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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 02/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13, 27, and 30-35 are pending in the application, where claims 14-26 and 28-29 have been cancelled. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the 112(b) rejection from the previously filed Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the use of Brumley alone, specifically Brumley’s failure to disclose using signal strength such as RSSI or RSRP to determine a distance between an electronic device and a mobile device, for the 103 rejections of independent claims 1 and 27 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner acknowledges that Brumley pg. 15 paragraph 0184 discloses using measured signal strength to determine if there is a blockage in front of an antenna, not to determine distance or location of a mobile device. However, Examiner asserts that the combination of Brumley and Hollar disclose the limitations of independent claim 1.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments for the USC § 103 rejection of claim 1 based on the Hollar reference, Applicant argues on pg. 11-12 of the Remarks,
“The proposed addition of Hollar does not overcome the foregoing deficiencies of Brumley. Brumley discloses a time-based system for determining distance. The Office Action applies Hollar for its perceived disclosure for determining a second transmission distance of "distance measurements [being] performed through a combination of factors including received signal strength" with the text of the reference stating further "and arrival and departure timestamps:…
…Thus, if anything, Hollar is duplicative of Brumely's reliance on use of timestamps - particularly if an UWB transceiver is used for precise time keeping. RF received signal strength can be used in combination with arrival and departure timestamps in less time-precise systems, but timestamps are used nevertheless. The resulting combination of Brumley and Hollar – interpreted broadly as possible, would provide for use of timestamps for processing of first transmission distance and use of timestamps in combination with RF for determination of second transmission distance⁵. Such does not equate to the recitation in claim 1 of "measuring through the antenna structure working at the first transmission distance a first received strength parameter of the first electronic device [and] measuring through the antenna structure working at the second transmission distance a second received strength parameter of the first electronic device", let alone conducting such measuring "when the first received strength parameter indicates that the first electronic device is located within the first transmission distance". Moreover, even assuming solely for the sake of argument that Hollar discloses use solely of RF for the second distance determination, there exists no motivation to replace Bramley's teaching of use of timestamp-based distance calculations for a combination of timestamp-based calculation and RF-based calculation, as doing so would violate the express provisions of Ruiz and Sanofi-Aventis referenced above at p. 9 of this Response. For at least the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the proposed combination of Brumley and Hollar should be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner would like to point to other sections in the Hollar reference that mention signal strength parameters, such as col. 1, lines 54-56,
“…the at least one mobile antenna sends and receives messages including at least one of time of arrival, time of departure, signal strength…” (emphasis added)
As established in the previous Office Action and in Applicant’s remarks, Hollar further discloses on col. 4, lines 34-37,
“Distance measurements can be performed using the RF transceiver through a combination of factors including received signal strength and arrival and departure timestamps.” (emphasis added)
Hollar further discloses on col. 13, lines 19-40,
“Additional auxiliary location-aiding sensors are used to aid in localization… Further sensors such as NFC, Wi-Fi, or Bluetooth can all be used either as proximity sensors or as rough distance sensors using received signal strength… With the collection of both UWB based data and on-board sensors, the calculation of the updated position of the antenna device is performed.” (emphasis added)
Hollar establishes receiving signal strength information, and using received signal strength to determine distance. As indicated by the plurality of “messages” and “measurements” from the cited sections above, it is reasonable to believe the invention of Hollar could obtain multiple received signal strengths from multiple distances.
Examiner would like to point to pg. 39, paragraph 00158 of Applicant’s specification,
“The positioning software module of the smart speaker 113 then calculates the location of the mobile phone 2 relative to the smart speaker 113 based on RSSIs of the mobile phone 2 that are reported by the antenna 1 and the antenna 2 in a recent period of time. For example, the location of the mobile phone 2 relative to the smart speaker 113 may be calculated by the positioning software module of the smart speaker 113 based on a recently reported RSSI, or by the smart speaker 113 based on an average value of the RSSIs reported in the recent period of time.” (emphasis added)
This section of Applicant’s specification discloses using RSSI time of reporting to calculate the distance between devices, which can be considered a time-based system for determining distance. The “recent period of time” in which the RSSI is reported is a time component of the signal. Applicant’s specification shows support for using signal strength and a time component of the signal(s) to calculate location.
Applicant’s disclosure establishes using signal strength and a time component of the signal strength (“a time-based system for determining distance”, see Remarks pg. 11-12) to calculate distance, which the prior art discloses as well as acknowledged by Applicant on pg. 11-12 of Remarks. Examiner acknowledges that using a time component to determine distance is not written in currently amended claim 1, but it is included in Applicant’s specification. According to broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the methods and invention of Hollar (using signal strength to determine distance) read onto the limitations of Applicant’s claims.
One motivation for combining Brumley and Hollar to detect distance based on signal strength parameter can be found in Brumley pg. 15, paragraph 0184, where an external object blocking the device antennas can be detected based on signal strength.
“To avoid disrupting communications when an external object such as a human hand or other body part of a user blocks one or more antennas, antennas may be mounted at multiple locations in housing. Sensor data such as proximity sensor data, real-time antenna impedance measurements, signal quality measurements such as received signal strength information, and other data may be used in determining when one or more antennas is being adversely affected due to the orientation of housing, blockage by a user's hand or other external object, or other environmental factors. Device 1400 can then switch one or more replacement antennas into use in place of the antennas that are being adversely affected.” (emphasis added)
Hollar discloses receiving signal strength, and using signal strength to determine a device distance, reading onto the limitations of claim 1 according to broadest reasonable interpretation. Detecting a blockage with signal strength, as disclosed in Brumley, could be combined with detecting distance based on signal strength, as disclosed in Hollar, in order to detect the location of the blocking object in order to remove the object or alter the position of the device antenna, improving device communications. The same cited sections and rationale can be applied to independent claim 27.
For at least these reasons, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains previous rejections corresponding to the USC § 103 rejection of claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that Brumley et al. (US 20220078578 A1) and Hollar et al. (US 11856551 B2) disclose each and every limitation of independent claim 1 based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 27 and 35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In the filed specification dated 08/08/2023 and drawings dated 08/08/2023, Examiner found no mention of a “distance being selectable from a menu of distance values” (see amended claim 27) or “a predetermined selection of distance values for each of the first transmission distance and second transmission distance” (see new claim 35). The closest example of this claim language Examiner found in the filed specification on page 23, paragraphs 00101-00102 and corresponding Fig. 4B, which is directed towards a user selecting a device to be a monitoring point (as demonstrated for example in Fig. 4B). Paragraph 00101 defines a monitoring point as a device that can perform the methods of Figs. 6A-6C: “If a control corresponding to a smart device is in the started state, it indicates that the smart device is subsequently used as a monitoring point, to perform the method shown in FIG. 6A to FIG. 6C in embodiments of this application.” The menu of Fig. 4B depicts potential monitoring devices, not distance values. Further, the example menu of Fig. 4B shows devices such as a desk lamp or floor sweeping robot, which are both devices that can vary in distance/position/location.
Examiner also found in the specification page. 36, paragraph 00151, mention of “a preset distance 1”. This paragraph discloses that the preset distance 1 may be the first transmission distance, but gives no indication of a predetermined variety of distance values to be chosen from. No other preset distances are mentioned in the specification other than “present distance 1”.
Examiner also found throughout Applicant’s specification support for a “coverage range” that could be the second transmission distance. See pg. 5, paragraph 0055,
“The coverage range of the smart device 10 may be understood as a second transmission distance of a radio signal of an antenna structure of the smart device. In addition to having a coverage range, the smart device 10 may further have a monitoring range, and the monitoring range may be a first transmission distance of a radio signal of the antenna structure of the smart device. For example, the smart device 10 includes a short-distance antenna and a long-distance antenna that are independently disposed. In this case, the coverage range is a range corresponding to a maximum transmission distance of the long-distance antenna, and the monitoring range is a range corresponding to the short-distance antenna.”
See also pg. 9, paragraph 0102,
“In addition to setting which smart devices may be used as monitoring points and which smart devices may not be used as monitoring points, the user may further trigger the mobile phone to set a coverage range of each monitoring point, so that all smart devices used as monitoring points cover the home area of the user as much as possible. For example, as shown in FIG. 5, the user may trigger the mobile phone to set a coverage range of the smart television 111 to A m, a coverage range of the smart speaker 113 to B m, a coverage range of the smart desk lamp 124 to C m, and a coverage range of the smart speaker 123 to D m. For example, A is 4 m, B is 3 m, C is 2 m, and D is 3 m, so that the entire indoor space can be fully covered.”
Paragraph 0055 suggests the coverage range being determined by the type of antenna. Paragraph 0102 suggests a user inputting distance values to serve as the coverage range. Neither of these passages suggest support for a menu of selectable distance values, or for a predetermined selection of distance values.
There is no evidence in the specification for a menu of selectable distance values, or for a predetermined selection of distance values. Support for a menu with selectable monitoring point devices and support for a single preset distance does not show possession of a menu with selectable predetermined distance values or a predetermined selection of distance values. Examiner believes that Applicant’s disclosure at the time of the effective filing date does not provide support for the amended claim language of claim 27 (“a distance for each of the first transmission distance and second transmission distance being selectable from a menu of distance values”) and the entirety of claim 35 (“The method according to claim 1, wherein the setting the first transmission distance and the second transmission distance comprises selecting a distance from a predetermined selection of distance values for each of the first transmission distance and second transmission distance, the first selected transmission distance being less than the second selected transmission distance.”).
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.
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 1-13 and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brumley et al. (US 20220078578 A1) in view of Hollar et al. (US 11856551 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Brumley discloses [Note: what Brumley fails to disclose is strike-through]
A device location determining method applied to a smart device (see pg. 2, paragraph 0025, method for a smart device including position and orientation detection) having an antenna structure (see pg. 2, paragraph 0034, a “smart speaker can include… one or more dedicated antennas”), wherein a radio signal transmission (see pg. 4, paragraph 0056, the smart device can send signals over UWB [ultra-wideband]) distance of the antenna structure comprises a first transmission distance and a second transmission distance (see pg. 5, paragraph 0073, the smart device “can transmit messages that travel in an omnidirectional manner”; Fig. 8, smart device 802 has various signal range thresholds, transmission distances can be “First Threshold” and “Second Threshold”; pg. 8, paragraph 0102, the ranges can be defined in meters), the method comprising:
setting the first transmission distance and the second transmission distance (see pg. 1, paragraph 0006, “The ranging functionality can be implemented in combination with another wireless protocol, which can establish an initial communication session, e.g., to perform authentication and/or exchange ranging settings.”), the first transmission distance being set to a distance less than the second transmission distance (see Fig. 8, inner range 808 is less than outer range 806);
receiving information about a first electronic device from the first electronic device (see Fig. 1, ranging response 102; pg. 3, paragraph 0040, “The ranging response 102 can also include an identifier for the first electronic device 110, an identifier for the second electronic device 120, or both”);
determining to locate the first electronic device based on the information about the first electronic device (see Fig. 1, smart device 110 can determine distance information 103 from ranging response);
measuring through the antenna structure working at the first transmission distance a first received strength parameter of the first electronic device (see pg. 15, paragraph 0184, the electronic device can measure received signal strength);
measuring through the antenna structure working at the second transmission distance a second received strength parameter of the first electronic device (see pg. 15, paragraph 0184, the electronic device can measure received signal strength) (see Fig. 8, mobile device 804c within threshold range zone 808; pg. 8, paragraph 0104, the mobile device 804c can send response signals to smart device 802 at specific frequency rates, indicating the location of mobile device 804c within a specific range; mobile device location within a specific range can be known based on the response signal sent from mobile device to smart device); and
Hollar discloses
measuring through the antenna structure working at the second transmission distance a second received strength parameter of the first electronic device when the first received strength parameter indicates that the first electronic device is located within the first transmission distance (see Fig. 1, at position 103 the antenna 100 receives a signal from device 107; col. 1, lines 54-59, “the at least one mobile antenna sends and receives messages including at least one of time of arrival, time of departure, signal strength and angle of arrival; a measurement module that performs distance measurement between the at least one mobile antenna and at least one tag”; col. 4, lines 20-24, “The mobile antenna 110 and the tag 107 exchange messages, for example, RF messages, to determine an instantaneous distance between the tag 107 and the mobile antenna 110 at the three different points 1θ1, 102, and 103”; col. 4, lines 34-36, “Distance measurements can be performed using the RF transceiver through a combination of factors including received signal strength”; device can know location of tag based on signal strength, and continue to repeatedly receive signal strength signals)
determining location information of the first electronic device based on the first received strength parameter and the second received strength parameter (see col. 5, lines 19-21, “With knowledge of the mobile antennas' locations 102 and 211 and the distances of 105 and 205, a location of the tag 107 can be determined”; col. 13, lines 19-40, “Additional auxiliary location-aiding sensors are used to aid in localization… Further sensors such as NFC, Wi-Fi, or Bluetooth can all be used either as proximity sensors or as rough distance sensors using received signal strength… With the collection of both UWB based data and on-board sensors, the calculation of the updated position of the antenna device is performed.”)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hollar into the invention of Brumley. Both Brumley and Hollar are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose methods for determining a location of a nearby device using a smart device and RF signals. Brumley discloses a location detection method applied to a smart device, the antenna structure of the smart device, multiple transmission distances, receiving a signal strength parameter, determining to locate, and measuring signals from a first electronic device; however, Brumley fails to disclose using the signal strength parameter to calculate distance between devices and measuring a second received strength parameter and determining the location of the first electronic device based on the two received strength signals. Brumley uses signal characteristics to determine distance, but not explicitly signal strength. Hollar discloses using signal strength to determine distance between devices. This feature is disclosed by Hollar where the antenna receives signal strength from multiple locations and uses those received signals to determine the location of the first electronic device. The combination of Brumley and Hollar would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve location detection accuracy, even in the case of interference, by obtaining distance measurements from multiple locations to determine where the electronic device of interest is located. Another obvious benefit of the combination is distance measurement of an object blocking the antenna from communication (see Brumley, pg. 15, paragraph 0184, where signal strength can determine if there is a signal blockage, and the device can switch antennas accordingly to reduce interference), helping to troubleshoot signal interference to optimize signal communication.
Regarding claim 2, Brumley further discloses
The method according to claim 1, wherein the location information of the first electronic device comprises a location of the first electronic device relative to the smart device (see pg. 3, paragraph 0037, signals exchanged between the devices can be used to calculate relative position), and the determining location information of the first electronic device based on the first received strength parameter and the second received strength parameter comprises:
determining a distance between the first electronic device and the smart device based on the first received strength parameter (see pg. 3, paragraph 0040, the ranging response signal is used to compute distance information);
determining orientation information between the first electronic device and the smart device based on the second received strength parameter (see pg. 2, paragraph 0030, the orientation of the mobile device towards the smart device can be calculated with received signal information); and
determining the location of the first electronic device relative to the smart device based on the distance and the orientation information (see pg. 4, paragraph 0055, the distance and orientation of the first electronic device determine the response signal frequency from the electronic device to the smart device; pg. 3, paragraph 0040, the response signal is used by the smart device to compute distance information; pg. 6, paragraph 0075, “The control circuitry may, for example, use antenna signals and motion data to determine the angle of arrival of signals from other electronic devices to thereby determine the locations of those electronic devices relative to the user's electronic device”; see Fig. 9; pg. 9, paragraph 0110, “the angles of arrival to each of the transmitting devices can be used to calculate a probable location or an area of probability 930 for the location of the receiving device 920”; pg. 7, paragraph 0088, “The ranging module 605 can include an application-programming interface to determine the relative position of two or more devices”).
Regarding claim 3, Brumley further discloses
The method according to claim 1, wherein before the receiving information about a first electronic device from the first electronic device, the method further comprises:
broadcasting a discovery message to request a device that receives the discovery message to report information about the device to the smart device (see Fig. 1, ranging request 101).
Regarding claim 4, Brumley further discloses
The method according to claim 1, wherein the smart device includes a whitelist that records information about one or more devices, and determining location of the first electronic device based on the information about the first electronic device further-comprises:
determining the information about the first electronic device does not belong to the whitelist (see pg. 12, paragraph 0159, “BT/Wi-Fi circuitry 1325 can parse messages to obtain data (e.g., an authentication tag), which can be sent on to AOP 1330. In some embodiments, AOP 1330 can perform authentication using an authentication tag. Thus, AOP 1330 can store or retrieve a list of authentication tags for which to compare a received tag against, as part of an authentication process”)
Regarding claim 5, Brumley further discloses [Note: what Brumley fails to disclose is strike-through]
The method according to claim 4, wherein when the smart device determines that the information about the first electronic device does not belong to the whitelist, the method further comprises:
determining to locate the first electronic device in accordance with the first operation instruction (see pg. 3, paragraph 0038, “The ranging measurement may be triggered in various ways, e.g., based on user input and/or authentication using another wireless protocol, e.g., Bluetooth Low Energy”).
