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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-26, 28, 31-34, 36, 39 and 40rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-4, 9, 10, 13-15, 20 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12156040. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
The table below shows the correspondence between claim 1 of the ‘860 application and claim 1 of the ‘040 patent.
‘860 application
‘040 patent
A non-transitory computer readable medium having program instructions stored thereon that are executable to cause a computing system to perform operations comprising:
accessing environment information pertaining to a layout of an environment in which a computing device is located;
determining, based on the environment information, a location within the environment to relocate the computing device, and wherein determining the location includes:
extrapolating a radio signal strength for the location from a radio signal strength at a current location of the computing device within the environment;
and providing, via a display, an indication of the determined location to a user.
A non-transitory computer readable medium having program instructions stored thereon that are executable to cause a first computing device to perform operations comprising:
collecting environment information pertaining to a layout of an environment in which the first computing device and a second computing device are located
determining, based on the environment information, a location within the environment to be provided to a user of the first computing device
wherein determining the location includes: extrapolating a radio signal strength for the location from a radio signal strength at a current location of the first computing device within the environment
and providing, via a display of the first computing device, an indication of the determined location to the user of the first computing device.
Claims 22, 23-26, 28, 31-34, 36, 39 and 40 of the ‘860 application corresponds to claims 2, 3, 13, 4, 10, 21, 20, 4, 9, 21, 15 and 14 of the ‘040 patent respectively.
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) 21, 22 and 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ModernDayTech (“PIXIE - Bluetooth Tracker meets AR (Augmented Reality),” hereinafter referred to as Pixie) in view of Shkedi (US Patent No. 8170583).
Regarding claim 21, Pixie teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having program instructions stored thereon that are executable to cause a computing system to perform operations comprising:
Accessing environment information pertaining to a layout of an environment in which a computing device is located (scanning and view the real world environment with a mobile device (first device) within which a tracker (second device) is located (Pixie: 7:30-12:00)), wherein the first computing device is in wireless communication with the second computing device (pixie is a Bluetooth tracker (Pixie: 0:15-0:29));
Determining, based on the environment information, a location within the environment to relocate the computing device, and wherein determining the location includes (The augmented reality app of Pixies guides the user to the location of the tracker (See arrow at 8:06 informing to turn left) (Pixie: 7:30-12:00). Guiding the user corresponds to locating (moving) the user device to a location with a stronger Bluetooth connection with the tracker device);
Providing, via a display, an indication of the determined location to a user (refer to the various forms of visual indications indicating the proximity to the target location/device as demonstrated in 8:40-11:40 of Pixie).
However, Pixie does not expressly teach but Shkedi teaches
Extrapolating a radio signal strength for the location from a radio signal strength at a current location of the computing device within the environment (Shkedi teaches the concept of extrapolating signal strengths of a location based on signal strengths of other locations (Shkedi: claim 12)); and providing, via a display, an indication of the determined location to the user of the first computing device (refer to the various forms of visual indications indicating the proximity to the target location/device as demonstrated in 8:40-11:40 of Pixie).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined teachings above such as to determine signal strength in the manner taught by Shkedi, because this enables an effective method of determining signal strength.
Regarding claim 22, the combined teachings teach the computer readable medium of claim 21, wherein the environment information includes visual information collected by one or more cameras capturing images of the environment (see camera of the mobile phone/device shown in the Pixie demonstration), wherein the visual information includes a plurality of images of the environment (refer to the scanning process and image information captured during the AR experience of Pixie (Pixie: 7:30-12:00)).
Regarding claim 26, the combined teachings teach the computer readable medium of claim 21, wherein determining the location includes:
Determining a set of scores for a respective set of locations within the environment, wherein a score in the set of scores for a given location is indicative of a connection quality at the given location (determined signal strength data in determining the location of the Bluetooth tracker of Pixie corresponds the score, as presently claimed. Note, the highlighted area (orange AR overlay at 8:11 of Pixie) correspond to one type of score, whereas other areas that are not highlighted to correspond to another score. Further, the detector visual at 8:44 of Pixie depicts different signal strengths (proximity to tracker device) as different shades of colors, wherein each color is the equivalent to a respective score associated with the signal strength);
And selecting, based on the set of scores, the location from the set of locations (the resulting highlighted area (orange AR overlay at 8:11 of Pixie)).
Regarding claim 27, the combined teachings teach the computer readable medium of claim 21, wherein determining the location includes: determining the location while the computing device is moving within the environment (the demonstration of Pixie shows the user moving the mobile phone as it searches for the location (Pixie: 7:30-12:00)).
Regarding claim 28, the combined teachings teach the computer readable medium of claim 21, wherein the providing includes providing multiple indications of multiple locations within the environment (plurality of color coded areas depicting performance data (Barmettler: 0081, FIG.15)).
Regarding claim 29, the combined teachings teach the computer readable medium of claim 28, wherein one of the multiple locations includes an indication of a location of where not to relocate the computing device (at 11:30 of Pixie the metal detector indicates proximity based on colors, wherein closer to red indicates where not the target device is location).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pixie in view of Shkedi as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Aceti et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2019/0196020).
Regarding claim 23, the combined teachings above do not expressly teach but Aceti teaches the computer readable medium of claim 21, wherein the environment information includes depth and range information collected by a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor (for the purpose in assisting with navigation, Aceti teaches using LIDAR to create a point map by surveying the environment (Aceti: 0064)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined teachings above such as to utilize the LIDAR teaching of Aceti, because this enable an effective method of obtaining the layout information of the environment.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pixie in view of in view of Shkedi as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Chambers et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2018/0321687).
Regarding claim 24, the combined teachings above do not expressly teach but Chambers teaches the computer readable medium of claim 21, wherein the environment information includes a mapping of the environment that identifies, for each of a set of locations within the environment, a connection quality associated with that location (refer to the retrieved visual representation 605 of signal coverage data 500 (Chambers: 0131-0132, FIG.12A). Also refer to the floorplan embedded with Wi-Fi signal intensity information (Chambers: 0099, FIG.8A)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined teachings above such as to factor pervious coverage data in determining the signal strength between the first and second device as suggested by Chambers, because utilizing signal map history data when determining communication strength between the first and second device of Pixie improvise processing time (Chambers: last sentence of 0081).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pixie in view of in view of Shkedi as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Desai (US Patent No. 10516999).
Regarding claim 25, the combined teachings teach the computer readable medium of claim 21, wherein the determining includes: based on the environment information, identifying one or more objects in the environment (refer to the AR overlays and visual elements shown in 7:30-12:00 of Pixie that identifies the location of the tracker).
However, the combined teachings above do not expressly teach but Desai teaches, estimating interferences caused by the one or more objects on the radio signal strength for the location (Desai teaches, in a similar field of endeavor, the concept of improving wireless communication by identifying interferences (Desai: Abstract). Identifying an interference utilize the use of images capture by a camera (Desai: col. 8, line 62 – col. 9, line 15)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined teachings above such that the user device further identifies communication interreferences in the manner suggested by Desai, because this enables an improved method of determining communication interferences.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pixie in view of Shkedi in view of Droz et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2021/0173047).
Regarding claim 30, the combined teachings above do not expressly teach but Droz teaches the computer readable medium of claim 21, wherein the operations further comprise:
Assisting the computing device in performing an action using a wireless connection between the computing system and the computing device (Droz teaches the concept of obtaining environment information pertaining to a layout of a physical environment at a separate computing device (Droz: 0111). Therefore, the separate computing device assists the mobile device (computing device) as presently claimed),
Wherein the radio signal strength for the location is associated with the wireless connection (as stated in the rejection claim 21, Shkedi teaches radio signal strength associated with signal strengths of other locations (Shkedi: claim 12)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined teachings above such as to survey environment information at a separate device as taught by Droz, because this enables relaying processing load from the mobile device of the combined teachings above.
Claim(s) 31, 33, 34-36 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pixie in view of Shkedi in view of Droz.
Claim(s) 31 is corresponding device claim(s) of claim(s) 21. The limitations of claim(s) 31 is substantially similar to the limitations of claim(s) 21. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected substantially similar to claim(s) 31. Note, the Examiner submits that the mobile device/phone utilize in the demonstration of Pixie comprise of a processor and memory as presently claimed.
And further, Droz teaches the concept of obtaining environment information pertaining to a layout of a physical environment at a separate computing device (Droz: 0111). Therefore, the separate computing device corresponds to the first device that handles environment surveying requested by the mobile device of Pixie (second device), as presently claimed.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined teachings above such as to survey environment information at a separate device as taught by Droz, because this enables relaying processing load from the mobile device of the combined teachings above.
Regarding claim 33, the combined teachings teach the first device of claim 31, wherein the environment information includes:
Determining a respective score for each of plurality of locations within the physical environment, wherein a respective score for a given one of the locations is based on the extrapolated radio signal strength for the given location (determined signal strength data in determining the location of the Bluetooth tracker of Pixie corresponds the score, as presently claimed. Note, the highlighted area (orange AR overlay at 8:11 of Pixie) correspond to one type of score, whereas other areas that are not highlighted to correspond to another score. Further, the detector visual at 8:44 of Pixie depicts different signal strengths (proximity to tracker device) as different shades of colors, wherein each color is the equivalent to a respective score associated with the signal strength);
And selecting, based on the determined scores, the location from the plurality of locations (the resulting highlighted area (orange AR overlay at 8:11 of Pixie)).
Regarding claim 34, the combined teachings teach teaches the first device of claim 31, wherein the visual indication is an identified location within an extended reality (XR) environment (refer to the AR overlays and visual elements shown in 7:30-12:00 of Pixie).
Regarding claim 35, the combined teachings teach teaches the first device of claim 31, wherein providing the visual indication of the determined location includes providing the visual indication to the second device for display by the second device (refer to the various forms of visual indications displayed at the mobile device (second device) that indicates the proximity to the target location/device as demonstrated in 8:40-11:40 of Pixie).
Claim(s) 36 are corresponding method claim(s) of claim(s) 31. The limitations of claim(s) 36 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim(s) 31. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected substantially similar to claim(s) 36.
Regarding claim 38, the combined teachings teach the method of claim 36, wherein the one or more indications include an audio indication indicative of the determined location to the user (8:44-8:53 of Pixie demonstrates audio feedback that changes according to proximity).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pixie in view of in view of Shkedi in view of Droz as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Desai.
Regarding claim 32, the combined teachings teach the first device of claim 31, wherein the environment information includes images of the physical environment captured by one or more cameras (see camera of the mobile phone/device shown in the Pixie demonstration);
And wherein the determining includes:
Identifying, based on the images and using a neural network, one or more physical objects within the physical environment (Desai teaches using one or more machine learning models (neural network) to identify sources of interference in an image associated with a signal path (Desai: col.10, line 27-33));
And determining one or more effects on a wireless connection caused by the one or more physical objects (the identified interreferences of Desai).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined teachings above such that the user device further identifies communication interreferences in the manner suggested by Desai, because this enables an improved method of determining communication interferences.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pixie in view of Shkedi in view of Droz as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Aceti.
Regarding claim 37, the combined teachings above do not expressly teach but Aceti teaches the method of claim 36, wherein the environment information includes information collected by one or more world mapping sensors that use an infrared illumination source (for the purpose in assisting with navigation, Aceti teaches using LIDAR to create a point map by surveying the environment (Aceti: 0064, 0095)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined teachings above such as to utilize the LIDAR teaching of Aceti, because this enable an effective method of obtaining the layout information of the environment.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pixie in view of Shkedi in view of Droz as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Herzog et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2012/0166077).
Regarding claim 39, the combined teachings above do not expressly teach but Herzog teaches the method of claim 36, wherein the one or more indications include a haptic feedback indication indicative of the determined location to the user (“provide one particular encoded vibration to signal that the user 105 is moving closer to the target destination (i.e., is "getting warmer").
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined teachings above such as to further provide haptic feedback conveying how close the user is to the tracker as suggested by Herzog, because this enables an improved method of providing feedback to the user.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pixie in view of Shkedi in view of Droz as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Engadget (“The PhoneStation uses your smartphone as a head-mounted display,” URL: https://www.engadget.com/2014-06-04-phonestation-head-mounted-display.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAI4wr5WVwY4pNpv9jEkfInC2L52EFZjTDlM3Bi2Kv1HpCjjvfzBy2GcNbbgdojgHF1uws1KkS93IBDeGLhGZKQjXaTJpmN5u1qVNlLwQTloGsoYBvjc7bYXcMzCekpjPqP7AoK-0nvQLR00QB7K99q2ebiBvPsHe_yvAIRvR2rus)
Regarding claim 40, the combined teachings above do not expressly teach but Engadget teaches the method of claim 36, wherein the second device is a head mounted display (HMD) (HMD made from a smartphone).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Pixie such as to utilize the mobile device of the user as a HMD as taught by Engadget, because this enables an AR experience with an added level of immersion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David H Chu whose telephone number is (571)272-8079. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 1:30pm, 3:30-8:30pm.
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, Daniel F Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
/DAVID H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights