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 2/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see ‘Rejections of Claims 1 and 9 Under 35 USC 101’, filed 2/13/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1 and 9 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues:
“Applicants submit that Faaborg fails to disclose or render obvious "obtaining a second result of UWB ranging between the first UWB device and a third UWB device; determining a position of a non-UWB device with respect to the position of the second UWB device based on the first result and the second result; and recognizing the non- UWB device based on a point direction of the first UWB device and the position of the non-UWB device."
More specifically, Faaborg discloses that:
Fig. 1 illustrates position localization for non-UWB devices, per the techniques of this disclosure. The techniques leverage the presence of two UWB-enabled devices - one a stationary device, e.g., a smart display (102), and another on the user's person, e.g., smart glasses (104) or other wearable/non-stationary device (e.g., a fitness band, smartwatch, smartphone, etc.), to precisely locate other, non-UWB devices. With user permission, the two UWB-enabled devices communicate over UWB (106) to localize at high resolution the position of the wearable device, and thereby that of the user, inside their home.
Visual recognition on the user's smart glasses is used to bootstrap the precise locations of non-UWB devices in their home, e.g., a smart thermostat (110a), a smart camera (110b), a smart speaker (110c), etc.
Visual recognition can estimate the radial distance r to a non-UWB device, e.g., by detecting its presence, by measuring its angular and by comparing the measured angular spread to the known device dimensions. Inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors onboard the smart glasses can report the angular distance 0 between the non-UWB device and the line connecting the two UWB-enabled devices by measuring the tum of the user's head along various axes (108). Knowing the radial and angular distances (r, 0) of a non-UWB device from the smart glasses, the coordinates of the non-UWB device with reference to the
stationary UWB device can be determined to high precision.
(Emphasis added).
As seen above, Faaborg discloses using two UWB devices, namely one stationary and one wearable UWB device. There is no third UWB device and no UWB
ranging between the first UWB device and a third UWB device disclosed in Faaborg.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Faaborg discloses the use of two UWB devices to find a non-UWB device, it also states in the conclusion that “The techniques leverage the presence of two or more UWB-enabled devices…to precisely locate non-UWB devices.” The Examiner understands this as Faaborg being capable of using more UWB devices, including a third, to locate the non-UWB device. As Faaborg uses the ranging between the UWB devices, it would be obvious for it to also use the ranging between the first and the third UWB devices as well.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues:
“Critically, the position of the non-UWB device in Faaborg is not calculated from the UWB ranging results between the two UWB devices. The UWB ranging is used solely to locate the wearable device (the user).
Last but not least, in Faaborg, the coordinate of the non-UWB device is determined based on (1) the UWB-derived position of the wearable, (2) the visually- derived radial distance (r), and (3) the IMU-derived angle (6). This is completely different from the claimed invention that determines the position using UWB ranging results alone.
In view of the foregoing, Applicants submit that Faaborg fails to disclose or render obvious "obtaining a second result of UWB ranging between the first UWB device and a third UWB device; determining a position of a non-UWB device with respect to the position of the second UWB device based on the first result and the second result; and recognizing the non-UWB device based on a point direction of the first UWB device and the position of the non-UWB device."
Thus, Faaborg fails to discloses each and every element recited in claim 1. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Faaborg states on page 5 paragraph 1 “Knowing the radial and angular distances (r, θ) of a non-UWB device from the smart glasses, the coordinates of the non-UWB device with reference to the stationary UWB device can be determined to high precision.” The independent claims do not state to find the position of the non-UWB device through the UWB ranging alone. Additionally, in adding another UWB device it would be obvious for Faaborg to also reference the position of the new UWB device.
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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Faaborg 2021) [Faaborg, Alexander James and Komoroske, Alex, "Position Localization for Non Ultra-wideband Devices", Technical Disclosure Commons, (May 05, 2021)].
Regarding claim 1 Faaborg discloses
A method by a first ultra-wide band (UWB) device, the method comprising: identifying a position of the first UWB device with respect to a position of a second UWB device based on a first result of UWB ranging between the first UWB device and the second UWB device (Page 4 caption 1, “”With user permission, the two UWB-enabled devices communicate over UWB (106) to localize at high resolution the position of the wearable device, and thereby that of the user, inside their home”) determining a position of a non-UWB device with respect to the position of the second UWB device based on the first result (Abstract, "The high-frequency, broad-spectrum properties of the UWB (ultra-wide bandwidth) communications protocol enable very accurate, e.g., millimeter-level, spatial and directional localization of devices…This disclosure describes techniques to bootstrap precise positioning on non-UWB devices, such that UWB-style, fine-grained interactions are enabled even on non-UWB devices. The techniques leverage the presence of two or more UWB-enabled devices, e.g., one on a stationary device and another on a wearable device (or other nonstationary device), to precisely locate non-UWB devices"; Page 5 Paragraph 1, "Inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors onboard the smart glasses can report the angular distance θ between the non-UWB device and the line connecting the two UWB-enabled devices by measuring the turn of the user’s head along various axes (108). Knowing the radial and angular distances (r, θ) of a non-UWB device from the smart glasses, the coordinates of the non-UWB device with reference to the stationary UWB device can be determined to high precision."); and recognizing the non-UWB device based on a point direction of the first UWB device and the position of the non-UWB device (Page 5 Paragraph 1, "Inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors onboard the smart glasses can report the angular distance θ between the non-UWB device and the line connecting the two UWB-enabled devices by measuring the turn of the user’s head along various axes (108). Knowing the radial and angular distances (r, θ) of a non-UWB device from the smart glasses, the coordinates of the non-UWB device with reference to the stationary UWB device can be determined to high precision").
Faaborg does not explicitly disclose obtaining a second result of UWB ranging between the first UWB device and a third UWB device and determining the position of the non-UWB device with the second result.
But Faaborg does disclose the use of more than two UWB devices (Conclusion, “The techniques leverage the presence of two or more UWB-enabled devices…to precisely locate non-UWB devices.”)
Faaborg does not explicitly disclose obtaining a second result with a third UWB device but it already has the infrastructure for obtaining the first result and it discloses the ability to use more than two UWB devices. If Faaborg can already get the first result and it can use more than two UWB devices it would be obvious to use a third UWB device. The advantages of using a third UWB device include: higher position accuracy with another reference point, redundancy in case a device malfunctions, and potentially larger coverage area for the positioning process. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faaborg with its other embodiments to add in a third UWB device to increase coordinate precision, provide redundancy, and potentially enlarge the coverage area of the positioning system.
Regarding claim 8 Faaborg further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the position of the non-UWB device is performed to register the non-UWB device as a target device for control by the first UWB device (Abstract, "The high-frequency, broad-spectrum properties of the UWB (ultra-wide bandwidth) communications protocol enable very accurate, e.g., millimeter-level, spatial and directional localization of devices…This disclosure describes techniques to bootstrap precise positioning on non-UWB devices, such that UWB-style, fine-grained interactions are enabled even on non-UWB devices”; Page 3 Paragraph 2, “Users can fling content from a phone to a specific TV; a smartwatch can remotely control the volume level of a particular speaker in the same room; a timer set on one stationary device can follow the user into another room”).
Claims 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Faaborg 2021) in view of Li (US 20200213842 A1).
Regarding claim 2 Faaborg discloses
The method of claim 1 and a first result. Faaborg does not disclose wherein the first result and the second result include at least one of time-of-flight (ToF) information, angle-of-arrival (AoA) azimuth information, and AoA elevation information.
Li discloses
Wherein the first result and the second result include at least one of time-of-flight (ToF) information (Paragraph 0195, “For the SS-TWR, the Initiator is able to calculate the TOF after the ranging transmissions.”), angle-of-arrival (AoA) azimuth information, and AoA elevation information (Paragraph 0196, “Fields of AOA Azimuth request (AAR) and AOA elevation request (AER) denote whether azimuth AOA, elevation AOA are requested or not: if the field value is one, the corresponding information is requested” where if it can be applied to one result it can be applied to another).
Faaborg discloses establishing the position of UWB device in reference to another but does not disclose the details as to how it is established. The ranging process and obtaining azimuth AOA data can specify where the connecting line is between the two UWB devices in three dimensional space The AOA elevation can be used to facilitate differentiating between non UWB devices that are at the same distance and azimuth angle from the connecting line but are at different elevations (e.g. a speaker on a bottom shelf and a thermostat above). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faaborg with Li to use ranging data and AoA azimuth data to establish how the connecting line is formed and AoA elevation data to facilitate differentiating between non-UWB devices at different elevations.
