DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 8, 9, 16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “… one or more attributes of the radio signal, and the one or more attributes comprising … a duration”. It is not clear what the duration is. The scope of the claim could not be determined and is considered indefinite.
Claim 9 is rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the one or more parameters" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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(s) 1, 3-5, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kong et al. [US 20170052247].
As to claim 1. Kong discloses A device for estimating position of safety equipment in an area of interest (AOI), the device comprising: a controller, [fig. 16B, 0093] a hub 1520 comprising a controller circuit 1540, configured to:
receive a radio signal from one or more safety equipment using a communication module, [fig. 5, 0061] hub 502 communicate bi-directionally with a plurality of sensor nodes 510-512, [0120, 0126] that can be used in a building security application; and
determine at least one of a distance or a direction of each of the one or more safety equipment from the device based on the received radio signal, [0061] determine relative distance of each node from the hub, and determine an estimated position corresponding to each of the one or more safety equipment, [0061] determine the absolute position of each node.
As to claim 3. Kong discloses The device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: determine at least one of:
the direction associated with the reception of the radio signal from each of the one or more safety equipment; or
the distance between the device and the one or more safety equipment based on the radio signal received from each of the one or more safety equipment, [0061, 0062].
As to claim 4. Kong discloses The device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine the estimated position based on at least one of: the direction or the distance, [0061].
As to claim 5. Kong discloses The device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine spatial coordinates of each of the one or more safety equipment within to the AOI based on the estimated position, [0061] determine the absolute position of each node.
As to claim 10. Kong discloses The device of claim 1, comprising a communication module configured to transmit a request signal to each of the one or more safety equipment, [fig. 8, 0068] step 801, and wherein the transceiver is configured to receive the radio signal from each of the one or more safety equipment in response to the request signal, [fig. 8, 0068] step 802.
As to claim 11. Kong discloses The device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: determine that the estimated position of at least one safety equipment of the one or more safety equipment is changed, [0041] detect a change in position; and update the predefined location mapped to the at least one safety equipment based on the change in the estimated position, [0041] re-map the network.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 7, 12-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Li et al. [US 10659919].
As to claim 2. Kong discloses The device of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to map each of the one or more safety equipment, [0091] map location of sensor nodes.
Kong fails to disclose wherein the mapping is to a predefined location from a plurality of predefined locations on the AOI based on the corresponding estimated position of the one or more safety equipment.
Li teaches a system and method for automated commissioning of electronic devices including occupancy sensors, [col. 3, lines 45-58]; wherein the system determines relative positions of the nodes 102 installed in a building, [col. 4, lines 39-43], wherein a computing device 120 determines the relative location of each node using Euclidean Distance Matrix (EDM), [fig. 2, col. 9, lines 20-30]; and assigns each node to a predetermined location based on installation plan positions, [col. 10, lines 31-46].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kong with that of Li so that nodes can be mapped to the actual installed location of the node and determine an error in the location calculation based on the actual installed location.
As to claim 6. Kong discloses The device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: determine an identifier associated with the one or more safety equipment based on data pertaining to one or more parameters stored in the radio signal, [0045] receive node identification information; and
Kong fails to disclose wherein the controller is further configured to compare the predefined location of the one or more safety equipment to a desired location associated with the identity of the one or more safety equipment.
Li teaches a system and method for automated commissioning of electronic devices including occupancy sensors, [col. 3, lines 45-58]; wherein the system determines relative positions of the nodes 102 installed in a building, [col. 4, lines 39-43], wherein a computing device 120 determines the relative location of each node using Euclidean Distance Matrix (EDM), [fig. 2, col. 9, lines 20-30]; and assigns each node to a predetermined location based on installation plan positions based on the assigned ID of the installed node, [col. 10, lines 31-46].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kong with that of Li so that nodes can be mapped to the actual installed location of the node and determine an error in the location calculation based on the actual installed location.
As to claim 7. Kong discloses The device of claim 6, wherein the one or more parameters comprise at least one of: a Unique Identifier (ID), a type, a location, or a status, [0045].
As to claim 12. Kong discloses A system for mapping location of safety equipment in an area of interest (AOI), the system comprising: a computing unit having a processor and a memory, [fig. 16B, 0093] controller 1540 and memory 1542, wherein the memory comprises one or more processor-executable instructions, [0093] configured to cause the processor to:
receive an estimated position of each of one or more safety equipment through at least one device associated with the one or more safety equipment, [0061]; and
map each of the one or more safety equipment, [0091] map location of sensor nodes.
Kong fails to disclose wherein the mapping is to at least one predefined location from one or more predefined locations on the AOI based on the corresponding estimated position of the one or more safety equipment.
Li teaches a system and method for automated commissioning of electronic devices including occupancy sensors, [col. 3, lines 45-58]; wherein the system determines relative positions of the nodes 102 installed in a building, [col. 4, lines 39-43], wherein a computing device 120 determines the relative location of each node using Euclidean Distance Matrix (EDM), [fig. 2, col. 9, lines 20-30]; and assigns each node to a predetermined location based on installation plan positions, [col. 10, lines 31-46].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kong with that of Li so that nodes can be mapped to the actual installed location of the node and determine an error in the location calculation based on the actual installed location.
As to claim 13. Kong discloses The system of claim 12, wherein the at least one device is configured to receive the radio signal from a second subset of safety equipment via a first subset of safety equipment of the one or more safety equipment, wherein the first subset of safety equipment is configured to relay the radio signals from the second subset of safety equipment to the at least one device, [0043] mesh network setup to pass information using a multi-hop architecture.
As to claim 14. Kong discloses The system of claim 12, wherein computing unit is configured to: receive and combine the direction or the distance of each safety equipment from other safety equipment through the at least one device to generate a matrix; and determine an estimated position for each of the one or more safety equipment using the matrix, [0072] matrix pencil method used.
As to claim 15. Kong discloses The system of claim 12, wherein the radio signals of the one or more safety equipment comprises one or more parameters, the one or more parameters comprising at least one of: a Unique Identifier (ID), a type, a location, or a status, [0045].
As to claim 17. Kong discloses The system of claim 12, wherein the one or more safety equipment are any one or combination of a fire detector, a smoke detector, a fire suppression means, an alarm, a heat detector, a carbon monoxide detector, a gas detector, a flame detector, a motion sensor, and an occupancy sensor, [0120].
As to claim 18. Kong discloses A method for mapping safety equipment to predefined locations on an area of interest (AOI), comprising:
receiving a radio signal from one or more safety equipment, [fig. 5, 0061] hub 502 communicate bi-directionally with a plurality of sensor nodes 510-512, [0120, 0126] that can be used in a building security application;
determining an estimated position of each of the one or more safety equipment with respect to the device based on the received radio signal, [0061]; and
mapping each of the one or more safety equipment, [0091] map location of sensor nodes.
Kong fails to disclose wherein the mapping is to at least one predefined location from one or more predefined locations on the AOI based on the estimated position of the one or more safety equipment.
Li teaches a system and method for automated commissioning of electronic devices including occupancy sensors, [col. 3, lines 45-58]; wherein the system determines relative positions of the nodes 102 installed in a building, [col. 4, lines 39-43], wherein a computing device 120 determines the relative location of each node using Euclidean Distance Matrix (EDM), [fig. 2, col. 9, lines 20-30]; and assigns each node to a predetermined location based on installation plan positions, [col. 10, lines 31-46].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kong with that of Li so that nodes can be mapped to the actual installed location of the node and determine an error in the location calculation based on the actual installed location.
As to claim 19. Kong discloses The method of claim 18, wherein for receiving the request signal, the method comprises:
transmitting a request signal using a communication module, [fig. 8, 0068] step 801; and
receiving the radio signal from at least one of the remaining devices among the one or more devices present in a network coverage area around the corresponding device, [fig. 8, 0068] step 802.
As to claim 20. Kong discloses The method of claim 18, comprising: determining an identifier associated with each of the one or more safety equipment based on data pertaining to one or more parameters stored in the radio signal, [0045].
Kong fails to disclose wherein comparing the predefined location of the one or more safety equipment to a desired location associated with the identity of the one or more safety equipment; and in response to the predefined location of the one or more safety equipment not matching the desired location associated with the identity of the one or more safety equipment, transmitting an alert signal.
Li teaches a system and method for automated commissioning of electronic devices including occupancy sensors, [col. 3, lines 45-58]; wherein the system determines relative positions of the nodes 102 installed in a building, [col. 4, lines 39-43], wherein a computing device 120 determines the relative location of each node using Euclidean Distance Matrix (EDM), [fig. 2, col. 9, lines 20-30]; and assigns each node to a predetermined location based on installation plan positions based on the assigned ID of the installed node, [col. 10, lines 31-46]; wherein the system generates an error if the two locations do not match, [fig. 2, col. 11, lines 19-40].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kong with that of Li so that nodes can be mapped to the actual installed location of the node and determine an error in the location calculation based on the actual installed location.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Li et al. [US 10659919].
As to claim 9. Kong fails to disclose The device of claim 8, wherein in response to the predefined location of the one or more safety equipment not matching a desired location associated with the identity of the one or more safety equipment, the controller is configured to transmit an alert signal.
Li teaches a system and method for automated commissioning of electronic devices including occupancy sensors, [col. 3, lines 45-58]; wherein the system determines relative positions of the nodes 102 installed in a building, [col. 4, lines 39-43], wherein a computing device 120 determines the relative location of each node using Euclidean Distance Matrix (EDM), [fig. 2, col. 9, lines 20-30]; and assigns each node to a predetermined location based on installation plan positions based on the assigned ID of the installed node, [col. 10, lines 31-46]; wherein the system generates an error if the two locations do not match, [fig. 2, col. 11, lines 19-40].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kong with that of Li so that nodes can be mapped to the actual installed location of the node and determine an error in the location calculation based on the actual installed location.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Li as applied to claim 12 above, further in view of Marinier et al. [US 20120263145].
As to claim 16. The combination of Kong and Li fails to disclose The system of claim 12, wherein the computing unit is configured to transmit an actuation signal to actuate the one or more safety equipment configured thereto based on the one or more parameters.
Marinier teaches a system and method for a cell discovery comprising safety equipment 104, 116 and a control panel 120, [fig. 1, 0017, 0018]; wherein the control panel determines the location of the equipment, [fig. 4, 0042], and control the operation of the equipment, [0018].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Kong and Li with that of Marinier so that the control panel for the system can be used to determine and update the locations of each equipment without requiring additional equipment for determining the location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights