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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant alleges that the combination of Wai, Dees, and Ruuska fails to teach all the limitations of amended claim 1 (Page 8, line 10). Respectfully, there are two issues with the Applicant’s arguments:
Applicant only presents arguments against the limitations being in the teaching of Ruuska in their response which fails to address the rejection which was based on the combination of Wai in view of Dees and Ruuska. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s understanding of Ruuska as presented through their arguments is incorrect. Applicant claims that Ruuska “does not have a first and second parameter which are determined as required by amended claim 1 which are then compared” (Page 9, lines 12-13). In fact, Ruuska teaches both making a measurement of received signals at multiple frequencies at each of the two objects ([0048] At step 28, the Master device 10.sub.M and the Slave devices 10.sub.S measure a noise indication for the signals received at each of the 79 frequencies.) and then comparing the interference (defined in [0009]) for each signal at step 30 ([0050]). Applicant misinterprets [0049] which only is specifying that step 28 (Measure noise in fq channels at master and slave; See Fig. 2) occur in such as way that the devices of the network do not create inference with each other.
Based on the rejection of claim 1, the dependent claims 2-20 are likewise rejection. Additionally, as will be presented in the 35 USC 103 rejection below, the combination of Wai in view of Dees and Ruuska does teach all the limitations of new claims 19 and 20.
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 1 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 the limitations “the signals“ in line 5, “a first signal of the signals” in lines 11-12 and “a second signal of the signals” in lines 12-13, it is unclear and not readily understood what is meant by this limitation. The terms “a first signal of the signals” and “a second signal of the signals” are not defined by the claim language, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the meaning, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required, with reference to the disclosure to clarify the intended limitation to be imposed on the invention.
Claims 2-20 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 is dependent upon claim 1. Claim 1 contains two limitations regarding the signals; first, “a first object and a second object of the two objects emits signals at multiple frequencies”; and second, “the first and second signal respectively being transmitted by either of the first and second object and respectively beinq received by the other of the first and second object” which means the first signal comes from the first object and the second object. Claim 19 removes both limitations. Regarding the first limitation, claim 19 offers, “the first signal is transmitted by the first object on a first frequency and received by the second object and the second signal is… ii) transmitted by the second object on the first frequency and received by the first object.”, this is not consistent with the limitation of claim 1 that each signal be composed of multiple frequencies. Regarding the second limitation, claim 19 states “the first signal is transmitted by the first object on a first frequency and received by the second object and the second signal is either i) transmitted by the first object on a second frequency different to the first frequency and received by the second object”, which is not consist with the other claim limitation of claim 1 where the first signal comes from one of the objects and the second signal comes from the other object. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wai (WO 2014130196) in view of Dees (US PG Pub. 20180335514) and Ruuska (U.S. PG Pub. 20060013172).
Regarding claim 1, Wai discloses a method for distance determination between two objects ((Abstract) methods are disclosed for estimating a signal travel time, and thus distance between transceivers, in an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) system.), wherein the two objects are time- or clock-cycle-synchronized to 10 ns or better ([0086] The LTE standard allows a base station to transmit to a mobile device the base station's timing offset, if any, with respect to GPS time or CDMA time. [0095] transmitter(s) and receiver(s) are closely synchronized to each other so the transmit or receive times are accurate relative to each other.), and wherein one or both of a first object and a second object of the two objects emits signals at multiple frequencies, and the other of the one or both of the second object and the first object of the two objects receives the signals at multiple frequencies ([0044] The transceivers may be a mobile device and an access point. Round-trip time (RTT) is determined by sending a first OFDM signal from the first transceiver A to the second transceiver B and then sending a second OFDM signal from the second transceiver B back to the first transceiver A.), and the distance between the first object and the second object is determined therefrom as well as from the knowledge of the time-points at which features of the signals were emitted ([0008] According to some aspects, disclosed is a method for estimating a round-trip time (RTT) in an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) system the method comprising: transmitting a first OFDM signal at a first transmit time (tn) from a first transceiver to a second transceiver; receiving, at the first transceiver and from the second transceiver).
Wai fails to teach wherein effects of interference on the signals transmitted between the first and the second object are determined on the received signals, in that a first parameter quantifying the effect of interference on a first signal of the signals and a second parameter quantifying the effects of interference on a second signal of the signals are determined based on measurements on received first and second signals with the first and second signal respectively being transmitted by either of the first and second object and respectively being received by the other of the first and second object and based on measurements on the received first and second signals, wherein the first and second signals are different signals, wherein the method includes a decision whether the first or second signal is used for determining the distance, wherein the decision is made based on the determined first and second parameters being compared to each other and selecting signals with less effects of interference over signals with higher effects of interference.
