Ex Parte Apte et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 2, 2016

13551562 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/551,562 07/17/2012 Raj B. Apte 12712 1531
27752 7590 12/06/2016
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
NAOREEN, NAZIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/06/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
centraldocket. im @ pg. com
pair_pg @ firsttofile. com
mayer.jk @ pg. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAJ B. APTE, ERIK JOHN HASENOEHRL, and
CHRISTOPHER PAULSON
Appeal 2016-004998
Application 13/551,562
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-004998
Application 13/551,562
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—10 and 14—20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 under appeal read as follows
(emphasis added):
1. A method of generating a representation of a structure
including at least two separate rooms, comprising:
providing an ad hoc mesh network having at least two
nodes associated with the structure;
providing at least one consumer product within the
structure, the consumer product associated with at least one of
the nodes;
obtaining time of flight data for each node in the network;
using the time of flight data to generate the
representation of the structure.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the node associated with the
consumer product is mobile and the time of flight data is
obtained while the node is moving.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the time of flight
data comprises obtaining time of flight data only for a line of
sight communication mode.
7. The method of claim 5, wherein obtaining the time of flight
data comprises obtaining time of flight data for the at least two
different communication modes.
1 Based on Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner has withdrawn the rejection
of claims 11—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Smith
’824. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2016-004998
Application 13/551,562
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1—10 and 14—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 7,324,824 B2;
iss. Jan. 29, 2008).2
Appellants ’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because:
The Office Action points to Col. 13, lines 48-62 of the
[Smith ’824] reference as disclosing the generation of a
representation of the structure. This portion of the reference
refers to deployment of sensors within a physically mappable
space but does not disclose the generation of a physical map
from data acquired from the sensors over a network. That a space
may be mapped does not disclose all methods of map creation.
That the planet earth represents a physically mappable space
does not disclose all possible methods of map creation. The
reference discloses sensors within a space and their use to locate
a moving object. It does not disclose the creation of a map of a
space using network sensor data.
App. Br. 3, emphasis added.
2. Appellants also contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because:
Further, the Office Action indicates that the reference
discloses obtaining time of flight data for each node in the
network. However, the portion of the [Smith ’824] reference
cited by the Office Action only discloses using time of flight
2 Claims 1—4, 6—10, 14—16, and 20 are argued separately. Claims 5 and 17—
19 are argued by reference to claim 1 and by repeating the arguments
directed to claim 1. Such reference and repetition is not an argument on the
merits for separate patentability. Rather, claims 5 and 17—19 stand or fall
with claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 5 and 17—19 are not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal 2016-004998
Application 13/551,562
information passed between a mobile device and a network
monitor. There is nothing in the cited portion of the reference
that indicates that the mobile device disclosed is a node in the
mesh network or that the time of flight data is obtained for each
node in the network.
App. Br. 4, emphasis added.
3. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because:
[I]t is clear from the cited portion of the reference and col. 17,
lines 3-5 that the reference does not teach generating a
representation of a structure, but rather merely teaches creating a
model of a network environment.
App. Br. 4.
4. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because:
[T]he Office Action suggests that the reference teaches at least
two nodes wherein one of the nodes is a mobile node and the time
of flight data is obtained while the mobile node is moving. The
cited portion of the reference, however, discloses nothing about
a mobile node. Rather it merely discloses a mobile device. A
mobile node is very different than a mobile device. For example,
a mobile node must be capable of routing information to other
nodes.
App. Br. 4.
5. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4
because:
[T]he Office Action states that the ’824 reference discloses a
mobile node containing a sensor. Applicants respectfully
disagree. There is nothing in the reference that teaches or
suggests a mobile node that includes a sensor or any kind.
Further, there is nothing in the reference that teaches or suggests
a node associated with a consumer product, as claimed. Rather,
the portion of the reference to which the Office Action refers,
4
Appeal 2016-004998
Application 13/551,562
merely sets forth that the object 770 may be referred to as a
mobile device, tag, user terminal or other terms. It does not teach
or suggest any that the object may be or include a node, much
less that the object may be or include a node that contains a
sensor.
App. Br. 5, emphasis added.
6. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6
because:
[T]he Office Action suggests that the reference discloses
obtaining time of flight data only from a line of sight
communication mode. However, the Office Action has failed to
indicate where the reference discloses the claimed elements.
Even if the reference does disclose time sharing communication
techniques, as suggested by the Examiner, it says nothing about
obtaining time of flight data only from a line of sight
communication mode.
App. Br. 6.
7. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7
because:
[T]he cited portion of the reference does not disclose anything
about obtaining time of flight data or that the time of flight data
must be obtained for at least two different communication
modes.
App. Br. 6.
8. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8
because:
[T]he cited portion of the reference discloses nothing about any
particular number of nodes in an ad hoc mesh network.
App. Br. 6.
5
Appeal 2016-004998
Application 13/551,562
9. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9
because:
[T]he Office Action indicates that the reference discloses using
time of flight data for the fourth node to fix the position of the
third node to a point. However, the Office Action fails to indicate
where the reference teaches the specific limitations of the
claimed invention. Rather, it merely points to a very general
disclosure that a mesh network may be used to provide position
location services. There is no disclosure of a third or fourth
node and no disclosure of the fourth node using time of flight
data to fix the location of the third node to a point.
App. Br. 6—7, emphasis added.
10. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10
because:
[T]he Office Action suggests that the ’824 reference discloses a
mobile node comprising a known consumer product that is used
only in particular regions of the structure.
App. Br. 7.
11. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 14
because:
[T]he Office Action suggests that the ’824 reference discloses a
mobile node comprising a device arranged to be carried by a
user to provide data with regard to the structure. Applicants
respectfully disagree. There is nothing in the cited portion of the
reference that teaches or suggests the claimed invention.
App. Br. 9, emphasis added.
12. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15
because:
[T]he Office Action suggests that the reference discloses using
available data with regard to the placement of nodes in rooms.
Applicants respectfully disagree. There is nothing in the cited
6
Appeal 2016-004998
Application 13/551,562
portion of the reference that teaches or suggests the claimed
invention.
App. Br. 9.
13. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 16
because:
[T]he Office Action suggests that the ’824 reference discloses a
method using available data with regard to the purposes of the
rooms. Applicants respectfully disagree. There is nothing in the
cited portion of the reference that teaches or suggests the claimed
invention. Specifically, the cited portion of the reference says
nothing about using data to determine the purpose of a room.
Rather, the cited portion of the reference merely discloses that a
mesh nodes may be deployed throughout a facility and that one
or more of the nodes may connect to an external network with a
positioning engine. The reference says nothing about using the
information to determine the purposes of the rooms.
App. Br. 10. Emphasis added.
14. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20
because:
[T]he reference does not teach or suggest obtaining the identity
of the consumer product from the consumer product node or
using the identity of the consumer product to assign a purpose to
the room.
App. Br. 11.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1—4, 6—16, and 20 as being
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Smith ’824 fails to describe
the limitations argued by Appellants?
7
Appeal 2016-004998
Application 13/551,562
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments (Appeal Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellants’ above contention 4, covering claim 3, while Smith
’824 explicitly discloses a mobile node (col. 31,1. 35 (“the network nodes
may be mobile”)), we agree Smith ’824 does not disclose that the time of
flight data is obtained while a mobile node is moving.
As to Appellants’ above contention 6, covering claim 6, we agree
Smith ’824 does not disclose obtaining time of flight data only from a line of
sight communication mode.
As to Appellants’ above contention 7, covering claim 7, we agree
Smith ’824 does not disclose that the time of flight data must be obtained for
at least two different communication modes.
As to Appellants’ above contention 10, covering claim 10, we agree
Smith ’824 does not disclose a mobile node that is used only in particular
regions of the structure.
As to Appellants’ above contention 11, covering claim 14, we agree
Smith ’824 does not disclose a mobile node comprising a device arranged to
be carried by a user to provide data with regard to the structure.
As to Appellants’ above contention 1, covering claim 1, we disagree.
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, claim 1 does not require “the generation
of a physical map,” “all methods of map creation,” nor “the creation of a
map of a space.” Rather, claim 1 more broadly recites, “generating a
representation of a structure.” We agree with the Examiner that Smith
’824’s creation of a model of an environment is the generation of a
representation of a structure.
8
Appeal 2016-004998
Application 13/551,562
As to Appellants’ above contention 2, covering claim 1, we disagree.
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, Smith ’824 explicitly teaches time of
flight data is obtained for each node in the network as “[i]n an example
embodiment, network monitors may measure the [time of flight] between
them to create a model of the environment.” Col. 23,11. 1—3. While other
sentences in this paragraph of Smith ’824 are directed to time of flight
between the network monitors and mobile devices, we do not agree with
Appellants that the pronoun “them” in the quoted sentence is in reference to
those mobile devices. Rather, the most logical reading is that the pronoun
refers to the network monitors contained within that same sentence.
As to Appellants’ above contention 3, covering claim 2, we disagree
for the reason set forth above for claim 1. Further, contrary to Appellants’
argument that “[mjodeling a network [as in Smith ’824] is completely
different than generating a three-dimensional representation of a structure,
such as a building or house [as claimed]” (App. Br. 4), Smith ’824 indicates
that his model is of a facility (col. 17,11. 3 4) and that the facility can be, for
example, a hospital with several floors (col. 17,11. 66—67).
As to Appellants’ above contention 5, covering claim 4, we disagree.
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, nothing in claim 4 requires that the node
be “mobile” as argued. That a node may comprise a sensor is explicitly
disclosed by Smith ’824 at column 14, lines 56—60. Lastly, a consumer
product associated with the node is recited by Smith ’824 at column 14, lines
16—20 (“mobile device”).
As to Appellants’ above contention 8, covering claim 8, we disagree.
The portion of the reference cited by the Examiner in rejecting claim 8 is
Smith ’824 at column 30, lines 22—37. Final Act. 5. This portion of Smith
9
Appeal 2016-004998
Application 13/551,562
’824 is part of the discussion of Smith ’824’s Figure 20 which explicitly
shows the recited “at least four nodes.”
As to Appellants’ above contention 9, covering claim 9, we disagree.
Claim 9 recites “using the time of flight data comprises using the time of
flight data for a fourth node to fix the position of a third node to a point.”
The portion of the reference cited by the Examiner in rejecting claim 9 is
Smith ’824 at column 28, lines 27—39. Final Act. 5. This portion of Smith
’824 references the “network monitor functions, such as those detailed
above.” Network monitor functions detailed above include (as discussed
above) “network monitors may measure the [time of flight] between them to
create a model of the environment.” Col. 23,11. 1—3.
As to Appellants’ above contention 12, covering claim 15, we
disagree. Claim 15 recites “using available data with regard to placement of
nodes into the rooms.” Smith ’824 at column 28, lines 19—26, states
network appliances (nodes) are deployed throughout an environment. Smith
’824 at column 4, lines 33—35, states “[u]sing outlets at known locations [in
a facility] is convenient for deploying appliances for which a known
location is desired” (emphasis added).
As to Appellants’ above contention 14, covering claim 20, we
disagree. Claim 20 recites “obtaining the identity of the consumer product
from the node associated with the consumer product; and using the identity
of the consumer product to assign a purpose to the room.” Smith ’824 at
column 14, lines 16—20, teaches a consumer product in the form of a mobile
device. Smith ’824 at col. 24, line 65 to column 25, line 1, states “[a]n ID
for a mobile device may be used to identify the object for which position
location information is processed (i.e., to determine a location).” (emphasis
10
Appeal 2016-004998
Application 13/551,562
added.) Smith ’824 at column 25, lines 1—3, states “[a]n ID for either a fixed
or mobile device may be used to facilitate data transmission to the associated
device for network bridging functions.” We deem the step of identifying the
object (mobile device) to inherently include assigning the purpose of the
room. Specifically, as Smith ’824 teaches determining the location (within
the facility) of the mobile device (e.g., col. 22:60-23:7), at a minimum
knowing the location of the mobile device within the facility inherently
assigns to it a purpose of the location (room) ,3
As to Appellants’ above contention 13, covering claim 16, we
disagree for the reasons discussed above as to claim 20.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and
15—20 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 3, 6, 7, 10, and 14 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(3) Claims 3, 6, 7, 10, and 14 have not been shown to be unpatentable.
(4) Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 15—20 are not patentable.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 15—20 as being
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
3 Although not necessary for our decision, we note that Suomela (US
2005/0169214 Al; publ. Aug. 4, 2005) teaches at Figure 7 that it is known
in the art to create a database to assign a consumer product (and thus its
purpose) to a room.
11
Appeal 2016-004998
Application 13/551,562
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 6, 7, 10, and 14 as being
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12