Hollar discloses
sending the information about the first electronic device to a second electronic device (see Fig. 6, device 610, tag 604, and device 620; col. 8, lines 45-67 and col. 9, lines 1-5, device 610 can send information about tag 604 to another device 620);
receiving a first operation instruction from the second electronic device (see Fig. 7, device 710 communicating with devices 712, 718, and 719 via server 711; col. 9, line 42, “the server can convey an instruction 715 to other devices”); and
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hollar into the invention of Brumley. Brumley discloses determining to locate a device based on an instruction; however, Brumley fails to disclose sending information about a first device to a second device and receiving an operation instruction from the second device. This feature is disclosed by Hollar where multiple smart devices can communicate with each other and send ranging instructions to each other. The combination of Brumley and Hollar would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to utilize local networks of smart devices (see Hollar col. 9, lines 61-64, “a mesh network is a group of RF capable devices that can communicate with one another either directly or indirectly to efficiently route data and perform localization tasks”) to more quickly locate a device, which may be useful in cases where the second device is out of range of the target device so the first device can act as an intermediary (see Hollar col. 8, lines 56-58) for notification or security purposes.
Regarding claim 6, Brumley further discloses
The method according to claim 4, wherein the smart device accesses a network through a wireless access device (see pg. 13, paragraph 0167, “Wireless circuitry 1408 is used to send and receive information over a wireless link or network”), the method further comprising:
obtaining the whitelist from the wireless access device (see pg. 12, paragraph 0159, the smart device can obtain authentication data via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi).
Regarding claim 7, Hollar discloses
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
sending the information about the first electronic device to a second electronic device (see Fig. 6, device 610, tag 604, and device 620; col. 8, lines 45-67 and col. 9, lines 1-5, device 610 can send information about tag 604 to another device 620);
receiving a second operation instruction from the second electronic device (see Fig. 7, device 710 communicating with devices 712, 718, and 719 via server 711; col. 9, lines 42-43, “the server can convey an instruction 715 to other devices to report on the tag's location with specific instructions”); and
determining to locate the first electronic device in accordance with the second operation instruction (see col. 9, lines 49-51, the devices 712, 718, and 719 can “report on the location of a specific tag, 720. Once this data has been gathered it can be relayed to the device that owns the tag 710”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hollar into the invention of Brumley. Brumley fails to disclose sending information about a first device to a second device, receiving a second operation instruction from the second device, and determining to locate the first electronic device in accordance with the second operation instruction. This feature is disclosed by Hollar where multiple smart devices can communicate with each other and send multiple ranging instructions to each other. The combination of Brumley and Hollar would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to utilize local networks of smart devices (see Hollar col. 9, lines 61-64, “a mesh network is a group of RF capable devices that can communicate with one another either directly or indirectly to efficiently route data and perform localization tasks”) to more quickly locate a device, which may be useful in cases where the second device is out of range of the target device so the first device can act as an intermediary (see Hollar col. 8, lines 56-58) for notification or security purposes. The addition of a second operation instruction would easily allow an electronic device to send additional instructions in the case of a changing situation, which is possible with mobile devices.
Regarding claim 8, Brumley further discloses
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
starting a positioning software module of the smart device when the first received strength parameter indicates that the first electronic device is located within the first transmission distance, wherein the positioning software module is configured to calculate the location information of the first electronic device (see pg. 12, paragraph 0158, the smart device can have software to perform ranging calculations based on received signals).
Regarding claim 9, Brumley further discloses
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a third operation instruction (see pg. 13, paragraph 0168, the device processors can receive voice commands); and
setting the radio signal transmission distance of the antenna structure in accordance with the third operation instruction (see pg. 13, paragraph 0168, the device processors can process data to carry out instructions; see pg. 12, paragraph 0156, the device’s antennas “may be used for…exchanging ranging settings”; pg. 11, paragraph 0136, “the technique can include determining the range value has changed to be within a new threshold”).
Regarding claim 10, Brumley further discloses
The method according to claim 1, wherein:
the antenna structure comprises a first antenna and a second antenna that are disposed independent of one another (see pg. 2, paragraph 0034, “A mobile device or smart speaker can include…one or more dedicated antennas”; Fig. 13, UWB antennas 1310; pg. 12, paragraph 0157, the UWB antennas can be oriented in different directions to define a field of view for ranging), a radio signal transmission distance of the first antenna is the first transmission distance, and a radio signal transmission distance of the second antenna is the second transmission distance;
measuring the first received strength parameter of the first electronic device when the antenna structure works at the first transmission distance comprises measuring the first received strength parameter of the first electronic device through the first antenna; and
measuring the second received strength parameter of the first electronic device when the antenna structure works at the second transmission distance comprises:
measuring the second received strength parameter of the first electronic device through the second antenna (see pg. 12, paragraph 0156, “Mobile device 1300 includes one or more antennas for at least two different wireless protocols, as described above”).
Regarding claim 11, Brumley further discloses
The method according to claim 1, wherein:
the antenna structure is a single-antenna structure (see pg. 2, paragraph 0034, “A mobile device or smart speaker can include…one or more dedicated antennas”; pg. 16, paragraph 0196, “Wireless communications circuitry may include radio frequency (RF) transceiver circuitry formed from … one or more antennas… and other circuitry for handling RF wireless signals”);
measuring the first received strength parameter of the first electronic device when the antenna structure works at the first transmission distance comprises:
controlling the antenna structure to work at the first transmission distance to measure the first received strength parameter of the first electronic device through the antenna structure; and
measuring the second received strength parameter of the first electronic device comprises:
controlling the radio signal transmission distance of the antenna structure to switch from the first transmission distance to the second transmission distance to measure the second received strength parameter of the first electronic device through the antenna structure when the first received strength parameter indicates that the first electronic device is located within the first transmission distance (see pg. 12, paragraph 0156, “Mobile device 1300 includes one or more antennas for at least two different wireless protocols, as described above”).
Regarding claim 12, Brumley further discloses
The method according to claim 1, wherein the smart device includes a camera (see pg. 2, paragraph 0029, the smart device may be a security camera), the method further comprising:
adjusting a photographing angle of the camera based on the location information of the first electronic device so that the photographing angle of the camera is towards a location of the first electronic device (see pg. 7, paragraph 0084, the smart electronic device can control video cameras based on range information).
Regarding claim 13, Brumley further discloses
The method according to claim 1, comprising:
sending a prompt message to a second electronic device, wherein the prompt message comprises at least one of the location information of the first electronic device (see pg. 13, paragraph 0163, the device’s processor “can compare the distance to a threshold value and provide an alert when the distance exceeds a threshold”; pg. 12, paragraph 0159, the device can communicate with other devices via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi) or alarm information prompting that an unknown entity approaches the smart device.
Regarding claims 30-34, the same cited sections and rationale for claims 2-6 are applied. The only difference between claims 2-6 and claims 30-34 is that claims 2-6 refer to a method while claims 30-34 refer to an apparatus. The examiner considers Brumley pg. 2, paragraph 0025 (“Certain embodiments are directed to techniques (e.g., a device, a method, a memory or non-transitory computer readable medium storing code or instructions executable by one or more processors) for communication techniques between an electronic device (e.g., a smart speaker, a smart TV, a smart appliance, etc.) and one or more mobile devices”) to show that the radar apparatus performs the radar method of claims 2-6.
Allowable Subject Matter
None of the prior art of record teach or suggest the subject matter of claims 27 and 35. The prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach all of the additional limitations of the claimed invention, specifically the selectable menu of distance values and predetermined selection of distance values, as best understood within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole.
Accordingly, claims 27 and 35 are deemed to have allowable subject matter. Claims 30-34 could also be considered allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependence on allowable claim 27. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner would likely apply the 103 prior art rejections of claims 30-34 from the previous non-final Office Action if independent claim 27 was withdrawn or cancelled.
Claim 35 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
However, in order for claims 27 and 35 to be allowed they must overcome the 112(a) rejection presented earlier in this Office Action.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
US 10757672 B1 (Knas); Embodiments of the present disclosure include an efficient method for identifying mobile devices operated by users with certain attributes and displaying their respective locations using location identification data, such as data packets broadcasted by beacons. The systems and methods described herein can first identify multiple mobile devices operated by different users located within a predetermined location and retrieve/analyze profile data of the identified users. The methods and systems described herein can then recommend like-minded users to each other. The systems and methods described herein can also provide navigational and directional support to users and help different users meet in person.; see col. 16, lines 48-62 regarding a menu with selectable coverage range distance values.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA A EDRADA whose telephone number is (571)272-4859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm ET.
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 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.
/ISABELLA A EDRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights