www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`18/132,881
`
`04/10/2023
`
`Johan WADMAN
`
`SYP347780US01
`
`8361
`
`TUC
`
`St
`
`tou
`
`TUCKER ELLIS LLP - Sony Group
`950 MAIN AVENUE
`SUITE 1100
`CLEVELAND,OH 44113-7213
`
`ALUNKAL, THOMAS D
`
`2687
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01/15/2025
`
`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):
`
`patents @ tuckerellis.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`18/132,881
`WADMAN etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`THOMAS D ALUNKAL
`2687
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom 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) MONTHSfrom 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, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 10/15/2024.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)[¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) 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 Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-20 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C} Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
`(] Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible 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.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J 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 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)7) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin 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) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20250108
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/132,881
`Art Unit: 2687
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA orAIA Status
`
`The presentapplication,filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
`
`inventorto file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's argumentsfiled 10/15/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
`
`Regarding the applicant’s arguments beginning on page 8 of Remarks, the applicant argues that Haines
`
`fails to disclose all of the claimed limitations of independent claims 1 and 11. Specifically, the applicant
`
`argues “Independentclaim 1 recites “[a] method of determining an appropriate tracking device
`
`response scheme, performed by a user equipment, the method comprising: obtaining, from a tracking
`
`device, atracking parameter indicative of the tracking device being within a vicinity of the user
`
`equipment; determining, based on the tracking parameter, a verification parameter indicative of an
`
`identity associated withthe user equipment; determining whether the verification parameter meets a
`
`verification criterion indicative of a stalker tracking device; in accordance with a determination that the
`
`verification parameter meets the verification criterion. applying astalker response scheme; and in
`
`accordance with a determination that the verification parameter does not meet the verification
`
`criterion, applying a theft response scheme.” Inthe Office Action, the method depictedin Fig. 8 of
`
`Haines and described in paragraphs [0073]-[0085] of Hainesis cited as disclosing the features of claim 1.
`
`It is suggested that the device ID of a detected tracking device is the claimed verification parameter.
`
`Haines describes a tracking device with an unknown device ID is an unauthorized tracking device. If the
`
`unauthorized tracking device is managed by a known managementsystem, the unauthorized tracking
`
`device is turnedoff. If it is managed by a different management system, the useris alerted to the
`
`unauthorized tracking device. Haines describesa lost flag to indicate to the device management system
`
`that tracking device is lost or stolen (See Haines; paragraph [0022)). Accordingly, Haines describes
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/132,881
`Art Unit: 2687
`
`Page 3
`
`separate and distinct techniques to determine and carry out a lost response and anti-stalking features.
`
`Lost relies on a lost flag and anti- stalking is triggered by an unknown device ID. Claim 1, however,
`
`utilized a verification parameter anda verification criterion. A theft response scheme ora stalker
`
`response schemeis selectively applied based on whether the verification parameter meets the
`
`verification criterion.
`
`In view of above,itis readily apparent that Haines fails to describe applying a
`
`stalker response scheme or a theft response scheme based on averification parameter anda
`
`verification criterion. Rather, Haines utilizes different parameters and different criteria for different
`
`responses. Accordingly, Haines clearly fails to describe each and every feature of claim 1 in the same
`
`manner as claim 1 as required by MPEP §2152.02(b) for an anticipation rejection.” The examiner
`
`respectfully disagrees.
`
`As discussedin Paragraph 0022 of Haines, the stolen flag that indicates to the device
`
`managementsystem that the tracking device has been lost or stolen corresponds to a known device ID.
`
`The claimed “verification parameter does not meet the verification criterion” with respect tothe theft
`
`response scheme is the detection of a known device ID with a stolen/lost flag set or the effective
`
`opposite of the triggering of the stalker response scheme. Therefore, Haines discloses the argued
`
`limitations of claims 1 and 11. The previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/132,881
`Art Unit: 2687
`
`Page 4
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`Inthe event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102
`
`and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
`
`basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same
`
`under either status.
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis
`
`for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(a}(2) the claimed invention was described ina patent issued under section 151, or in anapplication
`for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as
`the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of
`the claimed invention.
`
`Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Haineset al.
`
`(hereafter Haines)(US PgPub 2023/0260384).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Haines discloses a method of determining an appropriate tracking device
`
`response scheme, performed by a user equipment (Figures 1, 7, 8 and 9), the method comprising:
`
`obtaining, from a tracking device, a tracking parameter indicative of the tracking device being within a
`
`vicinity of the user equipment (Figure 8, Element 810 and Paragraphs 0026, 0027 and 0074 where the
`
`mobile device 102 of the user 103 detects tracking devices in proximity to the mobile device based on
`
`received signal strength); determining, based on the tracking parameter,a verification parameter
`
`indicative of an identity associated withthe user equipment (Figure 8, Element 820 and Paragraphs
`
`0027, 0034, 0040, 0076, 0077, 0087 and 0088 where a device ID of a detected tracking deviceis
`
`determined); determining whether the verification parameter meets a verification criterion indicative of
`
`a stalker tracking device (Figure 9 and Paragraphs 0086-0113 wherea tracking device with an unknown
`
`device ID is determined to be a stalker/unauthorized tracking device); in accordance with a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/132,881
`Art Unit: 2687
`
`Page5S
`
`determination that the verification parameter meets the verification criterion, applying a stalker
`
`response scheme (Figure 8, Element 850 and Paragraph 0083 wherethe tracking system sends
`
`notification of the unauthorized tracking device to a system/device associated with the unauthorized
`
`tracking device); and in accordance with a determination that the verification parameter does not meet
`
`the verification criterion, applying a theft response scheme (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 0022, 0029, 0036,
`
`0038 where atheft/lost response scheme is applied when a known device ID is detectedanda
`
`stolen/lost flag is set).
`
`Regarding claim 2, Haines discloses wherein determining whether the verification parameter
`
`meets the verification criterion comprises: receiving second device identification data indicative of an
`
`identity associated with a second user equipment(Figure 8, Figure 9 and Paragraphs 0086-0113 where a
`
`tracking device with an unknown device ID is determined to be a stalker/unauthorized tracking device.
`
`The unauthorized tracking device is associated with a system/device having a unique ID and that
`
`corresponds to the unauthorized tracking device).
`
`Regarding claim 3, Haines discloses wherein determining whether the verification parameter
`
`meets the verification criterion comprises: obtaining a lost parameter indicating that the tracking device
`
`has been lost; in accordance with a determination that the lost parameter is indicative of the tracking
`
`device being lost, determining that the verification parameter meets the verification criterion; and
`
`transmitting device identification data indicative of the identity associated with the user equipment toa
`
`second user equipment associated with the tracking device (Paragraphs 0022, 0027, 0029, 0036, 0038
`
`and 0047 where the tracking system provides information relative to a lost tracking device to a
`
`system/device associated with the tracking device).
`
`Regarding claim4, Haines discloses wherein determining whether the verification parameter
`
`meets the verification criterion comprises: obtaining a secondary tracking parameter indicative of one or
`
`more secondarytracking devices in the vicinity of the tracking device; and in accordance with the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/132,881
`Art Unit: 2687
`
`Page 6
`
`secondarytracking data meeting an item threshold parameter, determining that the verification
`
`parameter does not meet the verification criterion (Figure 8 and Paragraphs 0073-0085 whereplural
`
`tracking devices are detected within range of the mobile device 102. Managed tracking devices are not
`
`deemedto be unauthorized and/or stalker devices).
`
`Regarding claim5, Haines discloses wherein determining whether the verification parameter
`
`meets the verification criterion comprises: obtaining a stored movement parameter indicative of stored
`
`movementof the tracking device; determining a movement parameter indicative of movementof the
`
`tracking device; and in accordance witha determination that the movement parameter meets, based on
`
`the stored movement parameter, a movementcriterion, determining that the verification parameter
`
`meetsthe verification criterion (Figures 13-14 and Paragraphs 0093, 0131, 0141 and 0143 where
`
`movements of the tracking device are detected and stored to indicate whether the device is an
`
`unauthorized/stalker device).
`
`Regarding claim 6, Haines discloses wherein obtaining the stored movement parameter
`
`comprises: obtaining, from a user of the tracking device, user input indicative of the stored movement;
`
`wherein obtaining the stored movement parameter is based on the user input (Paragraphs 0027, 0038,
`
`0047, 0076 and 0105 whereauser input is provided relative to stored movements of the tracking
`
`device).
`
`Regarding claim 7, Haines discloses wherein obtaining the stored movement parameter
`
`comprises: determining, from a user of the tracking device, based on previous tracking device
`
`movement, a user profile of the user; wherein obtaining the stored movement parameter is based on
`
`the user profile (Paragraphs 0022, 0027, 0028, 0038, 0047, 0076, 0079 and 0105 whereuser profiles
`
`contain tracking information).
`
`Regarding claim 8, Haines discloses wherein determining the verification parameter comprises:
`
`obtaining, from an intermediary, a verification status; wherein determining the verification parameter is
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/132,881
`Art Unit: 2687
`
`Page 7
`
`based on the verification status (Paragraphs 0055 and 0104 where the tracking system includes
`
`verifications status of the devices in the system).
`
`Regarding claim9, Haines discloses wherein obtaining the tracking parameter comprises:
`
`obtaining the tracking parameter on a non-standardized protocol (Paragraphs 0060 and 0117).
`
`Regarding claim 10, Haines discloses wherein determining whether the verification parameter
`
`meets the verification criterion comprises: transmitting device identification data indicative of the
`
`identity associated withthe user equipment to a second user equipment associated with the tracking
`
`device (Figure 8, Element 850 and Paragraph 0083 where the tracking system sends notification of the
`
`unauthorized tracking device to a system/device associated with the unauthorized tracking device).
`
`Apparatus claims 11-20 are drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same
`
`as claimed in claims 1-10. Therefore apparatus claims 11-20 correspond to method claims 1-10 and are
`
`rejected for the same reasonsof anticipation as used above.
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth
`
`Conclusion
`
`in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHSfrom
`
`the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS ofthe mailing date
`
`of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH
`
`shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory
`
`action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing
`
`date of the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however,will the statutory period for reply expire later than
`
`SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/132,881
`Art Unit: 2687
`
`Page 8
`
`Anyinquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to THOMAS D ALUNKAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1127. The examiner
`
`can normally be reached M-F 9am-Spm.
`
`Examiner interviews are available via telephone,in-person, and video conferencing using a
`
`USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use
`
`the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reachthe examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
`
`Curtis Kuntz can be reached on 571-272-7499. The fax phone number for the organization wherethis
`
`application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from
`
`Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To
`
`file and managepatent submissions in Patent Center,visit: https://patentcenter.us pto. gov.Visit
`
`https ://www.us pto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and
`
`https ://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information aboutfiling in DOCX format. For additional
`
`questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197(toll-free). If you would like
`
`assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)or
`
`571-272-1000.
`
`/THOMASD ALUNKAL/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2687
`
`