DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the Application filed on November 8, 2024, in which claims 1-18 have been presented for examination.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1-18 are pending, of which claims 1, 3-10 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Claims 3-5, 7, 12-14 and 16-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement, filed on November 8, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 4, on line 3, “insert, by the target device, , into the communication packet” should be changed to ‘insert, by the target device, [[, ]]into the communication packet,’ to remove an extraneous comma, correct a minor typographical error and improve readability. Appropriate correction is required.
7. Claims 7 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Dependent claims 7 and 16 are each separated by claims which do not also depend from the claims by which dependent claims 7 and 16 each depend. That is, e.g., dependent claims 5 and 6 depend from independent claim 1, though dependent claim 7 does not also depend from independent claim 1, but rather, depends from dependent claim 4. Put otherwise, dependent claims 5 and 6 do not also depend from dependent claim 4, but rather depend from independent claim 1. Likewise, dependent claim 16 depends from dependent claim 13, though dependent claims 14 and 15 do not also depend from dependent claim 13, but rather depend from independent claim 10. A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, Applicant’s sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claims 3-5, 7, 12-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 17, lines 6-9 recite the limitation “calculate, for each of the three or more distance measurement devices, a distance between the target device and a distance measurement device based on the communication packet that the terminal device transmitted to the address of the distance measurement device”. In addition, lines 10-12 of independent claim 17mrecite, “generate a location result for predicting a located position of the target device based on positions of the three or more distance measurement devices and distances between the target device and the three or more distance measurement devices”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the above recited limitations in the claim, as it is not readily understood as to whether the recited “target device” of claim 17, lines 7, 10 and 12 actually refers to the recited “terminal device” (emphasis added), of claim 17, line 8, or some other “device,” or whether the recited “target device” and “terminal device” are one and the same “device”. Examiner wishes to point out that on lines 7-8 of independent claim 17, (which is directed to a “terminal device” (emphasis)), Applicant recites, “based on the communication packet that the terminal device transmitted,” then appears to later refer to an obscure “target device”. Examiner further notes that on paragraph [0009] of instant Specification, Applicant recites, “The terminal 1 is an example of a target device for which the physical position is to be measured” (Recited from paragraph [0009] of instant Specification). If the recited “target device” of claim 17, lines 7, 10 and 12 indeed actually refers to the “terminal device” of claim 17 itself, there is inconsistent terminology being recited in claim 17. In any event, there is a lack of antecedent basis and the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be understood as written. Dependent claim 18 fails to remedy the deficiencies of independent claim 17 and is therefore likewise rejected.
As to claim 3, lines 4-8 recite, “estimate, for each of the three or more distance measurement devices, the distance between the target device and the distance measurement device based on communication packets transmitted and received by the distance measurement device in communication by the communication packet transmitted by the target device to the distance measurement device”.
Examiner is unclear on how to interpret the above recited limitation. In particular, it is not understood as to what exactly is meant by “based on communication packets transmitted and received by the distance measurement device in communication by the communication packet transmitted by the target device to the distance measurement device”. Examiner is at a loss as to what this language means, and it appears as though a literal translation into English has been made from a foreign document.
Claims 4 and 7 fail to remedy the above deficiencies in dependent claim 3 and are thus similarly rejected.
Furthermore, regarding claim 5, it is not understood as to what is meant by “Whois information”. Examiner has consulted instant Specification for guidance on this subject matter, only to find that instant Specification is silent with regard to any detail on what this language “Whois information” means. Instead, instant Specification merely repeats the claim language, without any elaboration as to what this “information” is. The claim is vague and indefinite, and the metes and bound of the claim cannot be understood as written.
For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret the above language “Whois information” as merely identification information.
In addition, with regard to dependent claim 7, lines 4-14 recite, “identify, among the communication packets transmitted and received by the distance measurement device, the identifier included in communication packet of the communication by communication packets that the target device transmitted to the distance measurement device, and estimate the distance between the target device and the distance measurement device based on, among multiple communication packets that can be identified based on the identifier, the transmission timing at the distance measurement device of the communication packet transmitted by the distance measurement device, the reception timing at the distance measurement device of communication packet corresponding to a response to the communication packet, and speeds by which the communication packet flows in communication media through which the communication passes”.
The above limitation is vague and indefinite at least because the limitation fails to properly distinguish between communication packet(s) sent by the distance measurement device, communication packet(s) sent by the target device, and responses thereto. There are numerous iterations of the terms “communication packet,” and while Applicant does recite that “multiple communication packets that can be identified based on the identifier,” nevertheless Applicant has failed to specify which “communication packet” is sent and received by which device. In particular, at lines 5-7, which recite, “the identifier included in communication packet of the communication by communication packets that the target device transmitted to the distance measurement device,” Applicant makes it clear that the “communication packets” transmitted from the “target device” to the “distance measurement device” contain an identifier therein. Continuing on line 7, and all the way through to line 9, Applicant recites, “and estimate the distance between the target device and the distance measurement device based on, among multiple communication packets that can be identified based on the identifier”. This appears to suggest that the distance between the “target device” and the “distance measurement device” is measured based on the packets sent by the “target device,” as claim 7 previously makes clear that the “communication packets” transmitted from the “target device” to the “distance measurement device” contain the identifier. However at lines 9 through 10 of dependent claim 7, Applicant goes on to recite, “the transmission timing at the distance measurement device of the communication packet transmitted by the distance measurement device,” which appears to suggest that the “communication packet transmitted by the distance measurement device” also plays a role in estimating the distance between the “target device” and the “distance measurement device,” though it is equally unclear as to whether the “communication packet transmitted by the distance measurement device” includes the aforementioned “communication packets that can be identified based on the identifier”. If so, this would appear to contradict with what is being recited earlier in dependent claim 7, namely that the “the communication packet transmitted by the target device” (emphasis added), contains the recited “identifier” as again, lines 5-7 recite, “the identifier included in communication packet of the communication by communication packets that the target device transmitted to the distance measurement device”. In addition, lines 10-12 continue on to recite, “the reception timing at the distance measurement device of communication packet corresponding to a response to the communication packet”. Here, it appears as though the recited “communication packet” of claim 7, line 11 is a different “communication packet” than the recited “communication packet” of claim 7, line 12, though both are referred to as the “communication packet” (i.e., “communication packet corresponding to a response to the communication packet”). Importantly, it is exceedingly vague and unclear as to which “communication packet” is sent/received by the recited “target device,” and which “communication packet” is sent/received by the recited “distance measurement device,” and Applicant appears to contradict in reciting that the “target device” identifies packets containing an identifier sent by the target device, and also by the “distance measurement device”. The claim is vague and indefinite and is replete with grammatical errors and idiomatic errors, in addition to introducing conflicting ideas and inconsistencies, as well as utilizing the same term for different elements, and therefore the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be understood as written.
Each of dependent claims 3-5 and 7 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The same applies to claims 12-14 and 16, which recite similarly deficient limitations and are therefore similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
13. Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tawara et al. (United States Patent No. US 10,051,598 B2), hereinafter “Tawara” in view of Baek et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0098887 A1), hereinafter “Baek”.
Regarding claim 1, Tawara discloses an information processing system (information processing apparatus 40, as part of an information processing system 1, shown in FIG. 6) (Tawara, FIGS. 3 and 6) comprising: one or more memories that store a set of instructions (wherein a storage unit 420 stores programs for operating the control unit 410 using a storage medium, such as a semiconductor memory, hard disk, or the like) (Tawara, FIG. 3, col. 7, ll. 52-54); and one or more processors that individually or collectively are configured to execute the instructions to (wherein a control unit 410 corresponds to, e.g., a processor, such as a central processing unit (CPU) or the like. The control unit 410 executes programs stored in the storage unit 420 or other storage media to exhibit various functions possessed by the control unit 410) (Tawara, FIG. 3, col. 7, ll. 42-46): acquire an address of each of three or more distance measurement devices to which a communication packet of a target device is to be transmitted (wherein with reference to FIG. 6, which illustrates a diagram for describing a function example of storing a MAC address of a target terminal 10 and a UUID in association with each other, Tawara teaches that the position of the target terminal 10 can be estimated using various techniques. In particular, Tawara teaches that when there are a plurality of base stations 20 (See FIG. 6, which illustrates base stations 20-1-20-N, four of which are pictured, and of which Examiner maps to the recited “distance measurement devices”) that have transmitted a radio signal to a target terminal 10, the estimation result acquisition unit 414 of information processing apparatus 40 (See again, FIG. 3) may estimate the position information of the target terminal 10 on the basis of the position information of each of the plurality of base stations 20. For example, Tawara teaches that the estimation result acquisition unit 414 may acquire the MAC address of a target terminal 10 that has received a radio signal, the strength of the radio signal received by the target terminal 10, and the MAC address of a base station 20 that is a sender of the radio signal, from the target terminal 10) (Tawara, FIG. 6, col. 9, ll. 30-32, col. 9, ll. 55-56, col. 10, ll. 4-9, col. 10, ll. 16-21); calculate, for each of the three or more distance measurement devices, a distance between the target device and a distance measurement device based on the communication packet that the target device transmitted to the address of the distance measurement device (wherein as set forth above, when there are a plurality of base stations 20 (See again, FIG. 6) that have transmitted a radio signal to a target terminal 10, the estimation result acquisition unit 414 of information processing apparatus 40 (See again, FIG. 3) may estimate the position information of the target terminal 10 on the basis of the position information of each of the plurality of base stations 20. For example, the estimation result acquisition unit 414 may estimate the position information of the target terminal 10 by the principle of triangulation on the basis of the position information of each of the plurality of base stations 20 and the strength of a radio signal received by the target terminal 10 which has been transmitted from each of the plurality of base stations 20. Tawara further notes that alternatively, the estimation result acquisition unit 414 may designate the position information of a base station 20 that has received a radio signal from a target terminal 10 as the position information of the target terminal 10, and on the basis of the strength of the radio signal received by the base station 20) (Tawara, FIG. 6, col. 10, ll. 4-15, col. 10, ll. 25-33); generate a location result for predicting a located position of the target device based on positions of the three or more distance measurement devices and distances between the target device and the three or more distance measurement devices (again, using the principle of triangulation on the basis of the position information of each of the plurality of base stations 20 and on the basis of the strength of the radio signal received by the base stations 20) (Tawara, col. 10, ll. 11-13, col. 10, ll. 25-33). Tawara does not explicitly disclose to output the location result. However in an analogous art, Baek discloses to output a location result (wherein Baek discloses determining the location information of a target mobile terminal 100b (albeit using different methods), though teaches displaying the location result. More particularly, Baek discloses after transmitting a location information request message, the control unit 109 of a first mobile terminal 100a receives location information from a second mobile terminal 100b and displays the location information on the display unit 103) (Baek, paragraphs [0055] and [0056]). Tawara and Baek are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area, namely, determining positioning and location information of mobile devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tawara and Baek before him or her, to modify the method of Tawara to include the additional limitation of outputting a location result, as disclosed by Baek, with reasonable expectation that this would result in having the added benefit of presenting the location to a user, thereby allowing them to locate the target device (See Baek, paragraphs [0057] and [0058]). This method of improving the information processing system 1 of Tawara was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Baek. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tawara with Baek to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Claim 17 is directed to a “terminal device” that performs limitations substantially as recited in “information processing system” claim 1, and does not appear to include any additional features with regard to novelty and/or nonobviousness; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale. For clarity, in this claim, Examiner maps the recited “terminal device” to the disclosed information processing apparatus 40 of Tawara, as that element is cited for performing the aforementioned limitations, and was also cited for performing the limitations of “information processing system” claim 1.
In addition, Claim 10 includes a “method” claim that performs limitations substantially as recited in “information processing system” claim 1, and does not appear to include any additional features with regard to novelty and/or non-obviousness; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 3, Tawara-Baek discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein, in calculating the distance, the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to: estimate, for each of the three or more distance measurement devices, the distance between the target device and the distance measurement device based on communication packets transmitted and received by the distance measurement device in communication by the communication packet transmitted by the target device to the distance measurement device (again, based on the strength of the radio signals received by the target terminal 10 which are transmitted from each of the plurality of base stations 20, and/or the strength of the radio signals received by the base station 20 from the target terminal 10) (Tawara, col. 10, ll. 13-15, col. 10, ll. 25-33, col. 10, ll. 43-48). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Tawara-Baek discloses the information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to insert, by the target device, , into the communication packet, an identifier for identifying communication of the communication packet, and transmit the communication packet (again, the estimation result acquisition unit 414 may acquire the MAC address of a target terminal 10 that has received a radio signal, the strength of the radio signal received by the target terminal 10, and the MAC address of a base station 20 that is a sender of the radio signal, from the target terminal 10) (Tawara, col. 10, ll. 16-21, col. 10, ll. 25-33, col. 10, ll. 43-48), and in calculating the distance, the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to estimate, for each of the three or more distance measurement devices, the distance between the target device and the distance measurement device based on multiple communication packets identified based on the identifier transmitted and received by the distance measurement device (again, based on the communication packets including the MAC address of the base stations 20, as well as the strength of the radio signals) (Tawara, col. 10, ll. 49-54). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Tawara-Baek discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to acquire Whois information based on an IP address indicated by the communication packet (wherein the data acquisition unit 411 has acquired information in which the IP address of a target terminal 10 is associated with the MAC address of the target terminal 10, and the identification information acquisition unit 412 has acquired information in which the IP address of the target terminal 10 is associated with a UUID. In this case, as shown in FIG. 6, the storage control unit 413 may store the UUID and the MAC address of the target terminal 10 in the storage unit 420 in association with each other) (Tawara, col. 9, ll. 33-41), and in outputting, the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to output the Whois information (wherein Tawara further teaches that a situation where the position information of a target terminal 10 has been estimated in the above manner, the position information acquisition unit 112 of the target terminal 10 provides a position estimation request including a UUID to the information processing apparatus 40 as shown in FIG. 7) (Tawara, col. 11, ll. 14-19). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Tawara-Baek discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to detect a physical position of the target device based on a position sensor provided in the target device (wherein the hardware for a target terminal 10 is illustrated in FIG. 13, and includes sensor 804 is constituted from various types of detection sensors and their peripheral circuits, such as a terminal state detection sensor for detecting a state of the target terminal 10. As an example, a positioning detection sensor (e.g., a Global Positioning System (GPS) sensor), an inclination sensor, an acceleration sensor, a direction sensor, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, an illuminance sensor or the like can be included as the sensor 804. A detection signal by the sensor 804 is sent to the CPU 801. In this way, the CPU 801 can know the state of the target terminal 10 (the position, inclination, acceleration, direction, temperature, humidity, illuminance or the like)) (Tawara, FIG. 13, col. 16, ll. 4-15), and in outputting, the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to output the location result by adding the physical position to the location result (wherein again, Baek disclosing outputting the location, and particularly discloses a global positioning system (GPS), and that the location of the second mobile terminal 100b can be obtained using a GPS) (Baek, paragraphs [0051] and [0055]). As discussed and shown above, Tawara and Baek are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area, namely, determining positioning and location information of mobile devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tawara and Baek before him or her, to modify the method of Tawara to include the additional limitation of in outputting, the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to output the location result by adding the physical position to the location result, as disclosed by Baek, with reasonable expectation that this would result in having the added benefit of presenting the location to a user, thereby allowing them to locate the target device, and making it particularly convenient by locating the target device on a map (See Baek, paragraphs [0057] and [0058]). This method of improving the information processing system 1 of Tawara was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Baek. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tawara with Baek to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Tawara-Baek discloses the information processing system according to claim 4, wherein, in calculating the distance, the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to: identify, among the communication packets transmitted and received by the distance measurement device, the identifier included in communication packet of the communication by communication packets that the target device transmitted to the distance measurement device, and estimate the distance between the target device and the distance measurement device based on, among multiple communication packets that can be identified based on the identifier, the transmission timing at the distance measurement device of the communication packet transmitted by the distance measurement device, the reception timing at the distance measurement device of communication packet corresponding to a response to the communication packet, and speeds by which the communication packet flows in communication media through which the communication passes (again, using the strength of the acquired radio signals with the communications all having the MAC addresses therein) (Tawara, col. 10, ll. 43-54). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Tawara-Baek discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors of the target device are configured to execute the instructions to acquire the address (wherein again, the estimation result acquisition unit 414 may estimate the position information of the target terminal 10 by the principle of triangulation on the basis of the position information of each of the plurality of base stations 20 and the strength of a radio signal received by the target terminal 10 which has been transmitted from each of the plurality of base stations 20. As discussed and shown above, e.g., the estimation result acquisition unit 414 may acquire the MAC address of a target terminal 10 that has received a radio signal, the strength of the radio signal received by the target terminal 10, and the MAC address of a base station 20 that is a sender of the radio signal, from the target terminal 10) (Tawara, col. 10, ll. 5-21), and the one or more processors of a control device communicably connected to the target device and the three or more distance measurement devices, are configured to execute the instructions to calculate the distance, and generate the location result (wherein as further shown in FIG. 7, the position information provision unit 415 of the information processing apparatus 40, when acquiring a position estimation request including a UUID from a target terminal 10, provides the position information of the target terminal 10 corresponding to the MAC address of the target terminal 10 associated with the UUID, to the target terminal 10) (Tawara, FIG. 7, col. 11, ll. 26-32). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 9.
Claims 12-16 include “method” claims that perform limitations substantially as recited in “information processing system” claims 3-7, respectively, and do not appear to include any additional features with regard to novelty and/or non-obviousness; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
14. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tawara-Baek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DUAN et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0099832 A1), hereinafter “DUAN”.
Regarding claim 8, Tawara-Baek discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors of the target device are configured to execute the instructions to acquire the address, calculate the distance, and generate the location result. However in an analogous art, DUAN discloses wherein one or more processors of a target device are configured to execute instructions to acquire an address, calculate a distance, and generate a location result (wherein DUAN teaches when attempting to perform a positioning procedure, a low-tier user equipment (UE) 506 (See FIG. 5) may first search for premium UEs 504 around it (i.e., within wireless communication range). In some cases, the low-tier UE 506 may already be connected to a premium UE 504 through a side link (e.g., wireless sidelink 530). In other cases, the low-tier UE 506 may need to perform a scan to discover premium UE(s) 504 around it. In still other cases, the network (e.g., location server 230, LMF 270, base station 502) may notify the low-tier UE 506 whether or not there are any premium UEs 504 around it, and if there are, provide it with a way to connect with them. Once connected to the one or more premium UEs 504, the low-tier UE 506 can select which premium UE(s)’ 504 location(s) to use to derive its own location. DUAN further teaches that a location estimate may be geodetic and comprise coordinates (e.g., latitude, longitude, and possibly altitude) or may be civic and comprise a street address, postal address, or some other verbal description of a location. the low-tier UE 506 can use the location estimates of multiple premium UEs 504 around it to derive its own location. In that case, the premium UEs 504 can send their locations to the low-tier UE 506 (e.g., over wireless sidelinks 530), and the low-tier UE 506 may report the average of the locations of the premium UEs 504 (e.g., to the base station 502 over wireless communication link 520) as its location) (DUAN, FIG. 5, paragraphs [0087], [0110]-[0111] and [0113]). Tawara-Baek and DUAN are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area, namely, determining positioning and location information of mobile devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tawara-Baek and DUAN before him or her, to modify the method of Tawara-Baek to include the additional limitation of wherein one or more processors of a target device are configured to execute instructions to acquire an address, calculate a distance, and generate a location result, as disclosed by DUAN, with reasonable expectation that this would result in having the added benefit of enabling a target device to calculate its own location (See DUAN, paragraph [0111]). This method of improving the information processing system 1 of Tawara-Baek was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of DUAN. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tawara-Baek with DUAN to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 2 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
16. Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
17. Further references of interest are cited on Form PTO-892, which is an attachment to this Office Action. For instance, WANG (USPGPUB 2024/0323905) discloses a positioning method and apparatus, a terminal, and a communication device. The positioning method includes measuring, by a first terminal, a physical sidelink (SL) positioning reference signal sent by a second termina, and sending, by the first terminal, first information to a target communication device based on measurement on the SL positioning reference signal, where the first information includes at least one of the following: line-of-sight LOS indication information; measurement information of the SL positioning reference signal; or location-related information; and the target communication device is the second terminal, a preset terminal, a base station device, or a core network device (See Abstract). KR 102451687 B1 discloses a method of operating a reference device-to-device (D2D) device in a communication system supporting a device to device (D2D) scheme, wherein a target D2D device, which is a D2D device that needs to detect location information, includes broadcasting a search request message for requesting to activate at least one of an emergency search operation and a positioning operation when detecting the presence; receiving a discovery response message to the discovery request message from at least one D2D device including the target D2D device; and transmitting information related to performing the positioning operation to the target D2D device (See Abstract). KR 102280542 B1 discloses a wireless relay device that confirms reliability of a communication module for receiving a location information message including location information of an electronic device from at least one electronic device, and the received location information of the electronic device, and a processor configured to obtain location information of the wireless relay device using location information of the electronic device whose reliability has been confirmed (See Abstract). Griffin (USPGPUB 2019/0037527) discloses a device that can receive a proximity message comprising a base station identifier and a network address. The device can determine that the device is within a particular distance of a base station associated with the base station identifier based, at least in part, on the proximity message. In response to a determination that the device is within the particular distance of the base station, the device can display an actionable notification. The device can further determine that an action associated with the actionable notification has been performed. In response to a determination that the action has been performed, the device can send a proximity notification to a server identified by the network address, wherein the proximity notification comprises the base station identifier (See Abstract). Boulay (USPGPUB 2015/0005002) discloses a method for estimating a position of a target using a plurality of smartphones, each smartphone being capable of communicating with the target over a limited wireless range, the method comprising providing a target transmitting a wireless signal having a corresponding identification for uniquely identifying the target; providing the corresponding identification of the target to track to a group of smartphones; each smartphone of the group of smartphones being capable of receiving the signal transmitted if the target is in its vicinity and storing the corresponding identification of the target with a time stamp and an indication of a corresponding location of the smartphone and obtaining each of the stored corresponding identifications of the target with a time stamp and an indication of a corresponding location of the smartphone to thereby estimate a position of the target (See Abstract). Batada (USPAT 8,792,906) discloses a mobile station configured to detect entry into a premises of an enterprise in response to short range or near field radio-frequency signals. The mobile station receives signals from one or more short range wireless beacons located in the premises, and the mobile station sends identifiers from the beacon signals to a location server. The location server processes the identifiers to determine location of the mobile station within the premises and sends information to the mobile station, for presentation to the user of a map of the premises showing the determined location of the mobile station within the premises. Entry detection also may be used to automatically check-in a customer/user of the mobile station with a system of the enterprise used by personnel of the enterprise at the premises to enable the personnel to customize interactions the customer while the customer is at the premises (See Abstract). Ishii (USPGPUB 2004/0258012) discloses a location server provided in a communication system for receiving a location request. A plurality of base stations whose locations are predetermined are connected to the location server. In response to the location request, the system determines a round-trip propagation delay time of packets asynchronously transmitted over a wireless channel between each of the base stations and a target mobile station, calculates the distances from the round-trip propagation delay times, and estimates the location of the mobile station from an intersection of a plurality of circles whose radii are equal to the distances and whose centers respectively coincide with the locations of the base stations. The location server returns a location report to the requesting source for indicating the location of the mobile station (See Abstract).
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOSTAS J. KATSIKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, Brian J. Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/KOSTAS J KATSIKIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights