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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 18 December, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 18 December, 2025 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 December, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “claim 1,further comprising” which is suggested to be amended to “claim 1, further comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the first set of location information, the second set of location information and the third set of location information are related to GNSS coordinates, angle of arrival (AoA) information and ranging information” which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear whether each of the first set of location information, the second set of location, and the third set of information is related to GNSS coordinates, AoA information and ranging information; or whether the first set of location information, the second set of location, and the third set of information collectively are related to GNSS coordinates, AoA information and ranging information (for example, the first set of location information is related to GNSS coordinates, and the second set of location information is related to AoA information, and the third set of location information is related to ranging information, or they are distributed in some other way). For purpose of Examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as having a broadest reasonable interpretation that the first set of location information, the second set of location, and the third set of information collectively are related to GNSS coordinates, AoA information and ranging information.
Claim 6 recites “a second capability” which is unclear because there is not a first capability recited in either claim 6 or claim 1 which claim 6 depends on. Claim 6 further recites “FTM Initiator” which renders the claim indefinite because “FTM” is not defined in either claim 6 or claim 1 which claim 6 depends on.
Claim 7 recites “a third capability” which is unclear because there is not a first/ second capability recited in either claim 7 or claim 1 which claim 7 depends on. Claim 7 further recites “FTM Responder” which renders the claim indefinite because “FTM” is not defined in either claim 7 or claim 1 which claim 7 depends on.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the first set of location information, the second set of location information and the third set of location information are related to GNSS coordinates, angle of arrival (AoA) information and ranging information” which renders the claim indefinite, for similar reason(s) as explained in claim 1.
Claim 15 recites “a second capability” which renders the claim indefinite, for similar reason(s) as explained in claim 6.
Claim 16 recites “a third capability” which renders the claim indefinite, for similar reason(s) as explained in claim 7.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the third set of location information is updated according to the updated second set of location information” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear because “the updated second set of location information” lacks antecedent basis. Specifically, claim 17, which claim 18 depends on, recites “to check […] to determine whether the second set of location information needs to be updated”. Claim 17 only requires checking whether the second set of location information needs to be updated; however, nowhere in claim 17 requires to additionally update the second set of location information to obtain “the updated second set of location information”.
Claims 2-9 and 11-18 are additionally rejected by virtue of their dependence on respective claims 1 and 10.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a system and a method and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claim(s) 1 and 10:
Claim 1:
A method for a location tracking, applied to a mobile device, an indoor access point (AP) and at least one indoor Internet of Things (IoT) device, the method comprising: receiving, by the indoor AP, a first set of location information from the mobile device which is at outdoor, wherein the first set of location information is determined according to a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS); determining, by the indoor AP, a second set of location information of the indoor AP according to the first set of location information; determining, by the indoor AP, a third set of location information of the at least one indoor IoT device according to the second set of location information; and transmitting, by the indoor AP, the third set of location information to the at least one indoor IoT device; wherein the first set of location information, the second set of location information and the third set of location information are related to GNSS coordinates, angle of arrival (AoA) information and ranging information; wherein the indoor AP is an indoor device, and is a network device that allows the mobile device and the at least one indoor IoT device to connect to a wireless local area network (WLAN).
Claim 10:
A location tracking system, comprising a mobile device, an indoor access point (AP) and at least one indoor Internet of Things (IoT) device, wherein the location tracking system is applicable to: receive, by the indoor AP, a first set of location information from the mobile device which is at outdoor, wherein the first set of location information is determined according to a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS); determine, by the indoor AP, a second set of location information of the indoor AP according to the first set of location information; determine, by the indoor AP, a third set of location information of the at least one indoor IoT device according to the second set of location information; and transmit, by the indoor AP, the third set of location information to the at least one indoor IoT device; wherein the first set of location information, the second set of location information and the third set of location information are related to GNSS coordinates, angle of arrival (AoA) information and ranging information; wherein the indoor AP is an indoor device, and is a network device that allows the mobile device and the at least one indoor IoT device to connect to a wireless local area network (WLAN).
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 10 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Independent claim(s) 10 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain sufficiently the same limitations as those noted for claim 1 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. Claim 1 recites “receiving, by the indoor AP, a first set of location information from the mobile device which is at outdoor, wherein the first set of location information is determined according to a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS); determining, by the indoor AP, a second set of location information of the indoor AP according to the first set of location information; determining, by the indoor AP, a third set of location information of the at least one indoor IoT device according to the second set of location information; and transmitting, by the indoor AP, the third set of location information to the at least one indoor IoT device; wherein the first set of location information, the second set of location information and the third set of location information are related to GNSS coordinates, angle of arrival (AoA) information and ranging information; wherein the indoor AP is an indoor device, and is a network device that allows the mobile device and the at least one indoor IoT device to connect to a wireless local area network (WLAN)”.
The focus of the claim (i.e., “determining, by the indoor AP, a second set of location information of the indoor AP according to the first set of location information; determining, by the indoor AP, a third set of location information of the at least one indoor IoT device according to the second set of location information”) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are simply mathematical concepts (e.g., algorithms, spatial relationships, geometry). When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, “determining, by the indoor AP, a second set of location information of the indoor AP according to the first set of location information; determining, by the indoor AP, a third set of location information of the at least one indoor IoT device according to the second set of location information” is simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitation(s) of “receiving, by the indoor AP, a first set of location information from the mobile device which is at outdoor, wherein the first set of location information is determined according to a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS); […] and transmitting, by the indoor AP, the third set of location information to the at least one indoor IoT device; wherein the first set of location information, the second set of location information and the third set of location information are related to GNSS coordinates, angle of arrival (AoA) information and ranging information; wherein the indoor AP is an indoor device, and is a network device that allows the mobile device and the at least one indoor IoT device to connect to a wireless local area network (WLAN)” are recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further limitation(s) are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The limitation(s) of “indoor AP; indoor IoT; mobile device” represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic devices, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Further still, the limitation(s) of “wherein the indoor AP is an indoor device, and is a network device that allows the mobile device and the at least one indoor IoT device to connect to a wireless local area network (WLAN)” represents no more than mere attempt to recite a filed in which the method is intended to be applied.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1.
The limitation(s) of “receiving, by the indoor AP, a first set of location information from the mobile device which is at outdoor, wherein the first set of location information is determined according to a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS); […] and transmitting, by the indoor AP, the third set of location information to the at least one indoor IoT device; wherein the first set of location information, the second set of location information and the third set of location information are related to GNSS coordinates, angle of arrival (AoA) information and ranging information; wherein the indoor AP is an indoor device, and is a network device that allows the mobile device and the at least one indoor IoT device to connect to a wireless local area network (WLAN)” are recited in a manner that is well understood, generic and conventional. The additional recitation(s) do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation(s) are at a high level of generality and are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation(s) are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1 and does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 1 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim(s) 1 and 10 are ineligible.
Claims 2-9 and 11-18:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 2-9 recite a series of steps and therefore, fall under a process. Claims 11-18 recite a system, and therefore, fall under a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 3-9 and 11-18 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same or sufficiently similar defects as those noted for claim 2 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from the abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 2-9 and 11-18 are ineligible.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1-18 are not patent-eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8-10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karaoguz et al. (US 2011/0199964 A1 “KARAOGUZ”), in view of Van Diggelen et al. (US 2014/0004877 A1 “VAN DIGGELEN”).
Regarding claim 1, KARAOGUZ discloses (Examiner’s note: What KARAOGUZ does not disclose is ) a method for a location tracking, applied to a mobile device (GNSS enabled mobile devices 152-156 [0024 & FIG. 1]), an a wireless access point 110 [0024 & FIG. 1]) and at least one a digital subscriber line (DSL) modem 120 [0024 & FIG. 1]), the method comprising:
receiving, by the the wireless access point 110 may be operable to trace or retrieve the GNSS positions of the mobile devices 152-156 [0029])
determining, by the the retrieved GNSS positions of the mobile devices 152-156 may be utilized by the wireless access point 110 to determine its own location [0029])
wherein the first set of location information, the second set of location information device GNSS positions (latitude and longitude) [0027]),
wherein the the wireless access point 110 may be configured to function as a central transmitter and receiver of a wireless local network (WLAN) [0025])
KARAOGUZ further discloses that WiFi positioning systems allow a cost-effective indoor and outdoor positioning. With increasing regularity, these positioning systems are applied not only for communication but also to locate mobile devices. For example, WiFi positioning systems (WPS) measure received signal-strength (RSS) or signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) between a mobile device and multiple access points to obtain the mobile device's position [0015].
However, KARAOGUZ does not explicitly disclose that the AP is indoors; and IoT device is indoors; and mobile device is outdoors; and determining, by the indoor AP, a third set of location information of the at least one indoor IoT device according to the second set of location information; and transmitting, by the indoor AP, the third set of location information to the at least one indoor IoT device; and the third set of location information is related to angle of arrival (AoA) information and ranging information.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, VAN DIGGELEN relates to positioning systems. Specifically, VAN DIGGELEN teaches that a device 102 and a plurality of mobile devices 104a-c, in the vicinity of a location 106. Location 106 may be an indoor location, such as a shopping area, office environment, etc., or an outdoor location. Devices 104a-c may be different devices or may represent the same device at different times and locations [0014 & FIG. 1]. Device 102 may be a WLAN or Bluetooth access point, which may or may not be connected to a network such as the Internet [0015]. Furthermore, VAN DIGGELEN teaches that after learning its position and orientation, device 402 may assist other devices in determining their own positions. Specifically, example 500 illustrates three devices 502a-c, which may be fixed or mobile, and a mobile device 504. Devices 502a and 502b have knowledge of their respective positions and orientations [0038]. Device 502c may perform position determination algorithms (e.g., based on round-trip delay and angle-of-arrival measurements). Accordingly, device 502c may determine its position and orientation based on signal exchanges with each of devices 502a and 502b [0039]. In a similar fashion, device 502a may assist a mobile device 504 determine its position [0040]. Devices 502a-c may be part of a fixed access point network that spans one or more indoor and/or outdoor locations [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KARAOGUZ to include the teachings of VAN DIGGELEN, because doing so would support and assist other devices in the same network to accurately and quickly determine their locations, as recognized by VAN DIGGELEN. In addition, both of the prior art references, KARAOGUZ and VAN DIGGELEN, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, positioning estimation.
Regarding claim 3, KARAOGUZ/ VAN DIGGELEN discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the AoA information is obtained according to at least one measurement (device 502c may perform position determination algorithms (e.g., based on round-trip delay and angle-of-arrival measurements). Accordingly, device 502c may determine its position and orientation based on signal exchanges with each of devices 502a and 502b [VAN DIGGELEN 0039], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, KARAOGUZ/ VAN DIGGELEN discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, VAN DIGGELEN teaches that an access point in the network may re-compute its position as desired. In an embodiment, the access point may periodically determine the validity of its position, and if its position is no longer valid may attempt to compute a new position estimate [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KARAOGUZ to include the teachings of VAN DIGGELEN, because doing so would support and assist other devices in the same network to accurately and quickly determine their locations, as recognized by VAN DIGGELEN.
Regarding claim 9, KARAOGUZ/ VAN DIGGELEN discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the third set of location information is determined again according to the second set of location information if the second set of location is updated. Examiner’s note: Claim 9 recites a method. Limitation “wherein the third set of location information is determined again according to the second set of location information if the second set of location is updated” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e. “wherein the third set of location information is determined again according to the second set of location information”) if a first condition (i.e. “if the second set of location is updated”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Regarding claim 10, KARAOGUZ discloses a location tracking system, comprising a mobile device (GNSS enabled mobile devices 152-156 [0024 & FIG. 1]), an a wireless access point 110 [0024 & FIG. 1]) and at least one a digital subscriber line (DSL) modem 120 [0024 & FIG. 1]), wherein the location tracking system is applicable to:
receive, by the the wireless access point 110 may be operable to trace or retrieve the GNSS positions of the mobile devices 152-156 [0029])
determine, by the the retrieved GNSS positions of the mobile devices 152-156 may be utilized by the wireless access point 110 to determine its own location [0029])
wherein the first set of location information, the second set of location information device GNSS positions (latitude and longitude) [0027]),
wherein the the wireless access point 110 may be configured to function as a central transmitter and receiver of a wireless local network (WLAN) [0025])
KARAOGUZ further discloses that WiFi positioning systems allow a cost-effective indoor and outdoor positioning. With increasing regularity, these positioning systems are applied not only for communication but also to locate mobile devices. For example, WiFi positioning systems (WPS) measure received signal-strength (RSS) or signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) between a mobile device and multiple access points to obtain the mobile device's position [0015].
However, KARAOGUZ does not explicitly disclose that the AP is indoors; and IoT device is indoors; and mobile device is outdoors; and determining, by the indoor AP, a third set of location information of the at least one indoor IoT device according to the second set of location information; and transmitting, by the indoor AP, the third set of location information to the at least one indoor IoT device; and the third set of location information is related to angle of arrival (AoA) information and ranging information.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, VAN DIGGELEN teaches that a device 102 and a plurality of mobile devices 104a-c, in the vicinity of a location 106. Location 106 may be an indoor location, such as a shopping area, office environment, etc., or an outdoor location. Devices 104a-c may be different devices or may represent the same device at different times and locations [0014 & FIG. 1]. Device 102 may be a WLAN or Bluetooth access point, which may or may not be connected to a network such as the Internet [0015]. Furthermore, VAN DIGGELEN teaches that after learning its position and orientation, device 402 may assist other devices in determining their own positions. Specifically, example 500 illustrates three devices 502a-c, which may be fixed or mobile, and a mobile device 504. Devices 502a and 502b have knowledge of their respective positions and orientations [0038]. Device 502c may perform position determination algorithms (e.g., based on round-trip delay and angle-of-arrival measurements). Accordingly, device 502c may determine its position and orientation based on signal exchanges with each of devices 502a and 502b [0039]. In a similar fashion, device 502a may assist a mobile device 504 determine its position [0040]. Devices 502a-c may be part of a fixed access point network that spans one or more indoor and/or outdoor locations [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KARAOGUZ to include the teachings of VAN DIGGELEN, because doing so would support and assist other devices in the same network to accurately and quickly determine their locations, as recognized by VAN DIGGELEN.
Regarding claim 17, KARAOGUZ/ VAN DIGGELEN discloses the location tracking system of claim 10,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, VAN DIGGELEN teaches that an access point in the network may re-compute its position as desired. In an embodiment, the access point may periodically determine the validity of its position, and if its position is no longer valid may attempt to compute a new position estimate [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KARAOGUZ to include the teachings of VAN DIGGELEN, because doing so would support and assist other devices in the same network to accurately and quickly determine their locations, as recognized by VAN DIGGELEN.
Claim(s) 2, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KARAOGUZ, in view of VAN DIGGELEN, and further in view of Singh et al. (US 2022/0338141 A1 “SINGH”).
Regarding claim 2, KARAOGUZ/ VAN DIGGELEN discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SINGH teaches a ranging operation between an ISTA and an RSTA. The ISTA may be a wireless station such as the STA 104 of FIG. 1, and the RSTA may be an access point such as the AP 102 of FIG. 1. In some other implementations, the ISTA may be an AP, and the RSTA may be a wireless station. The RSTA may solicit the subsequent ranging request by transmitting an action frame configured to trigger transmission of the subsequent ranging request from the ISTA. In some instances, the action frame may be a Trigger Frame (TF) Ranging Poll frame, a fine timing measurement (FTM) Request frame, a location measurement report (LMR) frame, or a vendor action frame [0173 & FIG. 7A].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KARAOGUZ to include the teachings of SINGH, because doing so would enable dynamic communication between devices depending on changes of operating conditions of wireless devices, as recognized by SINGH. In addition, both of the prior art references, KARAOGUZ and SINGH, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, positioning and ranging system.
Regarding claim 11, KARAOGUZ/ VAN DIGGELEN discloses the location tracking system of claim 10,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SINGH teaches a ranging operation between an ISTA and an RSTA. The ISTA may be a wireless station such as the STA 104 of FIG. 1, and the RSTA may be an access point such as the AP 102 of FIG. 1. In some other implementations, the ISTA may be an AP, and the RSTA may be a wireless station. The RSTA may solicit the subsequent ranging request by transmitting an action frame configured to trigger transmission of the subsequent ranging request from the ISTA. In some instances, the action frame may be a Trigger Frame (TF) Ranging Poll frame, a fine timing measurement (FTM) Request frame, a location measurement report (LMR) frame, or a vendor action frame [0173 & FIG. 7A].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KARAOGUZ to include the teachings of SINGH, because doing so would enable dynamic communication between devices depending on changes of operating conditions of wireless devices, as recognized by SINGH.
Regarding claim 12, KARAOGUZ/ VAN DIGGELEN/ SINGH discloses the location tracking system of claim 11, being further applicable to: obtain, by the mobile device, the AoA information according to at least one first measurement (device 502c may perform position determination algorithms (e.g., based on round-trip delay and angle-of-arrival measurements). Accordingly, device 502c may determine its position and orientation based on signal exchanges with each of devices 502a and 502b [VAN DIGGELEN 0039], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10).
Regarding claim 13, KARAOGUZ/ VAN DIGGELEN/ SINGH discloses the location tracking system of claim 12, being further applicable to: obtain, by the indoor AP, at least one AoA information according to at least one second measurement (device 502c may perform position determination algorithms (e.g., based on round-trip delay and angle-of-arrival measurements). Accordingly, device 502c may determine its position and orientation based on signal exchanges with each of devices 502a and 502b [VAN DIGGELEN 0039], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KARAOGUZ, in view of VAN DIGGELEN, and further in view of Wirola et al. (US 2020/0252751 A1 “WIROLA”).
Regarding claim 4, KARAOGUZ/ VAN DIGGELEN discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, WIROLA teaches that an absolute position may be understood to describe the location of the position based on or relative to a fixed position on earth. For example, an absolute position may be represented by geographical coordinates like longitude and latitude, for example coordinates according to WGS-84 (World Geodetic System 1984) [0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KARAOGUZ to include the teachings of WIROLA, because doing so would enable positioning using the standard definition of a global reference system for geospatial information and accurately specify a global coordinate system, as recognized by WIROLA. In addition, both of the prior art references, KARAOGUZ and WIROLA, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, positioning system.
Claim(s) 5-7, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KARAOGUZ, in view of VAN DIGGELEN, and further in view of Bajko et al. (US 2015/0365805 A1 “BAJKO”).
Regarding claim 5, KARAOGUZ/ VAN DIGGELEN discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, BAJKO teaches that in FIG. 1, AP 101 to AP 104 are used to provide positioning service for STA 105 in an indoor environment via Fine Timing Measurement (FTM) protocol [0020]. Additionally, BAJKO discloses that for 3D positioning, STA 105 needs to exchange FTM frames with four non-co-located BSSs in order to determine its absolute location. In the first option, STA 105 first selects AP 101 and obtains AP location and co-located BSSID list using ANQP. STA 105 can then initiate FTM protocol with four non-co-located BSSs (e.g., managed by AP 101, 102, 103, and 104) for FTM positioning. In the second option, STA 105 first selects AP 101 and initiates FTM with AP 101 and obtains AP location and co-located BSSID list via the FTM frame exchange 111. STA 105 then initiates FTM with three other non-co-located BSSs (e.g., managed by AP 102, 103, and 104) to complete the FTM positioning [0023]. FIG. 2 is a simplified block diagram of an initiating wireless station 221 and a responding wireless station 231 in accordance with one novel aspect. The initiating device is referred to as an initiator, and the responding device is referred to as a responder. Both devices can be an AP station or a non-AP station [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KARAOGUZ to include the teachings of BAJKO, because doing so would improve positioning in wireless systems, as recognized by BAJKO. In addition, both of the prior art references, KARAOGUZ and BAJKO, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, positioning system.
Regarding claim 6, KARAOGUZ/ VAN DIGGELEN discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, BAJKO teaches that in FIG. 1, AP 101 to AP 104 are used to provide positioning service for STA 105 in an indoor environment via Fine Timing Measurement (FTM) protocol [0020]. Additionally, BAJKO discloses that for 3D positioning, STA 105 needs to exchange FTM frames with four non-co-located BSSs in order to determine its absolute location. In the first option, STA 105 first selects AP 101 and obtains AP location and co-located BSSID list using ANQP. STA 105 can then initiate FTM protocol with four non-co-located BSSs (e.g., managed by AP 101, 102, 103, and 104) for FTM positioning. In the second option, STA 105 first selects AP 101 and initiates FTM with AP 101 and obtains AP location and co-located BSSID list via the FTM frame exchange 111. STA 105 then initiates FTM with three other non-co-located BSSs (e.g., managed by AP 102, 103, and 104) to complete the FTM positioning [0023]. FIG. 2 is a simplified block diagram of an initiating wireless station 221 and a responding wireless station 231 in accordance with one novel aspect. The initiating device is referred to as an initiator, and the responding device is referred to as a responder. Both devices can be an AP station or a non-AP station [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KARAOGUZ to include the teachings of BAJKO, because doing so would improve positioning in wireless systems, as recognized by BAJKO.
Regarding claim 7, KARAOGUZ/ VAN DIGGELEN discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, BAJKO teaches that in FIG. 1, AP 101 to AP 104 are used to provide positioning service for STA 105 in an indoor environment via Fine Timing Measurement (FTM) protocol [0020]. Additionally, BAJKO discloses that for 3D positioning, STA 105 needs to exchange FTM frames with four non-co-located BSSs in order to determine its absolute location. In the first option, STA 105 first selects AP 101 and obtains AP location and co-located BSSID list using ANQP. STA 105 can then initiate FTM protocol with four non-co-located BSSs (e.g., managed by AP 101, 102, 103, and 104) for FTM positioning. In the second option, STA 105 first selects AP 101 and initiates FTM with AP 101 and obtains AP location and co-located BSSID list via the FTM frame exchange 111. STA 105 then initiates FTM with three other non-co-located BSSs (e.g., managed by AP 102, 103, and 104) to complete the FTM positioning [0023]. FIG. 2 is a simplified block diagram of an initiating wireless station 221 and a responding wireless station 231 in accordance with one novel aspect. The initiating device is referred to as an initiator, and the responding device is referred to as a responder. Both devices can be an AP station or a non-AP station [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KARAOGUZ to include the teachings of BAJKO, because doing so would improve positioning in wireless systems, as recognized by BAJKO.
Regarding claim 14, KARAOGUZ/ VAN DIGGELEN discloses the location tracking system of claim 10,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, BAJKO teaches that in FIG. 1, AP 101 to AP 104 are used to provide positioning service for STA 105 in an indoor environment via Fine Timing Measurement (FTM) protocol [0020]. Additionally, BAJKO discloses that for 3D positioning, STA 105 needs to exchange FTM frames with four non-co-located BSSs in order to determine its absolute location. In the first option, STA 105 first selects AP 101 and obtains AP location and co-located BSSID list using ANQP. STA 105 can then initiate FTM protocol with four non-co-located BSSs (e.g., managed by AP 101, 102, 103, and 104) for FTM positioning. In the second option, STA 105 first selects AP 101 and initiates FTM with AP 101 and obtains AP location and co-located BSSID list via the FTM frame exchange 111. STA 105 then initiates FTM with three other non-co-located BSSs (e.g., managed by AP 102, 103, and 104) to complete the FTM positioning [0023]. FIG. 2 is a simplified block diagram of an initiating wireless station 221 and a responding wireless station 231 in accordance with one novel aspect. The initiating device is referred to as an initiator, and the responding device is referred to as a responder. Both devices can be an AP station or a non-AP station [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KARAOGUZ to include the teachings of BAJKO, because doing so would improve positioning in wireless systems, as recognized by BAJKO.
Regarding claim 15, KARAOGUZ/ VAN DIGGELEN discloses the location tracking system of claim 10,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, BAJKO teaches that in FIG. 1, AP 101 to AP 104 are used to provide positioning service for STA 105 in an indoor environment via Fine Timing Measurement (FTM) protocol [0020]. Additionally, BAJKO discloses that for 3D positioning, STA 105 needs to exchange FTM frames with four non-co-located BSSs in order to determine its absolute location. In the first option, STA 105 first selects AP 101 and obtains AP location and co-located BSSID list using ANQP. STA 105 can then initiate FTM protocol with four non-co-located BSSs (e.g., managed by AP 101, 102, 103, and 104) for FTM positioning. In the second option, STA 105 first selects AP 101 and initiates FTM with AP 101 and obtains AP location and co-located BSSID list via the FTM frame exchange 111. STA 105 then initiates FTM with three other non-co-located BSSs (e.g., managed by AP 102, 103, and 104) to complete the FTM positioning [0023]. FIG. 2 is a simplified block diagram of an initiating wireless station 221 and a responding wireless station 231 in accordance with one novel aspect. The initiating device is referred to as an initiator, and the responding device is referred to as a responder. Both devices can be an AP station or a non-AP station [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KARAOGUZ to include the teachings of BAJKO, because doing so would improve positioning in wireless systems, as recognized by BAJKO.
Regarding claim 16, KARAOGUZ/ VAN DIGGELEN discloses the location tracking system of claim 10,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, BAJKO teaches that in FIG. 1, AP 101 to AP 104 are used to provide positioning service for STA 105 in an indoor environment via Fine Timing Measurement (FTM) protocol [0020]. Additionally, BAJKO discloses that for 3D positioning, STA 105 needs to exchange FTM frames with four non-co-located BSSs in order to determine its absolute location. In the first option, STA 105 first selects AP 101 and obtains AP location and co-located BSSID list using ANQP. STA 105 can then initiate FTM protocol with four non-co-located BSSs (e.g., managed by AP 101, 102, 103, and 104) for FTM positioning. In the second option, STA 105 first selects AP 101 and initiates FTM with AP 101 and obtains AP location and co-located BSSID list via the FTM frame exchange 111. STA 105 then initiates FTM with three other non-co-located BSSs (e.g., managed by AP 102, 103, and 104) to complete the FTM positioning [0023]. FIG. 2 is a simplified block diagram of an initiating wireless station 221 and a responding wireless station 231 in accordance with one novel aspect. The initiating device is referred to as an initiator, and the responding device is referred to as a responder. Both devices can be an AP station or a non-AP station [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KARAOGUZ to include the teachings of BAJKO, because doing so would improve positioning in wireless systems, as recognized by BAJKO.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KARAOGUZ, in view of VAN DIGGELEN, and further in view of Monaghan et al. (US 2016/0345163 A1 “MONAGHAN”).
Regarding claim 18, KARAOGUZ/ VAN DIGGELEN discloses the location tracking system of claim 17,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, MONAGHAN teaches that once the location calculation is completed, analytics engine 16 can update the location database for the particular wireless device. An analytics engine within the analytics engine can use the updated information within the location database [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KARAOGUZ to include the teachings of MONAGHAN, because doing so would improve positioning accuracy, as recognized by MONAGHAN. In addition, both of the prior art references, KARAOGUZ and MONAGHAN, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, positioning system in a wireless LAN network.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 2018/0295601 A1) discloses a method for enabling angle-based positioning of a wireless device in a Wireless Local Area Network, WLAN, system comprises the steps of extracting directional information from beamforming information comprised in channel sounding feedback obtained from a wireless device and estimating an angular direction to said wireless device based on said extracted directional information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, WILLIAM J KELLEHER can be reached at (571) 272-7753. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 January 10, 2026