`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF CONINJERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 223 13-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`14/364,911
`
`06/12/2014
`
`Shinya Hokazono
`
`732256.431USPC
`
`4864
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panasonic
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`MULLsFREDH
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3 648
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`11/15/2017
`
`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.com
`
`PTOL-QOA (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`017709 A0110” Summary
`
`Application No.
`14/364,911
`
`Examiner
`Fred H Mull
`
`Applicant(s)
`Hokazono et al.
`
`Art Unit
`3648
`
`AIA Status
`No
`
`- The MAILING DA TE ofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 2 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`- Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`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).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 08/21/2017
`.
`D A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`2a)[:| This action is FINAL.
`2b)
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)|:| 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 Exparfe Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`
`
`Disposition of Claims"
`
`5). Claim(s) 1-11 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above Claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)I:| Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`7). Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected.
`
`8)[:| Claim(s)
`
`is/are objected to.
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:| 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
`
`http://www.usptogov/patents/init events/pph/indexjsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)l:| The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 12 June 2014 is/are: a). accepted or b)|:| 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 1.1 21 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)—(d) or ( ).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)- All
`
`b)|:l Some**
`
`c)|:l None of the:
`
`1.'
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.|:|
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.I:l 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.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/OSa and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)lMail Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) |:| Interview Summary (PTO—413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) D Other'
`
`PTOL-325 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20171109
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`The present application is being examined under the MAI/3‘ 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(0/6‘“ 1]
`
`The text of those sections of Title 35, US. Code not included in this action can
`
`be found in a prior Office action.
`
`1.
`
`With regard to claim(s) 1-10, the limitation(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 Patent Applications, Federal
`
`Register, vol. 76(27), p. 7167, section C1, 113. A review of the specification shows that
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 3
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`1 12(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 PatentApplications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
`
`In claims 1, 6, and 9-10, "a 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 § 112
`
`2.
`
`Claim(s) 1-10 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 limitation(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: “detecting section
`
`which measures received signal
`
`strength”, because it uses a generic placeholder “section” coupled with functional
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 4
`
`language "that 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 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.
`
`It is noted that the drawings illustrate some of the section in boxes, but this does
`
`not show what the structure is, itjust 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 USPQZd 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 5
`
`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
`
`are algorithms being performed by a processor, this must be clearly described by the
`
`disclosure.
`
`Applicant may:
`
`(a)
`
`Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted
`
`as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); or
`
`(b)
`
`Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly
`
`recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing
`
`any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
`
`If 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:
`
`(a)
`
`Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly
`
`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
`
`(b)
`
`Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts,
`
`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(o) and 2181.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`3.
`
`Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-9 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 claim 1, Hironari discloses:
`
`a radio section (17, Fig. 1; 16, Fig. 4; 1120);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 6
`
`an detecting section, which, in locator mode measures received signal strength
`
`of the received radio signal (160, Fig. 4; 1120), the detecting section being coupled to the
`
`radio section (Fig. 4), where the sections are indirectly coupled;
`
`a processor (10, 160, Fig. 4).
`
`The remaining claim limitation(s) are recited in functional language. There is no
`
`structure recited.
`
`While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally,
`
`claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of
`
`structure rather than function.
`
`In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 at 1431-32.
`
`“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard
`
`Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525 (emphasis in original). A claim containing
`
`a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be
`
`employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the
`
`prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham,
`
`2 USPQ2d 1647. Where functional language is present, in order to anticipate, the prior
`
`art must be capable of performing the function claimed, but the function need not be
`
`disclosed by the prior art. The prior art must be devoid of any structure that would
`
`preclude it from functioning in that manner. See MPEP 2114. “It is well settled that the
`
`recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old
`
`product patentable.“ In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429. See also In re Pearson, 181
`
`USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re
`
`Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647.
`
`Here, the radio section is disclosed as performing the function of operating in call
`
`mode receiving a first radio signal, and in locator mode receiving a second radio signal
`
`(Fig. 1; 1112), where the call signals are received from a base station and locator signals
`
`are received from an RFID tag. The radio section would be capable of using a same
`
`synchronization protocol to synchronize with the base station and the locator.
`
`The processor is discloses as performing the functions of:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 7
`
`determining 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);
`
`outputting the determined distance information (12, Fig. 1; 104, Fig. 4; 76,
`
`Fig. 11; 1121; 1139); and
`
`after outputting the determined distance information, transitioning from the
`
`locator mode to the call mode (Fig. 10, the final step after 8215, which is "End"
`
`written in Japanese; 1143), where the locator mode ends, leaving the phone as a
`
`phone (i.e. it‘s main function is call mode).
`
`In regard to claim 2, Hironari further discloses a distance information table
`
`storage section that stores a distance information table in which multiple levels of the
`
`received signal strength are associated with the distance information, wherein the
`
`respective distance information determining section determines the distance information
`
`based on 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 level of the distance in text or graphic form; and image
`
`information is displayed on a screen of the mobile terminal (12, Fig. 1; 104, Fig. 4; 76,
`
`Fig. 11; 1139).
`
`In regard to claim 8, Hironari further discloses:
`
`identification information of the locator (Fig. 6; 1123);
`
`a display, which in operation displays the stored identification information (Fig. 9;
`
`1133);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 8
`
`a user interface/operating section which, in operation receives an operation from
`
`a user indicating user selection of the identification information (13, Fig. 4; 1112; 1135),
`
`wherein
`
`the processor outputs the distance information of the locator corresponding to the
`
`selected identification information (1135).
`
`In regard to claim 9, Hironari discloses:
`
`a locator (2, Fig. 1; 1120);
`
`a mobile terminal including:
`
`a radio section (17, Fig. 1; 16, Fig. 4; 1120),
`
`an detecting section, which, in locator mode measures received signal
`
`strength of the received radio signal (160, Fig. 4; 1120), the detecting section
`
`being coupled to the radio section (Fig. 4), where the sections are indirectly
`
`coupled; and
`
`a processor (10, 160, Fig. 4).
`
`The remaining claim limitation(s) are recited in functional language. There is no
`
`structure recited.
`
`While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally,
`
`claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of
`
`structure rather than function.
`
`In re Schreiber, 44 USPQZd 1429 at 1431-32.
`
`“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard
`
`Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (emphasis in original). A claim containing
`
`a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be
`
`employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the
`
`prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham,
`
`2 USPQ2d 1647. Where functional language is present, in order to anticipate, the prior
`
`art must be capable of performing the function claimed, but the function need not be
`
`disclosed by the prior art. The prior art must be devoid of any structure that would
`
`preclude it from functioning in that manner. See MPEP 2114. “It is well settled that the
`
`recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 9
`
`product patentable.“ In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429. See also In re Pearson, 181
`
`USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re
`
`Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647.
`
`Here, the locator is disclosed as performing the function of transmitting and
`
`receiving radio signals (1112).
`
`Here, the radio section is disclosed as performing the function of operating in call
`
`mode receiving a first radio signal, and in locator mode receiving a second radio signal
`
`(Fig. 1; 1112), where the call signals are received from a base station and locator signals
`
`are received from an RFID tag. The radio section would be capable of using a same
`
`synchronization protocol to synchronize with the base station and the locator.
`
`The processor is discloses as performing the functions of:
`
`determining 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);
`
`outputting the determined distance information (12, Fig. 1; 104, Fig. 4; 76,
`
`Fig. 11; 1121; 1139); and
`
`after outputting the determined distance information, transitioning from the
`
`locator mode to the call mode (Fig. 10, the final step after 8215, which is "End" written
`
`in Japanese; 1143), where the locator mode ends, leaving the phone as a phone (i.e. it‘s
`
`main function is call mode).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 10
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis
`
`for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described
`as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
`time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
`matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was
`made.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Hironari, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in View of Cyganski (US
`
`2013/0099975 A1).
`
`Hironari further discloses the distance information is sound information indicating
`
`a distance using a pulse rate of the sound signals (18, Fig. 4; 1141-42).
`
`Hironari fails to disclose the distance information is sound information indicating
`
`a distance using a level of the distance by sound level.
`
`Cyganski teaches that indicating a distance using sound pulse rate or sound
`
`level/volume are known alternatives (1161). Thus, these two elements were a_rt-
`
`recognized eguivalents at the time of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have found it obvious to substitute a sound level for the sound pulse rate of Hironari.
`
`Additionally, this is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to
`
`perform the same function and obtain predictable results. Because both elements are
`
`known systems for indicating a distance using sound, it would have been obvious to one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other to achieve the predictable result
`
`of indicating the distance using sound.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 11
`
`5.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Hironari and Cyganski, as applied to claim 4, above, and further in view of Charych (US
`
`2005/0285742 A1).
`
`Hironari further discloses:
`
`the distance information includes image information indicating a level of the
`
`distance in text or graphic form (12, Fig. 1; 104, Fig. 4; 76, Fig. 11; 1139) and sound
`
`information indicating a level of the distance by sound level (18, Fig. 4; 1141 -42), and
`
`the mobile terminal further comprises an operating section that receives an
`
`operation from a user (13, Fig. 4; 1112; 1135); and
`
`wherein the indicating section outputs the distance information (12, Fig. 1; 104,
`
`Fig. 4; 76, Fig. 11; 1121; 1139).
`
`Hironari fails to disclose the user selecting, through the operating section, any
`
`one of or both of displaying or indicating with sound information the distance
`
`information, wherein an output selecting section receives the selection and the
`
`indicating section outputs the distance information according to the selection received
`
`by the output selecting section.
`
`In particular, Hironari fails to specify whether the display disclosure and the audio
`
`disclosure are options to be used alternatively, whether they are to be used together to
`
`complement each other, or whether all three are options.
`
`Charych teaches that a visual indicator, an audio indicator, or both can be used
`
`in an object locator system (1121-22).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 12
`
`Using one or the other or both options is a combining of prior art elements
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being
`
`that the distance to the object to be located is indicated.
`
`Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would be left to consider the different
`
`possibilities based on the lack of specificity of Hironari, and would have recognized that
`
`there are situations when each of the options would be preferred (e.g. when others are
`
`nearby that may be disturbed by unwanted sounds, when someone visually-impaired is
`
`using the system, when someone desires to find an object most quickly), and would
`
`thus have found it obvious to provide all options to increase the flexibility, and thus the
`
`desirability, of the system.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 6-7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Hironari, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Doria (US
`
`2011/0304480 A1).
`
`In regard to claim 6, Hironari further discloses a user interface/operating section
`
`which, in operation, receives an operation from a user (13, Fig. 4; 1112; 1135).
`
`Hironari fails to disclose the operation from the user indicating user selection of
`
`whether or not the locator makes sound (13, Fig. 4; 1112; 1135), wherein the radio
`
`transceiver, in operation transmits instruction information indicating the received user
`
`selection to the locator.
`
`Doria teaches receiving a selection from a user of whether or not the locator
`
`makes sound and that transmits instruction information indicating the received selection
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 13
`
`to the locator through the radio section, in order to help the user identify the object the
`
`locator is attached to (1130; 1133).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include this
`
`feature in order to help the user identify the location of the object of interest, as
`
`motivated by Doria. Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to
`
`known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the object
`
`of interest is located/found by the user.
`
`In regard to claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`to allow the user to select the sound disabling option of the mobile terminal of Hironari
`
`and the visual indication option of the locator of Doria together when the user does not
`
`wish to have sounds disturb others that may be nearby.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 10 is rejected under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(3) as being unpatentable over
`
`Hironari, as applied to claim 9, above, and further in view of McCrosky (US
`
`2010/0240404 A1).
`
`Hironari fails to disclose the locator further comprises making a sound on a
`
`condition that a distance between the locator and the mobile terminal is not greater than
`
`a predetermined value/is within a threshold.
`
`McCrosky teaches a locator device, in a locating system for an object attached to
`
`a locator, which comprises making a sound on condition that a distance between the
`
`locator and the mobile terminal is not greater than a predetermined value/is within a
`
`threshold, in order to help the user identify the location of the object (1149, final
`
`sentence).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 14
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include this
`
`feature in order to help the user identify the location of the object of interest, as
`
`motivated by McCrosky. Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according
`
`to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the
`
`object of interest is located/found by the user.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Hironari (JP 2012-099016 A, submitted by applicant in the IDS dated 06/12/2014),
`
`where all citations are to the English translation, in view of Sriram (US 6,331,976 B1).
`
`Hironari discloses:
`
`a mobile terminal operable in call mode and in locator mode (Fig. 1; 1112),
`
`comprising:
`
`receiving, at the mobile terminal in the call mode, a first radio signal from a
`
`master device of a cordless phone system (1112);
`
`receiving, at the mobile terminal in the locator mode, a second radio signal from
`
`a locator (Fig. 1; 1112);
`
`measuring, in the locator mode, received signal strength of the received second
`
`radio signal (1120);
`
`determining, in the locator mode, distance information indicating a level of a
`
`distance between the mobile terminal and the locator based on the measured received
`
`signal strength (Fig. 5; 1122; 1140);
`
`outputting, in the locator mode, the determined distance information (12, Fig. 1;
`
`104, Fig. 4; 76, Fig. 11; 1121; 1139); and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 15
`
`after outputting the determined distance information, transitioning from the
`
`locator mode to the call mode (Fig. 10, the final step after 8215, which is "End" written
`
`in Japanese; 1143), where the locator mode ends, leaving the phone as a phone (i.e. it‘s
`
`main function is call mode).
`
`Hironari fails to disclose the mobile terminal is synchronized with the master
`
`device according to a defined synchronization method, and the mobile terminal is
`
`synchronized with the locator according to the defined synchronization method.
`
`Sriram teaches the use of synchronization words to indicate where the data in a
`
`frame begins is a well known technique in a wireless communication (col. 1, lines 24-50;
`
`col. 5, lines 25-59).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include this well
`
`known technique into the wireless communications of Hironari (both between the mobile
`
`terminal and master device and between the mobile terminal and locator) in order
`
`identify when the data frame in the messages begin. Additionally, this is a combining of
`
`prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the
`
`predictable result being that the beginning of the data frame is indicated to the receiving
`
`station.
`
`9.
`
`The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
`
`Freer (Computer Communications and Networks), which teaches that
`
`synchronization between communication partners is well known in the communications
`
`art (p. 12, section 1.4.2).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 16
`
`Song (Frame Synchronization Word in W-CDMA System), which teaches that
`
`synchronization between communication partners is well known in the communications
`
`art (section I).
`
`Klitsgaard (US 2002/0014955 A1), which teaches a locator tag using a Digital
`
`Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) protocol (1127; 1135).
`
`Soomro (US 2009/0315717 A1), which teaches a locator tag using a Digital
`
`Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) protocol (1122).
`
`Cannon (US 5,689,238 A), which teaches an object locating system that
`
`indicators a level of distance to the object.
`
`English translations of the IDS documents identified as X-references in the
`
`International Search Report.
`
`Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their
`
`response (if one is required) to this action, in order to expedite prosecution of this
`
`application.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`10.
`
`Applicant’s arguments on p. 7, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection(s), have
`
`been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
`
`11.
`
`Applicant’s arguments on p. 7-8, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) have
`
`been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
`
`However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/364,911
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 17
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975.
`
`The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately
`9-5:30.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Tashiana R. Adams can be reached on 571-270-5228. The fax number for
`
`the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned, for the submission of
`
`official papers, is 571-273-8300. The direct fax number for the examiner for the
`
`submission of unofficial papers, such as a proposed amendment or agenda for an
`
`interview with the examiner, is 571-273-6975.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272—1000.
`
`Fred H. Mull
`
`Examiner
`
`Art Unit 3648
`
`IF. H. M./
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 3648
`
`IBERNARR E GREGORY/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
`
`