DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 15-28 should be withdrawn because claims 15-28 are cancelled (response page 7), Examiner agrees, and the rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that claims 5 and 12 are clear because claim 1 recites that the time and position of the receivers is known, while claim 5 further clarifies that the time and location information is received in the signals from an associated receiver (response page 7), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 5 does not appear to describe any receiving of time and location information in signals from an associated receiver. The only receiving recited in claim 5 appears to be receiving signals from a tag device in claim 1 lines 2-5. Further, Applicant has not explained how the “receivers” and “associated receiver” are related, or the difference between “location information” and “positions”. Claim 12 recites the same language as claim 5. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that claim 29 is clear because it recites that the matched filter detection algorithm recovers the tag signals from the observed times of arrival (and the received plurality of signals), and the claim does not recite that the observed times of arrival are recovered (response page 7), Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear how the filter detection algorithm can recover the tag signals from the observed times of arrival as Applicant has alleged. Para. [0037] describes “recovering the signals can include applying a matched filter detection algorithm and algorithms to compute TOA values” (emphasis added), but there does not be any description of recovering signals from times of arrival as argued. Examiner maintains that the language is unclear, and requests Applicant indicate how the specification supports Applicant’s interpretation. Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments appear to address only a portion of the rejection of claim 2. They do not address the relationship between the “despreading” and “applying” steps.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the remaining 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are overcome in view of the amendments (page 7, last paragraph), Examiner agrees in part:
The rejection of claim 8 has been overcome by the amendments. However, a new rejection has been made, necessitated by the amendments.
In claim 30 Applicant amended “the said tag signal information” to “the tag signal information” to address the antecedent basis issue. However there is no basis in the claim for either phrase. The rejection has been rewritten to reflect the amended language.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that claim 1 has been amended to recite the subject matter of claim 6, which was indicated as being allowable, and therefore the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims should be withdrawn and the claims allowed (response page 8, first through fourth paragraphs), Examiner agrees that the introduction of the subject matter of claim 6 overcomes the prior art rejections of claim 1 and its dependents, and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 19 and 26 should be withdrawn because the claims are cancelled (response page 8, fifth and sixth paragraphs), Examiner agrees, and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 19 and 26 and their dependents is withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that claims 34 and 35 depend from claim 1 and therefore their prior art rejection should be withdrawn (response page 8, seventh and eighth paragraphs), Examiner agrees, and the prior art rejection is withdrawn.
In addition, the prior art rejection of claims 8-14 is withdrawn because claim 8 has been amended to include the subject matter of claim 13, which was indicated as being allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 8-14, and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, it is unclear how to interpret the scope of “wherein the identifying information for the one or more receivers comprises time and location information of an associated receiver”. The specification does not appear to describe what is meant by “an associated receiver” in this context. Does Applicant intend to refer to the “one or more receivers”?. If so, language such as “time and location information of the one or more receivers” may help. Further, if “an associated receiver” is meant to refer to the “one or more receivers”, it is further unclear how the “location information” differs from the “positions of the one or more receivers when the signal was received” already recited in claim 1 lines 7-9 and the “position of the receiver when the signal was received” claim 8 line 12-13.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear how one or more processing devices and a non-transitory computer-readable media can perform the operation “receiving a plurality of signals originating from a tag device” as recited in line 6. An analog receiver appears to be required, as described in para. [0037].
Regarding claim 29, line 9 recites “despreading the received plurality of signals”, and para. [0037] of the specification recites “the signal can be de-spread to obtain correlations”. The despread signals are not recited as being used in any subsequent steps. Lines 10-11 then recite “applying a matched filter detection algorithm to recover the tag signals from the received plurality of signals”, and one of ordinary skill would recognize that a matched filter detection algorithm itself involves correlations. Does Applicant intend for the matched filter detection algorithm to be applied to the despread signals? Examiner recommends clarifying the relationship between these two steps.
Regarding claim 29 lines 10-11 “applying a matched filter detection algorithm to recover the tag signals from the received plurality of signals and observed times of arrival of the recovered tag signals”, it is unclear what it means to “recover” observed times of arrival of the recovered signals. The specification describes computing observed times of arrival (e.g. para. [0037] “compute TOA values”; also see claims 6, 13, 20, 27), but does not appear to describe recovering observed times of arrival.
Regarding claim 30 lines 3-4, “the tag signal information” lacks clear antecedent basis in the claim. The claim does not previously recite any tag signal information.
The remaining claims are dependent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 7, 34, and 35 are allowed.
Claims 5, 8-12, 14, and 29-33 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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 CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WILLIAM 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648