However, Dees teaches a wireless communication method for distance measurement between two devices (Abstract, A first device (110) for distance measurement via wireless communication (130) uses a ranging protocol for determining a distance (140) to a second device (120)) wherein the method includes a decision whether the first or second signal is used for determining the distance, [0081] In the mechanism the distance between a first and a second wireless device is determined by performing time measurements on wireless messages. The first wireless station subsequently validates the values received from the second wireless station to determine if the values adhere to reference criteria. If so, the received values are considered valid, and the first device takes the determined distance as reliable. Also see [0088] and [0090]).
Wai and Dees are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of technological endeavor of utilizing radiofrequency technology for communication. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate the distance ranging protocol of Dees with the method of distance determination of Wai before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to yield a predictable result of improved reliability of distance measurement between two devices.
Wai as modified by Dees fails to explicitly teach wherein effects of interference on the signals transmitted between the first and the second object are determined on the received signals in that a first parameter quantifying the effect of interference on a first signal of the signals and a second parameter quantifying the effects of interference on a second signal of the signals are determined based on measurements on received first and second signals, wherein the first and second signals are different signals, wherein the decision is made based on the determined first and second parameters being compared to each other and selecting signals with less effects of interference over signals with higher effects of interference.
However, Ruuska teaches in the same technological field of endeavor a method for signal selection (Abstract: means for determining a threshold, using an indication for the first radio link, for use in selecting candidate hop frequencies for the communications channel from the plurality of frequencies.) wherein effects of interference on the signals transmitted between the first and the second object are determined on the received signals ([0049] The noise indication measured may be the Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI). Examiner’s note: see [0040] for alternative noise indication parameters. ) in that a first parameter quantifying the effect of interference on a first signal of the signals and a second parameter quantifying the effects of interference on a second signal of the signals are determined based on measurements on received first and second signals ([0048] At step 28, the Master device 10.sub.M and the Slave devices 10.sub.S measure a noise indication for the signals received at each of the 79 frequencies. – Examiner’s note: The first parameter is the noise indication measurement at one device and the second parameter is the noise indication measurement at the other device), wherein the first and second signals are different signals, wherein the decision is made based on the determined first and second parameters being compared to each other and selecting signals with less effects of interference over signals with higher effects of interference ([0050] At step 30, the frequencies are classified using the threshold distributed at step 26. This involves selecting, using the determined threshold, local candidate hop frequencies for use in the communications channel from the plurality of frequencies. If the noise indication for a frequency exceeds the threshold then the frequency is classified as `bad`, that is unusable because of interference. If the noise indication for a frequency does not exceed the threshold then the frequency is classified as `good`, that is usable).
Wai, Dees and Ruuska are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of technological endeavor of utilizing radiofrequency technology for communication of signals between objects. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate the steps for wireless frequency selection of Ruuska with the method of distance determination of Wai as modified by Dees before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to yield a predictable result of an improvement in the distance measurement through excluding distance measurements which are corrupted by interference.
Regarding claim 2, Wai as modified by Dees and Ruuska teach the method of claim 1. Wai also teaches that the one or both of the first object and the second object changes between at least two of the multiple frequencies ([0040] Position determination techniques described herein may be implemented in conjunction with various wireless communication networks such as a wireless wide area network (WW AN), a wireless local area network (WLAN), a wireless personal area network (WPAN), and so on.).
Regarding claim 3, Wai as modified by Dees and Ruuska teach the method of claim 1. However, Wai as modified by Dees and Ruuska fails to teach wherein for the distance determination, received signal components of the one or both of the first object and the second object at frequencies with less than 40%, or at least received signals with less than 20% of the received mean energy of the signals, or signals with more than 140% of the received mean energy, remain unconsidered. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to define specific threshold values, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involved only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 4, Wai as modified by Dees and Ruuska teach the method of claim 1. Wai also teaches that the second object or the first object does not send any signals for distance determination, or the second object only sends signals for time- or clock-cycle-synchronization ([0084] The transmit time (tr) is sent from the transmitter to the receiver in the same OFDM signal or in a separate message. [0085] In this case, the transmitter transmits an OFDM signal for ranging but then also computes the one-way travel time of the OFDM signal. In still other cases, the receiver deduces the transmit time (tr) as occurring at the previous epoch in time.).
Regarding claim 5, Wai as modified by Dees and Ruuska teach the method of claim 1. Wai also teaches that the one or both of the first object and the second object of the two objects emits the signals at multiple frequencies successively or consecutively ([0040] Position determination techniques described herein may be implemented in conjunction with various wireless communication networks such as a wireless wide area network (WW AN), a wireless local area network (WLAN), a wireless personal area network (WPAN), and so on.).
Regarding claim 6, Wai as modified by Dees and Ruuska teach the method of claim 1. Wai also teaches that at least one time-or clock-cycle synchronization or correction is carried out between the two objects before, after or while the method is carried out ([0040] Position determination techniques described herein may be implemented in conjunction with various wireless communication networks such as a wireless wide area network (WWAN), a wireless local area network (WLAN), a wireless personal area network (WPAN), and so on.).
Regarding claim 7, Wai as modified by Dees and Ruuska teach the method of claim 1. Wai also teaches that a frequency spacing between two consecutive frequencies of the multiple frequencies is one or both of at least 0.1 MHz and a maximum of 10 MHz ([0040] A WWAN may be a Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) network, a Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) network, a Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA) network, an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) network, a Single-Carrier Frequency Division Multiple Access (SC-FDMA) network, Long Term Evolution (LTE), and so on.). The specification for CDMA can be found at ‘CDMA frequency band’ WWW.Sqimway.com [retrieved on 2020-04-24] Retrieved from the Internet: <https://web.archive.org/web/20200424125032/https://www.sqimway.com/cdma_band.php.>
Regarding claim 8, Wai as modified by Dees and Ruuska teach the method of claim 1. Wai as modified by Dees and Ruuska teach the claimed invention except for the accuracy of the distance determination lies in the range from 0.3 m to 3 m. Wai also teaches that it is known in the art to provide GPS time for time of arrival distance measurements ([0082] For example, in synchronous LTE deployments and other synchronous networks, an OWT may be measured. A mobile device may be synchronous to the network, for example, by using GPS time.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide that “a time- or clock-cycle-synchronized to 10 ns or better”, which is known in the art to be the case with GPS time, as stated in claim 1 would yield an accuracy of 3 m or less given the speed of light.
Regarding claim 9, Wai as modified by Dees and Ruuska teach the method of claim 1. Wai also teaches that the distance determination is based on ascertaining the a signal time-of- flight from the first object to the second object, or from the second object to the first object ([0082] position determination may be determined based on the single-way OFDM signal also known as the OWT.), or wherein the distance determination is based on ascertaining a phase shift of the signals from the first object to the second object, or from the second object to the first object ([0083] Alternatively, instead of using signaling, the transmit time (tn) may be at a known epoch in time with a known phase relative to the networks to which they are synchronous with.).
Regarding claim 10, Wai modified by Dees and Ruuska teach the method of claim 1. Wai also teaches that a time drift of at least one of the two objects is determined or corrected or is considered in the calculation of the distance ([0086] The LTE standard allows a base station to transmit to a mobile device the base station's timing offset, if any, with respect to GPS time or CDMA time.).
Regarding claim 12, Wai as modified by Dees and Ruuska teach the method of claim 1. Wai as modified by Dees does not teach that signals received at the second object or the first object with a received power below a predetermined or calculated, lower power limit, are not taken into consideration for the distance determination.
However, Ruuska teaches that signals received at the second object or the first object with a received power below a predetermined or calculated, lower power limit, are not taken into consideration for the distance determination ([0015] One approach is to use a fixed RSSI threshold. The noise signal in a frequency channel that is not being used to transmit a packet to or from the device is detected. If the RSSI for the noise signal is above the fixed threshold it is classified as bad, whereas if it is below the fixed threshold it is classified as good.).
Wai, Dees and Ruuska are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of technological endeavor of utilizing radiofrequency technology for communication. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate the step of the signals received at the second object or the first object with a received power below a predetermined or calculated, lower power limit, are not taken into consideration for the distance determination of Ruuska with the method of distance determination of Wai as modified by Dees before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to yield a predictable result of an improvement in the distance measurement through excluding distance measurements that are not accurate.
Regarding claim 13, Wai as modified by Dees and Ruuska teach the method of claim 1. Wai also teaches that method carried out between a plurality of pairs of objects, and wherein the ascertained distances of the pairs are used to carry out a mapping or position determination ([00102] In any case, additional receivers or transmitters (i.e., more than three) may be used to enable more precise determination of a position fix.).
Regarding claim 14, Wai as modified by Dees and Ruuska teach the method of claim 1. Wai also teaches an object configured for carrying out the method according to claim 1 ([0042] As used herein, a mobile device, sometimes referred to as a mobile station (MS) or user equipment (UE), such as a cellular phone, mobile phone or other wireless communication device).
Regarding claim 15, Wai modified by Dees and Ruuska teach the method of claim 1. Wai also teaches at no time does the bandwidth of the signals exceed 50 MHz ([0040] A WWAN may be a Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) network, a Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) network, a Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA) network, an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) network, a Single-Carrier Frequency Division Multiple Access (SC-FDMA) network, Long Term Evolution (LTE), and so on.). The specification for CDMA can be found at ‘CDMA frequency band’ WWW.Sqimway.com [retrieved on 2020-04-24] Retrieved from the Internet: <https://web.archive.org/web/20200424125032/https://www.sqimway.com/cdma_band.php.>
Regarding claim 16, Wai modified Dees and Ruuska teach the method of claim 1. Wai also teaches the multiple frequencies are at least five frequencies or a maximum of two hundred frequencies or both ([0040] A WWAN may be a Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) network, a Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) network, a Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA) network, an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) network, a Single-Carrier Frequency Division Multiple Access (SC-FDMA) network, Long Term Evolution (LTE), and so on.). The specification for CDMA can be found at ‘CDMA frequency band’ WWW.Sqimway.com [retrieved on 2020-04-24] Retrieved from the Internet: <https://web.archive.org/web/20200424125032/https://www.sqimway.com/cdma_band.php.>
Regarding claim 17, Wai as modified Dees and Ruuska teach the method of claim 1. Wai also teaches that the multiple frequencies span a frequency band of at least 2 MHz or a maximum of 100 MHz or both ([0040] A WWAN may be a Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) network, a Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) network, a Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA) network, an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) network, a Single-Carrier Frequency Division Multiple Access (SC-FDMA) network, Long Term Evolution (LTE), and so on.). The specification for CDMA can be found at ‘CDMA frequency band’ WWW.Sqimway.com [retrieved on 2020-04-24] Retrieved from the Internet: <https://web.archive.org/web/20200424125032/https://www.sqimway.com/cdma_band.php.>
Regarding claim 18, Wai as modified Dees and Ruuska teach the method of claim 1. Wai as modified Dees fails to teach that signals received at the second object or the first object with a power above a predetermined or calculated upper power limit are not taken into consideration for the distance determination.
However, Ruuska teaches that signals received at the second object or the first object with a power above a predetermined or calculated upper power limit are not taken into consideration for the distance determination. ([0015] One approach is to use a fixed RSSI threshold. The noise signal in a frequency channel that is not being used to transmit a packet to or from the device is detected. If the RSSI for the noise signal is above the fixed threshold it is classified as bad, whereas if it is below the fixed threshold it is classified as good.).
Wai, Dees and Ruuska are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of technological endeavor of utilizing radiofrequency technology for communication. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate the step of signals received at the second object or the first object with a power above a predetermined or calculated upper power limit are not taken into consideration for the distance determination of Ruuska with the method of distance determination of Wai as modified by Dees before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to yield a predictable result of an improvement in the distance measurement through excluding distance measurements that are not accurate.
Regarding claim 19, Wai as modified Dees and Ruuska teach the method of claim 1. Wai further teaches wherein the first signal and second signal are different in that the first signal is transmitted by the first object on a first frequency (Abstract: Systems, apparatuses and methods are disclosed for estimating a signal travel time, and thus distance between transceivers, in an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) system. The signal travel time is measured between a transmit time (t.sub.T) and a receive window time (t.sub.window) adjusted by the phase delay (T.sub..PHI.).) and received by the second object ([0055] FIG. 8 show a receive window of an OFDM subcarrier. Generally, the receive window begins at t.sub.window and includes a variable part of the transmitted CP. The window width is equal to an OFDM symbol without the CP. Before the beginning of the receive window at t.sub.window, the OFDM symbol with the CP arrives at the receiver. Examiner’s note: an OFDM subcarrier is a signal frequency.) and the second signal is either i) transmitted by the first object on a second frequency (Figs. 16-19; [0067] In each case, the period T.sub..PHI.stays constant but the number of cycles (or parts of cycles) changes based on the frequency of the pilot OFDM symbol. Examiner’s note: higher order ODFM symbols or subcarriers can also be used.) different to the first frequency and received by the second object ([0071] FIG. 21 shows a circuit to average phase delays, in accordance with some embodiments of the present invention. The phase delay T.sub..PHI.for the single-cycle signal is measured. For multiple-cycle signals of the pilots, any whole cycle rollovers are taken into account by adding n*360.degree. to the phase delay prior to dividing. The phase delay T.sub..PHI.for the four-cycle signal is measured and divided by four.) or ii) transmitted by the second object on the first frequency and received by the first object ([0008] According to some aspects, disclosed is a method for estimating a round-trip time (RTT) in an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) system, the method comprising: transmitting a first OFDM signal at a first transmit time (t.sub.T1) from a first transceiver to a second transceiver; receiving, at the first transceiver and from the second transceiver, a second OFDM signal in a window A having a window A start time (t.sub.windowA); and determining a window A phase difference (T.sub..PHI.A) from a first difference of a receive time (t.sub.R2) of the second OFDM signal and a window A start time (t.sub.windowA) of the window A.).
Regarding claim 20, Wai as modified Dees and Ruuska teach the claimed invention except for decisions are made with respect to several pairs of first and second signals of the signals at multiple frequencies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize several measurements to establish a values, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wai as modified by Dees and Ruuska as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berardinelli et al., "Basics of Wireless Communications for Positioning," in Mobile Positioning and Tracking: From Conventional to Cooperative Techniques, IEEE, 2016, pp.43-79.
Regarding claim 11, Wai as modified as by Dees and Ruuska teach the method of claim 1. Wai as modified by Dees and Ruuska fail to teach that a mean value is determined from multiple distance determinations.
However, Berardinelli teaches wireless communication for positioning (Page 43, paragraph 1, lines 1-2; This chapter introduces the basics of wireless communications with particular focus on their relation to mobile positioning.) and a mean value is determined from multiple spacing determinations (Page 71 paragraph 2, line 27-28; Basically, each node updates its internal timing with the aim of minimizing the average time difference to its neighbors.)
Wai, Dees, Ruuska and Berardinelli are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of technological endeavor of utilizing radiofrequency technology for communication. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate the steps of mean value determination of Berardinelli with the method of Wai as modified by Dees and Ruuska before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The resulting combined method would yield a predictable result of an improvement in the distance measurement through reducing the impact of noise in the distance determination (Page 71 paragraph 2, line 28-30; This solution does not require any network-level parameter to be set, and has been also proved to be robust to additive node disturbances.).
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 prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 6812824 discloses a system for tracking mobile tags. Cell controllers with multiple antenna modules generate a carrier signal which is received by the tags. Tags shift the frequency of the carrier signal, modulate an identification code onto it, and transmit the resulting tag signal at randomized intervals. The antennas receive and process the response, and determine the presence of the tags by proximity and triangulation. The recursive-least squares (RLS) technique is used in filtering received signals. Distance of a tag from an antenna is calculated by measuring the round trip signal time. The cell controllers send data from the antenna to a host computer. The host computer collects the data and resolves them into positional estimates. A combined infrastructure including a wireless communication system and the local positioning system is also disclosed.
US 7904244 Discloses a method where location may be determined by accepting location information from at least two sources using at least two location technologies, for each set of location information from each source, adjusting the location information using at least one of (A) confidence in the source, (B) error range of the source, (C) an error model for the source, and (D) application-specific context information, and combining adjusted locations to generate a final location these location technologies assume a degree of cooperation. The location technologies may include a combination of a "tag" that is placed on the object to be tracked, and one or more receivers/transmitters that work in concert with the tag to locate the object.
US 20140350793 discloses a device and method for the position determination of objects by means of communication signals, in which a transceiver capable of wireless communication transmits communication signals, the transceiver being capable of simultaneous transmission and reception, and wherein the communication signals are at least partially reflected as reflection signals on at least one object in a signal propagation zone and the transceiver receives the reflection signals. The method is characterized in that phase information of the reflection signals or communication signals are determined.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BS ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4145. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, 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.
/JBSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646