DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This paper is responsive to the patent application filed on December 20, 2023, which is related to child PCT application PCT US24/61480 filed December 20, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 15, 2024, October 16, 2024 and May 16, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Pat. Pub. WO 2016/193897 to Luca Gherardi et al. (hereinafter Gherardi) in view of US Pat. Pub. US 20190306825 to Erik David Lindskog et al. (hereinafter Lindskog).
Regarding claim 1, The primary reference Gherardi teaches A method, comprising:
accessing orientation data for a first access point (AP) of a plurality of APs in an ultra-wideband (UWB) deployment; (Gherardi teaches a UWB localization 100 system shown in Fig. 1 wherein a plurality of positioning “anchors” (plurality of APs) which may include transceivers as well as a self-localization apparatus shown in Fig. 5, mapped to a first access point (AP):
PNG
media_image1.png
847
1171
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As described on page 18, line 20, the self-localizing apparatus includes a position calibration unit/localization unit 512 that may compute an estimate for the position of a transceiver. Examiner interprets the position calibration as orientation data for a first AP.)
selecting an antenna configuration for the first AP based at least in part on the orientation data; (Gherardi Fig. 5 and page 20, line 30- page 21, line 1 teach that compensation unit 516 “accounts for the impact of the relative orientation direction and distance of the apparatus’ antenna relative to the transceiver’s antenna.” This is important due to the difficulty in creating omnidirectional antennae for timestampable signals such as UWB signals.” Gherardi page 21, lines 4-10 further teaches that the compensation unit 516 may include a look-up table of compensation values using relative antenna orientations. Therefore, an antenna configuration must be selected to use the look-up table based on the received orientation data.)
receiving, from a second AP and based on the antenna configuration, a first clock synchronization frame at a first timestamp, the first clock synchronization frame comprising a second timestamp; (Although Gherardi does not use the term “clock synchronization frame”, Gherardi page 34 implicitly teaches on lines 27-32 that transmissions “that follow the IEEE 802.15.4 standard, a common choice for the symbol to be timestamped is the beginning of the start-of-frame delimiter (i.e., the point at which the transmitted signal changes from the repeated transmission of a preamble code to the transmission of the start-of-frame delimiter). Digital reception electronics 506 uses a signal provided by the apparatus' clock 508 as a reference in this timestamping process.” Gherardi Fig. 21 illustrates a frame for synchronization:
PNG
media_image2.png
727
951
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Page 54, lines 9-11 teach that the payload 2116 contains information to facilitate synchronization by a synchronization unit synchronization unit 510 shown in Fig. 5, above. Examiner interprets the frame shown in Fig. 21 as a clock synchronization frame. Gherardi teaches that self-localizing apparatus shown in Fig. 5 above and page 32, lines 1-4, may be a multi-antenna configuration using both directional and omnidirectional antennas.)
generating a clock offset based on the first and second timestamps; (Gherardi teaches on page 27, line 29 to page 28, line 3, teaches that the synchronization unit 224 evaluates the discrepancy between locally measured reception timestamps, measurement reception timestamps reported from other transceivers and set transmission times of other transceivers, and through careful correction of errors can compute clock offsets.)
and
[[performing ranging]] with one or more client devices, in conjunction with the second AP, based at least in part on the clock offset. (Gherardi teaches on page 28, lines 1-6 that synchronization unit 224 determines a synchronized reference time based signals received from other transceivers and corrects for clock offsets “because any offset in transceiver timing may translate into errors in localization of the self-localizing apparatus.” Although Gherardi teaches on page 9, lines 25-30 that UWB is suitable for ranging, Gherardi does not address performing ranging in terms of clock offset.)
Gherardi does NOT teach specifically “performing ranging” based on the clock offset.
In the analogous art of IEEE Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) wireless communications, Lindskog teaches performing ranging with one or more client devices, in conjunction with the second AP, based at least in part on the clock offset. (Lindskog teaches in para. [0033] using the clock offsets to adjust ranging operations with devices. “Clock offsets between the responder device and the initiator devices may cause timing errors in one or more measured timestamps used to calculate RTT values for the ranging operation. In some implementations, each of the initiator devices may estimate a carrier frequency offset between itself and the responder device, and may report information indicative of the captured timestamps to the responder device. The timestamps captured by a respective initiator device may be adjusted based on the estimated carrier frequency offset between the respective initiator device and the responder device to generate corrected timestamps. The corrected timestamps may compensate for clock offsets between the responder device and the initiator device, for example, to eliminate timing errors in timestamps captured by the initiator devices.” Therefore, Lindskog corrects for clock offset and teaches that the clock offset correction prevents timing errors in ranging.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Gherardi with Lindskog to teach ranging based on clock offsets prior to the effective date of the invention. Each of Gherardi and Lindskog are in the art of wireless communications and address ranging operations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Lindskog to the ranging operations of Gherardi in order increase the accuracy of ranging by eliminating timing errors as taught in Lindskog para. [0033].
Regarding claim 2, Gherardi and Lindskog disclose the method of claim 1 as set forth, and Gherardi further discloses wherein accessing the orientation data comprises determining, based on accelerometer data, a deployed orientation of the first AP. (Gherardi teaches on page 17, line 6, sensors within self-localizing apparatus, mapped to a first AP, include an accelerometer.)
Regarding claim 4, Gherardi and Lindskog disclose the method of claim 1 as set forth, and Gherardi discloses wherein the antenna configuration is further selected based on a deployment environment of the UWB deployment. (Gherardi teaches on page 20, lines 22-32 compensating for obstacles in the environment in a compensation unit that takes into account an apparatus’ antenna relative to a transceiver’s antenna including the impact of relative orientation etc.)
Regarding claim 6, Gherardi and Lindskog disclose the method of claim 1 as set forth, and Gherardi discloses transmitting a second clock synchronization frame to the second AP using both an omnidirectional antenna and a directional antenna. (Gherardi teaches on page 32, lines 1-4 “transmitters may use a directional antenna while self-localizing apparatuses use omnidirectional antennas, or vice-versa.” And “antennas may be combined” to achieve the desired behavior for a given use case. For example, as described on page 46, lines 11-15, transceivers with directional antennas may aid omnidirectional antennas to ensure space separation of localization signals. One use case for self-localizing apparatus and “anchors” with transceivers includes a closed loop mobile robot use case illustrated in Fig. 19 and described on page 54, lines 13-15. One robot embodiment described on page 65, lines 20-23 and Fig. 30 teaches a closed loop transmission and reception of “clock synchronization frames” between three anchors, anchor A, B and C. Anchor A transmits during time slots Tl and T4. Anchor B transmits during time slots T2 and T5. Anchor C transmits during time slot T3. “When the anchors are not transmitting, they are configured to receive localization signals transmitted by other anchors.” Therefore, the anchor APs are both receiving and transmitting clock synchronization frames. Fig. 30 illustrates part of clock synchronization frames shown as preambles being received and transmitted:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
Regarding claim 8, Gherardi, the primary reference, teaches One or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer- executable instructions (Gherardi page 23 lines 6- 11 teaches instructions on computer readable media) that, when executed by one or more processors of a processing system, (Gherardi page 23 lines 6-1 teaches a processor) cause the processing system to perform an operation comprising:
accessing orientation data for a first access point (AP) of a plurality of APs in an ultra-wideband (UWB) deployment; (Gherardi teaches a UWB localization 100 system shown in Fig. 1 wherein a plurality of positioning “anchors” (plurality of APs) which may include transceivers as well as a self-localization apparatus shown in Fig. 5, mapped to a first access point (AP):
PNG
media_image1.png
847
1171
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As described on page 18, line 20, the self-localizing apparatus includes a position calibration unit/localization unit 512 that may compute an estimate for the position of a transceiver. Examiner interprets the position calibration as orientation data for a first AP.)
selecting an antenna configuration for the first AP based at least in part on the orientation data; (Gherardi Fig. 5 and page 20, line 30- page 21, line 1 teach that compensation unit 516 “accounts for the impact of the relative orientation direction and distance of the apparatus’ antenna relative to the transceiver’s antenna.” This is important due to the difficulty in creating omnidirectional antennae for timestampable signals such as UWB signals.” Gherardi page 21, lines 4-10 further teaches that the compensation may include a look-up table of compensation values using relative antenna orientations. Therefore, an antenna configuration must be selected to use the look-up table based on the received orientation data.)
receiving, from a second AP and based on the antenna configuration, a first clock synchronization frame at a first timestamp, the first clock synchronization frame comprising a second timestamp; (Although Gherardi does not use the term “clock synchronization frame”, Gherardi page 34 implicitly teaches on lines 27-32 that transmissions “that follow the IEEE 802.15.4 standard, a common choice for the symbol to be timestamped is the beginning of the start-of-frame delimiter (i.e., the point at which the transmitted signal changes from the repeated transmission of a preamble code to the transmission of the start-of-frame delimiter). Digital reception electronics 506 uses a signal provided by the apparatus' clock 508 as a reference in this timestamping process.” Gherardi Fig. 21 illustrates a frame for synchronization:
PNG
media_image2.png
727
951
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Page 54, lines 9-11 teach that the payload 2116 contains information to facilitate synchronization by a synchronization unit synchronization unit 510 shown in Fig. 5, above. Examiner interprets the frame shown in Fig. 21 as a clock synchronization frame. Gherardi teaches that self-localizing apparatus shown in Fig. 5 above and page 32, lines 1-4, may be a multi-antenna configuration using both directional and omnidirectional antennas.)
generating a clock offset based on the first and second timestamps; (Gherardi teaches on page 27, line 29 to page 28, line 3, teaches that the synchronization unit 224 evaluates the discrepancy between locally measured reception timestamps, measurement reception timestamps reported from other transceivers and set transmission times of other transceivers, and through careful correction of errors can compute clock offsets.)
and
[[performing ranging]] with one or more client devices, in conjunction with the second AP, based at least in part on the clock offset. (Gherardi teaches on page 28, lines 1-6 that synchronization unit 224 determines a synchronized reference time based signals received from other transceivers and corrects for clock offsets “because any offset in transceiver timing may translate into errors in localization of the self-localizing apparatus.” Although Gherardi teaches on page 9, lines 25-30 that UWB is suitable for ranging, Gherardi does not address performing ranging in terms of clock offset.)
Gherardi does NOT teach specifically “performing ranging” based on the clock offset.
In the analogous art of IEEE Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) wireless communications, Lindskog teaches performing ranging with one or more client devices, in conjunction with the second AP, based at least in part on the clock offset. (Lindskog teaches in para. [0033] using the clock offsets to adjust ranging operations with devices. “Clock offsets between the responder device and the initiator devices may cause timing errors in one or more measured timestamps used to calculate RTT values for the ranging operation. In some implementations, each of the initiator devices may estimate a carrier frequency offset between itself and the responder device, and may report information indicative of the captured timestamps to the responder device. The timestamps captured by a respective initiator device may be adjusted based on the estimated carrier frequency offset between the respective initiator device and the responder device to generate corrected timestamps. The corrected timestamps may compensate for clock offsets between the responder device and the initiator device, for example, to eliminate timing errors in timestamps captured by the initiator devices.” Therefore, Lindskog corrects for clock offset and teaches that the clock offset correction prevents timing errors in ranging.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Gherardi with Lindskog to teach ranging based on clock offsets prior to the effective date of the invention. Each of Gherardi and Lindskog are in the art of wireless communications and address ranging operations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Lindskog to the ranging operations of Gherardi in order increase the accuracy of ranging by eliminating timing errors as taught in Lindskog para. [0033].
Regarding claim 9, Gherardi and Lindskog disclose one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8 as set forth, and Gherardi further discloses wherein accessing the orientation data comprises determining, based on accelerometer data, a deployed orientation of the first AP. (Gherardi teaches on page 17, line 6, sensors within self-localizing apparatus, mapped to a first AP, include an accelerometer.)
Regarding claim 11, Gherardi and Lindskog disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8 as set forth, and Gherardi further discloses wherein the antenna configuration is further selected based on a deployment environment of the UWB deployment. (Gherardi teaches on page 20, lines 22-32 compensating for obstacles in the environment in a compensation unit that takes into account an apparatus’ antenna relative to a transceiver’s antenna including the impact of relative orientation etc.)
Regarding claim 13, Gherardi and Lindskog teach the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8 as set forth, and Gherardi further discloses transmitting a second clock synchronization frame to the second AP using both an omnidirectional antenna and a directional antenna. (Gherardi teaches on page 32, lines 1-4 “transmitters may use a directional antenna while self-localizing apparatuses use omnidirectional antennas, or vice-versa.” And “antennas may be combined” to achieve the desired behavior for a given use case. For example, as described on page 46, lines 11-15, transceivers with directional antennas may aid omnidirectional antennas to ensure space separation of localization signals. One use case for self-localizing apparatus and “anchors” with transceivers includes a closed loop mobile robot use case illustrated in Fig. 19 and described on page 54, lines 13-15. One robot embodiment described on page 65, lines 20-23 and Fig. 30 teaches a closed loop transmission and reception of “clock synchronization frames” between three anchors, anchor A, B and C. Anchor A transmits during time slots Tl and T4. Anchor B transmits during time slots T2 and T5. Anchor C transmits during time slot T3. “When the anchors are not transmitting, they are configured to receive localization signals transmitted by other anchors.” Therefore, the anchor APs are both receiving and transmitting clock synchronization frames. Fig. 30 illustrates part of clock synchronization frames shown as preambles being received and transmitted:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
Regarding claim 15, Gherardi, the primary reference, teaches A system comprising: one or more computer processors; (Gherardi page 23 lines 6-1 teaches a processor)
and
logic encoded in one or more non-transitory media, (Gherardi page 23, lines 1-16 teaches that scheduler 110 illustrated above includes a processor adapted to execute computer instructions stored in memory including an operating system) the logic collectively executable by operation of the one or more computer processors to perform an operation comprising:
accessing orientation data for a first access point (AP) of a plurality of APs in an ultra-wideband (UWB) deployment; (Gherardi teaches a UWB localization 100 system shown in Fig. 1 wherein a plurality of positioning “anchors” (plurality of APs) which may include transceivers as well as a self-localization apparatus shown in Fig. 5, mapped to a first access point (AP):
PNG
media_image4.png
583
794
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As described on page 18, line 20, “a position calibration unit may compute an estimate for the position of a transceiver.” Examiner interprets the position calibration as orientation data for a first AP.
PNG
media_image1.png
847
1171
media_image1.png
Greyscale
selecting an antenna configuration for the first AP based at least in part on the orientation data; (Gherardi Fig. 5 and page 20, line 30- page 21, line 1 teach that compensation unit 516 “accounts for the impact of the relative orientation direction and distance of the apparatus’ antenna relative to the transceiver’s antenna.” This is important due to the difficulty in creating omnidirectional antennae for timestampable signals such as UWB signals.” Gherardi page 21, lines 4-10 further teaches that the compensation may include a look-up table of compensation values using relative antenna orientations. Therefore, an antenna configuration must be selected to use the look-up table based on the received orientation data.)
receiving, from a second AP and based on the antenna configuration, a first clock synchronization frame at a first timestamp, the first clock synchronization frame comprising a second timestamp; (Although Gherardi does not use the term “clock synchronization frame”, Gherardi page 34 implicitly teaches on lines 27-32 that transmissions “that follow the IEEE 802.15.4 standard, a common choice for the symbol to be timestamped is the beginning of the start-of-frame delimiter (i.e., the point at which the transmitted signal changes from the repeated transmission of a preamble code to the transmission of the start-of-frame delimiter). Digital reception electronics 506 uses a signal provided by the apparatus' clock 508 as a reference in this timestamping process.” Gherardi Fig. 21 illustrates a frame for synchronization:
PNG
media_image2.png
727
951
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Page 54, lines 9-11 teach that the payload 2116 contains information to facilitate synchronization by a synchronization unit synchronization unit 510 shown in Fig. 5, above. Examiner interprets the frame shown in Fig. 21 as a clock synchronization frame. Gherardi teaches that self-localizing apparatus shown in Fig. 5 above and page 32, lines 1-4, may be a multi-antenna configuration using both directional and omnidirectional antennas.)
generating a clock offset based on the first and second timestamps; (Gherardi teaches on page 27, line 29 to page 28, line 3, teaches that the synchronization unit 224 evaluates the discrepancy between locally measured reception timestamps, measurement reception timestamps reported from other transceivers and set transmission times of other transceivers, and through careful correction of errors can compute clock offsets.)
and
[[performing ranging]] with one or more client devices, in conjunction with the second AP, based at least in part on the clock offset. (Gherardi teaches on page 28, lines 1-6 that synchronization unit 224 determines a synchronized reference time based signals received from other transceivers and corrects for clock offsets “because any offset in transceiver timing may translate into errors in localization of the self-localizing apparatus.” Although Gherardi teaches on page 9, lines 25-30 that UWB is suitable for ranging, Gherardi does not address performing ranging in terms of clock offset.)
Gherardi does NOT teach specifically “performing ranging” based on the clock offset.
In the analogous art of IEEE Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) wireless communications, Lindskog teaches performing ranging with one or more client devices, in conjunction with the second AP, based at least in part on the clock offset. (Lindskog teaches in para. [0033] using the clock offsets to adjust ranging operations with devices. “Clock offsets between the responder device and the initiator devices may cause timing errors in one or more measured timestamps used to calculate RTT values for the ranging operation. In some implementations, each of the initiator devices may estimate a carrier frequency offset between itself and the responder device, and may report information indicative of the captured timestamps to the responder device. The timestamps captured by a respective initiator device may be adjusted based on the estimated carrier frequency offset between the respective initiator device and the responder device to generate corrected timestamps. The corrected timestamps may compensate for clock offsets between the responder device and the initiator device, for example, to eliminate timing errors in timestamps captured by the initiator devices.” Therefore, Lindskog corrects for clock offset and teaches that the clock offset correction prevents timing errors in ranging.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Gherardi with Lindskog to teach ranging based on clock offsets prior to the effective date of the invention. Each of Gherardi and Lindskog are in the art of wireless communications and address ranging operations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Lindskog to the ranging operations of Gherardi in order increase the accuracy of ranging by eliminating timing errors as taught in Lindskog para. [0033].
Regarding claim 16, Gherardi and Lindskog disclose The system of claim 15 as set forth, and Gherardi further discloses accessing the orientation data comprises determining, based on accelerometer data, a deployed orientation of the first AP. (Gherardi teaches on page 17, line 6, sensors within self-localizing apparatus, mapped to a first AP, include an accelerometer.)
Regarding claim 18, Gherardi and Lindskog disclose the system of claim 15 as set forth, Gherardi further disclose wherein the antenna configuration is further selected based on a deployment environment of the UWB deployment. (Gherardi teaches on page 20, lines 22-32 compensating for obstacles in the environment in a compensation unit that takes into account an apparatus’ antenna relative to a transceiver’s antenna including the impact of relative orientation etc.)
Regarding claim 20, Gherardi and Lindskog disclose the system of claim 15 as set forth, and Gherardi further discloses transmitting a second clock synchronization frame to the second AP using both an omnidirectional antenna and a directional antenna. (Gherardi teaches on page 32, lines 1-4 “transmitters may use a directional antenna while self-localizing apparatuses use omnidirectional antennas, or vice-versa.” And “antennas may be combined” to achieve the desired behavior for a given use case. For example, as described on page 46, lines 11-15, transceivers with directional antennas may aid omnidirectional antennas to ensure space separation of localization signals. One use case for self-localizing apparatus and “anchors” with transceivers includes a closed loop mobile robot use case illustrated in Fig. 19 and described on page 54, lines 13-15. One robot embodiment described on page 65, lines 20-23 and Fig. 30 teaches a closed loop transmission and reception of “clock synchronization frames” between three anchors, anchor A, B and C. Anchor A transmits during time slots Tl and T4. Anchor B transmits during time slots T2 and T5. Anchor C transmits during time slot T3. “When the anchors are not transmitting, they are configured to receive localization signals transmitted by other anchors.” Therefore, the anchor APs are both receiving and transmitting clock synchronization frames. Fig. 30 illustrates part of clock synchronization frames shown as preambles being received and transmitted:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gherardi in view on Lindskog further in view of US Pat. No. 6,781,544 to Stephen Saliga, Fred Anderson, James Mass and Timothy Frank (hereinafter Saliga), patented August 24, 2004.
Regarding claim 3, Gherardi and Lindskog discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth.
Gherardi does NOT disclose wherein selecting the antenna configuration comprises determining to use both an omnidirectional antenna and a directional antenna to receive data, based on determining that the first AP is deployed in a horizontal orientation.
In the analogous art of Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (UNII) wireless communication, Saliga teaches wherein selecting the antenna configuration comprises determining to use both an omnidirectional antenna and a directional antenna to receive data, based on determining that the first AP is deployed in a horizontal orientation (Examiner interprets using both an omnidirectional antenna and a directional antenna based on determining that a first AP is in a horizontal orientation within the meaning of applicants specification para. [0032] which states that and AP is “horizontally mounted (e.g., that is wall mounted)” . Saliga teaches in col. 3 lines 19-61 a single AP with a switch enabling omni-directional or directional to be selected based on the type of coverage pattern desired, including “If the AP is mounted horizontally” or if the access point is mounted on a wall, thereby giving a large degree of flexibility. Saliga col. 4, lines 44-50 and Fig. 6 teach that “if the antenna system is rotated to the horizontal (parallel to and top of the access point housing), the detect switch 48 is closed and the patch antennas 20 are deployed automatically.” The patch antennas are directional TM10 mode suitable for “vertically mounted access points”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Gherardi with Saliga. Each of Saliga and Gherardi are in the field of wireless communications, access points and antenna configurations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gherardi with Saliga in order to achieve flexibility in achieving antenna diversity as taught in Saliga col. 5, lines 10-21.
Regarding claim 10, Gherardi and Lindskog disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8 as set forth.
Gherardi does NOT disclose wherein selecting the antenna configuration comprises determining to use both an omnidirectional antenna and a directional antenna to receive data, based on determining that the first AP is deployed in a horizontal orientation.
In the analogous art of Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (UNII) wireless communication, Saliga teaches wherein selecting the antenna configuration comprises determining to use both an omnidirectional antenna and a directional antenna to receive data, based on determining that the first AP is deployed in a horizontal orientation (Examiner interprets using both an omnidirectional antenna and a directional antenna based on determining that a first AP is in a horizontal orientation within the meaning of applicants specification para. [0032] which states that and AP is “horizontally mounted (e.g., that is wall mounted)” . Saliga teaches in col. 3 lines 19-61 a single AP with a switch enabling omni-directional or directional to be selected based on the type of coverage pattern desired, including “If the AP is mounted horizontally” or if the access point is mounted on a wall, thereby giving a large degree of flexibility. Saliga col. 4, lines 44-50 and Fig. 6 teach that “if the antenna system is rotated to the horizontal (parallel to and top of the access point housing), the detect switch 48 is closed and the patch antennas 20 are deployed automatically.” The patch antennas are directional TM10 mode suitable for “vertically mounted access points”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Gherardi with Saliga. Each of Saliga and Gherardi are in the field of wireless communications, access points and antenna configurations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gherardi with Saliga in order to achieve flexibility in achieving antenna diversity as taught in Saliga col. 5, lines 10-21.
Regarding claim 17, Gherardi and Lindskog disclose the system of claim 15 as set forth.
Gherardi does NOT disclose wherein selecting the antenna configuration comprises determining to use both an omnidirectional antenna and a directional antenna to receive data, based on determining that the first AP is deployed in a horizontal orientation.
In the analogous art of Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (UNII) wireless communication, Saliga teaches wherein selecting the antenna configuration comprises determining to use both an omnidirectional antenna and a directional antenna to receive data, based on determining that the first AP is deployed in a horizontal orientation (Examiner interprets using both an omnidirectional antenna and a directional antenna based on determining that a first AP is in a horizontal orientation within the meaning of applicants specification para. [0032] which states that and AP is “horizontally mounted (e.g., that is wall mounted)” . Saliga teaches in col. 3 lines 19-61 a single AP with a switch enabling omni-directional or directional to be selected based on the type of coverage pattern desired, including “If the AP is mounted horizontally” or if the access point is mounted on a wall, thereby giving a large degree of flexibility. Saliga col. 4, lines 44-50 and Fig. 6 teach that “if the antenna system is rotated to the horizontal (parallel to and top of the access point housing), the detect switch 48 is closed and the patch antennas 20 are deployed automatically.” The patch antennas are directional TM10 mode suitable for “vertically mounted access points”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Gherardi with Saliga. Each of Saliga and Gherardi are in the field of wireless communications, access points and antenna configurations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gherardi with Saliga in order to achieve flexibility in achieving antenna diversity as taught in Saliga col. 5, lines 10-21.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gherardi, in view of Lindskog, further in view of US. Pat. No. 10084529 to Carl Riechers and Ryan Coppa (hereinafter Riechers).
Regarding claim 5, Gherardi and Lindskog teach the method of claim 4 as set forth, and Gherardi further discloses selecting the antenna configuration comprises determining to use both an omnidirectional antenna and a directional antenna to receive data, [[based on determining that the first AP is deployed in a vertical orientation and that the deployment environment has ceiling above a defined threshold height]]. (Gherardi teaches employing both an omni-directional and directional antenna in a multi-antenna configuration according to different use cases, see page 32, lines 1-3.)
Gherardi does NOT teach that the antenna configuration is based on determining that a first AP is deployed in a vertical orientation and that the deployment environment has ceiling above a defined threshold height.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G Wide Area Networks (WAN), Riechers teaches the antenna configuration is based on determining that a first AP is deployed in a vertical orientation and that the deployment environment has ceiling above a defined threshold height. (Riechers teaches in col. 3, lines 30 -39 an airplane routed to a WAN with both an omnidirectional antenna and a directional antenna. Riechers Fig. 5 and col. 7 lines 48-61 teach that a controller can switch between an omnidirectional antenna array/pattern and a directional antenna array/pattern “based on the altitude” exceeding a predetermined threshold altitude. Examiner notes that the altitude of an airplane using a WAN is an AP deployed in a vertical orientation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Gherardi with Riechers to teach a use case for omnidirectional and directional antennas for the use case of determining that a first AP is deployed in a vertical orientation and that the deployment environment has ceiling above a defined threshold height. Each of Gherardi and Riechers are directed to the field wireless communications and omnidirectional and directional antennas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Riechers and Gherardi in order to maintain network connectivity and access as taught in Riechers, col. 4 lines 39-42.
Regarding claim 12, Gherardi and Lindskog teach the one or more non-transitory computer -readable medium of claim 11 as set forth, and Gherardi further discloses selecting the antenna configuration comprises determining to use both an omnidirectional antenna and a directional antenna to receive data, [[based on determining that the first AP is deployed in a vertical orientation and that the deployment environment has ceiling above a defined threshold height]]. (Gherardi teaches employing both an omni-directional and directional antenna in a multi-antenna configuration according to different use cases, see page 32, lines 1-3.)
Gherardi does NOT teach that the antenna configuration is based on determining that a first AP is deployed in a vertical orientation and that the deployment environment has ceiling above a defined threshold height.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G Wide Area Networks (WAN), Riechers teaches the antenna configuration is based on determining that a first AP is deployed in a vertical orientation and that the deployment environment has ceiling above a defined threshold height. (Riechers teaches in col. 3, lines 30 -39 an airplane routed to a WAN with both an omnidirectional antenna and a directional antenna. Riechers Fig. 5 and col. 7 lines 48-61 teach that a controller can switch between an omnidirectional antenna array/pattern and a directional antenna array/pattern “based on the altitude” exceeding a predetermined threshold altitude. Examiner notes that the altitude of an airplane using a WAN is an AP deployed in a vertical orientation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Gherardi with Riechers to teach a use case for omnidirectional and directional antennas for the use case of determining that a first AP is deployed in a vertical orientation and that the deployment environment has ceiling above a defined threshold height. Each of Gherardi and Riechers are directed to the field wireless communications and omnidirectional and directional antennas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Riechers and Gherardi in order to maintain network connectivity and access as taught in Riechers, col. 4 lines 39-42.
Regarding claim 19, Gherardi and Lindskog teach the system of claim 18 as set forth, and Gherardi further discloses selecting the antenna configuration comprises determining to use both an omnidirectional antenna and a directional antenna to receive data, [[based on determining that the first AP is deployed in a vertical orientation and that the deployment environment has ceiling above a defined threshold height]]. (Gherardi teaches employing both an omni-directional and directional antenna in a multi-antenna configuration according to different use cases, see page 32, lines 1-3.)
Gherardi does NOT teach that the antenna configuration is based on determining that a first AP is deployed in a vertical orientation and that the deployment environment has ceiling above a defined threshold height.
In the analogous art of 3GPP 5G Wide Area Networks (WAN), Riechers teaches the antenna configuration is based on determining that a first AP is deployed in a vertical orientation and that the deployment environment has ceiling above a defined threshold height. (Riechers teaches in col. 3, lines 30 -39 an airplane routed to a WAN with both an omnidirectional antenna and a directional antenna. Riechers Fig. 5 and col. 7 lines 48-61 teach that a controller can switch between an omnidirectional antenna array/pattern and a directional antenna array/pattern “based on the altitude” exceeding a predetermined threshold altitude. Examiner notes that the altitude of an airplane using a WAN is an AP deployed in a vertical orientation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Gherardi with Riechers to teach a use case for omnidirectional and directional antennas for the use case of determining that a first AP is deployed in a vertical orientation and that the deployment environment has ceiling above a defined threshold height. Each of Gherardi and Riechers are directed to the field wireless communications and omnidirectional and directional antennas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Riechers and Gherardi in order to maintain network connectivity and access as taught in Riechers, col. 4 lines 39-42.
Claim 7 and 14 are rejected over Gherardi in view of Lindskog further in view of International Pat. Pub. WO2023207254 to Heng Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 7, Gherardi does NOT teach The method of claim 1, wherein generating the clock offset comprises applying a maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) to the first and second timestamps.
In the analogous art of wireless sensor networks, Wang teaches generating the clock offset comprises applying a maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) to the first and second timestamps. (Wang teaches from pages 2 line 13 to page 3 line 17, at step 2 receiving timestamp information, and at step 4 compensating for estimated clock offsets based on the time interval. Wang teaches at B2 using a maximum likelihood estimation to generate the clock offset using a calculation formula.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined Wang and Gherardi to teach using a maximum likelihood estimation to timestamps to generate a clock offset prior to the effective date of the invention. Each of Gherardi and Wang are directed to wireless communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Wang with Gherardi in order to expand on the application of timestamp information for synchronization schemes in actual wireless sensor networks as taught in the third paragraph of Wang.
Regarding claim 14, Gherardi does NOT teach The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8, wherein generating the clock offset comprises applying a maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) to the first and second timestamps.
In the analogous art of wireless sensor networks, Wang teaches generating the clock offset comprises applying a maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) to the first and second timestamps. (Wang teaches from pages 2 line 13 to page 3 line 17, at step 2 receiving timestamp information, and at step 4 compensating for estimated clock offsets based on the time interval. Further at B2 using a maximum likelihood estimation to generate the clock offset using a calculation formula.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined Wang and Gherardi to teach using a maximum likelihood estimation to timestamps to generate a clock offset prior to the effective date of the invention. Each of Gherardi and Wang are directed to wireless communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Wang with Gherardi in order to expand on the application of timestamp information for synchronization schemes in actual wireless sensor networks as taught in the third paragraph of Wang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes “Effects of Antenna Orientation in Ultra-Wideband Indoor Positioning System”, by Panthip Chansamood, et. al., The 16th International Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and Information Technology (ECTI-CON 2019) (Year: 2019). Chansamood teaches that antenna orientations of UWB can greatly affect the distance estimation process and error range when a transmitter or receiver is placed in a horizontal position.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET MARIE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1068. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/MARGARET MARIE ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2412