Regarding claim 4 Faaborg discloses
The method of The method of wherein identifying the position of the non-UWB device includes: identifying a first position of the first UWB device with respect to the position of the second UWB device (Page 5 Paragraph 1, "Inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors onboard the smart glasses can report the angular distance θ between the non-UWB device and the line connecting the two UWB-enabled devices by measuring the turn of the user’s head along various axes (108). Knowing the radial and angular distances (r, θ) of a non-UWB device from the smart glasses, the coordinates of the non-UWB device with reference to the stationary UWB device can be determined to high precision"). Faaborg does not disclose using a result of the UWB ranging at the first position, and identifying a second position of the first UWB device with respect to the position of the second UWB device using a result of the UWB ranging at the second position, and wherein the result of the UWB ranging at the first position includes first ToF information, first AoA azimuth information, and first AoA elevation information about the first position, and the result of the UWB ranging at the second position includes second ToF information, second AoA azimuth information, and second AoA elevation information about the second position.
Li discloses
Using a result of the UWB ranging at the first position, and identifying a second position of the first UWB device with respect to the position of the second UWB device using a result of the UWB ranging at the second position, and wherein the result of the UWB ranging at the first position includes first time- of-flight (ToF) information, first angle-of-arrival (AoA) azimuth information, and first AoA elevation information about the first position, and the result of the UWB ranging at the second position includes second ToF information, second AoA azimuth information, and second AoA elevation information about the second position (Paragraph 0195, “ For the DS-TWR, the responder is able to calculate the TOF after the ranging. The initiator can request the TOF by setting the TOFR field to be one in the RRMC IE of the ranging initiation message”; Paragraph 0196, “Fields of AOA Azimuth request (AAR) and AOA elevation request (AER) denote whether azimuth AOA, elevation AOA are requested or not: if the field value is one, the corresponding information is requested”).
Faaborg and Li are both considered analogous arts as they both concern UWB devices communicating. Faaborg discloses a line between the uwb enabled devices but does not disclose the details as to how the line is established. The ranging process and obtaining azimuth AOA data can specify where the connecting line, between the two UWB devices, is in three dimensional space, and the AOA elevation can be used to facilitate differentiating between non UWB devices that are at the same distance and azimuth angle from the connecting line but are at different elevations (e.g. a speaker on a bottom shelf and a thermostat above). Determining the range and AoA values from both UWB devices is advantageous in that it can improve their accuracy. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faaborg with Li to use ranging data and AoA azimuth data from both devices to more accurately establish where the connecting line is in space and differentiate between non-UWB devices at different elevations.
Regarding claim 6 Faaborg discloses
The method of claim 1. Faaborg does not disclose wherein the UWB ranging is performed based on a two-way ranging (TWR) scheme.
Li discloses
Wherein the UWB ranging is performed based on a two-way ranging (TWR) scheme (Paragraph 0195, “ For the DS-TWR, the responder is able to calculate the TOF after the ranging”).
Faaborg and Li are both considered analogous arts as they both concern UWB devices communicating. Faaborg discloses a line between the uwb enabled devices but does not disclose the details as to how it is established. The two-way ranging process with azimuth AOA data can specify where the connecting line is between the two UWB devices in three dimensional space. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faaborg with Li to use two-way ranging to establish how the connecting line is formed.
Regarding claim 9 Faaborg discloses
A first ultra-wide band (UWB) configured to: identify a position of the first UWB device with respect to a position of a second UWB device based on a first result of UWB ranging between the first UWB device and the second UWB device (Page 4 caption 1, “”With user permission, the two UWB-enabled devices communicate over UWB (106) to localize at high resolution the position of the wearable device, and thereby that of the user, inside their home”), determine a position of a non-UWB device with respect to a position of a second UWB device based on the firs result (Abstract, "The high-frequency, broad-spectrum properties of the UWB (ultra-wide bandwidth) communications protocol enable very accurate, e.g., millimeter-level, spatial and directional localization of devices…This disclosure describes techniques to bootstrap precise positioning on non-UWB devices, such that UWB-style, fine-grained interactions are enabled even on non-UWB devices. The techniques leverage the presence of two or more UWB-enabled devices, e.g., one on a stationary device and another on a wearable device (or other nonstationary device), to precisely locate non-UWB devices"; Page 5 Paragraph 1, "Inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors onboard the smart glasses can report the angular distance θ between the non-UWB device and the line connecting the two UWB-enabled devices by measuring the turn of the user’s head along various axes (108). Knowing the radial and angular distances (r, θ) of a non-UWB device from the smart glasses, the coordinates of the non-UWB device with reference to the stationary UWB device can be determined to high precision."), and recognize the non-UWB device based on a point direction of the first UWB device and the identified position of the non-UWB device (Page 5 Paragraph 1, "Inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors onboard the smart glasses can report the angular distance θ between the non-UWB device and the line connecting the two UWB-enabled devices by measuring the turn of the user’s head along various axes (108). Knowing the radial and angular distances (r, θ) of a non-UWB device from the smart glasses, the coordinates of the non-UWB device with reference to the stationary UWB device can be determined to high precision").
Faaborg does not disclose the device, comprising: a memory; and a transceiver; and a controller connected to the memory and the transceiver, wherein the controller is identifying positions. Faaborg does not explicitly disclose obtain a second result of UWB ranging between the first UWB device and a third UWB device and determining the position of the non-UWB device with the second result.
But Faaborg does disclose the use of more than two UWB devices (Conclusion, “The techniques leverage the presence of two or more UWB-enabled devices…to precisely locate non-UWB devices.”)
Faaborg does not explicitly disclose obtaining a second result with a third UWB device but it already has the infrastructure for obtaining the first result and it discloses the ability to use more than two UWB devices. If Faaborg can already get the first result and it can use more than two UWB devices it would be obvious to use a third UWB device. The advantages of using a third UWB device include: higher position accuracy with another reference point, redundancy in case a device malfunctions, and potentially larger coverage area for the positioning process. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faaborg with its other embodiments to add in a third UWB device to increase coordinate precision, provide redundancy, and potentially enlarge the coverage area of the positioning system.
Li discloses
The device, comprising: a memory; and a transceiver; and a controller connected to the memory and the transceiver, wherein the controller is identifying positions (Paragraph 0091, " As shown in FIG. 2, the gNB 102 includes multiple antennas 205a-205n, multiple RF transceivers 210a-210n, transmit (TX) processing circuitry 215, and receive (RX) processing circuitry 220. The gNB 102 also includes a controller/processor 225, a memory 230" where Faaborg already recognizes the non-UWB position but simply doesn’t specify the use of a controller).
Faaborg and Li are both considered analogous arts as they both concern UWB devices communicating. Faaborg discloses recognizing the position of a non-UWB device but does not disclose the details of the devices’ components. As the UWB devices are communicating the use of a transceiver would facilitate that communication. The distance and angle determinations would be facilitated by a memory, and a controller would facilitate the operation of the uwb device’s components and controlling the non-UWB device. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faaborg with Li to add in the transceiver, memory, and controller to facilitate the functions of Faaborg as Faaborg is missing some details.
Regarding claim 10 the combination of Faaborg and Li discloses
The first UWB device of claim 9 including the controller and the first result. Faaborg does not disclose wherein the first result and the second result include at least one of time-of-flight (ToF) information, angle-of-arrival (AoA) azimuth information, and AoA elevation information.
Li discloses
Wherein the first result and the second result include at least one of time-of-flight (ToF) information (Paragraph 0195, “For the SS-TWR, the Initiator is able to calculate the TOF after the ranging transmissions.”), angle-of-arrival (AoA) azimuth information, and AoA elevation information (Paragraph 0196, “Fields of AOA Azimuth request (AAR) and AOA elevation request (AER) denote whether azimuth AOA, elevation AOA are requested or not: if the field value is one, the corresponding information is requested” where if it can be applied to one result it can be applied to another).
Faaborg discloses establishing the position of UWB device in reference to another but does not disclose the details as to how it is established. The ranging process and obtaining azimuth AOA data can specify where the connecting line is between the two UWB devices in three dimensional space The AOA elevation can be used to facilitate differentiating between non UWB devices that are at the same distance and azimuth angle from the connecting line but are at different elevations (e.g. a speaker on a bottom shelf and a thermostat above). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faaborg with Li to use ranging data and AoA azimuth data to establish how the connecting line is formed and AoA elevation data to facilitate differentiating between non-UWB devices at different elevations.
