DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10-30-2025 have been fully considered. As the arguments are directed towards the claims as amended, please see below.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0066010, filed December 16, 2020 in view of Roberts, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0347648, published November 27, 2014.
As per claims 1 and 11, Henry discloses an electronic device comprising:
a communication circuit configured to perform data transmission and/or reception via an ultra-wide band (UWB) band and a processor (Henry, Fig. 1);
wherein the processor is configured to:
determine a first distance the location of the external electronic device based on first signals exchanged between the external electronic device and the electronic device operating in two way ranging (Henry, ¶130);
switch to a second location determination mode in response to determining the location of the external electronic device, and determine the location of the external electronic device based on a second signal received from the external electronic device (Henry, ¶121 where updated parameters are provided);
and switch from two way to one way in response to satisfying a specified condition related to the location of the external electronic device (Henry, ¶105).
Henry fails to explicitly disclose switch from the second back to the first however Henry teaches changing ranging modes based on environmental criteria (¶105) and it is within the skill of a person in the art to determine when to switch modes in order to gain the benefit of improving ranging.
Henry uses ranging but fails to explicitly state switching between on way and two way ranging.
Roberts teaches switching between two way and one way (¶70).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to switch between the two in order to gain the benefit of accounting or times the target does not respond. Examiner submits it is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine what well known and understood ranging methods to use.
As per claims 2 and 12, Henry as modified by Roberts discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to switch from one way to two way in response to a number of receptions of the second signal being a specified number of times (Henry, ¶131 using airtime efficiently and Roberts, ¶70).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the second signal count limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As per claims 3, 4, 13 and 14, Henry as modified by Roberts further discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to switch from one way to two way based on that second distance being more than a specified value (Henry, ¶105 using range criteria for the different ranging modes).
As per claims 5 and 15, Henry as modified by Roberts further discloses the electronic device of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to control to transmit a message indicating a switch from one way to two way to the external electronic device (Henry, ¶71 where various information parameters are communicated).
As per claims 6 and 7, Henry as modified by Roberts further discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to not switch to the second location determination mode in response to not determining a location of the external electronic device in the first location determination mode and check a switching condition of the second location determination mode included in the parameter, and configure the specified condition on the basis of the switching condition of the second location determination mode (Henry, ¶89 and 104 using dedicated time periods).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to decide when to switch, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Henry in providing useful ranging information while remaining low power and expenditure.
As per claims 8 and 9, Henry as modified by Roberts further discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, in the first location determination mode, determine a distance between the electronic device and the external electronic device based on the first signal, determine, in the second location determination mode, an amount of change in the distance between the electronic device and the external electronic device, and determine, in the second location determination mode, an amount of change in the distance and a distance between the electronic device and the external electronic device based on the distance (Henry, ¶100 where the system uses an iterative method to fine tune the range and remove errors).
Note that it has been held that a mere omission of an element and its function (determining an error value) in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
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 MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646