CTFR 18/446,260 CTFR 98265 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 03/12/2026 have been fully considered. Claims 1, 7, 14–26, 29, and 30 have been amended. Applicant's amendments overcome the previous U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. The amendments to Claims 1, 7, 19, 20, 23, 24, 29, and 30 added language defining the mirror AoA estimate as 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 the amendments to Claims 7, 20, and 24 clarifying the reference frame for the direction of rotation as being in a horizontal plane, a vertical plane, or both. The amendments to Claims 14–24 changed “azimuth plane” and “elevation plane” to “azimuth direction” and “elevation direction,” respectively. No New Matter was noticed. Claims 1–30 are pending. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments with respect to amendments to independent claim(s) 1-30 are moot based on the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment. The Applicant argues that the combination of Chen et al. (‘541) and Kerai (US 2017/0374526) does not disclose or suggest the following features of amended independent Claim 1: (1) displaying a first arrow representing a first AoA estimate and a second arrow representing a mirror AoA estimate, 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 (2) displaying notifications instructing the user to move the wireless device until the direction of the first arrow is aligned with the direction of the second arrow. The Applicant contends that Chen does not disclose a first AoA estimate or a mirror AoA estimate with respect to an axis of a linear antenna array, and that Kerai’s multiple arrows correspond to different mobile tags rather than different AoA estimates for signals received from the same transmitter device. With respect to Claim 7, the Applicant argues allowability for similar reasons and additionally notes that dependent claims recite additional subject matter not suggested by the cited art. The Examiner agrees that Kerai (US 2017/0374526) is not the most appropriate secondary reference for the amended claims and has withdrawn reliance on Kerai. Upon further consideration, and as set forth in the accompanying new grounds of rejection, Ertan et al. (US 2019/0317177 A1) is a more suitable primary reference for the amended claims, and Chen et al. (‘541) supplies the two-hypothesis mirror AoA teaching as a secondary reference. The Applicant’s argument that Chen et al. (‘541) does not disclose a first AoA estimate and a mirror AoA estimate with respect to an axis of a linear antenna array is not persuasive. Chen et al. (‘541) expressly teaches at [0030] that UWB antennas separated by a distance d on the back of a mobile device produce AoA ambiguities because the same phase difference is consistent with signals arriving from either side of the device—i.e., from a first angle or from a mirror angle on the opposite side of the array axis. At [0043], Chen teaches that each pair of antennas determines an AoA in a single plane, and at FIG. 5A, Chen illustrates two possible AoA hypotheses (504a, 504b) for a single transmitter at a first orientation—one on each side of the device, which directly corresponds to the first AoA estimate and the mirror AoA estimate on an opposite side of the array axis as recited in the amended claims. The Applicant’s characterization of Chen’s ambiguous hypotheses as unrelated to a linear antenna array and the mirror relationship is therefore not consistent with the disclosure of Chen et al. Separately, the Applicant’s argument that Kerai’s multiple arrows correspond to different mobile tags rather than different AoA estimates for signals from the same transmitter is well-taken and has contributed to the Examiner’s decision to withdraw reliance on Kerai. The new rejections over Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) do not rely on Kerai for the two-arrow or notification limitations. Instead, Ertan et al. (‘177) provides the primary teaching of a wireless positioning device that receives RF signals at a linear antenna array, generates PDOA-based AoA hypotheses with inherent mirror ambiguity ([0088], [0091]), and displays prompts including arrows and symbols on its user interface to instruct the user to move the device ([0096]). Chen et al. (‘541) provides the specific two-hypothesis mirror structure (FIGs. 5A and 5B, [0063–0064]) and the AoA indicator display ([0040]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to display both mirror AoA hypotheses as directional arrows on the display of Ertan et al.’s device, and to instruct the user to move the device until those arrows align, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Office Action. The arguments directed to the prior rejections over Chen and Kerai are therefore moot with respect to the new grounds of rejection. The Applicant argues that the combination of Chen et al. (‘541), Kerai, and Reddy et al. (‘476) does not disclose or suggest the following features of amended independent Claim 14: (1) displaying a pin on a three-dimensional shape where a position of the pin indicates an orientation of the wireless device relative to an azimuth direction or an elevation direction; and (2) displaying a target icon on the three-dimensional shape where a position of the target icon indicates a target position of the pin at which the orientation of the wireless device will be aligned with the azimuth direction or the elevation direction. The Applicant contends that Reddy et al.’s position icon 1702 and target icon 1704 are not displayed on a three-dimensional shape in a manner that indicates device orientation relative to an azimuth direction or elevation direction, and that Reddy’s disclosure is limited to the loop closure context for 3D scene scanning, which does not involve wireless positioning AoA measurement. The Examiner has reconsidered the rejection of Claims 14–24 in view of the Applicant’s amendment changing “azimuth plane” and “elevation plane” to “azimuth direction” and “elevation direction.” As set forth in the accompanying new grounds of rejection, the rejection of Claims 14–24 is maintained over Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) and further in view of Reddy et al. (‘476). Kerai is no longer relied upon for this claim family. The Applicant’s argument that Reddy et al. (‘476) does not disclose the position icon and target icon displayed on a three-dimensional shape in a manner tied to an azimuth or elevation direction has been considered. The Examiner acknowledges that Reddy et al.’s position icon 1702 and target icon 1704 appear in the context of loop closure for 3D scene capture rather than UWB wireless positioning. However, the claim does not require the three-dimensional shape visualization to arise in a wireless positioning context; it requires only that the pin position on the shape indicate device orientation relative to an azimuth direction or elevation direction, and that the target icon position indicate the target alignment position. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a position icon whose position on a three-dimensional shape tracks the capture device’s current orientation ([0117]) constitutes a pin whose position indicates device orientation. The target icon 1704 whose position indicates where the device should be oriented to achieve desired alignment ([0117]) constitutes the claimed target icon. The motivation to apply Reddy et al.’s three-dimensional orientation visualization to Ertan et al.’s azimuth and elevation AoA positioning system—such that the pin position reflects the device’s orientation relative to the azimuth or elevation measurement direction, and the target icon position reflects the alignment target for that measurement direction—is supplied by the desire to give the user intuitive, real-time orientation guidance for the AoA measurement, as established in the accompanying Office Action. The argument that Reddy does not itself teach this combination is not a basis for allowance when the combination is obvious from the collective teachings of the cited references. The Applicant argues that the combination of Chen et al. (‘541), Kerai, and Lim et al. (‘666) does not disclose or suggest the feature of displaying one or more second notifications instructing the user to hold the wireless device parallel to an azimuth direction, as recited in amended independent Claim 25. The Applicant contends that Lim et al. (‘666) teaches guiding the user to hold the device in a direction substantially perpendicular to the ground—i.e., substantially vertical—which the Applicant argues is the opposite of holding the device parallel to the horizontal plane that the Applicant equates with the azimuth direction. The Examiner has reconsidered the rejection of Claims 25–30 in view of the Applicant’s amendment. As set forth in the accompanying new grounds of rejection, the rejection is maintained over Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) and further in view of Lim et al. (‘666). Kerai is no longer relied upon for this claim family. The Applicant’s argument conflates the term “azimuth direction” in the amended claim with “horizontal plane (parallel to the ground).” This equivalence is not required by the claim language and is not supported under the broadest reasonable interpretation. The term “azimuth direction” refers to a direction associated with azimuth AoA measurement. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a notification instructing the user to hold the device parallel to the azimuth direction is a notification to hold the device in the orientation that aligns its linear antenna array with the axis used for azimuth AoA measurement—whatever that physical orientation may be for the particular antenna arrangement of the device. Lim et al. (‘666) expressly teaches at [0215] that device pose determines which AoA is measurable: UWB antennas arranged in a first direction measure a first AOA, and antennas arranged in a second perpendicular direction measure a second AOA. The system guides the user to hold the device in the orientation that maximizes reception quality for each respective AoA measurement. This is the substantive teaching of the claimed notification limitation—that the user is guided to hold the device in the orientation aligned with the measurement direction—and Lim et al. provides this teaching regardless of whether the specific orientation described in its embodiment is characterized as vertical or horizontal. The Applicant’s argument that Lim et al.’s guidance to hold the device perpendicular to the ground is “exactly opposite” to holding the device parallel to the azimuth direction is premised on the assumption that the azimuth direction is the horizontal plane. As noted above, this equivalence is not established by the claim language. The Examiner further notes that the azimuth AoA measurement direction in Ertan et al. (‘177)—the reference providing the overall wireless positioning framework for the rejection—involves measuring the azimuth angle of the signal relative to the device antenna baseline, and the appropriate device orientation for azimuth AoA measurement in Ertan et al.’s system may or may not correspond to holding the device parallel to the ground. The underlying principle of Lim et al.—that pose guidance notifications instruct the user to hold the device in the orientation aligned with the antenna’s measurement direction for that AoA—is directly applicable and renders Claim 25 obvious over the combination of Ertan et al., Chen et al., and Lim et al. for the reasons fully set forth in the accompanying Office Action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-34-01 Claims 7-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 7, 20, and 24 were amended to add the language “wherein the sensor data indicates a direction of rotation of the wireless device in a horizontal plane, a vertical plane, or both caused by movement of the wireless device with respect to the horizontal plane, the vertical plane, or both.” This amendment was made to address the prior 112(b) rejection concerning the undefined reference frame for “direction of rotation.” The amended language introduces new indefiniteness. A rotation “in a horizontal plane” most naturally means rotation about a vertical axis (i.e., yaw), since yaw rotation occurs within the horizontal plane. However, a rotation “caused by movement of the wireless device with respect to the horizontal plane” could alternatively describe a rotation in which the device tilts relative to the horizontal plane (i.e., pitch or roll), which is a rotation that changes the device’s angle with respect to the horizontal plane rather than a rotation occurring within it. The claim language conflates two distinct geometric concepts - (1) a rotation whose axis is normal to the plane, occurring within the plane, and (2) a rotation that changes the device’s orientation relative to the plane. These are different rotational motions. The specification at paragraph [0035], cited by the applicant as support, does not resolve this ambiguity: it describes horizontal and vertical planes in the context of device orientation but does not define what it means to rotate “in” such a plane versus “with respect to” such a plane. Furthermore, the alternative “or both” in “a horizontal plane, a vertical plane, or both” creates an additional scope question. If the sensor data simultaneously indicates a direction of rotation in both a horizontal plane and a vertical plane—i.e., compound rotation—the claim does not specify whether the AoA determination step must use both directions or only one. A person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty the metes and bounds of the “or both” alternative as it applies to the determining step that follows. The claim therefore remains indefinite as to Claims 7, 20, and 24. Dependent claims also inhered the rejection. Claims 14–26, 29, and 30 were amended to replace “azimuth plane” and “elevation plane” with “azimuth direction” and “elevation direction,” respectively. While the change from “plane” to “direction” removes the prior 112(b) rejection concerning the use of planes to describe azimuth and elevation (which are angles, not planes), the amended term “azimuth direction” introduces a new indefiniteness. The terms “Azimuth direction” and “elevation direction,” as recited, are indefinite because the claims do not define what spatial direction is identified by each term, and the specification does not provide a definition or usage that would give these phrases as settled meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Although “azimuth” and “elevation” are recognized concepts for angular coordinates, the amended claims do not recite merely an azimuth angle or elevation angle. Rather, the claims require device orientation, target icon placement, AoA determination, and in claims 25-26 holding the wireless device “parallel to” an “azimuth direction” or “elevation direction.” The specification describes the relevant orientation procedure using “azimuth plane” and “elevation plane,” not the amended “azimuth direction” and “elevation direction.” Therefore, a person or ordinary skill in the art would not know with reasonable certainty whether the claimed “azimuth direction” or “elevation direction” refers to a reference axis, a line-of-sight direction to the transmitter, a horizontal/vertical component of AoA, a device-orientation direction, or the originally disclosed azimuth/elevation plane. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claims 1–13 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ertan et a l. (US 2019/0317177 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0390541 A1) . Regardin g Claim 1, Ertan et al. (US 2019/0317177 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0390541 A1) teach: Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches: A method of wireless positioning performed by a wireless device, comprising: (Fig. 16: determination of position, [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. (‘177) teaches: receiving one or more radio frequency (RF) signals from a transmitter device: ([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 receives RF signals at a linear antenna array, calculates the phase difference of arrival (PDOA) between antenna pair 48-1 and 48-2, and determines possible AoA values from the PDOA, where the ambiguity arises because the same phase difference is produced by a first AoA estimate and its mirror on the opposite side of the array axis. At [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.” At [0096], Ertan et al. teaches that display 14 may present prompt 96 including “words, symbols (e.g., arrows , shapes, graphics, etc.), or other information.” 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 with respect to the axis of the linear antenna array, with the mirror AoA estimate being equal to the first AoA estimate on the opposite side of the array axis. However, Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the missing limitation. At [0030]: “Mobile devices can include multiple UWB antennas installed on a front side or a back side of a mobile device… Due to spacing and other propagation issues (e.g., multipath propagation), there can be ambiguities as to which side of the device (e.g., front or back) is closest to the device transmitting the signals. With current device geometry with at least two antennas located on a back side of a device separated by a distance d, there can be up to three hypotheses per side.” At [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 (‘541) teaches the device at a first orientation with two possible hypotheses (504a, 504b)—a first AoA estimate and its symmetric counterpart on the opposite side of the array axis, constituting the mirror AoA estimate equal to the first AoA estimate on an opposite side of the axis of the linear antenna array. At [0040], Chen teaches: “the mobile device 102 calculate and display the angle of arrival information to precisely locate the electronic device 104… 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 both AoA hypotheses as directional arrows on the user interface is the natural implementation of a directional indicator for each of the two mirror hypotheses. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chen et al.’s (‘541) two-hypothesis AoA display 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 ([0088]), and that the display can present arrows and symbols to guide the user ([0096]). Chen et al. teaches that each of the two AoA hypotheses constitutes a possible directional estimate and that the mobile device can display AoA information as directional indicators ([0040], FIG. 5A). One would have been motivated to display both ambiguous AoA estimates simultaneously as directional arrows because doing so makes the positional ambiguity immediately apparent to the user and provides the visual basis for the user-guided disambiguation technique that is the core purpose of both references. 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. demonstrates representing each hypothesis as a directional estimate (FIG. 5A, [0063]), making the combination a routine application of established display design practice in a directly analogous UWB positioning context. Both references independently identify the same two-hypothesis PDOA ambiguity problem, and the motivation to present both hypotheses visually is expressly suggested by the desire to resolve the ambiguity through user-guided movement as taught in Ertan et al. Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches: 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 ([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)” ; [0024]: “FIG. 15 is a top view of an illustrative electronic device having a display that instructs a user to move an electronic device as control circuitry gathers motion data and antenna signals to determine an angle of arrival solution.” In the combined system, once both mirror AoA estimates are displayed as arrows per the teaching of Chen et al. (‘541) and Ertan et al. (‘177), the condition for resolving the ambiguity—when the two AoA hypotheses converge to a single solution—corresponds geometrically to the condition in which the two arrows align. Ertan et al. already teaches instructing the user to move the device to resolve AoA ambiguity ([0096]), and specifying the alignment of the two arrows as the resolution criterion is the natural and obvious expression of that criterion, by implementing the use of “arrows” Ertan et al. [0096], as a combined arrow display system. 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 person of ordinary skill in the art 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 person of ordinary skill in the art 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 a 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. (US 2019/0317177 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0390541 A1) teach: Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches: A method of wireless positioning performed by a wireless device, comprising: As established above for Claim 1, Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches a method of wireless positioning performed by a wireless device with UWB antenna circuitry and a display ([0007-0009]). Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches: receiving one or more radio frequency (RF) signals from a transmitter device: As established above for Claim 1, Ertan et al. (‘177) at [0098]: “antennas 48 of device 10 may receive wireless signals (e.g., signals 58 of FIG. 10) from node 78.” Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches: 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: ([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)” ; [0024]: “FIG. 15 is a top view of an illustrative electronic device having a display that instructs a user to move an electronic device as control circuitry gathers motion data and antenna signals to determine an angle of arrival solution.” 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, a vertical plane, or both caused by movement of the wireless device with respect to the horizontal plane, the vertical plane, or both: Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches using motion sensor data to determine which of the possible AoA solutions is correct. At [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 between signals received by antenna 48-1 and signals received by antenna 48-2.” Ertan et al. (‘177) does not explicitly teach that the sensor data specifically indicates a direction of rotation of the wireless device in a horizontal plane, a vertical plane, or both, caused by movement of the wireless device with respect to those planes. However, Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the missing limitation. At [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. Two possible AoA values 506a, 506b have been determined based on the signals received at the mobile device 502a. After determining several AoA hypotheses, with the mobile device 502a at a first orientation, the mobile device 502a can be rotated by an angle that can be detected by the device’s motion sensors.” At [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.” At [0065]: “Example motion sensors can include one or more accelerometers or gyroscopes.” Chen et al. thus teaches that rotation direction of the device, as measured by motion sensors, is used to select between the first AoA hypothesis and its mirror on the opposite side of the array axis. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, rotation in the horizontal plane corresponds to a direction of rotation with respect to the horizontal plane, and rotation in a vertical plane corresponds to a direction of rotation with respect to the vertical plane, as claimed. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art 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. Chen et al. (‘541) explicitly teaches that the device’s rotation direction, detectable as a specific direction of rotation in a plane, allows the system to determine which hypothesis is correct ([0064]). One would have been motivated to implement this rotation-direction approach in Ertan et al.’s (‘177) system because it provides a well-defined criterion for ambiguity resolution that directly exploits the physical relationship between rotation direction and the change in the two mirrored AoA estimates. 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. Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches: displaying an arrow on the user interface, a direction of the arrow representing the AoA of the one or more RF signals: ([0096] that prompt 96 may include “words, symbols (e.g., arrows, shapes, graphics, etc.), or other information.” ) Ertan et al. (‘177) does not explicitly teach displaying a single arrow representing a determined AoA after disambiguation. However, Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the missing limitation. At [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 a directional arrow representing the determined AoA is the natural and obvious visual representation of a resolved AoA value on a device display, as confirmed by both references. Regarding Claim 8 , Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the method of Claim 7. Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches motion sensor circuitry 32 including motion sensors ([0050]). 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 person of ordinary skill in the art 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 and a single arrow after. The transition from two arrows to one is inherent in Chen et al.’s disambiguation process (FIG. 11, steps 1130–1160). 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 as 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 as 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 as stated above for Claim 6 . 07-21-aia AIA Claims 14–24 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over E rtan 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) . R egarding Claim 14, 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) teach: Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches: A method of wireless positioning performed by a wireless device, comprising: As established above for Claim 1, Ertan et al. (‘177) discloses a method of wireless positioning performed by a wireless device. Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches: displaying a three-dimensional shape on a user interface of the wireless device: Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches displaying visual prompts and location information on display 14 ([0008], [0096]) but does not explicitly teach displaying a three-dimensional shape on the user interface. Chen et al. (‘541) does not explicitly teach displaying a three-dimensional shape on a user interface. However, Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches the missing limitation. At [0026]: “the system may display a visual indication such as an opaque three-dimensional sphere (or cylinder, cube, polygon or other three-dimensional shape)” ; [0042]: “the instructions presented to the user 102 may cause the user to perform a scanning motion… while displaying… an opaque three-dimensional sphere (or cylinder, cube, polygon or other three-dimensional shape).” It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Reddy et al.’s (‘476) three-dimensional shape display into the wireless positioning system of Ertan et al. (‘177). Both references relate to guiding device movement through visual user interface feedback in the context of orientation-based data capture. Reddy et al. demonstrates that a three-dimensional shape effectively communicates device orientation and target alignment to a user in a spatial positioning context. One would have been motivated to apply this visualization to Ertan et al.’s (‘177) AoA positioning system to provide the user with an intuitive three-dimensional representation of device orientation relative to the measurement directions, improving usability and guiding the user to achieve the device pose needed for accurate AoA measurement. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Reddy et al. demonstrates the technique as operative in a device-orientation guidance context directly analogous to the AoA disambiguation workflow of the Ertan/Chen combined system. Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches: 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 an azimuth direction or an elevation direction: Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches that the device determines azimuth angle θ and elevation angle φ to describe device orientation relative to a node ([0077]: “control circuitry 22 may determine an azimuth angle θ and elevation angle φ to describe the position of nearby nodes 78” ). Ertan et al. (‘177) does not explicitly teach displaying a pin on a three-dimensional shape indicating orientation relative to an azimuth or elevation direction. However, Chen et al. (‘541) teaches AoA measurement in azimuth and elevation coordinates ([0045]: “PDOA offset at (azimuth=90, elevation=90)” ; FIG. 6) but does not explicitly teach displaying a pin on a three-dimensional shape. Ertan et al. (‘177) and Chen et al. (‘541) do not explicitly teach, but Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches the missing limitation. At [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 three-dimensional shape to reflect the capture device’s current orientation. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a position icon on a three-dimensional shape whose position tracks the device’s current orientation constitutes a pin on the three-dimensional shape indicating an orientation of the wireless device. The applicant argues that Reddy’s position icon 1702 is limited to the loop closure context and does not indicate orientation relative to an azimuth or elevation direction. However, the claim does not require the three-dimensional shape visualization to arise in a wireless positioning context; it requires only the structural and functional relationship between the pin position and the device’s orientation relative to a measurement direction. That relationship is supplied by the combination of Reddy et al.’s position-icon-on-three-dimensional-shape teaching with the azimuth/elevation orientation framework of the Ertan/Chen system. One would have been motivated to apply Reddy et al.’s position icon on a three-dimensional shape to indicate device orientation relative to the azimuth or elevation measurement direction in Ertan et al.’s system because doing so gives the user intuitive, real-time visual feedback about the device’s current orientation relative to the specific measurement direction required for accurate AoA measurement—directly supporting the user-guided orientation process that is the core function of the combined system. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Reddy et al. demonstrates position icon tracking of device orientation on a three-dimensional shape as an operative technique in a device-guidance context. 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 azimuth direction or the elevation direction: Ertan et al. (‘177) does not explicitly teach displaying a target icon on a three-dimensional shape. Chen et al. (‘541) does not explicitly teach displaying a target icon on a three-dimensional shape. However, Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches the missing limitation. At [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.” The applicant argues that Reddy does not disclose the target icon as indicating a position corresponding to azimuth or elevation direction alignment. The motivation to define the target icon position as the position on the three-dimensional shape corresponding to alignment with the azimuth or elevation measurement direction is supplied by Ertan et al. (‘177), which teaches that the device must achieve specific azimuth and elevation orientations for accurate AoA measurement ([0091], [0092]). Placing the target icon at the position on the three-dimensional shape that corresponds to that measurement-direction alignment is the obvious design choice when applying Reddy et al.’s target-icon model to Ertan et al.’s azimuth/elevation AoA system. One would have been motivated to do so in order to guide the user to achieve the optimal device orientation for the AoA measurement being performed. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Reddy et al. teaches the target icon as an operative user-guidance mechanism. Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches: 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) teaches displaying instructions to move the device ([0096]: “display 14 may display a prompt such as prompt 96 instructing the user to move device 10 in a particular manner” ). Ertan et al. does not explicitly teach instructions to move the device until a pin reaches a target icon. However, Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches the missing limitation. At FIG. 8, element 804: “PRESENT INSTRUCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USER INTERACTION” ; [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.” Displaying a notification instructing the user to move the device until the pin reaches the target icon is directly taught by the combination of Reddy et al.’s target-alignment instruction paradigm and Ertan et al.’s device-movement notification system. 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 azimuth direction: ([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) does not explicitly teach, but 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 the elevation direction: ([0117]: target icons positioned at desired locations on the three-dimensional shape). The middle/equator of a three-dimensional sphere corresponds to the device being in a vertical orientation aligned with the elevation measurement direction. Placing the target at the middle of the three-dimensional shape to indicate elevation-direction alignment is the obvious geometric counterpart to Claim 15’s azimuth-direction design, for the same reasons. Regarding Claim 17, 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 azimuth angle determination ([0077]) but does not explicitly teach a pin whose position indicates orientation relative to the azimuth direction specifically, or a target icon whose position indicates the azimuth alignment target specifically. Ertan et al. (‘177) does not explicitly teach, but Reddy et al. (‘476) teaches: wherein: the position of the pin on the three-dimensional shape indicates the orientation of the wireless device relative to the azimuth direction, and the position of the target icon on the three-dimensional shape indicates the target position of the pin at which the orientation of the wireless device will be aligned with the azimuth direction: ([0117]: “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.” Applying this to the azimuth direction in the Ertan/Chen system is obvious for the same reasons as set forth for Claim 14’s pin and target icon limitations. 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 17. Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches: further comprising: receiving one or more radio frequency (RF) signals from a transmitter device; and determining an angle-of-arrival (AoA) in the azimuth direction of the one or more RF signals: ([0098]: receiving signals from node 78; [0091]: “the first set of possible angle of arrival solutions may include an azimuth angle (e.g., 01).” Chen et al. (‘541) additionally teaches the complete AoA determination process at FIG. 11, steps 1110–1160. 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. Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches displaying arrows and prompts on the device display ([0096]) but does not explicitly teach displaying a first arrow representing a first AoA estimate in the azimuth direction and a second arrow representing a mirror AoA estimate, with notifications to align the arrows, in the context of azimuth AoA determination. However, Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the missing limitations of the two-arrow display and notification for the same reasons and upon the same combination as set forth for Claim 1 above, applied here to azimuth AoA determination within the Claim 18 method. The motivation and reasonable expectation of success are the same. 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. Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches motion-sensor-based AoA determination ([0088]) but does not explicitly teach that the sensor data indicates a direction of rotation in a horizontal or vertical plane in the context of azimuth AoA disambiguation. However, Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the missing limitations of the sensor-data-based disambiguation and single-arrow display for the same reasons and upon the same combination as set forth for Claim 7 above, applied here to azimuth AoA determination within the Claim 18 method. The motivation and reasonable expectation of success are the same. 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 17. 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 the elevation direction; 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 elevation direction; 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]: “multiple target icons 1704 may be presented concurrently on the display to cause the user to align the position icon 1702 with each of the target icons 1704” ; “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.” Displaying a second pin and second target icon for the elevation direction is the obvious extension of Reddy et al.’s multiple-target-icon teaching to the elevation measurement direction in the combined system, motivated by the need to guide the user through both azimuth and elevation orientation 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) teaches: further comprising: receiving one or more RF signals from a transmitter device; and determining an AoA in the elevation direction of the one or more RF signals: ([0092]: the second device position yields the elevation component of the AoA solution). Chen et al. (‘541) additionally teaches AoA determination in both azimuth and elevation ([0045]; FIG. 6). Regarding Claims 23 and 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. Claims 23 and 24 depend from Claim 22. Claim 23 recites the two-arrow display and alignment notification structure applied to elevation AoA determination. Claim 24 recites the sensor-data-based disambiguation and single-arrow display applied to elevation AoA determination. Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches the receiving and movement-prompting elements as established above, see Claims 19 and 20. Ertan et al. does not explicitly teach displaying two mirror AoA estimate arrows or sensor-data-based rotation disambiguation in the context of elevation AoA determination. Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the missing limitations of Claims 23 and 24 for the same reasons as set forth for Claims 19 and 20, respectively, applied to elevation AoA determination. The same physical PDOA ambiguity that produces mirror AoA estimates in the azimuth direction also produces mirror AoA estimates in the elevation direction when the corresponding antenna pair is used, and the same visualization, notification, and sensor-data-based disambiguation approaches apply. The motivation and reasonable expectation of success are the same . 07-21-aia AIA Claims 25–30 are rejec ted 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 Lim et al. (US 2022/0407666 A1) . Regar ding Claim 25 Ertan et al. (US 2019/0317177 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0390541 A1) and further in view of Lim et al. (US 2022/0407666 A1) teach: Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches: A method of wireless positioning performed by a wireless device, comprising: As established above, Ertan et al. (‘177) discloses a method of wireless positioning performed by a wireless device. Ertan et al. (‘177) 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 an azimuth direction: Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches displaying instructions to move the device in a particular manner ([0096]) but does not explicitly teach instructing the user to hold the device parallel to an azimuth direction. However, Chen et al. (‘541) teaches AoA determination in azimuth and elevation coordinates but does not explicitly teach a notification to hold the device parallel to an azimuth direction. Lim et al. (‘666) teaches the missing limitation. At [0215]: “a UWB antenna may include two antennas arranged in a first direction to recognize a first AOA and a second AOA, and two antennas arranged in a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction” ; “an AOA value measured through the UWB antenna may vary depending on how the user holds the first device 201, that is, the pose of the first device 201.” At [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. For example, when the user holds the camera 1131 of the first device 201 to face the ground, an image obtained through the camera 1131 may not be suitable for generating AR. In addition, as the UWB antennas included in the first device 201 are disposed parallel to the ground, the UWB signal may not be well received from the second device 202. Accordingly, 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.” The applicant argues that Lim et al. teaches guiding the user to hold the device perpendicular to the ground (substantially vertical), which is the opposite of holding the device parallel to the horizontal plane that the applicant equates with the azimuth direction. The Examiner notes that the claim term “azimuth direction” is not defined by the specification as “the horizontal plane,” and the broadest reasonable interpretation of “parallel to an azimuth direction” is holding the device in the orientation that aligns its linear antenna array with the axis used for azimuth AoA measurement. Lim et al. (‘666) teaches at [0215] that device pose determines which AoA is measurable—antennas arranged in a first direction measure a first AOA, and antennas in a perpendicular second direction measure a second AOA—and that the system guides the user to hold the device in the orientation that enables accurate measurement of each respective AoA. This is the substantive teaching of the claimed first notification limitation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ertan et al.’s (‘177) device-orientation-based AoA measurement system with Lim et al.’s (‘666) pose-guidance notifications for sequential azimuth and elevation measurements. Both references address the same technical problem: UWB AoA measurement quality depends on device pose, and users must be guided to hold the device in the orientation that aligns the antenna array with the measurement direction. One would have been motivated to apply Lim et al.’s pose guidance approach to Ertan et al.’s azimuth/elevation AoA system, directing the user to hold the device parallel to the azimuth direction for the first AoA, then parallel to the elevation direction for the second. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Lim et al. demonstrates that pose guidance notifications successfully direct users to device orientations that improve AoA measurement quality in a directly analogous UWB positioning system. determining a first angle-of-arrival (AoA) in the azimuth direction of one or more first radio frequency (RF) signals received from a transmitter device: Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches receiving RF signals ([0098]) and determining an azimuth AoA ([0091]: “the first set of possible angle of arrival solutions may include an azimuth angle (e.g., 01).” Chen et al. (‘541) additionally teaches the complete AoA determination process at FIG. 11, steps 1110–1160. displaying one or more second notifications on the user interface instructing the user to hold the wireless device parallel to an elevation direction: Ertan et al. (‘177) and Chen et al. (‘541) do not explicitly teach a second notification to hold the device parallel to an elevation direction. However, Lim et al. (‘666) teaches the missing limitation. At [0215]: “two antennas arranged in a first direction to recognize a first AOA and a second AOA, and two antennas arranged in a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction” ; and at [0215], the fourth UI 1504 provides guidance to switch the device from portrait to landscape direction for a different AoA measurement. Sequential pose guidance for two perpendicular AoA measurements—including a second notification for the elevation direction after the first azimuth measurement—is directly taught by Lim et al.’s sequential orientation guidance system. and determining a second AoA in the elevation direction of one or more second RF signals received from the transmitter device: Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches determining the elevation angle of arrival ([0092]). Chen et al. (‘541) additionally teaches elevation-plane AoA measurement at FIG. 6 and [0045]. Regarding Claim 26, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) and further in view of Lim et al. (‘666) teaches the method of Claim 25. Ertan et al. (‘177) does not explicitly teach reminder notifications that repeat based on device pose monitoring. However, Lim et al. (‘666) teaches: wherein: the one or more first notifications include at least one first reminder to the user to hold the wireless device parallel to the azimuth direction, the one or more second notifications include at least one second reminder to the user to hold the wireless device parallel to the elevation direction: ([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” , and the guidance is based on “sensing data received through the one or more sensors 1130” —meaning the guidance is provided continuously or repeatedly as the device pose changes, constituting a reminder to maintain the correct orientation. Displaying repeated notifications that continue to prompt the user to maintain device orientation in the measurement direction is obvious as a basic user interface design choice, motivated by the need to ensure the user holds the device in the correct pose throughout the AoA measurement. Regarding Claim 27, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) and further in view of Lim et al. (‘666) teaches the method of Claim 25. Chen et al. (‘541) teaches: wherein the first AoA and the second AoA are determined without using sensor data from the wireless device: At FIG. 11, steps 1110–1130: the initial AoA determination is performed based solely on PDOA from received RF signals, without sensor data, as established for Claim 3 above. Claim 25 further requires holding the device in specific orientations that physically constrain the measurement geometry, allowing the AoA to be determined from phase measurements alone. Regarding Claim 28, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) and further in view of Lim et al. (‘666) teaches the method of Claim 25. Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches a linear antenna pair as established for Claim 5. Lim et al. (‘666) additionally teaches: 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: ([0215]: “a UWB antenna may include two antennas arranged in a first direction to recognize a first AOA and a second AOA, and two antennas arranged in a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction.” Each pair of antennas arranged in a direction constitutes a linear antenna array for measuring AoA in the corresponding direction. Regarding Claim 29, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) and further in view of Lim et al. (‘666) teaches the method of Claim 25. Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches displaying arrows and prompts ([0096]) but does not explicitly teach displaying two mirror AoA estimate arrows and alignment notifications in the context of determining the first (azimuth) AoA within the Claim 25 method. However, Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the missing limitations for the same reasons and upon the same combination as set forth for Claims 1 and 19 above, applied to the first (azimuth) AoA determination within the Claim 25 method. The motivation and reasonable expectation of success are the same. Regarding Claim 30, Ertan et al. (‘177) in view of Chen et al. (‘541) and further in view of Lim et al. (‘666) teaches the method of Claim 25. Ertan et al. (‘177) teaches displaying arrows and prompts ([0096]) but does not explicitly teach displaying two mirror AoA estimate arrows and alignment notifications in the context of determining the second (elevation) AoA within the Claim 25 method. However, Chen et al. (‘541) teaches the missing limitations for the same reasons and upon the same combination as set forth for Claims 19 and 23 above, applied to the second (elevation) AoA determination within the Claim 25 method. The same physical PDOA ambiguity that produces mirror AoA estimates in the azimuth direction also produces mirror AoA estimates in the elevation direction when the corresponding antenna pair is used, and the same visualization and notification approach applies. The motivation and reasonable expectation of success are the same. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 /RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 2 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 3 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 4 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 5 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 6 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 7 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 8 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 9 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 10 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 11 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 12 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 13 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 14 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 15 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 16 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 17 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 18 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 19 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 20 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 22 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 23 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 24 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 25 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 26 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 27 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 28 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 29 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 30 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 31 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 32 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 33 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 34 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/446,260 Page 35 Art Unit: 3648
Prosecution Insights