Regarding claim 12 the combination of Faaborg and Li discloses
The first UWB device of claim 9 including the controller. Faaborg discloses wherein the device is further configured to: identify a first position of the first UWB device with respect to the position of the second UWB device (Page 5 Paragraph 1, "Inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors onboard the smart glasses can report the angular distance θ between the non-UWB device and the line connecting the two UWB-enabled devices by measuring the turn of the user’s head along various axes (108). Knowing the radial and angular distances (r, θ) of a non-UWB device from the smart glasses, the coordinates of the non-UWB device with reference to the stationary UWB device can be determined to high precision"). Faaborg does not disclose using a result of the UWB ranging at the first position, and identify a second position of the first UWB device with respect to the position of the second UWB device using a result of the UWB ranging at the second position, and wherein the result of the UWB ranging at the first position includes first time- of-flight (ToF) information, first angle-of-arrival (AoA) azimuth information, and first AoA elevation information about the first position, and the result of the UWB ranging at the second position includes second ToF information, second AoA azimuth information, and second AoA elevation information about the second position.
Li discloses
Using a result of the UWB ranging at the first position, and identifying a second position of the first UWB device with respect to the position of the second UWB device using a result of the UWB ranging at the second position, and wherein the result of the UWB ranging at the first position includes first time- of-flight (ToF) information, first angle-of-arrival (AoA) azimuth information, and first AoA elevation information about the first position, and the result of the UWB ranging at the second position includes second ToF information, second AoA azimuth information, and second AoA elevation information about the second position (Paragraph 0195, “ For the DS-TWR, the responder is able to calculate the TOF after the ranging. The initiator can request the TOF by setting the TOFR field to be one in the RRMC IE of the ranging initiation message”; Paragraph 0196, “Fields of AOA Azimuth request (AAR) and AOA elevation request (AER) denote whether azimuth AOA, elevation AOA are requested or not: if the field value is one, the corresponding information is requested”).
Faaborg and Li are both considered analogous arts as they both concern UWB devices communicating. Faaborg discloses a line between the uwb enabled devices but does not disclose the details as to how the line is established. The ranging process and obtaining azimuth AOA data can specify where the connecting line, between the two UWB devices, is in three dimensional space, and the AOA elevation can be used to facilitate differentiating between non UWB devices that are at the same distance and azimuth angle from the connecting line but are at different elevations (e.g. a speaker on a bottom shelf and a thermostat above). Determining the range and AoA values from both UWB devices is advantageous in that it can improve their accuracy. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faaborg with Li to use ranging data and AoA azimuth data from both devices to more accurately establish where the connecting line is in space and differentiate between non-UWB devices at different elevations.
Regarding claim 14 the combination of Faaborg and Li discloses
The first UWB device of claim 9. Faaborg does not disclose wherein the UWB ranging is performed based on a two-way ranging (TWR) scheme.
Li discloses
Wherein the UWB ranging is performed based on a two-way ranging (TWR) scheme (Paragraph 0195, “ For the DS-TWR, the responder is able to calculate the TOF after the ranging”).
Faaborg and Li are both considered analogous arts as they both concern UWB devices communicating. Faaborg discloses a line between the uwb enabled devices but does not disclose the details as to how it is established. The two-way ranging process with azimuth AOA data can specify where the connecting line is between the two UWB devices in three dimensional space. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faaborg with Li to use two-way ranging to establish how the connecting line is formed.
Regarding claim 16 the combination of Faaborg and Li discloses
The first UWB device of claim 9. Faaborg further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to determine the position of the non-UWB device to register the non-UWB device as a target device for control by the first UWB device (Page 3 Paragraph 1-2, “For example, a UWB device can precisely lock onto an object, discover its location, and communicate with it. When integrated into home devices, UWB introduces a number of natural, contextual interactions. Users can fling content from a phone to a specific TV; a smartwatch can remotely control the volume level of a particular speaker in the same room; a timer set on one stationary device can follow the user into another room; etc”).
Claims 3, 11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Faaborg 2021) in view of Li (US 20200213842 A1) further in view of Perkins (US 20200337162 A1).
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Faaborg and Li discloses
The method of claim 2, wherein determining the position of the non-UWB device includes: obtaining information on the first UWB device within a preset distance (Page 6 Paragraph 1, “the user is asked to identify different (non-UWB) devices in their vicinity (e.g. inside their homes or another space)”); and identifying the position of the non-UWB device with respect to the position of the second UWB device (Page 5 Paragraph 1, "Inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors onboard the smart glasses can report the angular distance θ between the non-UWB device and the line connecting the two UWB-enabled devices) based on the preset distance (Page 6 Paragraph 1, “the user is asked to identify different (non-UWB) devices in their vicinity (e.g. inside their homes or another space)”). Faaborg does not disclose using inclination information, obtaining inclination information about the first UWB device pointing at the non-UWB device nor using AoA azimuth information.
Li discloses
Using AoA azimuth information (Paragraph 0196, “Fields of AOA Azimuth request (AAR) and AOA elevation request (AER) denote whether azimuth AOA, elevation AOA are requested or not: if the field value is one, the corresponding information is requested”).
Faaborg and Li are both considered analogous arts as they both concern UWB devices communicating. Faaborg discloses a line between the uwb enabled devices but does not disclose the details as to how. The ranging process and obtaining azimuth AOA data can specify where the connecting line, between the two UWB devices, is in three dimensional space. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faaborg with Li to use ranging data and AoA azimuth data to establish where the connecting line is in space so the angle between the connecting line and the non-UWB device can be measured and the non-UWB device’s real time location can be recognized.
Perkins discloses
Using inclination information, obtaining inclination information about the first UWB device pointing at the non-UWB device (Paragraph 0831, "The posture monitoring system 13601 may be configured to detect the user's posture using wireless locating signals received from one or more of the array of wireless tags"; Paragraph 0831, "In this example, the measured tilt plane 13606, which may be determined using a comparison between the current position and a nominal position, may represent an angular deviation of the user's posture as determined based on the position of wireless tags 13600a-13600d" where instead of the tags it would be the UWB enabled devices of Faaborg).
Faaborg and Perkins are both considered analogous arts as they both concern UWB devices communicating. Faaborg discloses angle information in relation to a UWB device but not tilt/inclination information. Obtaining tilt information is advantageous in that it can be used to differentiate between devices in close proximity to each other which would improve the user experience and operation of the device-selecting invention. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faaborg with Perkins to add in the use of inclination angle to more accurately determine which non-UWB device is being selected by the UWB device.
Regarding claim 11 the combination of Faaborg and Li discloses
The first UWB device of claim 10 including the controller. Faaborg discloses, further identifying the position of the non-UWB device with respect to the position of the second UWB device within a preset distance (Page 6 Paragraph 1, “the user is asked to identify different (non-UWB) devices in their vicinity (e.g. inside their homes or another space)”). Faaborg does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to: obtain inclination information about the first UWB device pointing at the non- UWB device within a preset distance; nor using information based on the AoA azimuth information, and the inclination information.
Li discloses
Using AoA azimuth information (Paragraph 0196, “Fields of AOA Azimuth request (AAR) and AOA elevation request (AER) denote whether azimuth AOA, elevation AOA are requested or not: if the field value is one, the corresponding information is requested”).
Faaborg and Li are both considered analogous arts as they both concern UWB devices communicating. Faaborg discloses a line between the uwb enabled devices and using that to identify the non-UWB device but does not disclose the details as to how. The ranging process and obtaining azimuth AOA data can specify where the connecting line, between the two UWB devices, is in three dimensional space. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faaborg with Li to use ranging data and AoA azimuth data to establish where the connecting line is in space so the angle between the connecting line and the non-UWB device can be measured and the non-UWB device’s real time location can be recognized.
Perkins discloses
Using inclination information, obtaining inclination information about the first UWB device pointing at the non-UWB device (Paragraph 0831, "The posture monitoring system 13601 may be configured to detect the user's posture using wireless locating signals received from one or more of the array of wireless tags"; Paragraph 0831, "In this example, the measured tilt plane 13606, which may be determined using a comparison between the current position and a nominal position, may represent an angular deviation of the user's posture as determined based on the position of wireless tags 13600a-13600d" where instead of the tags it would be the UWB enabled devices of Faaborg).
Faaborg and Perkins are both considered analogous arts as they both concern UWB devices communicating. Faaborg discloses angle information in relation to a UWB device but not tilt/inclination information. Obtaining tilt information is advantageous in that it can be used to differentiate between devices in close proximity to each other which would improve the user experience and operation of the device-selecting invention. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faaborg with Perkins to add in the use of inclination angle to more accurately determine which non-UWB device is being selected by the UWB device.
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Faaborg 2021) in view of Ledvina (US 20190135229 A1).
Regarding claim 7 Faaborg discloses
The method of claim 1. Faaborg discloses wherein recognizing the non-UWB device ((Page 5 Paragraph 1, "Inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors onboard the smart glasses can report the angular distance θ between the non-UWB device and the line connecting the two UWB-enabled devices). Faaborg does not disclose includes providing control information for controlling the recognized non-UWB device.
Ledvina discloses
Providing control information for controlling the recognized non-UWB device (Abstract, “Two different wireless protocols can be used for ranging between a mobile device and an access control system (e.g., a vehicle). The first wireless protocol (e.g., Bluetooth®) can be used to perform authentication of the vehicle and exchange ranging capabilities between a mobile device (e.g., a phone or watch) and the vehicle. The second wireless protocol (e.g., ultra-wideband, UWB) can use a pulse width that is less than a pulse width used by the first wireless protocol (e.g., 1 ns v. 1 μs). The narrower pulse width can provide greater accuracy for distance (ranging) measurements”; Paragraph 0022, “For example, the first wireless protocol can provide a low power framework to negotiate security keys”).
Faaborg and Ledvina are both considered analogous arts as they both concern UWB devices communicating. Faaborg discloses controlling a non UWB-Device but does not disclose the use of control information. Using control information between two devices communicating, such as using security keys, improves the security of the connection and mitigates access from unauthorized users. With the additions from Ledvina Faaborg could authenticate the non-uwb devices with Bluetooth and perform the precise ranging with the UWB signals. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faaborg with Ledvina to add in the use of Bluetooth authentication to prevent unauthorized users.
Claims 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Faaborg 2021) in view of Li (US 20200213842 A1) further in view of Ledvina (US 20190135229 A1).
Regarding claim 15 the combination of Faaborg and Li discloses
The first UWB device of claim 9 including the controller. Faaborg does not disclose wherein the controller is further configured to provide control information for controlling the recognized non-UWB device.
Ledvina discloses
Providing control information for controlling the recognized non-UWB device (Abstract, “Two different wireless protocols can be used for ranging between a mobile device and an access control system (e.g., a vehicle). The first wireless protocol (e.g., Bluetooth®) can be used to perform authentication of the vehicle and exchange ranging capabilities between a mobile device (e.g., a phone or watch) and the vehicle. The second wireless protocol (e.g., ultra-wideband, UWB) can use a pulse width that is less than a pulse width used by the first wireless protocol (e.g., 1 ns v. 1 μs). The narrower pulse width can provide greater accuracy for distance (ranging) measurements”; Paragraph 0022, “For example, the first wireless protocol can provide a low power framework to negotiate security keys”).
Faaborg and Ledvina are both considered analogous arts as they both concern UWB devices communicating. Faaborg discloses controlling a non UWB-Device but does not disclose the use of control information. Using control information between two devices communicating, such as using security keys, improves the security of the connection and mitigates access from unauthorized users. With the additions from Ledvina Faaborg could authenticate the non-uwb devices with Bluetooth and perform the precise ranging with the UWB signals. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faaborg with Ledvina to add in the use of Bluetooth authentication to prevent unauthorized users.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 13 are 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claims 5 and 13 disclose the limitations of a line or line-of-sight connection between the first UWB device and the non-UWB device and the second UWB device and the non-UWB device and using the intersection of lines to localize the non-UWB device. The closest pertinent art is Faaborg 2021 that has a connecting line from the first UWB device to the non-UWB device but not line from the second UWB device. The Examiner was unable to find analogous art of multiple UWB devices forming intersecting lines with a non-UWB device. As such the limitation is considered novel and claims 5 and 13 would be allowed if not for them being dependent on rejected claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PETER D DOZE whose telephone number is (571)272-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 6:00pm 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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/PETER DAVON DOZE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights