DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's submission filed on 03/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-17 are still pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7 that Sevak does not disclose AOA-based near-field localization of a mobile device and further argues that substituting fixed preset-area nodes and re-architecting Witczak to use AOA to locate a mobile terminal would change its principle of operation and is nowhere suggested by Sevak's barometer/GNSS system.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because Sevak clearly discloses the mobile devices 1, 1a, 1b along with their antennas detect electromagnetic signal to estimate a location of the mobile device [0120, 0148]. A PHOSITA would have recognized that the target object disclosed in Witczak’s teaching is merely one example. Sevak discloses that other object, including mobile device, was known alternative. Substituting one known reference object for another known reference object would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and both the prior art are directed to determining position relative to an object, and the substitution would have yielded no more than predictable results. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the 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-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witczak et al. US 2020/0003880 A1 in a view of SEVAK et al. US 2020/0049832 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Witczak discloses
A spatial location positioning system (Figs.1 and 3) for an elevator (See fig. 1, item 101), comprising: near-field wireless communication devices (WCD) configured to transmit near-field wireless communication signals in preset areas of the elevator for performing near- field wireless communication with a target object (Item 204); and a processor (Item 115) connected to the near-field wireless communication devices and configured to execute the following steps: analyzing signal AOA (angle of arrival) information associated with current location of the target object from response signals of the target object to the near-field wireless communication signals obtained by the near-field wireless communication devices; and determining current location of the target object according to the signal AOA information [0034, 0041-0044, 0055-0059].
Witczak does not explicitly say but SEVAK et al. disclose wherein the target object comprises a mobile terminal or a wearable device [0098, 0120, 0148]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Witczak teachings to add the target object comprising a mobile terminal or a wearable device as taught by SEVAK in Witczak’s teachings to estimate the location of the mobile terminal (SEVAK’s paragraph 0120) because substituting one known reference object for another known reference object would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and both the prior art are directed to determining position relative to an object, and the substitution would have yielded no more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 1, Witczak discloses A spatial location positioning method for an elevator, comprising the steps of: transmitting near-field wireless communication signals in preset areas of the elevator; receiving response signals of a target object to the near-field wireless communication signals, and analyzing signal AOA (angle of arrival) information associated with current location of the target object from the response signals; and determining current location of the target object according to the signal AOA information; wherein the target object comprises a mobile terminal or a wearable device (See claim 9 rejection for detail).
Regarding claims 10 and 2, Witczak discloses
, wherein the near-field wireless communication devices are arranged at least in a first position, a second position and a third position to perform near-field wireless communication with the target object, and the first position, the second position and the third position are respectively arranged in different spatial planes in the preset areas [0052-0054] (It should be noted that a minimum of three signals are required).
Regarding claims 11 and 3, Witczak discloses
, wherein the near-field wireless communication devices are arranged such that the near-field wireless communication signals cover at least a part of an elevator hoistway area and/or at least a part of an elevator-waiting area [0054].
Regarding claim 12, Witczak discloses
, wherein the processor is configured to control the near-field wireless communication devices to transmit the near-field wireless communication signals in the preset areas (Different physical locations) with a preset period [0051, 0052, 0054] (The preset period is a period of data transmission).
Regarding claims 13 and 5, Witczak discloses
, wherein the near-field wireless communication with the target object uses at least one of Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), ZIGBEE, WIFI, Radio Frequency (RF) and infrared communication [0041].
Regarding claim 15, Witczak discloses
, wherein the processor is further configured to transmit the determined current location of the target object to a server terminal locally disposed in the elevator or disposed on a cloud platform for processing [0044].
Regarding claims 16 and 8, Witczak discloses
, wherein the processing comprises using the current location of the target object to form an elevator-calling request, the elevator-calling request comprising a lobby door calling request and a destination calling request [0042].
Regarding claim 17, Witczak discloses
An elevator (Item 101), comprising the spatial location positioning system for the elevator according to claim 9 (See claim 9 rejection for detail).
Regarding claim 4, Witczak discloses, wherein the near-field wireless communication signals are transmitted in the preset areas with a preset period (See claim 12 rejection for detail).
Regarding claim 7, Witczak discloses the step of transmitting the determined current location of the target object to a server terminal locally disposed in the elevator or disposed on a cloud platform for processing (See claim 15 rejection for detail).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hart et al. (US 9,823,330 B2) disclose angle of arrival location sensing with antenna array in open atriums, stairways, or escalators.
Yuan et al. (US 10,292,012 B1) disclose reverse locationing with Bluetooth angle of arrival (AOS)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 PM.
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 reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 571-272-2060. The fax phone number for the organization where this 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 manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights