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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the 1In one example,..”, which can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1 - 3, 5 - 6, 8 - 10, 12 - 13, 15 - 17, 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haartsen et al. (US 8040219 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Haartsen discloses a method of assessing location within a media presentation environment (Title; column 4, lines 9 – 14; wherein media player is disclosed, hence media presentation environment) comprising:
receiving, by a wireless device and from a remote server supporting data to set for one or more radio frequency (RF) beacons deployed within the media presentation environment (Fig. 1, electronic device 10 communicates with server 32; column 5, lines 45 - 50 disclose “The communications network 30 may have a server 32 (or servers) for managing calls placed by and destined to the electronic device 10, transmitting data to and receiving data from the electronic device 10 and carrying out any other support functions. The server 32 communicates with the electronic device 10 via a transmission medium”);
storing, by the wireless device, the supporting data in a memory of the wireless device (Fig. 2, memory 22; column 5, lines 1 – 23 discloses “The electronic device 10 includes communications circuitry that enables the electronic device 10 to establish communications with another device. Communications may include calls, data transfers …..This data may be processed by the electronic device 10, including storing the data in the memory 22,..”);
receiving, by the wireless device and from the one or more RF beacons, a beacon detection signal (Fig. 3, block 66; column 9, lines 33 – 52; column 10, lines 8+ discloses using multiple beacons);
determining, by the wireless device, that the beacon detection signal satisfies the signal strength threshold (column 10, line 37 – column 11, line 4 discloses using signal strength contours; column 10, lines 50+ discloses “A determined signal strength may be compared against the signal strength thresholds associated with each contour. ….”);
and based on determining that the beacon detection signal satisfies the threshold, processing the beacon detection signal to determine a location of the wireless device with respect to the one or more RF beacons in the media presentation environment (Fig. 3, block 70; column 11, lines 2 – 4 discloses “Using the distance ranges, the area in which the electronic device 10 is located relative to the indoor area 62 may be determined.”; column 9, line 53 – column 10, line 7 disclose “In block 70, the electronic device 10 may make a location determination using available information from the detected broadcast, signal strength values, and/or the location assistance information…).
Haartsen does not explicitly disclose that signal strength threshold is sent from the server to the wireless device.
However, as stated above, Haartsen discloses that supporting information can be sent from the server to the electronic/wireless device 10 (column 5, lines 45 – 50). Under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale F), sending threshold information is an obvious variation of sending this supporting information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to send the threshold data as part of supporting data because Haartsen uses the threshold data for determining the location of the electronic device.
Regarding claim 2, Haartsen discloses determining a power level of the wireless device (column 7, lines 20 – 27 disclose “transmitter power of access points 58”; column 7, lines 28 - 40 discloses “Therefore, the transceiver 56 and/or the access points 58 may be implemented with other types of short-range wireless devices. In the exemplary embodiment where the devices are Bluetooth enabled devices, the electronic device 10 may communicate with the access points 58 over short distances. For instance, using current Bluetooth technology that broadcasts at approximately 2.4 GHz, the distance between communicating Bluetooth enabled devices may be up to 10 meters in a low power mode or up to 100 meters in a high power mode”; wherein power level could be selected as low or high power mode)) and determining, based on the power level of the wireless device, to perform a location detection, wherein processing the beacon detection signal to determine the location is further based on determining to perform the location detection (Fig. 2, block 70).
Regarding claim 3, Haartsen discloses transmitting information of the wireless device with respect to the one or more RF beacons in the environment to the remote server (column 5, lines 45+ discloses “The communications network 30 may have a server 32 (or servers) for managing calls placed by and destined to the electronic device 10, transmitting data to and receiving data from the electronic device 10 and carrying out any other support functions …”).
Haartsen does not explicitly disclose an indication of the location is sent from the wireless device to the server.
However, as stated above, Haartsen discloses that information can be sent from the electronic/wireless device 10 to the server. Under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale F), sending location information is an obvious variation of sending this other information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to send the location information as part of data sent because this would allow the server to know the wireless device location which could be used for location based services etc.
Regarding claim 5, Haartsen does not disclose:
the signal strength threshold is a first signal strength threshold, and wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, by the wireless device and from the remote server, a second signal strength threshold;
and updating, by the wireless device, the first signal strength threshold based on the second signal strength threshold in the memory of the wireless device.
However, this is similar to claim 1, except that a 2nd threshold is used. Under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F), using a 2nd threshold is obvious to try to an obvious variation of using a 1st threshold. A 2nd threshold can be used to fine tune the location determination to obtain a more accurate location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to send a 2nd threshold, because this could be used for more accurate location determination.
Claim 6 is similarly analyzed as claims 1 and 5, with the same motivation as in claim 5. Claim 1 recites “one or more RF beacons”. Claim 5 recites using a 2nd threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art can easily use a 2nd threshold on any of the beacon signals to improve the location estimate.
Claim 8 is similarly analyzed as claim 1, with claim 8 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations. Memory, processor are disclosed by Haartsen (Fig. 2, elements 22, 36).
Claim 9 is similarly analyzed as claim 2.
Claim 10 is similarly analyzed as claim 3.
Claim 12 is similarly analyzed as claim 5.
Claim 13 is similarly analyzed as claim 6.
Claim 15 is similarly analyzed as claim 1.
Claim 16 is similarly analyzed as claim 2.
Claim 17 is similarly analyzed as claim 3.
Claim 19 is similarly analyzed as claim 5.
Claim 20 is similarly analyzed as claim 6.
Claims 4, 7, 11, 14, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haartsen et al. (US 8040219 B2) in view of Masuoka et al. (US 20050136845 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Haartsen does not disclose processing the beacon detection signal to determine the location of the wireless device comprises: processing the beacon detection signal using a machine learning model to generate an output that comprises the location of the wireless device.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Masuoka discloses processing the beacon detection signal using a machine learning model to generate an output that comprises the location of the wireless device (Fig. 1A, learning unit 110; [0078], last sentence discloses “In the general case, if feedback is provided to the system in the form of location corrections, then a learning procedure executed by a learning unit 110 can be used to fine tune the parameters 112 of the location calculation procedure.” ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method, as disclosed by Masuoka, in the system of Haartsen because a ML system could help speed up the location determination.
Regarding claim 7, Haartsen does not disclose the beacon detection signal comprises respective identifiers of the one or more RF beacons.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Masuoka discloses the beacon detection signal comprises respective identifiers of the one or more RF beacons ([0199], last sentence discloses “The Beacon message includes the unique ID of the min-beacon 102 and possibly other related location information”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method, as disclosed by Masuoka, in the system of Haartsen because a using a beacon ID could help the wireless device to know or set the beacon transmit power, as disclosed by Masuoka ([0202]).
Claim 11 is similarly analyzed as claim 4.
Claim 14 is similarly analyzed as claim 7.
Claim 18 is similarly analyzed as claim 4.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to location determination based on signal strengths:
McKay et al. (US 20170287010 A1) discloses Enhanced Mobile Device Beacon System.
Semnani (US 12523729 B1) discloses Device Localization Using Mesh Mapping.
Mathews et al. (US 7511662 B2) discloses System and Method for Positioning in Configured Environments.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights