has moved.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Srinivasan teaches,
if the proportion of access point parameters from the current scan with an RSSI difference of 25 dBm compared to the previous scan exceeds 30% of the total access points detected in the current scan, then the device has moved (Ramakrishnan: In an embodiment, the Wi-Fi motion detector 212 is configured to detect: (1) a presence of user motion if the number of shared access points is less than or equal to the pre-defined threshold value for a pre-defined number of consecutive secondary wireless scans ... The value of ‘m’ or the pre-defined number of consecutive secondary wireless scans may be chosen based on empirical data, see Paragraph [0033]; Sung: On the condition that the variation of the average of RSSI within a time interval exceeds the variation tolerance value, the movement detecting unit 222 determines that the terminal device is in the moving state, see Col. 4, Lines 41-48. [Examiner contends that an RSSI difference of 25 dBm is a tolerance value]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the method of Ramakrishnan to include the teachings of Sung as above, in order to improve the efficiency and accuracy when locating terminal devices (Sung: Col. 8, Lines 41-42).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX YEOH whose telephone number is (571)270-0890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Noel Beharry can be reached at (571)270-5630. 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.
/A.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights