Ex Parte Gonia et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201613331564 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/331,564 12/20/2011 Patrick Gonia H0028340 4341-34000 6544 14941 7590 12/22/2016 HONEYWELL/CONLEY ROSE Honeywell International Inc 115 Tabor Road PO Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 EXAMINER BEARD, CHARLES LLOYD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2616 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2016 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): patentservices-us @ honey well, com dallaspatents@dfw.conleyrose.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PATRICK GONIA and SOUMITRI KOLAVENNU Appeal 2015-006412 Application 13/331J5641 Technology Center 2600 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection of claims 1—25, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell International, Inc. (App. Br. 2). Appeal 2015-006412 Application 13/331,564 STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION The claims are directed to systems and methods of mapping estimated error values of location accuracy for a location tracking system. Abstract. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: identifying a position of each of a plurality of location anchors on a site rendering; determining by measuring a wireless signal, for a plurality of positions on the site rendering, an upper bound and a lower bound of an estimated error value of location accuracy as a function of position on the site rendering where the upper and lower bounds of the estimated error value are respective Euclidean distances from each of at least two of the plurality of location anchors; forming a bounding box with dimensions X and Y around each of the plurality of positions based upon intersections of the respective upper and lower bounds of the at least two location anchors; generating an overlay rendering of the estimated error values of location accuracy for the plurality of positions on the site rendering where each estimated error value of the estimated error values is a relatively larger value of the X and Y dimensions of the bounding box of the associated position or a square root of an area of the bounding box; and displaying the site rendering with the overlay rendering therewith. 2 Appeal 2015-006412 Application 13/331,564 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Wang US 2002/0082012 A1 June 27, 2002 Rappaport US 2004/0236547 A1 Nov. 25, 2004 Aggarwal US 2010/0135178 A1 June 3, 2010 Baker US 2010/0249549 A1 Sept. 30, 2010 Hart US 7,835,749 B1 Nov. 16,2010 Lemkin US 8,325,704 B1 Dec. 4, 2012 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1—6, 9, 10, 13, 17, and 20—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hart, Wang, Ni, and Aggarwal (Non- Final Act. 13—50). Claims 7, 8, 14, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hart, Wang, Ni, Aggarwal, and Rappaport (id. at 50-58). Claims 11, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hart, Wang, Ni, Aggarwal, and Baker (id. at 58— 64). Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hart, Wang, Ni, Aggarwal, and Lemkin (id. at 64—66). 3 Appeal 2015-006412 Application 13/331,564 ISSUES 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 1 Issue la: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Hart and Wang teaches “an upper bound and lower bound of an estimated error value of location accuracy,” as recited in claim 1? Issue lb: Did the Examiner improperly combine Hart, Wang, Ni, and Aggarwal? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Non-Final Action from which the appeal is taken (Non- Final Act. 3—66) and the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 57—65). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Issue la Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Wang teaches “an upper bound and lower bound of an estimated error value of location accuracy,” as recited in claim 1 (Reply Br. 2—5; App. Br. 8—10). Specifically, Appellants argue Wang’s “upper and lower boundaries 28 and 32 merely represent signals differences between two cell sites” rather than upper and lower bounds “of an estimated error value of location accuracy” (Reply Br. 2). Further, Appellants argue Wang’s “cell boundaries ... are merely handover boundaries” that have “very little to do with location and 4 Appeal 2015-006412 Application 13/331,564 nothing to do with location accuracy or the upper and lower bounds of estimated error” (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4—5). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Hart teaches a location “error estimation/calculated map” representing estimated location accuracy (Ans. 58—59 (citing Hart 5:11—23, Figs. 5—6); Non-Final Act. 15 (citing Hart 2:7—12, 24—62, 4:25^45)) which is “associated with [a transceiver’s] signal strength” (Non-Final Act. 10-11 (citing Hart 4:25—29)). That is, Hart “provides a map of a physical region and a graphical indication of the computed likelihood that, at a given location, the location accuracy is within a desired threshold” (Hart 1:55—58; Hart 2:24—26), where the location accuracy is “based on the received signal strength” from a transceiver (Hart 3:25—30). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Wang teaches “upper and lower bounds associated with estimated/calculated signal strengths” (Ans. 60 (citing Wang || 30-32, Fig. 2)) for “cells/circles associated with a [transceiver] position/location” (Ans. 58 (citing Wang || 27—30, Figs. 1—2)). The Examiner modifies Hart’s estimated error value of location accuracy to incorporate upper and lower bounds, taught by Wang (Ans. 60; Non-Final Act. 19). The Examiner has set forth with specificity how the combination of Hart and Wang render the disputed limitation obvious (Ans. 58—60; Non- Final Act. 14—15, 17—18), but Appellants’ limited arguments do not persuasively address the Examiner’s findings regarding the combined teaching of the references. Instead of addressing the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, Appellants’ Appeal Brief merely recites the majority of claim 1; asserts that claim 1 is 5 Appeal 2015-006412 Application 13/331,564 different than displaying a deviation in expected signal values expressed in terms of distance as under Hart et al., the calculation of threshold values as under Wang et al., the finding of midpoints of estimated distance as under Aggarwal et al. and the locating of tags as under Ni et al., (App. Br. 7); quotes the Examiner’s Non-Final Action; asserts that the cell boundaries of Wang are merely handover boundaries. As would be well known to those of skill in the art, handover of a cellular device is based upon a measured signal strength at a particular time and location. It has very little to do with location and nothing to do with location accuracy or the upper and lower bounds of estimated error; and ultimately concludes that the prior art “fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of the claimed invention” (App. Br. 10). Similarly, Appellants’ Reply Brief quotes large portions of the Examiner’s Answer (Reply Br. 2 (citing Ans. 58—59), 3 (citing Ans. 59—60); 4—5 (citing Ans. 61— 64)) and then asserts Wang’s “upper and lower boundaries 28 and 32 merely represent signal[ ] differences between two cell sites” that are “used [in] handover of a call” {id. at 2, 4—5), or that Hart “is merely directed to a system that determines and presents location accuracy on a map” {id. at 2, 4). Thus, Appellant’s assertions are not persuasive. Furthermore, Appellants improperly attack the prior art references individually (especially Wang) and do not present evidence or argument persuading us that the Examiner’s combination of references, i.e., Hart and Wang, would not have rendered obvious the claimed invention. In particular, Appellants argue Wang’s cell boundaries and upper and lower bounds are not bounds for estimated error values of location accuracy {see Reply Br. 2—5; see also App. Br. 9—10). However, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s combination of Hart and Wang, which relies on Hart 6 Appeal 2015-006412 Application 13/331,564 to teach estimated error values of location accuracy. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Hart and Wang teaches “an upper bound and lower bound of an estimated error value of location accuracy,” within the meaning of claim 1. Issue lb Appellants contend the Examiner improperly combined Hart, Wang, Ni, and Aggarwal (App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 5—7). Specifically, Appellants argue “none of the cited references are directed to the problem solved by the claimed invention” and “[s]ince the problem is not recognized, there would be no reason to combine the references” (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 5). We are not persuaded. The Examiner sets forth with specificity reasons to combine Hart, Wang, Ni, and Aggarwal, e.g., “in order to provide an relative improvement in position determination associated with a mobile device,” “in order to provide uninterrupted communications by appropriating a threshold [where] differences in RF transmitters/receivers are indicated,” and “in order to relatively improve the overall accuracy of locating [an] object” (Final Act. 16, 19, 21). Appellants do not address any of the Examiner’s stated rationales and do not proffer any evidence or argument why the Examiner’s stated rationales for combining are improper (see App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 5). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in combining Hart, Wang, Ni, and Aggarwal. Remaining Claims 2—25 Independent claims 21 and 24 are not argued by Appellants (see App. Br. 8—12), and these claims fall for the same reasons as claim 1. Dependent 7 Appeal 2015-006412 Application 13/331,564 claims 2—20, 22, 23, and 25 are not separately argued by Appellants (see id.), and thus, these claims fall with their respective independent claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—6, 9, 10, 13, 17, and 20—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hart, Wang, Ni, and Aggarwal; claims 7, 8, 14, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hart, Wang, Ni, Aggarwal, and Rappaport; claims 11, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hart, Wang, Ni, Aggarwal, and Baker; and claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hart, Wang, Ni, Aggarwal, and Lemkin. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6, 9, 10, 13, 17, and 20—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hart, Wang, Ni, and Aggarwal is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8, 14, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hart, Wang, Ni, Aggarwal, and Rappaport is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hart, Wang, Ni, Aggarwal, and Baker is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hart, Wang, Ni, Aggarwal, and Lemkin is affirmed. 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). 8 Appeal 2015-006412 Application 13/331,564 AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation