`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`wwwusptogov
`
`
`
`
`
`14/364,911
`
`06/12/2014
`
`Shinya Hokazono
`
`732256.431USPC
`
`4864
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLPflDanasonic
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`MULL, FRED H
`
`PAPER NUIVIBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3648
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/28/2017
`
`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):
`
`patentinfo @ seedip.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 14/364,911 HOKAZONO ET AL.
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventorto File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`3648Fred H. Mull first“
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions 0137 CFR 1.136(a).
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`-
`-
`
`Status
`
`1)IXI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 03/19/2015.
`[I A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)lX| This action is non-final.
`2a)I:| This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:I Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under EX parte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`3) I] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`2) E Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/Osb)
`
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date 03/19/2015 05/12/2014.
`4) D Other: —-
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20170317
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)|XI Claim(s) M is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6 III Claim s) _ is/are allowed.
`s M is/are rejected.
`
`is/are objected to.
`
`) )
`
`_
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)|:l Claim(s
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`htt
`://www.usoto. ov/ atentS/init events"
`h/index.‘s
`
`
`
`
`
`, or send an inquiry to PF"I-Ifeedback{<‘buspto.dov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|Z| The drawing(s) filed on 06/12/2014 is/are: a)IXI accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)IZI Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`b)I:I Some” c)I:I None of the:
`a)le All
`1.IZI Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.I:I Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attach ment(s)
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`The present application is being examined under theM first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
`
`USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 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.
`
`35 USC § 1 12(f)/6”' y
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/6th 1i (hereinafter 112(f)):
`
`An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a
`specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim
`shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification
`and equivalents thereof.
`
`TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 85 USPQZd 1787 at 1789: “Sufficient structure
`exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the function
`in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic
`evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure.”
`
`Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language
`creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance
`with 35 USC 112(f). The presumption that 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the
`function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to
`entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable
`presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 USC
`112(f). The presumption that 112(f) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element
`recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to
`perform that function, e.g. by using a generic placeholder (as a substitute for "means")
`coupled to a function. Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or
`“step for”) are presumed to invoke 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are
`presumed not to invoke 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action.
`
`1.
`
`With regard to c|aim(s) 1-9, the |imitation(s) listed below have been interpreted
`
`under 35 USC 112(f). Since these claim limitations invoke 35 USC 112(f), the claim is
`
`interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that
`
`achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
`
`Claims 5, 6, and 8: “an operating section that receives an operation from a user”,
`
`because it uses a generic placeholder “section” coupled with functional language “that
`
`receives an operation from a user” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the
`
`function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
`
`See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35
`
`U. S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in PatentApp/ications, Federal
`
`Register, vol. 76(27), p. 7167, section C1, 113. A review of the specification shows that
`
`the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for
`
`the 35 USC 112(f) limitation: touch panel, as discussed in 1151.
`
`Claim 10: “a sound section that makes a sound”, because it uses a generic
`
`placeholder “section” coupled with functional language “that makes a sound” without
`
`reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic
`
`placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. See Supplementary Examination
`
`Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U. S. C. 112 and for Treatment of
`
`Related Issues in PatentApp/ications, Federal Register, vol. 76(27), p. 7167, section
`
`C1, 113. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 USC 112(f) limitation:
`
`speaker, as discussed in 1179.
`
`If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s
`interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding
`structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the
`drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
`
`If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 USC
`112(f), applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 USC
`112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure,
`material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 USC
`112(f).
`
`For more information, see MPEP 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
`Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U. S. C. 112 and for Treatment of
`Related Issues in PatentApp/ications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
`
`In claims 1 and 9, "a radio section" is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), since
`
`a "radio" is a known structure or class of structures.
`
`In claim 2, "distance information table storage section" is not interpreted under 35
`
`USC 112(f), since "storage" is a known structure or class of structures.
`
`In claim 8, "location information table storage section" is not interpreted under 35
`
`USC 112(f), since "storage" is a known structure or class of structures.
`
`In claim 8, "display section" is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), since a
`
`"display" is a known structure or class of structures.
`
`In claim 9, "a locator radio section" is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), since
`
`a "radio" is a known structure or class of structures.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2“d1l:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`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.
`
`2.
`
`Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/112 2nd 11, as being indefinite
`
`for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant
`
`regards as the invention.
`
`The following |imitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the specification
`
`fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function, or
`
`to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed
`
`function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure,
`
`material, or acts perform the claimed function.
`
`Claims 1 and 9: “distance information determining section that determines
`
`distance information”, because it uses a generic placeholder “section” coupled with
`
`functional language “that determines distance information” without reciting sufficient
`
`structure to achieve the function. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for
`
`Determining Compliance With 35 U. S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in
`
`PatentApp/ications, Federal Register, vol. 76(27), p. 7167, section C1, 113.
`
`Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The
`
`presumption that 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked without the terms "means" or "step for" is
`
`rebutted by the use of a generic placeholder (as a substitute for "means") coupled to a
`
`function.
`
`Claims 1 and 9: “RSSI detecting section that measures received signal strength”,
`
`because it uses a generic placeholder “section” coupled with functional language “that
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`measures received signal strength” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the
`
`function. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With
`
`35 U. S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in PatentApp/ications, Federal
`
`Register, vol. 76(27), p. 7167, section C1, 113. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is
`
`not preceded by a structural modifier. The presumption that 35 USC 112(f) is not
`
`invoked without the terms "means" or "step for" is rebutted by the use of a generic
`
`placeholder (as a substitute for "means") coupled to a function.
`
`Claims 1 and 9: “an indicating section that outputs the determined distance
`
`information”, because it uses a generic placeholder “section” coupled with functional
`
`language “that outputs the determined distance information” without reciting sufficient
`
`structure to achieve the function. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for
`
`Determining Compliance With 35 U. S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in
`
`PatentApp/ications, Federal Register, vol. 76(27), p. 7167, section C1, 113.
`
`Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The
`
`presumption that 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked without the terms "means" or "step for" is
`
`rebutted by the use of a generic placeholder (as a substitute for "means") coupled to a
`
`function.
`
`Claim 5: “an output selecting section that receives a selection”, because it uses a
`
`generic placeholder “section” coupled with functional language “that receives a
`
`selection” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. See
`
`Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U. S. C.
`
`112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Federal Register, vol.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`76(27), p. 7167, section C1, 113. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded
`
`by a structural modifier. The presumption that 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked without the
`
`terms "means" or "step for" is rebutted by the use of a generic placeholder (as a
`
`substitute for "means") coupled to a function.
`
`Claim 6: “a locator operation selecting section that receives a selection”, because
`
`it uses a generic placeholder “section” coupled with functional language “that receives a
`
`selection” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. See
`
`Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U. S. C.
`
`112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Federal Register, vol.
`
`76(27), p. 7167, section C1, 113. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded
`
`by a structural modifier. The presumption that 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked without the
`
`terms "means" or "step for" is rebutted by the use of a generic placeholder (as a
`
`substitute for "means") coupled to a function.
`
`Claim 8: “a locator selection section that receives the identification information as
`
`options”, because it uses a generic placeholder “section” coupled with functional
`
`language “that receives the identification information as options” without reciting
`
`sufficient structure to achieve the function. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines
`
`for Determining Compliance With 35 U. S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in
`
`PatentApp/ications, Federal Register, vol. 76(27), p. 7167, section C1, 113.
`
`Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The
`
`presumption that 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked without the terms "means" or "step for" is
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`rebutted by the use of a generic placeholder (as a substitute for "means") coupled to a
`
`function.
`
`It is noted that the drawings illustrate some of the section in boxes, but this does
`
`not show what the structure is, it just puts a box around the function (e.g. in Fig. 4, 211
`
`simply illustrates the function of distance information determining in a box, without
`
`illustrating any structure for performing the function),
`
`If the limitations were simply software, the claim term would not invoke 112(f).
`
`However, the limitations are not disclosed as simply software.
`
`If the claim term were
`
`disclosed as a processor performing an algorithm (which, by definition, must contain a
`
`sequence of steps), then the processor/algorithm combination would provide sufficient
`
`structure, but the claim term is not disclosed as a processor/algorithm combination.
`
`“We hold that, pursuant to this provision, structure disclosed in the specification
`
`is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or
`
`associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Medical Inc. v.
`
`Abbott Laboratories, 43 USPQ2d 1896 at 1901. “This duty to link or associate structure
`
`to function is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing 112[(f)]”. B. Braun
`
`Medical, Inc v. Abbott Labs, 43 USPQZd 1896 at 1900. The corresponding structure or
`
`material is absent when there is no discussion in the specification or drawings of what
`
`accomplishes the function. This can occur when the specification merely repeats the
`
`function without any structure to perform the function or when the specification or
`
`drawings merely designate a “black box” to perform the function. Thus, if the limitations
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`are algorithms being performed by a processor, this must be clearly described by the
`
`disclosure.
`
`Applicant may:
`
`Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted
`(a)
`as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); or
`
`Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly
`(b)
`recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing
`any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
`
`lf applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification
`already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so
`that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts
`perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
`
`Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly
`(a)
`recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function
`and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function,
`without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
`
`Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts,
`(b)
`which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification,
`perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§
`608.01 (0) and 2181.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
`
`Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
`matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
`conditions and requirements of this title.
`
`3.
`
`Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the
`
`claimed invention is directed to a judicially recognized exception (Le, a law of nature, a
`
`natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) as a
`
`whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not
`
`amount to significantly more than a judicially recognized exception.
`
`The Two-Part Analysis for Judicially Recognized Exceptions is:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Part 1: Determine whether the claim includes a judicial exception.
`
`Examples of Abstract Ideas include:
`o
`Fundamental economic practices (Concepts relating to the economy and
`commerce, such as agreements between people in the form of contracts, legal
`obligations, and business relations, e.g., creating a contractual relationship,
`hedging, insurance, financial transactions, marketing, mitigating settlement risk)
`0
`Certain methods of organizing human activities (Concepts relating to
`interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or
`transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; satisfying or
`avoiding a legal obligation; advertising, marketing, and sales activities or
`behaviors; and managing human mental activity)
`0
`An idea of itself (An idea standing alone such as an uninstantiated
`concept, plan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be
`performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”)
`0
`Mathematical relationships (e.g. mathematical formulas, mathematical
`concepts, mathematical algorithms, calculations, spatial relationships, geometry,
`converting one form of numerical representation to another) (e.g. Benson, 409
`U.S. at 63; F/ook, 198 USPQ 193; Diehr, 209 USPQ 1; Grams, 12 USPQ2d
`
`1824)
`Exchanging information through a clearinghouse (Dealertrack, 101
`o
`USPQ2d 1325)
`0
`Collecting information, including when limited to particular content
`(Fairwarning, Fed. Cir. 2015-1985)
`.
`Storing, gathering, and analyzing data (TDE Petroleum, Fed. Cir. 2016-
`1004)
`Analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds,
`0
`or by mathematical algorithms (Fain/varning, Fed. Cir. 2015-1985)
`.
`Collecting and comparing known information (Classen, 100 USPQ2d
`1492)
`Obtaining and comparing intangible data (Cybersource, 99 USPQ2d 1690)
`.
`Comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options
`.
`(SmartGene, 555 Fed. Appx. 950)
`.
`Using categories to organize, store and transmit information (Cyberfone,
`558 Fed. Appx. 988)
`.
`Classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner (TL/
`Communications, Fed. Cir. 2015-1372)
`0
`Organizing information through mathematical correlations (Dig/tech, 111
`USPQ2d 1717)
`
`Examples of Laws of Nature or Natural Phenomena include:
`.
`Laws of nature (e.g. E= mcz)
`.
`Forces of nature (e.g. wind)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`o
`.
`
`Naturally occurring correlations
`Something that may happen without the hand of man (MPEP 2106.01)
`
`Part 2 If a judicial exception is present in the claim, determine whether any
`element in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more
`than the judicial exception itself. In other words, are there other limitations in the claim
`that show a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, e.g., more than a mere
`instruction to apply the judicial exception?
`Limitations that may be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in
`a claim with a judicial exception include:
`o
`Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself.
`0
`Improvements to another technology or technical field (must recite the
`improvement).
`0
`Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine
`(e.g. an apparatus claim comprising more structure than simply generic computer
`components performing the abstract idea).
`0
`Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different
`state or thing (does not include data manipulation).
`.
`Adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and
`conventional in the field.
`
`Adds unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful
`.
`application.
`.
`Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of a judicial
`exception to a particular technological environment.
`
`Limitations that are not enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in
`a claim with a judicial exception include, as non-limiting examples:
`0
`A generic computer performing generic computer functions.
`.
`Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with ajudicial exception, or
`mere instructions to implement a judicial exception on a computer.
`0
`Simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional
`structures/activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
`generality, to the judicial exception (e.g. a computer performing repetitive
`calculations; a computer receiving, processing, and storing data; a computer
`electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document; a computer
`performing electronic recordkeeping; a computer automating mental tasks; and a
`computer receiving or transmitting data over a network, for example, using the
`Internet to gather data; a GPS receiver determining a position; a base station
`communicating; a structure doing what it routinely does).
`0
`Adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception
`e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (e.g.
`providing an indication of a determined position).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
`.
`technological environment or field of use.
`
`If there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception
`into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than
`the exception itself, the claim should be rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to
`non-statutory subject matter.
`
`Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the
`
`claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination,
`
`the claim(s) do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. The rationale
`
`for this determination is explained below:
`
`The claimed invention includes comparing new and stored information and using
`
`rules to identify options, found to be an abstract idea in SmartGene, 555 Fed. Appx.
`
`950, e.g.:
`
`.
`
`a distance information determining section that determines distance
`
`information indicating a level of a distance between the radio section and the
`
`locator, based on the measured received signal strength; an indicating
`
`section that outputs the determined distance information, a distance
`
`information table storage section that stores a distance information table in
`
`which a level of the received signal strength is associated with the distance
`
`information, wherein the distance information determining section determines
`
`the distance information corresponding to the measured received signal
`
`strength with reference to the distance information table, where the measured
`
`received signal strength is the new information, the stored signal strength in
`
`the table is the stored information, and based on the comparison, the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`indication section outputs the distance in a particular way (e.g. Fig. 5 and Fig.
`
`10).
`
`The following recitations are adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the
`
`judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or
`
`abstract idea:
`
`.
`
`a radio section that receives a radio signal transmitted from a locator; an
`
`RSSI detecting section that measures received signal strength of the received
`
`radio signal, which is merely data gathering
`
`.
`
`an operating section that receives an operation from a user; and a locator
`
`operation selecting section that receives a selection of whether or not the
`
`locator makes sound, the selection being made by a user through the
`
`operating section, and that transmits instruction information indicating the
`
`received selection to the locator through the radio section, wherein the
`
`indicating section does not output sound information indicating the level of the
`
`distance in a state in which a selection of making no sound in the locator is
`
`received from the user, which is merely data gathering
`
`The following recitations are appending well-understood, routine and
`
`conventional structures/activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
`
`level of generality, to the judicial exception:
`
`.
`
`a radio section that receives a radio signal transmitted from a locator, where a
`
`radio is a well-understood data-gathering device
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not
`
`already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication
`
`that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves
`
`any other technology. There is no concrete application of the invention, i.e. displaying or
`
`audibly conveying the determined distance information. Outputting the determined
`
`distance information, as in claim 1, does not recite the distance being provided in a
`
`human-usable way (i.e. it could simply be output to a memory). Claims 3-5 and 8 are
`
`not rejected because they recite the distance information being conveyed in a human-
`
`useable way, i.e. displayed or audibly indicated, and thus provide the improvement
`
`applied in a meaningful way.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 —
`
`(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country
`or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application
`for patent in the United States.
`
`4.
`
`Claim(s) 1-4, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Hironari (JP 2012-099016 A, submitted by applicant in the IDS dated
`
`06/12/2014), where all citations are to the English translation.
`
`In regard to claims 1 and 11, Hironari discloses:
`
`a radio section that receives a radio signal transmitted from a locator (17, Fig. 1;
`
`163, Fig. 4; 1120);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`an RSSI detecting section that measures received signal strength of the received
`
`radio signal (160, Fig. 4; 1120);
`
`a distance information determining section that determines distance information
`
`indicating a level of a distance between the radio section and the locator, based on the
`
`measured received signal strength (Fig. 5; 1122; 1140); and
`
`an indicating section that outputs the determined distance information (12, Fig. 1;
`
`104, Fig. 4; 76, Fig. 11; 1121; 1139).
`
`In regard to claim 2, Hironari further discloses a distance information table
`
`storage section that stores a distance information table in which a level of the received
`
`signal strength is associated with the distance information, wherein the distance
`
`information determining section determines the distance information corresponding to
`
`the measured received signal strength with reference to the distance information table
`
`(Fig. 5; 1122; 1140).
`
`In regard to claim 3, Hironari further discloses the distance information is image
`
`information indicating a difference in the level of the distance using a difference in a text
`
`or graphic; and the indicating section displays the image information on a screen (12,
`
`Fig. 1; 104, Fig. 4; 76, Fig. 11; 1139).
`
`In regard to claim 4, Hironari further discloses the distance information is sound
`
`information indicating a difference in the level of the distance using a difference in
`
`sound; and the indicating section outputs the sound information (18, Fig. 4; 1141-42).
`
`In regard to claim 8, Hironari further discloses:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`a locator information storage section that stores identification information of the
`
`locator in advance (Fig. 6; 1123);
`
`a display section that displays the stored identification information as options
`
`(Fig. 9; 1133);
`
`an operating section that receives an operation from a user (13, Fig. 4; 1112; 1135);
`
`and
`
`a locator selecting section that receives the identification information selected by
`
`the user, through the operating section, wherein the indicating section outputs the
`
`distance information for the locator corresponding to the selected identification
`
`information (1135).
`
`In regard to claim 9, Hironari further discloses:
`
`the sections are portions of a mobile terminal (1, Fig. 1); and
`
`a locator comprising a location radio section that transmits a radio signal (2, Fig.