DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, line 6 – delete “)” after “unit”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are 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.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 19, the claims are rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential step(s) or an end result. The omitted step(s) is the step(s) wherein the claimed limitation is actually doing something tangible with the end result, i.e. the communication between the antennas and the mobile units are put to use or output a concrete result.
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 8, the term “common” is a broad term which renders the claims indefinite. It is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the term “common”. The metes and bound of the claims cannot be ascertained by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, it appears that the claim recites both a system and a method for using that system which makes the claim ambiguous. A claim such as those before us cannot be both method and apparatus. It must be clear from the wording of the claim that it is draw to one or the other of the mutually exclusive statutory classes of invention set forth in 35 USC 101. A method or process claim is an act or a series of acts and from the standpoint of patentability must distinguish over the prior art in terms of steps, whereas a claim drawn to apparatus must distinguish in terms of structure. This is so elemental as not to require citation of authorities. Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1552 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int 1990.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al (CN 111865354 in which a machine translation in English is incorporated herein).
PNG
media_image1.png
236
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
310
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Chen et al disclose in Fig 11 above an ultra-wideband (UWB) anchor for localizing a first UWB mobile unit and a second UWB mobile unit in an interior space, the UWB anchor comprising:
a first UWB antenna and a second UWB antenna (i.e. “two directional antennas along the tunnel or corridor two sides of the transmission signal of the deployment mode”) (page 11, paragraph 7).
Chen et al also inherently disclose the first UWB antenna for communication with the first UWB mobile unit and the second UWB antenna for communication with the second UWB mobile unit (i.e. Fig 2 shown a directional antenna communicate with a mobile unit, then since each directional antenna is pointing in opposite direction along the tunnel or corridor as shown in Fig 11 above, each directional antenna would communicate with different mobile unit(s) coming toward the path of each antenna pointing direction) (page 11, paragraph 7).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
As to limitations which are considered to be inherent in a reference, note the case law of In re Ludtke, 169 U.S.P.Q. 563; In re Swinehart, 169 U.S.P.Q. 226; In re Fitzgerald, 205 U.S.P.Q. 594; In re Best et al, 195 U.S.P.Q. 430; and In re Brown, 173 U.S.P.Q. 685, 688.
Regarding claim 2, Chen et al disclose in Fig 11 above a radiation angle of the first UWB antenna and a radiation angle of the second UWB antenna are same. While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 3, Chen et al disclose in Fig 10 above a common housing for the first UWB antenna and the second UWB antenna; and/or a common printed circuit board connected to both the first UWB antenna and the second UWB antenna (page 11, paragraphs 4-6). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 4, Chen et al disclose in Fig 10 a common microcontroller and/or a common system on chip (SOC) for controlling the first UWB antenna and the second UWB antenna (page 11, paragraphs 4-6). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al in view of Baek et al (WO 2020/218912 which is equivalent to US 2022/0052452 cited herein).
Regarding claim 5, Chen et al do not explicitly disclose the first UWB antenna and the second UWB antenna are configured for communication in different frequency bands as claimed. Baek et al teach in the same field of endeavor the first UWB antenna and the second UWB antenna are configured for communication in different frequency bands (Abstract; [0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen et al in view of Baek et al by incorporating the first UWB antenna and the second UWB antenna are configured for communication in different frequency bands as taught by Lysejko et al to gain advantage of diversifying the communication of multiple antenna in a telecommunication system; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 6, although Chen et al in view of Baek et al teach that the UWB communication uses frequency band in a range of about 3.1 GHz to 10.6 GHz (Baek et al – [0004]); however, Chen et al in view of Baek et al do not explicitly disclose the first UWB antenna is configured for communication in a first frequency band around 8 GHz and the second UWB antenna is configured for communication in a second frequency band around 4 GHz as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first UWB antenna for communication in a first frequency band around 8 GHz and the second UWB antenna for communication in a second frequency band around 4 GHz for diversifying the communication of multiple antenna in a telecommunication system, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-17 are allowed over prior art. However, 35 USC 112(b) rejection must be overcome.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0053428 discloses a method for locating an ultra wideband technology (UWB) mobile unit includes locating a position of the UWB mobile unit using a plurality of UWB anchors. Each UWB anchor includes a first UWB anchor antenna and a second UWB anchor antenna. Communication for positioning measurement purposes from the UWB mobile unit to the plurality of UWB anchors is performed in a first frequency band via the first UWB anchor antennas. Time synchronization of the plurality of UWB anchors is performed in a second frequency band via the second UWB anchor antennas.
US 8,183,957 discloses a radio communication apparatus for transmitting transmission signals of the channel CH1 and the channel CH2, including a first antenna, a second antenna, a dual-band transmitting/receiving circuit having a first terminal for the channel CH1 and a second terminal for the channel CH2, a first branching circuit configured to receive a transmission signal from the first terminal or the second terminal, a second branching circuit configured to divide the transmission signal from the first branching circuit between the first antenna and the second antenna, and a transmission line configured to connect the first branching circuit and the second branching circuit.
WO 2022/229239 discloses a method for localizing at least one UWB mobile unit. In the method, at least both a first position and a second position of the UWB mobile unit are determined. The determination is carried out by means of separate frequency bands. The first position is determined by means of first UWB anchor antennas and a first UWB mobile unit antenna. The second position is determined by means of second UWB anchor antennas and a second UWB mobile unit antenna. The determination is preferably carried out by means of separate algorithms, more particularly in separate computers. If the deviation between the two positions is less than a predefined deviation, one of the two positions is labeled as a reliable position. The invention also relates to a device for carrying out a method of this type.
CN 112260717 discloses an ultra-wideband measuring assembly, device and system, wherein the ultra-wideband measuring assembly comprises: an antenna assembly, at least comprising a first antenna and a second antenna; an ultra-wideband measuring module, configured with a transmitting port, a first receiving port; the ultra-wideband measuring module is used for measuring the device to be tested according to the radio frequency signal emitted by the transmitting port and the radio frequency signal received by the first receiving port; a switch circuit, respectively connected with the transmitting port, a first receiving port, a first antenna; the second antenna is connected, for selecting the transmission path between the conduction emitting port and the first antenna or the second antenna, or selecting the first receiving path between the first receiving port and the first antenna or the second antenna, wherein the ultra-wideband measuring module under the state of the control switch circuit conducting the transmission path; the control switch circuit cuts off the first receiving path; it can improve the distance measuring precision of the ultra-wideband measuring module.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
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 (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646