DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 1, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending this application
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.
Claims 1, 12-13, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harbin et al (US 10,948,566 B1) in view of Duan et al (US 2010/0172339 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Harbin teaches a system comprising [col 8, lines 1-10, and figure 10]:
a first node of a network, the network comprising nodes comprising [col 5, lines 30-45, col 7, lines 50-col 8 line 10 for nodes n and m, with figure 10, 1040]
the first node having a first node clock, a second node having a second node clock [col 5, lines 30-45, figure 10, 1050],
a third node having a third node clock, and a fourth node having a fourth node clock [col 5, lines 30-50, for having four nodes],
each node of the network comprising at least one antenna and at least one processor [figure 10 for having N nodes with antennas and figure 11 for a node having two antennas and a FPGA],
wherein the first, second, third, and fourth nodes are configured to communicate with each other during cycles having time periods [col 8, lines 30-50 for time different between direct and relays and calculating clock error],
the time periods including a first time period and subsequent time periods, wherein the first node is configured to [col 8, line 30-50, with col 9, lines 1-30]:
receive at least three transmittals, each of the at least three transmittals being from one of the second, third, and fourth nodes [col 7, lines 50-65 for having three towers (three transmittals) and two nodes with means to transmit signals between each other, with col 9, lines 30-50];
and based at least on (1) arrival times associated with at least three of the at least three transmittals and (2) information associated with any time adjustments to the at least three transmittals [col 9, lines 40-55 for having delays (effect arrival time) and time stamping data with using deliberate delays to adjust time to maintain carrier frequencies],
determine (a) relative positions of the second, third, and fourth nodes relative to a position of the first node [col 2, lines 60-67 for having asynchronous localization (positions) and col 5, line 60 to col 6, line 20].
Harbin fails to explicitly teach and (b) relative clock times of the second, third, and fourth node clocks relative to the first node clock and wherein the at least three transmittals use relative messaging.
Duan has a system improves two-way radio ranging accuracy by estimating a relative clock frequency offset between a first clock X of a first transceiver and a second clock Y a second transceiver (abstract) and teaches and (b) relative clock times of the second, third, and fourth node clocks relative to the first node clock [0058 for getting accurate flight times, and 0063 for determining relative clock frequency offset with multiple clocks, also claim 1],
and wherein the at least three transmittals use relative messaging [claim 1, and 0049-0063 for multiple ranging packets at t0, t2 and t4 with relative clock timings and delays for ranging packets (messages)].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the node position techniques, as disclosed by Harbin, further including the clock calculations as taught by Duan for the purpose to have an accurate estimation of relative frequency offset to reduce the time estimation error significantly (Duan, 0060).
Regarding Claim 12, Harbin teaches the first node is further configured to perform operations to solve a system of linear equations to determine (a) the relative positions and (b) the relative clock times [col 10, lines 50, to col 11, line 30].
Regarding Claim 13, Harbin teaches the first node is further configured to perform the operations using at least one matrix to solve the system of the linear equations to determine (a) the relative positions and (b) the relative clock times [col 11, lines 1-30].
Regarding Claim 15, Harbin teaches the first node lacks a reliable global navigation satellite system (GNSS) input at least for a time interval spanning a duration to complete receptions of the at least three transmittals [col 1, lines 30-45].
Regarding Claim 16, Harbin teaches the first node lacks any global navigation satellite system (GNSS) input at least for a time interval a duration to complete receptions of the at least three transmittals [col 1, lines 30-45, and col 3, lines 10-20].
Regarding Claim 20, Harbin teaches method, comprising [col 8, lines 1-10, and figure 10]:
receiving, by a first node of a network comprising [col 5, lines 30-45, col 7, lines 50-col 8 line 10 for nodes n and m, with figure 10, 1040]
the first node and second, third, and fourth nodes [col 5, lines 30-45, figure 10, 1050],
at least three transmittals, each of the at least three transmittals being from one of the second, third, and fourth nodes [col 7, lines 50-65 for having three towers (three transmittals) and two nodes with means to transmit signals between each other, with col 9, lines 30-50],
the first node having a first node clock, the second node having a second node clock, the third node having a third node clock, and the fourth node having a fourth node clock [col 5, lines 30-50, for having four nodes with clocks],
each node of the network comprising at least one antenna and at least one processor [figure 10 for having N nodes with antennas and figure 11 for a node having two antennas and a FPGA],
wherein the first, second, third, and fourth nodes are configured to communicate with each other during cycles having time periods, the time periods including a first time period and subsequent time periods [col 8, line 30-50, with col 9, lines 1-30];
and based at least on (1) arrival times associated with at least three of the at least three transmittals and (2) information associated with any time adjustments to the at least three transmittals, determining, by the first node [col 9, lines 40-55 for having delays (effect arrival time) and time stamping data with using deliberate delays to adjust time to maintain carrier frequencies],
(a) relative positions of the second, third, and fourth nodes relative to a position of the first node [col 2, lines 60-67 for having asynchronous localization (positions) and col 5, line 60 to col 6, line 20].
Harbin fails to explicitly teach and (b) relative clock times of the second, third, and fourth node clocks relative to the first node clock and wherein the at least three transmittals use relative messaging.
Duan has a system improves two-way radio ranging accuracy by estimating a relative clock frequency offset between a first clock X of a first transceiver and a second clock Y a second transceiver (abstract) and teaches and (b) relative clock times of the second, third, and fourth node clocks relative to the first node clock [0058 for getting accurate flight times, and 0063 for determining relative clock frequency offset with multiple clocks, also claim 1],
and wherein the at least three transmittals use relative messaging [claim 1, and 0049-0063 for multiple ranging packets at t0, t2 and t4 with relative clock timings and delays for ranging packets (messages)].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the node position techniques, as disclosed by Harbin, further including the clock calculations as taught by Duan for the purpose to have an accurate estimation of relative frequency offset to reduce the time estimation error significantly (Duan, 0060).
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harbin et al (US 10,948,566 B1) in view of Duan et al (US 2010/0172339 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view Wang et al (US 2016/0054439 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Harbin fails to explicitly teach the at least one matrix comprises a pseudo inverse matrix.
Wang has integrated satellite-terrestrial communications networks (abstract) and teaches the at least one matrix comprises a pseudo inverse matrix [page 6003, right column second and third paragraphs].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the node position techniques, as disclosed by Harbin, further including the matrix calculations as taught by Wang for the purpose to determine geographical location or ephemeris estimation (Wang, page 6003, right column, first paragraph).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 and 17-19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In applicant’s arguments page 12, last paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Harbin fails to teach relative positions of the second, third, and fourth nodes relative to a position of the first node. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Harbin figure 3 shows that once every node takes a turn relaying the SoOP signal and the arrival time delays are measured, this solves for each nodes exact x-y-z coordinates relative to the first node’s position, like triangulating for measuring distances [Harbin, col 8, lines 1-30 for arrival times between nth and nth nodes also equations 5-6].
In applicant’s arguments page 14, second paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Harbin fails to teach at least three transmittals. The examiner thanks the applicant for the amendments. Duan teaches at least three transmittals using relative messaging by showing in figure 5, Y is sending three packets and the third packet contains NY24, a number telling the device X how much Y’s own clock ticked between transmissions, so each pakets carries a message about one clock’s time to another clock (relative messaging) [Duan, 0049-0063].
The examiner acknowledges that this is a broader interpretation than Applicant’s. However, examiners are not only allowed to apply broad interpretations, but are required to do so, as it reduces the possibility that the claims, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. MPEP §2111. Patentability is determined by the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP §2111), not the narrowest reasonable interpretation. And Applicant does not have an explicit lexicographical statement in line with MPEP §2111.01 subsection IV requiring a specific interpretation of the relevant phrases which forces the examiner to interpret them only one way.
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
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 on 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights