DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/02/2026 has been entered.
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
Applicants' arguments and remarks filed on 09/02/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant's Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 09/02/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicants' amendments overcome objections to the claims.
Applicants' amendments overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
No New Matter was noticed.
Claim 17 has been canceled.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 12, 14-16, 18-26, 29, and 30 have been amended.
Claims 1-16 and 18-30 are pending.
The rejections of Claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained over the art of record for the reasons set forth below.
The rejection of Claims 25-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn for the reasons set forth below.
Response to Arguments
For each independent claim, Applicant characterizes the Examiner as having agreed that a particular amendment would likely overcome the cited references. The substance of the interview is recorded in the Interview Summary of record (Paper No. 20260804), which states that the proposed amendments “will require further consideration and search”, that “Further consideration is necessary”, and that there was “No agreement on allowability.” To the extent Applicant’s characterization of the interview differs from the Interview Summary of record, as identified for Claims 1, 14, and 25 below, the Interview Summary controls. See MPEP 713.04.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1-6, Applicant argues that independent Claim 1, as amended to recite determining an estimated distance between the wireless device and the transmitter device; and displaying the estimated distance on the user interface in response to the direction of the first arrow is aligned with the direction of the second arrow, is allowable over Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541)
As an initial matter, the proposal recorded in the Interview Summary was to amend Claim 1 to recite that “the distance and/or arrow(s) are not displayed until the AoA is resolved”. The Examiner’s preliminary observation that the proposal “appears to be unique over the art” was directed to that withholding feature. Amended Claim 1 recites that the estimated distance is displayed in response to alignment of the arrows and does not recite that the distance is withheld until the arrows are aligned. Amended Claim 1 is therefore not the amendment discussed at the interview, and the preliminary observation recorded in the Interview Summary does not apply to it.
The art of record teaches the added limitations. Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches determining a distance between the wireless device and the transmitter device and presenting location information on the display in response to resolution of the angle of arrival. [0082]: “In response to determining that node 78-2 is located at azimuth angle θ, elevation angle φ, and distance D2, relative to device 10, control circuitry 22 may use display 14 to display a visual indication of the location of node 78-2 relative to device 10”. [0111]: “Upon determining the angle of arrival of signals from node 78, device 10 may take suitable action. For example, control circuitry 22 may use display 14 to display information regarding the location of node 78 relative to device 10”. The location displayed by Ertan et al. is defined by azimuth angle, elevation angle, and distance D2, and the display occurs in response to determining the complete, unambiguous angle of arrival. Ertan et al. (‘177) therefore teaches determining an estimated distance between the wireless device and the transmitter device and displaying location information including that distance in response to resolution of the angle-of-arrival ambiguity.
Ertan et al. (‘177) does not teach that the event in response to which the location information is displayed is the alignment of a first arrow with a second arrow, because Ertan et al. does not display the candidate angle-of-arrival solutions as arrows. Chen et al. (‘541) supplies this teaching in combination with Ertan et al. (‘177). Chen et al. teaches calculating a range together with the angle of arrival and displaying the resulting location information ([0040]: “the mobile device 102 receive wireless signals from the electronic device 104 and calculate a range and an angle of arrival. In this way, the mobile device 102 calculate and display the angle of arrival information to precisely locate the electronic device 104”). Chen et al. teaches two candidate angle-of-arrival hypotheses for the same transmitter (FIG. 5A; [0063]), and teaches retaining the hypotheses until the ambiguity is resolved before reporting a solution ([0047]: “The techniques can maintain all possible hypotheses (T1, T2, . . . ) until the AoA ambiguity is resolve[d]”; “The tracking can include gating, data association, disambiguation of hypothesis, and updating track score and reporting AoA solution”). As set forth in the rejection of record, the combined system of Ertan et al. and Chen et al. displays the first AoA estimate and the mirror AoA estimate as a first arrow and a second arrow and instructs the user to move the device until the arrows align, and the alignment of the arrows is the condition in which the ambiguity between the two hypotheses is resolved. Applying Ertan et al.’s teaching of presenting location information, including distance D2, in response to resolution of the angle of arrival to the combined system results in displaying the estimated distance on the user interface in response to the direction of the first arrow is aligned with the direction of the second arrow.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the range determined in the combined system of Ertan et al. (‘177) and Chen et al. (‘541) in response to alignment of the first arrow and the second arrow. Ertan et al. teaches that conventional antennas “do not provide sufficient information to determine the location of other electronic devices without ambiguity” ([0006]) and presents location information upon determining the angle of arrival ([0082], [0111]), and Chen et al. withholds reporting of the AoA solution until the hypotheses are disambiguated ([0047]). One would have been motivated to present the distance together with the resolved direction at the point of resolution so that the location information presented to the user corresponds to a verified, unambiguous location. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Chen et al. already calculates the range from the same UWB exchange used for the angle of arrival ([0040]) and presenting that value on the display at a particular point in the workflow is a routine user-interface implementation. The Examiner further notes that the rejection of record found that displaying an indication of the distance between the wireless device and the transmitter device would have been obvious over Ertan et al. and Chen et al. (Claim 4), and the Remarks do not contest that finding; the amendment adds only the timing of that display.
Applicant’s statement that the Examiner agreed that this amendment would likely overcome the cited references is not consistent with the Interview Summary of record, which recorded a different proposal (withholding the distance and/or arrows until the AoA is resolved) and no agreement on allowability.
Accordingly, the rejection of Claim 1, and of Claims 2-6 depending therefrom, is maintained.
Regarding Claims 7-13, Applicant argues that independent Claim 7, as amended to recite wherein no arrow representing the AoA of the one or more RF signals is displayed on the user interface until the AoA of the one or more RF signals is determined based on the sensor data, is allowable over Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) (Remarks, pp. 12-13). The argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
The Interview Summary of record reflects the Examiner’s preliminary view that a withholding limitation “appears to be unique over the art”, together with the statements that further consideration and search were necessary and that no agreement on allowability was reached. Upon further consideration, the art of record teaches the limitation.
Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches that, while the angle-of-arrival measurement is in progress, the display presents a prompt instructing the user to move the device (FIG. 15; [0024]; [0096]: “display 14 may display a prompt such as prompt 96 instructing the user to move device 10 in a particular manner”), that the complete angle of arrival is determined from the antenna signals and the motion data at step 212 ([0106]), and that the location of the node is displayed only upon that determination ([0111]: “Upon determining the angle of arrival of signals from node 78, device 10 may take suitable action. For example, control circuitry 22 may use display 14 to display information regarding the location of node 78 relative to device 10”). Ertan et al. (‘177) therefore teaches a sequence in which a movement prompt is displayed while the measurement is in progress and location information representing the angle of arrival is displayed upon determination of the angle of arrival based on sensor data. Ertan et al. does not describe displaying location information before that determination. Although prompt 96 may include arrows ([0096]), those arrows instruct movement of the device and do not represent the angle of arrival, consistent with the notifications instructing movement that Claim 7 itself recites.
Ertan et al. (‘177) does not explicitly teach that the displayed location information is an arrow whose direction represents the determined angle of arrival.
Chen et al. (‘541) supplies this teaching in combination with Ertan et al. (‘177). Chen et al. teaches that “the AOA information can be used to display an indicator pointing to the location of electronic device 104 on the display of the mobile device 102” ([0040]), and teaches that the AoA solution is reported after the hypotheses are disambiguated ([0047]). Displaying Ertan et al.’s location information as Chen et al.’s pointing indicator, upon Ertan et al.’s determination of the angle of arrival from the motion data, results in an arrow representing the AoA that is not displayed until the AoA is determined based on the sensor data.
The art also supplies a reason to exclude display of an arrow representing the AoA before the determination is made. Ertan et al. explains that before the device is moved the angle-of-arrival solution is ambiguous ([0006]; [0087]: “different directions of arrival may result in the same phase difference. This leads to an ambiguity in the angle of arrival solution”), and Chen et al. retains all hypotheses and withholds reporting until the ambiguity is resolved ([0047]). A PHOSITA would have been motivated to refrain from displaying a direction indicator that may point the user in the wrong direction until the direction has been determined. The motivation, reasonable expectation of success, and combination rationale for the remaining limitations of Claim 7 are as set forth in the rejection of record.
Further, the scope of the limitation wherein no arrow representing the AoA of the one ore more RF signals is displayed on the user interface until the AoA of the one or more RF signals is determined based on the sensor data must be read consistently with unamended dependent Claim 10, which recites displaying a first arrow and a second arrow on the user interface until the AoA of the one or more RF signals is determined and the arrow is displayed, a direction of the first arrow representing the first AoA estimate and a direction of the second arrow representing the mirror AoA estimate. Claim 7 separately recites the AoA of the one or more RF signals, on the one hand, and a first AoA estimate and a mirror AoA estimate, on the other, and Claim 10 requires the arrows representing the estimates to be displayed before the AoA is determined. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the claims as a whole, the limitation no arrow representing the AoA of the one or more RF signals is displayed on the user interface until the AoA of the one or more RF signals is determined therefore excludes, before the determination, an arrow representing the AoA as determined, but does not exclude arrows representing the first AoA estimate and the mirror AoA estimate. Under that interpretation, the combination set forth in the rejection of record, in which arrows representing the two estimates are displayed before disambiguation and a single arrow representing the determined AoA is displayed thereafter, meets amended Claim 7. The Remarks characterize the amendment as refraining from displaying “any arrow representing the AoA estimate”; that characterization is not reflected in the claim language and is inconsistent with Claim 10. Even under that narrower characterization, the Examiner views Ertan et al. and Chen et al. as teaching the limitation for the reasons given above.
Accordingly, the rejection of Claim 7, and of Claims 8-13 depending therefrom, is maintained.
Regarding Claims 14-24, Applicant argues that independent Claim 14, as amended to include the features of dependent Claim 17, is allowable over Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) and further in view of Reddy et al. (‘476), and states that during the August 4, 2026 interview the Examiner agreed that such an amendment would likely overcome the cited references (Remarks, p. 13). The argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant’s characterization of the interview is not consistent with the Interview Summary of record. The proposal discussed for Claim 14 was “incorporating claim 19 plus the amendment to claims 1 and 7”, and no agreement on allowability was reached. The incorporation of Claim 17 alone was not proposed and was not the subject of any favorable indication.
Amended Claim 14 corresponds in scope to former Claim 17, with the orientation reference expressed as a horizontal plane rather than the azimuth direction. Former Claim 17 stood rejected in the Office action mailed June 3, 2026, and the Remarks present no argument directed to the merits of that rejection. Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches that the azimuth angle is measured around the local horizon of the device ([0077]: “Azimuth angle θ and elevation angle γ may be measured relative to local horizon 162 and reference vector 164”; “The azimuth angle θ of node 78-2 is the angle of node 78-2 around local horizon 162”), such that orientation of the device for azimuth measurement is orientation relative to a horizontal plane. Ertan et al. (‘177) does not teach displaying a three-dimensional shape, a pin, or a target icon. Chen et al. (‘541) likewise does not teach these features. Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches displaying a three-dimensional shape during device-orientation guidance ([0026]: “the system may display a visual indication such as an opaque three-dimensional sphere (or cylinder, cube, polygon or other three-dimensional shape)”), and teaches that “the display of the capture device may include a position icon 1702 indicating a current position of the capture device and a target icon 1704 indicating a desired position of the capture device”, together with a motion indicator icon 1706 guiding the user to align the two ([0117]; FIG. 17). Reddy et al. presents icons 1702 and 1704 over the captured scene (FIG. 17) rather than expressly on the sphere of [0026]; presenting the position and target icons on the displayed three-dimensional shape is the combination rationale set forth in the rejection of record, and the Remarks do not challenge it. Applying Reddy et al.’s position icon and target icon to Ertan et al.’s horizontal-plane azimuth orientation yields a position of the pin on the three-dimensional shape indicating an orientation of the wireless device relative to a horizontal plane and a target position of the pin at which the orientation of the wireless device will be aligned with the horizontal plane, for the reasons and with the motivation set forth for former Claims 14 and 17 in the rejection of record.
Accordingly, the rejection of Claim 14, and of Claims 15, 16, and 18-24 depending therefrom, is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 13-14, filed 09/0, with respect to Claims 25-30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claims has been withdrawn. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yang et al. (US 2021/0076350 A1) in view of Vered et al. (US 2018/0052216 A1) for claims 25 and 27-28, Yang et al. (US 2021/0076350 A1) in view of Vered et al. (US 2018/0052216 A1) and further in view of Lim et al. (US 2022/0407666 A1) for claim 26, and Yang et al. (US 2021/0076350 A1) in view of Vered et al. (US 2018/0052216 A1), and further in view of Ertan et al. (US 2019/0317177 A1) and Chen et al. (US 2022/0390541 A1) for claims 29-30.
Regarding Claims 25-30, Applicant argues that independent Claim 25, as amended to recite receiving, via the user interface, once the wireless device is oriented parallel to the horizontal plane, a first user input to initialize a determination of a first angle-of-arrival (AoA) in the horizontal plane and receiving, via the user interface, once the wireless device is oriented parallel to the elevation plane, a second user input to initialize a determination of a second AoA in the vertical plane, is allowable over Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) and further in view of Lim et al. (‘666) (Remarks, pp. 13-14). The argument has been fully considered. It is persuasive as to the combination of Ertan et al., Chen et al., and Lim et al., and the rejection of Claims 25-30 over that combination is withdrawn for the reasons previously given: none of those references teaches or suggests a user input that initializes an AoA determination once the device is oriented in a required plane, and Lim et al. (‘666) affirmatively guides the user to hold the device “in a direction substantially perpendicular to the ground” ([0216]), away from the horizontal-plane orientation required for the first AoA.
Claim Objections
Claims 20, 21, 24 and 25 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 20 and 24 are objected to because of the following informality. Claim 14 introduces a horizontal plane and Claim 21 introduces a vertical plane. Claim 20 (depending from Claims 18 and 14) and Claim 24 (depending from Claims 22, 21, and 14) each recite a direction of rotation of the wireless device in a horizontal plane or a vertical plane, reintroducing a plane that has already been introduced in the claim chain. Claim 20 should recite in the horizontal plane or a vertical plane, and Claim 24 should recite in the horizontal plane or the vertical plane. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informality. Claim 21 recites a second target position of the pin at which the orientation of the wireless device will be aligned with the vertical plane. “the pin” refers to the pin of Claim 14, whose position indicates orientation relative to the horizontal plane, whereas the second target icon and the final step of Claim 21 concern the second pin. The limitation should read a second target position of the second pin. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 is objected to because once the wireless device is oriented parallel to the elevation plane lacks antecedent basis and departs from the terminology used elsewhere in the claim, which recites a vertical plane. In context, the limitation follows the notification instructing the user to hold the wireless device parallel to a vertical plane and precedes the determination of the second AoA in the vertical plane, and the specification describes the device as oriented in the elevation plane for the elevation computation ([0117], [0127]). The limitation is therefore interpreted as once the wireless device is oriented parallel to the vertical plane and should be amended to so recite. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ertan et al. (US 2019/0317177 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0390541 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) teaches:
A method of wireless positioning performed by a wireless device, comprising: Ertan et al. (‘177), [0007-0009]: “An electronic device may be provided with wireless circuitry. The wireless circuitry may include one or more antennas. The antennas may be configured to receive IEEE 802.15.4 ultra-wideband communications signals and/or millimeter wave signals”. Ertan et al. teaches a method of wireless positioning performed by a wireless device having an antenna array and a display, Fig. 1.
receiving one or more radio frequency (RF) signals from a transmitter device: Ertan et al. (‘177), [0098]: “At step 200, antennas 48 of device 10 may receive wireless signals (e.g., signals 58 of FIG. 10) from node 78”; [0088]: “control circuitry 22 may combine antenna signals with motion data gathered using motion sensor circuitry 32. In particular, control circuitry 22 may obtain angle of arrival measurements… while device 10 is in multiple different positions. At each position, antennas 48 may receive signals 58 from node 78”. The wireless signals received from node 78 constitute the one or more RF signals received from a transmitter device.
displaying a first arrow and a second arrow on a user interface of the wireless device, wherein a direction of the first arrow represents a first angle-of-arrival (AoA) estimate of the one or more RF signals with respect to an axis of a linear antenna array of the wireless device, wherein a direction of the second arrow represents a mirror AoA estimate of the first AoA estimate with respect to the axis of the linear antenna array of the wireless device, and wherein the mirror AoA estimate is equal to the first AoA estimate on an opposite side of the axis of the linear antenna array of the wireless device from the first AoA estimate:
Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches a wireless device that (1) receives RF signals at a linear antenna array, (2) calculates a phase difference of arrival (PDOA) between the antenna pair, and (3) determines possible AoA values from the PDOA measurement, where the ambiguity arises precisely because the same phase difference is produced by a first AoA estimate and its mirror image on the opposite side of the array axis. [0088]: “control circuitry 22 may obtain angle of arrival measurements (e.g., measurements of azimuth angle θ and/or elevation angle φ) while device 10 is in multiple different positions. At each position, antennas 48 may receive signals 58 from node 78 and control circuitry 22 may determine the possible angle of arrival solutions based on the phase difference between signals received by antenna 48-1 and signals received by antenna 48-2.” [0087]: “different directions of arrival may result in the same phase difference. This leads to an ambiguity in the angle of arrival solution.” Ertan et al. also teaches [0096] that display 14 may present prompt 96 including “words, symbols (e.g., arrows, shapes, graphics, etc.), or other information.” However, Ertan et al. (‘177) does not explicitly teach displaying a first arrow and a second arrow on the user interface where the direction of each arrow represents one of the two mirror AoA estimates.
Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the missing limitation. [0043]: “The angle of arrival (AoA) for a signal is the direction that signal is received at an antenna array. The AoA can be calculated from the phase difference of arrival (PDOA) between two or more antennas… Each pair of antennas can determine an AoA in a single plane.” At FIG. 5A and [0063], Chen teaches two possible hypotheses (504a, 504b) for a single transmitter-i.e., a first AoA estimate and its symmetric counterpart on the opposite side of the array axis. [0040]: “the AOA information can be used to display an indicator pointing to the location of electronic device 104 on the display of the mobile device 102.” Displaying AoA directional indicators as arrows on the display is a straightforward implementation of a directional indicator for each of the two hypotheses.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chen et al.’s (‘541) two-hypothesis AoA display approach into Ertan et al.’s (‘177) wireless positioning device. Ertan et al. expressly teaches that the same PDOA gives rise to ambiguous AoA solutions on opposite sides of the antenna array axis ([0087-0088]), and that the display can present arrows and symbols to guide the user ([0096]). Chen et al. teaches that each of the two hypotheses constitutes a possible directional estimate, and that the mobile device can display AoA information as directional indicators ([0040]). One would have been motivated to display both ambiguous AoA estimates simultaneously as directional arrows on the user interface, because doing so makes the positional ambiguity immediately apparent to the user and provides the visual basis for the user-guided disambiguation technique. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Ertan et al. already teaches displaying prompts with arrows and symbols ([0096]), and Chen et al. teaches representing each hypothesis as a directional estimate (FIG. 5A, [0063]), so combining these teachings to display both estimates as arrows involves only the routine application of established display design practice.
displaying one or more notifications on the user interface instructing a user of the wireless device to move the wireless device until the direction of the first arrow is aligned with the direction of the second arrow,
Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches: ([0096]: “display 14 may display a prompt such as prompt 96 instructing the user to move device 10 in a particular manner (e.g., instructing the user to tilt, rotate, shake, lift, lower, or otherwise move device 10)”. When the two-arrow display of Chen et al. (‘541) is incorporated into Ertan et al.’s (‘177) system, the purpose of instructing the user to move the device is to resolve the AoA ambiguity. The condition under which the ambiguity is resolved-when the two hypotheses converge to a single solution-corresponds geometrically to the condition in which the two arrows align. Displaying a notification instructing the user to move the device until the two arrows align is a natural expression of the alignment criterion that resolves the ambiguity in the combined system.
Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches: determining an estimated distance between the wireless device and the transmitter device; ([0082]: “In response to determining that node 78-2 is located at azimuth angle θ, elevation angle φ, and distance D2, relative to device 10, control circuitry 22 may use display 14 to display a visual indication of the location of node 78-2 relative to device 10.” Distance D2 is determined as part of the location of the node. Determining a distance between the wireless device and the transmitter device is expressly taught by both references – see Chen et al. (‘541) [0040]: “the communications can be used to determine a range between the mobile device 102 and the electronic device 104.”).
and displaying the estimated distance on the user interface in response to the direction of the first arrow is aligned with the direction of the second arrow.
Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches presenting location information, including distance D2, on the display in response to determining the angle of arrival. [0082]: “In response to determining that node 78-2 is located at azimuth angle θ, elevation angle φ, and distance D2, relative to device 10, control circuitry 22 may use display 14 to display a visual indication of the location of node 78-2 relative to device 10.” [0111]: “Upon determining the angle of arrival of signals from node 78, device 10 may take suitable action. For example, control circuitry 22 may use display 14 to display information regarding the location of node 78 relative to device 10.” In the combined system of Ertan et al. and Chen et al., the alignment of the first arrow with the second arrow is the event at which the AoA ambiguity is resolved, because the two hypotheses have converged. Ertan et al.’s teaching of displaying location information, including distance, in response to determining the AoA applies directly to the combined system: the distance is displayed in response to the alignment event.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the range determined in the combined system of Ertan et al. (‘177) and Chen et al. (‘541) in response to alignment of the first arrow and the second arrow. Ertan et al. teaches that conventional antennas “do not provide sufficient information to determine the location of other electronic devices without ambiguity” ([0006]) and presents location information upon determining the angle of arrival ([0082], [0111]), and Chen et al. withholds reporting of the AoA solution until the hypotheses are disambiguated ([0047]). One would have been motivated to present the distance together with the resolved direction at the point of resolution so that the location information presented to the user corresponds to a verified, unambiguous location. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Chen et al. already calculates the range from the same UWB exchange used for the angle of arrival ([0040]) and presenting that value on the display at the point of arrow alignment is a routine user-interface implementation.
Regarding Claim 2, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the method of Claim 1.
Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches: determining the first AoA estimate and the mirror AoA estimate in response to reception of each of the one or more RF signals; and updating the direction of the first arrow and the direction of the second arrow in response to each determination of the first AoA estimate and the mirror AoA estimate: ([0088]: “control circuitry 22 may obtain angle of arrival measurements… while device 10 is in multiple different positions. At each position, antennas 48 may receive signals 58 from node 78 and control circuitry 22 may determine the possible angle of arrival solutions”).
Ertan et al. (‘177) does not explicitly teach updating the direction of the displayed arrows in response to each determination. However, Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the missing limitation. At [0047]: “The techniques can maintain all possible hypotheses (T1, T2, …) until the AoA ambiguity is resolves”; FIG. 9 shows a flow chart for continuously updating the track score as new measurements are received. Updating the displayed arrows upon each new AoA determination is the obvious implementation of Chen et al.’s real-time hypothesis tracking in the display system of Ertan et al. A PHOSITA would have updated the arrows with each new signal reception to provide the user with current directional information, improving the responsiveness and accuracy of the ambiguity-resolution process.
Regarding Claim 3, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the method of Claim 2.
Ertan et al. (‘177) does not explicitly teach, but Chen et al. (‘541) teaches: wherein the first AoA estimate and the mirror AoA estimate are determined without using sensor data from the wireless device: At FIG. 11, steps 1110–1130, and [0043]: the initial AoA determination—measuring phase differences and determining the first set of possible values—is performed based solely on the received RF signal PDOA, without sensor data: step 1120: “Measuring one or more phase differences among the signal received at the plurality of antennas”; step 1130: “Determining a first set of possible values for the angle of arrival that are consistent with the one or more phase differences.” Sensor data steps 1140–1160 are used only for disambiguation. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, determining the two AoA estimates without sensor data is precisely what Chen et al. (‘541) teaches at steps 1110–1130.
Regarding Claim 4, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the method of Claim 1.
Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches: displaying an indication of a distance between the wireless device and the transmitter device: ([0008]: “The display may produce images that indicate where the nearby device is located.”).
Ertan et al. (‘177) does not explicitly teach displaying a distance indication alongside AoA arrows. Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the missing limitation. At [0040]: “the communications can be used to determine a range between the mobile device 102 and the electronic device 104… the mobile device 102 calculate and display the angle of arrival information to precisely locate the electronic device 104.” Displaying a distance indication alongside AoA directional information is an obvious combination given that range information is simultaneously available in the combined system and directly useful to a user trying to locate a transmitter device. A PHOSITA would have added a distance indicator to provide the user with complete localization information.
Regarding Claim 5, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the method of Claim 1.
Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches: wherein the first AoA estimate and the mirror AoA estimate are based on reception of the one or more RF signals by the linear antenna array of the wireless device: ([0093]: “When device 10 is in the first position of FIG. 11, antennas 48-1 and 48-2 may have coordinates (x1, y1, z1) and (x2, y2, z2), respectively. In this first position, vector 84 extending between antennas 48-1 and 48-2 may serve as baseline vector 82.”
Chen et al. (‘541) additionally teaches at [0043]: “Each pair of antennas can determine an AoA in a single plane.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a pair of antennas separated along a baseline vector and arranged to determine AoA in a single plane through PDOA constitutes a linear antenna array. The two mirror AoA hypotheses arise directly from reception by this linear pair, as confirmed by the PDOA symmetry taught in both references.
Regarding Claim 6, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the method of Claim 1.
Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches: wherein the first AoA estimate and the mirror AoA estimate are azimuth-only angles: ([0091]: “While device 10 is in the first position of FIG. 11, antennas 48… may determine a first set of possible angle of arrival solutions based on the measured phase difference between the signals received by antenna 48-1 and the signals received by antenna 48-2. Because control circuitry 22 only has phase difference information from antennas 48 in the first position of FIG. 11 at this point, the first set of possible angle of arrival solutions may include an azimuth angle (e.g., θ1) but the elevation angle may remain unknown.” When a single horizontal baseline antenna pair is used, the resulting AoA estimates are azimuth-only angles. This is taught by Ertan et al., with further support from Chen et al. (‘541) at FIG. 6, which characterizes AoA measurements in azimuth and elevation dimensions.
Regarding Claim 7, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) teaches:
A method of wireless positioning performed by a wireless device, comprising: As established above for Claim 1.
receiving one or more radio frequency (RF) signals from a transmitter device: As established above for Claim 1, Ertan et al. (‘177) [0098].
displaying one or more notifications on a user interface of the wireless device instructing a user of the wireless device to move the wireless device: Ertan et al. (‘177) [0096]: “display 14 may display a prompt such as prompt 96 instructing the user to move device 10 in a particular manner (e.g., instructing the user to tilt, rotate, shake, lift, lower, or otherwise move device 10).”
determining, based on sensor data from one or more sensors of the wireless device, an angle-of-arrival (AoA) of the one or more RF signals as corresponding to either (1) a first AoA estimate of the one or more RF signals with respect to an axis of a linear antenna array of the wireless device or (2) a mirror AoA estimate of the first AoA estimate with respect to the axis of the linear antenna array of the wireless device, wherein the mirror AoA estimate is equal to the first AoA estimate on an opposite side of the axis of the linear antenna array of the wireless device from the first AoA estimate, and wherein the sensor data indicates a direction of rotation of the wireless device in a horizontal plane or a vertical plane caused by movement of the wireless device with respect to the horizontal plane or the vertical plane:
Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches using motion sensor data to determine which of the possible AoA solutions is correct. [0088]: “control circuitry 22 may combine antenna signals with motion data gathered using motion sensor circuitry 32… At each position, antennas 48 may receive signals 58 from node 78 and control circuitry 22 may determine the possible angle of arrival solutions based on the phase difference.” However, Ertan et al. (‘177) does not explicitly teach that the sensor data specifically indicates a direction of rotation in a horizontal plane or a vertical plane.
Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the additional sensor data limitations. [0063-0064]: “FIG. 5A shows a top perspective of a mobile device 502a at a first orientation with two possible electronic device locations 504a, 504b… the mobile device 502a can be rotated by an angle that can be detected by the device’s motion sensors.” [0064]: “FIG. 5B shows the mobile device at a second orientation 502b after it was rotated by a known angle 510. At the second orientation, the hypotheses can be updated 508a, 508b and compared to the measured change in the mobile device’s orientation 510.” [0065]: “Example motion sensors can include one or more accelerometers or gyroscopes.” Thus, Chen et al. teaches that rotation is detected by motion sensors and used to select between the first AoA hypothesis and its mirror on the opposite side of the array axis.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ertan et al.’s (‘177) device-movement-based AoA determination with Chen et al.’s (‘541) specific teaching that rotation direction, as measured by motion sensors, is used to disambiguate between the two mirror AoA hypotheses. Both references address the identical technical problem of resolving the two-hypothesis PDOA ambiguity through user movement and motion sensor data. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Chen et al. demonstrates the technique as operative in an analogous UWB mobile positioning system using the same class of inertial motion sensors that Ertan et al. already employs.
and displaying an arrow on the user interface, wherein a direction of the arrow represents the AoA of the one or more RF signals, and wherein no arrow representing the AoA of the one or more RF signals is displayed on the user interface until the AoA of the one or more RF signals is determined based on the sensor data.
Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches that, while the angle-of-arrival measurement is in progress, the display presents a prompt instructing the user to move the device (FIG. 15; [0024]; [0096]: “display 14 may display a prompt such as prompt 96 instructing the user to move device 10 in a particular manner”). The complete angle of arrival is determined from the antenna signals and the motion data at step 212 ([0106]). Location information representing the angle of arrival is displayed upon that determination ([0111]: “Upon determining the angle of arrival of signals from node 78, device 10 may take suitable action. For example, control circuitry 22 may use display 14 to display information regarding the location of node 78 relative to device 10”). Ertan et al. does not describe displaying location information representing the determined AoA before the determination is made. Chen et al. (‘541) [0040] teaches displaying an indicator pointing to the location of the electronic device, and [0047] teaches withholding reporting of the AoA solution until the hypotheses are disambiguated. Displaying Ertan et al.’s location information as Chen et al.’s pointing indicator, upon Ertan et al.’s determination of the angle of arrival from the motion data, results in an arrow representing the AoA that is not displayed until the AoA is determined based on the sensor data.
The scope of the limitation wherein no arrow representing the AoA of the one ore more RF signals is displayed on the user interface until the AoA of the one or more RF signals is determined based on the sensor data must be read consistently with the unamended dependent Claim 10, which recites displaying a first arrow and a second arrow on the user interface until the AoA of the one or more RF signals is determined and the arrow is displayed, a direction of the first arrow representing the first AoA estimate and a direction of the second arrow representing the mirror AoA estimate. Claim 7 separately recites the AoA of the one or more RF signals, on the one hand, and a first AoA estimate and a mirror AoA estimate, on the other, and Claim 10 requires the arrows representing the estimates to be displayed before the AoA is determined. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the claims as a whole, the limitation no arrow representing the AoA of the one or more RF signals is displayed on the user interface until the AoA of the one or more RF signals is determined excludes, before the determination, an arrow representing the AoA as determined, but does not exclude arrows representing the first AoA estimate and the mirror AoA estimate. Under that interpretation, the combination set forth above, in which arrows representing the two estimates are displayed before disambiguation and a single arrow representing the determined AoA is displayed thereafter, meets amended Claim 7.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to refrain from displaying the determined-AoA arrow until the AoA is determined based on the sensor data, while displaying the two candidate-estimate arrows beforehand. Ertan et al. explains that before the device is moved the AoA solution is ambiguous ([0006]; [0087]), and Chen et al. retains all hypotheses and withholds reporting until the ambiguity is resolved ([0047]). One would have been motivated to refrain from displaying a single direction indicator until the correct direction has been determined, to avoid directing the user in the wrong direction.
Regarding Claim 8, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the method of Claim 7.
Ertan et al. (‘177) does not explicitly enumerate specific sensor types by name, however Chen et al. (‘541) teaches: wherein the one or more sensors comprise a compass, one or more accelerometers, a gyroscope, a geomagnetic sensor, or any combination thereof: ([0065]: “Example motion sensors can include one or more accelerometers or gyroscopes.”). The claim uses “or” alternative language; Chen et al. teaches both accelerometers and gyroscopes, satisfying the alternative. The remaining alternatives in Claim 8—compass and geomagnetic sensor—are well-known orientation sensors within the knowledge of a PHOSITA whose use in mobile device positioning is straightforwardly substitutable for, or combinable with, the accelerometer and gyroscope taught by the references.
Regarding Claim 9, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the method of Claim 7.
Ertan et al. (‘177) does not explicitly teach that the sensor data indicates an amount of the rotation of the wireless device. However, Chen et al. (‘541) teaches: wherein: the one or more sensors comprise a compass, and the sensor data further indicates an amount of the rotation of the wireless device: ([0064]: the device is “rotated by a known angle 510” and the hypotheses are “compared to the measured change in the mobile device’s orientation 510”—i.e., the sensor data indicates an amount of rotation. A compass provides directional orientation data sufficient, in conjunction with other motion sensors, to measure device rotation. The motivation to use a compass for rotation measurement is inherent in the desire to obtain complete orientation information, as the references establish.
Regarding Claim 10, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the method of Claim 7.
Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches displaying prompt 96 with arrows on the device display ([0096]) but does not explicitly teach displaying a first arrow and a second arrow representing the two mirror AoA estimates prior to disambiguation. However, Chen et al. (‘541) teaches: displaying a first arrow and a second arrow on the user interface until the AoA of the one or more RF signals is determined and the arrow is displayed, a direction of the first arrow representing the first AoA estimate and a direction of the second arrow representing the mirror AoA estimate: At FIG. 5A and [0063], Chen teaches two possible AoA hypotheses for a single transmitter displayed prior to disambiguation. As established for Claim 1’s arrow-display limitation, incorporating Chen et al.’s two-hypothesis display into Ertan et al.’s device gives rise to displaying both arrows before disambiguation. The transition from displaying two arrows (pre-disambiguation) to a single determined-A0A arrow (post-disambiguation) is the workflow of the combined system - Chen et al.’s disambiguation process (FIG. 11, steps 1130–1160). Under BRI of Claim 7, as discussed above, arrows representing the two estimates are not arrows representing the determined AoA, and their display before the determination is consistent with the corresponding wherein clause of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 11, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the method of Claim 7. This limitation is taught for the same reasons stated above for Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 12, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the method of Claim 7. This limitation is taught for the same reasons stated above for Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 13, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the method of Claim 7. This limitation is taught for the same reasons stated above for Claim 6.
Claims 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ertan et al. (US 2019/0317177 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0390541 A1) and further in view of Reddy et al. (US 2021/0258476 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) and further in view of Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches:
A method of wireless positioning performed by a wireless device, comprising: As established above, Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches a method of wireless positioning performed by a wireless device.
displaying a three-dimensional shape on a user interface of the wireless device:
Ertan et al. (‘177) and Chen et al. (‘541) do not explicitly teach displaying a three-dimensional shape on a user interface. Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches: [0026]: “the system may display a visual indication such as an opaque three-dimensional sphere (or cylinder, cube, polygon or other three-dimensional shape).” It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to incorporate Reddy et al.’s three-dimensional shape display into the wireless positioning system of Ertan et al. for the reasons stated in the prior action.
displaying a pin on the three-dimensional shape, a position of the pin on the three-dimensional shape indicating an orientation of the wireless device relative to a horizontal plane:
Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches that the azimuth angle θ is measured relative to the local horizon of the device. [0077]: “Azimuth angle θ and elevation angle γ may be measured relative to local horizon 162 and reference vector 164”; “The azimuth angle θ of node 78-2 is the angle of node 78-2 around local horizon 162.” Orientation of the device for azimuth measurement is orientation relative to a horizontal plane. Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches [0117]: “the display of the capture device may include a position icon 1702 indicating a current position of the capture device”, where the position icon moves on the display to reflect the capture device’s current orientation. Combining Reddy et al.’s position icon display with Ertan et al.’s horizontal-plane azimuth orientation framework yields a pin on the three-dimensional shape indicating an orientation of the wireless device relative to a horizontal plane.
displaying a target icon on the three-dimensional shape, a position of the target icon on the three-dimensional shape indicating a target position of the pin at which the orientation of the wireless device will be aligned with the horizontal plane:
Ertan et al. (‘177) and Chen et al. (‘541) do not explicitly teach, but Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches [0117]: “a target icon 1704 indicating a desired position of the capture device”; “The display may also include a motion indicator icon 1706 illustrating to the user to perform the motion to align the position icon 1702 with the target icon 1704.” Reddy et al. presents icons 1702 and 1704 over the captured scene (FIG. 17) rather than expressly on the sphere of [0026]; presenting the position and target icons on the displayed three-dimensional shape is the combination rationale set forth in the rejection of record. The target position of the pin-the position on the three-dimensional shape corresponding to the device being aligned with the horizontal measurement plane-is the natural design choice for the target icon position when applying Reddy et al.’s visualization to the Ertan/Chen positioning system.
and displaying a notification on the user interface instructing a user of the wireless device to move the wireless device until the pin is positioned on the target icon.
Ertan et al. (‘177) and Chen et al. (‘541) do not explicitly teach, but Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches: FIG. 8, element 804; [0117]: “a motion indicator icon 1706 illustrating to the user to perform the motion to align the position icon 1702 with the target icon 1704.”
Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches displaying instructions to move the device ([0096]). Displaying a notification instructing the user to move the device until the pin is on the target icon is directly taught by the combination.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the three-dimensional shape, pin, target icon, and notification of the Ertan/Chen/Reddy combination to guide the user to the horizontal-plane orientation required for azimuth AoA measurement. One would have been motivated to do so to provide real-time visual feedback showing the device’s current orientation relative to the horizontal plane and guiding the user to the required pose. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Reddy et al. demonstrates the position-icon and target-icon technique as operative in a directly analogous device-orientation guidance context.
Regarding Claim 15, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) and further in view of Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches the method of Claim 14.
Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches that the azimuth angle is measured in the horizontal plane ([0077], [0089]) but does not explicitly teach that the target position of the pin is at the top of the three-dimensional shape to indicate azimuth direction alignment.
Ertan et al. (‘177) does not explicitly teach, but Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches: wherein: the target position of the pin is at a top of the three-dimensional shape, and the target position of the pin being at the top of the three-dimensional shape indicates that the orientation of the wireless device will be aligned with the horizontal plane. The top of a sphere corresponds geometrically to the device being level/horizontal. Placing the target icon at the top of the sphere to indicate horizontal-plane alignment is an obvious design choice that leverages the intuitive geometric correspondence. ([0117]: “the display may present a sequence of target icons 1704 to cause the user to sequentially align the position icon 1702 with each of the target icons 1704”). When a three-dimensional sphere is used to represent device orientation, the top of the sphere corresponds geometrically to the device being in a horizontal orientation aligned with the azimuth measurement direction. Placing the target icon at the top of the three-dimensional shape to indicate azimuth-direction alignment is an obvious design choice leveraging the intuitive geometric correspondence between the top of a sphere and horizontal/azimuth-direction alignment. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented this spatial correspondence without undue experimentation, motivated by the need to make the visualization self-explanatory to the user.
Regarding Claim 16, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) and further in view of Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches the method of Claim 14.
Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches that elevation angle is measured relative to a reference horizon ([0077]) but does not explicitly teach that the target position of the pin is at the middle of the three-dimensional shape to indicate elevation direction alignment.
Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches: wherein: the target position of the pin is at a middle of the three-dimensional shape, and the target position of the pin being at the middle of the three-dimensional shape indicates that the orientation of the wireless device will be aligned with a vertical plane. The middle/equator of a sphere corresponds to the device being vertical. Placing the target at the middle of the sphere to indicate vertical-plane alignment is the obvious geometric counterpart to Claim 15’s horizontal-plane design choice. ([0117]: target icons positioned at desired locations on the three-dimensional shape).
Claim 17 is canceled.
Regarding Claim 18, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) and further in view of Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches the method of Claim 14.
Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) teaches: further comprising: receiving one or more radio frequency (RF) signals from a transmitter device; and determining an angle-of-arrival (AoA) in the horizontal plane of the one or more RF signals. Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches receiving RF signals ([0098]) and determining the azimuth angle of arrival ([0091]). Ertan et al. teaches that the azimuth angle is measured around the local horizon ([0077]), which is the horizontal plane. Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the complete AoA determination process at FIG. 11.
Regarding Claim 19, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) and further in view of Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches the method of Claim 18. The additional limitations of Claim 19-the two-arrow display and alignment notification applied to horizontal-plane AoA determination-are taught by the same combination and for the same reasons set forth for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 20, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) and further in view of Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches the method of Claim 18. The additional limitations of Claim 20-the sensor-data-based disambiguation and single-arrow display applied to horizontal-plane AoA determination are taught by the same combination and for the same reasons set forth for Claim 7 above.
Regarding Claim 21, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) and further in view of Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches the method of Claim 14.
Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches that both azimuth and elevation angles are determined ([0077], [0088], [0092]) but does not explicitly teach displaying a second pin, a second target icon, and a second notification on the three-dimensional shape for the elevation direction. However, Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches: further comprising: displaying a second pin on the three-dimensional shape, a position of the second pin on the three-dimensional shape indicating the orientation of the wireless device relative to a vertical plane; displaying a second target icon on the three-dimensional shape, a position of the second target icon on the three-dimensional shape indicating a second target position of the pin at which the orientation of the wireless device will be aligned with the vertical plane; and displaying a second notification on the user interface instructing the user of the wireless device to move the wireless device until the second pin is positioned on the second target icon. [0117] teaches displaying multiple target icons sequentially. Displaying a second pin and second target icon for the vertical-plane orientation is obvious from the combined teachings, motivated by the need to guide the user through both horizontal- and vertical-plane orientations for complete AoA positioning.
Regarding Claim 22, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) and further in view of Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches the method of Claim 21.
Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) teaches: further comprising: receiving one or more RF signals from a transmitter device; and determining an AoA in the vertical plane of the one or more RF signals. Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches determining elevation angle φ of arrival ([0092]). The elevation angle is measured relative to a vertical plane. These limitations are taught for the same reasons as Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 23, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) and further in view of Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches the method of Claim 22. The additional limitations of Claim 23-the two-arrow display and alignment notification for vertical-plane AoA-are taught by the same combination and for the same reasons as Claim 19. The same PDOA ambiguity that produces mirror AoA estimates in the horizontal plane also produces mirror estimates in the vertical plane when the corresponding antenna pair is used.
Regarding Claim 24, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) and further in view of Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches the method of Claim 22. The additional limitations of Claim 24-the sensor-data-based disambiguation and single-arrow display for vertical-plane AoA-are taught by the same combination and for the same reasons as Claim 20.
Claims 25 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2021/0076350 A1) in view of Vered et al. (US 2018/0052216 A1).
Regarding Claim 25, Yang et al. (‘350) teaches:
Yang et al. (‘350) teaches: A method of wireless positioning performed by a wireless device, comprising: Yang et al. (‘350) teaches an electronic device that measures the angle of arrival of a UWB signal received from an external electronic device to perform position determination ([0010]: “the UWB communication module may be configured to: receive first data of an UWB data frame from an external electronic device by using a first antenna set including at least two antennas among the plurality of antennas to measure a first angle of arrival (AOA)”). This is a method of wireless positioning performed by a wireless device.
Yang et al. (‘350) teaches: displaying one or more first notifications on a user interface of the wireless device instructing a user of the wireless device to hold the wireless device parallel to a horizontal plane; [0124]: “if the user wants to measure the AOA in two dimensions, a 2D measurement option 1210 can be selected. The electronic device can measure the AOA in two dimensions when placed on the floor or on a desk.” Yang et al. (‘350) also teaches [0124] displaying the notification “Please stand the device up” before the second measurement. Yang et al. (‘350) does not expressly show a displayed notification instructing the user to hold the device flat, parallel to a horizontal plane, before the first (2D) measurement; Yang et al. (‘350) shows only that the first measurement is performed with the device flat.
Yang et al. (‘350) teaches and Vered et al. (‘216) confirms that this orientation is a horizontal orientation of the device: the 2D measurement is performed “while holding the DF 500 essentially horizontally” ([0144]), and stages 1-9, that are performed while the DF is held essentially horizontally, determine the direction to Targets 510 in a horizontal plane ([0147]). It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display, in Yang et al.’s (‘350) device, a notification instructing the user to hold the device parallel to a horizontal plane before the first measurement, corresponding to Yang et al.’s (‘350) own second-stage notification instructing the user to stand the device up. Yang et al. (‘350) already displays a notification directing the user to the second (vertical) orientation, and a PHOSITA would have been motivated to symmetrically prompt the user for the first (horizontal) orientation shown in FIG. 12, to ensure the device is correctly positioned before the first measurement begins rather than leaving correct positioning to chance. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Yang et al. (‘350) already implements an on-display notification of this kind for the second orientation using the same display hardware.
Yang et al. (‘350) teaches: receiving, via the user interface, once the wireless device is oriented parallel to the horizontal plane, a first user input to initialize a determination of a first angle-of-arrival (AoA) in the horizontal plane of one or more first radio frequency (RF) signals received from a transmitter device; Yang et al. (‘350) teaches that the user selects the 2D measurement option 1210 to begin the flat, horizontal-plane measurement ([0124]), and that this option is used when the device is placed on the floor or on a desk, i.e., in the horizontal-plane orientation. Yang et al. (‘350) further teaches [0010] that the resulting first AOA is measured from data received via a first antenna set. The selection of option 1210 is received via the user interface and constitutes a first user input that initializes the determination of the first AoA.
Yang et al. (‘350) teaches: determining the first AoA in the horizontal plane of the one or more first RF signals received from the transmitter device; Yang et al. (‘350) teaches [0124] that, with the 2D measurement option selected, the electronic device can measure the AOA in two dimensions, and [0111] that the electronic device may find the timestamp of the first antenna set and the AOA from the SYNC field, where the AOA measured based on the received SYNC field may be an azimuth angle.
Yang et al. (‘350) teaches and Vered et al. (‘216) confirms that this measurement, made with the device held essentially horizontally, determines the direction to Targets in a horizontal plane ([0144], [0147]).
Yang et al. (‘350) teaches: displaying one or more second notifications on the user interface instructing the user to hold the wireless device parallel to a vertical plane; Yang et al. (‘350) teaches [0124]: “the electronic device may measure the AOA while being flat relative to the ground, and then output a notification ‘Please stand the device up’ to the user.” Standing the device up is holding it parallel to a vertical plane, as confirmed by Vered et al. (‘216), which performs its corresponding elevation measurement “while holding the device essentially vertically” ([0147]).
Yang et al. (‘350) teaches: receiving, via the user interface, once the wireless device is oriented parallel to the vertical plane, a second user input to initialize a determination of a second AoA in the vertical plane of one or more second RF signals received from the transmitter device; Yang et al. (‘350) teaches that the user stands the device up as instructed, and that the device then completes the three-dimensional measurement by determining the elevation component ([0124]).
Yang et al. (‘350) does not expressly teach that a second, distinct user input is received, once the device is in the vertical orientation, to initialize the second determination. Yang et al. (‘350) is silent on the specific mechanism that signals the device to begin the second measurement. However, Vered et al. (‘216) teaches, as a mechanism for beginning a two-dimensional measurement in one plane and switching to a measurement in a second, perpendicular plane, [0149]: “if the measured angle by the tilt sensor is 0°±x° (0° is the horizon), the DF assumes that the user wishes to perform a 2D measurement (stages 1-9, and optional stages 14-17) in the plane. If, however, the measured angle by the tilt sensor is 90°±y° (90° is the zenith), the DF assumes that the user wishes to perform the elevation measurement.” Vered et al. (‘216) thus confirms that, once the device is oriented at or near vertical, a triggering event is used to begin the elevation-plane measurement, there using tilt-sensor detection rather than a discrete user input.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang et al.’s (‘350) device so that, once the device is oriented parallel to the vertical plane as instructed, a discrete user input is received to initialize the second (vertical-plane) AoA determination, rather than beginning that determination automatically or leaving its initiation unspecified. Yang et al. (‘350) already uses an explicit user selection, of measurement option 1210, to initialize its first, horizontal-plane measurement ([0124]), so a PHOSITA would have recognized the corresponding, symmetric user input as one of a small number of known, predictable ways to initialize the second measurement once the prompted vertical orientation is reached, consistent with the orientation-triggered initiation confirmed by Vered et al. (‘216). Selecting the explicit-user-input alternative, rather than the automatic tilt-triggered alternative also taught by Vered et al. (‘216), would have been a design choice between a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, and a PHOSITA would have had good reason to pursue the known option of an explicit input, consistent with the input mechanism Yang et al. (‘350) already uses for the first measurement. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Yang et al. (‘350) already implements a user-interface selection to begin the analogous first-stage measurement, so implementing a corresponding input for the second stage involves no more than the predictable application of a technique Yang et al. (‘350) already uses elsewhere in the same device.
Yang et al. (‘350) teaches: and determining the second AoA in the vertical plane of the one or more second RF signals received from the transmitter device. Yang et al. (‘350) teaches that, once the device is stood up as instructed, the electronic device measures the AOA in three dimensions using the newly acquired antenna data ([0124]), and that the AOA measured from the second antenna set may be an altitude (elevation) angle ([0113]). Vered et al. (‘216) confirms that the corresponding vertically held measurement determines an elevation angle to the Target with respect to an axis perpendicular to the plane of the device ([0147]).
Regarding Claim 27, Yang et al. (‘350) in view of Vered et al. (‘216) teaches the method of Claim 25.
Yang et al. (‘350) teaches: wherein the first AoA and the second AoA are determined without using sensor data from the wireless device. Yang et al. (‘350) teaches [0111] and [0113] that each AOA is determined from the timestamp and phase information of the received UWB signal at the respective antenna set, obtained by cross correlating the received SYNC or STS field with a reference sequence to calculate a channel impulse response.
Yang et al. (‘350) does not teach using data from a motion sensor, such as an accelerometer or gyroscope, in this AOA determination; the tilt sensor of Vered et al. (‘216) is used only for the second-stage triggering event addressed above and, under the modification proposed for Claim 25, that role is replaced by the second user input, so no sensor data is used in the AoA determinations of the modified system. Determining each AoA from received-signal timing and phase data alone, without using data from a motion sensor, is therefore taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 28, Yang et al. (‘350) in view of Vered et al. (‘216) teaches the method of Claim 25.
wherein the first AoA and the second AoA are determined based on reception of the one or more first RF signals and the one or more second RF signals, respectively, by a linear antenna array of the wireless device. Yang et al. (‘350) teaches [0010] and [0056] that each AOA is measured using a set of at least two antennas separated by a known distance along a baseline, e.g., “the electronic device 210… may include two UWB antennas 220 and 230… The electronic device 210 may know the distance d (250) between the two UWB antennas 220 and 230” ([0056]), which constitutes a linear antenna array.
However, Vered et al. (‘216) confirms use of the same linear antenna pair for measurements in both the horizontal and vertical orientations. Vered et al. (‘216) teaches [0144] that the first (2D, horizontal-plane) measurement is generated “using antennas 501 and 502”, and [0147] that the corresponding elevation (vertical-plane) measurement “the previous stages 1-3 are repeated in stages 10-12 while holding the device essentially vertically”, i.e., using the same antenna pair 501/502 while the device is reoriented. Vered et al. (‘216) further teaches [0143] that the typical distance between antennas 501 and 502 is a quarter of the communication wavelength, confirming a linear baseline pair.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same linear antenna array of Yang et al.’s (‘350) device for both the first (horizontal-plane) and second (vertical-plane) AoA determinations, consistent with Vered et al.’s (‘216) reuse of antenna pair 501/502 across both orientations, rather than using different antenna sets for the two measurements. One would have been motivated to do so to reduce the number of antennas or antenna sets needed to complete both measurements, reusing hardware already provided for the first measurement. There would have been reasonable expectations of success because Vered et al. (‘216) demonstrates that the same linear antenna pair, reoriented by the user between horizontal and vertical device poses, is effective to obtain AoA measurements in both planes.
Claims 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2021/0076350 A1) in view of Vered et al. (US 2018/0052216 A1) and further in view of Lim et al. (US 2022/0407666 A1).
Regarding Claim 26, Yang et al. (‘350) in view of Vered et al. (‘216) teaches the method of Claim 25.
wherein: the one or more first notifications include at least one first reminder to the user to hold the wireless device parallel to the horizontal plane, the one or more second notifications include at least one second reminder to the user to hold the wireless device parallel to the vertical plane. Yang et al. (‘350) and Vered et al. (‘216) do not expressly teach a reminder notification repeated during a measurement. However, Lim et al. (US 2022/0407666 A1) teaches this limitation. Lim et al. (‘666) teaches [0216]: “guidance for effectively receiving a UWB signal as shown in the fourth UI 1504 may be provided at an appropriate time according to the pose of the first device 201… the first device 201 may guide the user to hold the first device 201 in a direction substantially perpendicular to the ground based on sensing data received through the one or more sensors 1130.” Lim et al. (‘666) thus teaches providing pose guidance repeatedly, at the appropriate time, based on continuously sensed device pose, rather than as a single, one-time instruction.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first and second notifications of the Yang/Vered combination as repeated reminders in the manner taught by Lim et al. (‘666), continuing to prompt the user for as long as the device pose deviates from the required horizontal or vertical orientation. One would have been motivated to do so because a single, one-time notification does not ensure that the user maintains the required device orientation for the duration of each measurement, and Lim et al. (‘666) demonstrates that continuous, pose-based reminders address exactly that need in an analogous UWB pose-guidance context. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Lim et al. (‘666) demonstrates the reminder technique as operative using the same class of device-pose sensor data already available in Yang et al.’s (‘350) sensor-equipped device.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2021/0076350 A1) in view of Vered et al. (US 2018/0052216 A1), and further in view of Ertan et al. (US 2019/0317177 A1) and Chen et al. (US 2022/0390541 A1).
Regarding Claim 29, Yang et al. (‘350) in view of Vered et al. (‘216), and further in view of Ertan et al. (‘177) and Chen et al. (‘541), teaches the method of Claim 25.
wherein determining the first AoA comprises: displaying a first arrow and a second arrow on the user interface, wherein a direction of the first arrow represents a first AoA estimate in the horizontal plane of the one or more RF signals with respect to an axis of a linear antenna array of the wireless device, wherein a direction of the second arrow represents a mirror AoA estimate in the horizontal plane of the first AoA estimate with respect to the axis of the linear antenna array of the wireless device, and wherein the mirror AoA estimate is equal to the first AoA estimate on an opposite side of the axis of the linear antenna array of the wireless device from the first AoA estimate; and displaying one or more notifications on the user interface instructing the user to move the wireless device until the direction of the first arrow is aligned with the direction of the second arrow. Yang et al. (‘350) and Vered et al. (‘216) do not teach displaying two arrows representing mirror AoA estimates about a linear antenna array axis, or a notification instructing the user to move the device until the two arrows are aligned.
Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) teaches this limitation for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, to which reference is made. Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches that antennas located in one plane produce an ambiguous phase-difference solution ([0087]: “different directions of arrival may result in the same phase difference. This leads to an ambiguity in the angle of arrival solution”), and displays prompts, which may include arrows, instructing the user to move the device ([0096]).
Ertan et al. (‘177) does not explicitly teach, but Chen et al. (‘541) teaches displaying two AoA hypotheses for a single transmitter, symmetric about the antenna baseline, prior to disambiguation (FIG. 5A; [0063]).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the first (horizontal-plane) AoA determination of the Yang/Vered combination using the dual-arrow display and alignment-notification technique of Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541), for the same motivation, reasonable expectation of success, and non-hindsight rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to visually present both candidate horizontal-plane AoA estimates to the user of Yang et al.’s (‘350) device for the same reason such a display is beneficial in Ertan et al.’s (‘177) system: it makes the ambiguity inherent in a single-plane antenna measurement, of the kind Yang et al. (‘350) performs in its first, horizontal-plane stage, apparent to the user and guides the user-directed disambiguation.
Regarding Claim 30, Yang et al. (‘350) in view of Vered et al. (‘216), and further in view of Ertan et al. (‘177) and Chen et al. (‘541), teaches the method of Claim 25.
wherein determining the second AoA comprises: displaying a first arrow and a second arrow on the user interface, wherein a direction of the first arrow represents a first AoA estimate in the vertical plane of the one or more RF signals with respect to an axis of a linear antenna array of the wireless device, wherein a direction of the second arrow represents a mirror AoA estimate in the vertical plane of the first AoA estimate with respect to the axis of the linear antenna array of the wireless device, and wherein the mirror AoA estimate is equal to the first AoA estimate on an opposite side of the axis of the linear antenna array of the wireless device from the first AoA estimate; and displaying one or more notifications on the user interface instructing the user to move the wireless device until the direction of the first arrow is aligned with the direction of the second arrow. This limitation is taught for the same reasons as set forth above for Claim 29, applied to the second (vertical plane) AoA determination. The same physical ambiguity that arises from a single linear antenna baseline in the horizontal-plane orientation arises equally when the same linear antenna array of the Yang/Vered combination is reoriented to the vertical-plane orientation for the second measurement, and the dual-arrow display and alignment-notification technique of Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) applies equally to that measurement, with the same motivation, reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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 H 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.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
