DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claims fail to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper. Much of the language of the claims is simply a list of desired results without clearly and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the inventive subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claim 10, it recites the limitation “the receiver”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim recites receiving a plurality of signals, but the receiver is not established. Therefore “the receiver” does not have antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claims 10 and 17, it recites the limitations of (1) “...each phasor sequence represents a hypothesis based on antenna motion and a direction of arrival estimate for each of the plurality of the received signals…” and (2) “…determining a preferred hypothesis in the plurality of hypotheses for each received signal that optimizes each correlation result in the plurality of compensated correlation results...”. It is not fully clear from the claim how directions of arrival are estimated and that there may be missing information that one of ordinary skill would need to understand this process. Further, the limitation takes the hypothesis (1) and uses them to determine the preferred hypothesis in the plurality of hypotheses to optimize correlation results. It is not clear how the hypothesis of what the relationship between (1) and (2) are related and how they would optimize a correlation result. With respect to the direction of arrival, the specification does not disclose how the directions of arrival are determined. Paragraphs [0041], [0058]-[0059] all disclose techniques for performing DoA determinations using supercorrelation, but do not explain how the signals that are arriving can be isolated from other reflected signals to determine a DoA. Fig. 1A and 1B depict a number of signals being received, both LOS and NLOS signals, it is not clear how the signals are isolated in from the total number of signals received at a moving receiver to determined DoA of a particular signal. Without knowing how the determination is made, it cannot be readily understood how the hypothesis and then a point of reflection from the DoA of the received signals can be determined.
Still regarding claim 1, and similarly claims 10 and 17, it also contains the limitation of “... compensating the received signals, a plurality of local signals or correlation results from correlating the received signals with the local signals using the plurality of phasor sequences based on the plurality of hypotheses regarding the receiver motion and the direction of arrival to generate a plurality of compensated correlation results...”. It is not clear what the local signals refer to or how received signals are correlated with local signals using the plurality of phasor sequences. It is not disclosed where or when the local signals are generated or where the signals are originally originated.
Further, still regarding claim 1, and similarly claims 10 and 17, it recites the limitation of “…identifying a direction of arrival for the plurality of received signals using the preferred hypothesis…” which is unclear and indefinite. It appears that “identifying a direction of arrival of each received signal in the plurality of received signals” is more appropriate language. If this is not the case, then the claimed limitation of “the direction of arrival of each received signal in the plurality of received signals” in the last two lines of the claim lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, it recites the limitation of “…the preferred hypothesis is determined based on a cost function.” It is not clear of is meant and encompasses “a cost function”. It lacks any definite limits within the boundary of the claim.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
It is Applicant’s responsibility to draft a clear and concise set of claims defining the metes and bounds of Applicant’s invention. The claims consistently show that they lack a clear definition of Applicant’s invention. Applicant should review all of the outstanding claims in response hereto. All of the claims should be reviewed for issues related to clarity and scope as the errors/issues are not constrained to those listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 10-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Faragher et al (US 2020/0264317).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claims 10 and 17, as best understood, Faragher et al disclose a method for providing a position of a receiver using signals transmitted from a single transmitter (Fig 1-3, 15-16; [0006]-[0048]), comprising:
receiving a plurality of signals transmitted from the single transmitter, where each of the plurality of signals has a different propagation path ([0078]);
determining a motion of an antenna of the receiver ([0068]-[0069]);
generating a plurality of phasors sequences, where each phasor sequence represents a hypothesis based on antenna motion and a direction of arrival estimate for each of the plurality of the received signals ([0183]-[0219]);
compensating the received signals, a plurality of local signals or correlation results from correlating the received signals with the local signals using the plurality of phasor sequences based on the plurality of hypotheses regarding the receiver motion and the direction of arrival to generate a plurality of compensated correlation results (Fig 3; [0119]-[0133]);
determining a preferred hypothesis in the plurality of hypotheses for each received signal that optimizes each correlation result in the plurality of compensated correlation results ([0221]-[0235]);
identifying a direction of arrival for the plurality of received signals using the preferred hypothesis ([0221]-[0235]; [0281]); and
determining a position of the receiver using the direction of arrival of each received signal in the plurality of received signals (Fig 15-16; [0067]-[0077]).
In addition regarding claim 10, Faragher et al also disclose an apparatus for providing a position of a receiver using signals transmitted from a single transmitter, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory for storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the apparatus to perform the method as claimed above (Fig 1, 12A, 12B, 15; [0040]; [0375]-[383]).
In addition regarding claim 17, Faragher et al also disclose a system for providing a position of a receiver using signals transmitted from a single transmitter, comprising:
at least one receiver (i.e. receiver 200 of Fig 1; receiver 2 of Fig 15) comprising a respective antenna (i.e. antenna(s) 202 of Fig 1; antenna 4 of Fig 15) (Fig 15; [0040]; [0067]; [0104]);
a motion module (i.e. receiver-motion module 360) (Fig 10A, 10B; [0043]; [0361]-[0368]);
the single transmitter (i.e. a transmitter) ([0079]; [0117]); and
an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory for storing programs and instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the apparatus to perform the method as claimed above (Fig 1, 12A, 12B, 15; [0040]; [0375]-[383]).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 2, and similarly claims 11 and 18, Faragher et al disclose the direction of arrival estimate for each phasor sequence is based on at least one of a known position of the transmitter, a known building model, or an approximate position of the receiver (i.e. relative position of the receiver and source over the time period) ([0228]).
Regarding claims 3-4, and similarly claim 12, Faragher et al disclose the hypotheses are based on a previously determined preferred hypothesis, wherein the hypotheses are offset from the previously determined preferred hypothesis based on an expected receiver motion ([0028]-[0230]).
Regarding claim 5, and similarly claim 13, Faragher et al disclose determining the motion of the antenna includes determining at least one of a velocity, a heading, or an orientation of the antenna ([0068]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faragher et al.
Regarding claim 6, and similarly claim 14, Faragher et al do not explicitly disclose signals are selected for processing if the signals are determined to have an angle of reflection that is less than 50 degrees as claimed. However, in paragraph [0234], Faragher et al teach in the same field of endeavor “In other circumstances the highest power may result from an indirectly received signal (a reflected signal). For example, it may be possible to consider only reflected signals by constraining u to a range of values not likely to be aligned with rs-rr.”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select signals for processing if the signals are determined to have an angle of reflection that is less than 50 degrees for selecting proper signals to process for effectively determining a receiver’s position, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Faragher et al do not explicitly disclose the preferred hypothesis is determined based on a cost function. Instead, Faragher et al teach in the same field of endeavor that the hypotheses are based on a previously determined preferred hypothesis, wherein the hypotheses are offset from the previously determined preferred hypothesis based on an expected receiver motion ([0028]-[0230]). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine the preferred hypothesis based on a cost function, since Applicant has not disclosed that utilizing a cost function for determining the preferred hypothesis solves any stated problem. It appears that the invention would perform equally well with the hypotheses are based on a previously determined preferred hypothesis, wherein the hypotheses are offset from the previously determined preferred hypothesis based on an expected receiver motion as taught by Faragher et al for properly determining the position, direction, and/or motion of a receiver.
Claims 8, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faragher et al in view of Grossman et al (US 2019/0223140).
Regarding claim 8, and similarly claims 15 and 19, Faragher et al do not explicitly disclose the position of the receiver is determined further based on at least one of a transmission time stamp, a received signal time stamp, an estimated transmission path length, a transmitter position, a reflection position, a building model, a time difference of arrival between received signals, or a signal strength of received signals as claimed. Grossman et al teach in the same field of endeavor the position of the receiver is determined further based on at least one of a transmission time stamp, a received signal time stamp, an estimated transmission path length, a transmitter position, a reflection position, a building model, a time difference of arrival between received signals, or a signal strength of received signals ([0005]-[0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faragher et al in view of Grossman et al to incorporate the position of the receiver is determined further based on at least one of a transmission time stamp, a received signal time stamp, an estimated transmission path length, a transmitter position, a reflection position, a building model, a time difference of arrival between received signals, or a signal strength of received signals as taught by Grossman et al to gain the advantages of properly determining the position(s) of the receiver; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 9, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faragher et al in view of Yeo et al (US 2011/0074635).
Regarding claim 9, and similarly claims 16 and 20, Faragher et al do not explicitly disclose receiving signals transmitted from two or more transmitters, determining respective positions for the receiver using signals received from each of the two or more transmitters, and combining the receiver positions determined using each of the two or more transmitters to determine a receiver position as claimed. Yeo et al teach in the same field of endeavor receiving signals transmitted from two or more transmitters, determining respective positions for the receiver using signals received from each of the two or more transmitters, and combining the receiver positions determined using each of the two or more transmitters to determine a receiver position (i.e. by measuring the distance between each transmitter to the receiver, then the position of the receiver to each transmitter is known) (Fig 3-6; [0032]-[0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faragher et al in view of Yeo et al to incorporate receiving signals transmitted from two or more transmitters, determining respective positions for the receiver using signals received from each of the two or more transmitters, and combining the receiver positions determined using each of the two or more transmitters to determine a receiver position as taught by Yeo et al to gain the advantages of properly determining a position of the receiver from the signals received from a plurality of transmitters; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0007993 discloses a method, apparatus, and system for determining locations of cellular emitters include receiving at least one signal from the cellular emitters at an antenna of at least one receiver, determining a motion of the antenna of the at least one receiver that received the at least one signal, using the determined antenna motion, performing motion compensated correlation upon the at least one received signal to generate at least one motion compensated correlation result, determining a direction of arrival for the at least one received signal using the at least one motion compensated correlation result, and determining a location of the cellular emitters using the direction of arrival of the at least one received signal and a known location of the at least one receiver. A geolocation map of the locations of the emitters of, for example, cell base station towers can be generated using determined emitter locations.
US 8,908,616 discloses a method includes emitting a reference signal following K transmission paths during a first configuration time slot, identifying valid transmission paths among the set of K transmission paths by listening, according to each transmission path of the set, for a feedback reference signal from the second device during the second configuration time slot; and emitting data signals in each communication time slot of which the associated transmission path has been identified as valid.
US 7,292,189 discloses a method of signal analysis that determines the location of a transmitter and to devices that implement the method. The method includes receiving by at least three receivers, from a transmitter, a first continuous-time signal having a first channel. The first channel includes a first plurality of signal carriers having known relative initial phases and having known frequencies which are periodically spaced and which are orthogonal to one another within a first frequency range. The signal analysis method also includes determining the phase shifts of the carriers of the first channel resulting from the distance the carriers traveled in reaching the first receiver. Analysis of the phase shifts yields time difference of arrival information amongst the receivers, which is further processed to determine the location of the transmitter.
US 2003/0054845 discloses wireless signal reception, and particularly relates to higher resolution techniques for estimating a signal's time-of-arrival. The time of arrival of a received signal with multipath components is precisely estimated using an optimal algorithm, such as Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE), after restricting the optimal algorithm's search space to one or more time intervals determined by preprocessing the received signal using a less computationally complex sub-optimal algorithm. This approach yields the accuracy benefits of optimal algorithm processing, while reducing aggregate computational complexity. Sub-optimal algorithms include but are not limited to correlation, MUSIC, and Signal-Eigen-Vector (SEV) processing. Iterative sub-optimal pre-processing of the received signal further refines the optimal algorithm search space, and, in some instances, may be used to resolve multipath time-of-arrival (TOA) with sufficient accuracy. Accurate received signal TOA determination enables precise positioning of wireless receivers, which has relevance across a broad range of applications, such as E-911 location services and navigational systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights