DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/31/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that claim 1 is a system claim and does not limit or specify the location of the plurality of BT cores or the first BT core or the second BT core in the system, and that the first and second BT cores are not limited to being on the same device or at the same location as the Examiner appears to interpret, Examiner is unclear what Applicant means. Claim 1 lines 15-23 recite “a processing circuitry, coupled to each of the first BT core and the second BT core”, which appears to limit the first and second BT cores to being on the same device or at the same location. Further, the specification does not appear to describe any BT cores that are on different devices or at different locations while being coupled to a same processing circuitry. Rather, the specification appears to be limited to pairs of BT cores, or “dual-cores”, connected to a same processing device as shown in Fig. 2.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claims are definite, Examiner agrees in part. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 10-15 have been overcome by the claim amendments, placing these claims in condition for allowance. However claims 1-9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
Examiner notes that amended claims 16-20 have been rejected over the prior art, necessitated by the amendments.
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 1-9 and 16-20 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 claim 1 lines 5-6, “wherein both the transmitter and antenna are coupled via a duplexer to a respective antenna different from the respective antenna of another core” is unclear, and “the... antenna” lacks antecedent basis. Examiner recommends amending “transmitter and antenna” to “transmitter and receiver”.
Regarding claim 1, recited is a system comprising (1) a plurality of BT cores, where first and second BT cores of the plurality of BT cores comprise a transmitter and a receiver coupled via a duplexer to a respective antenna element (lines 2-14), and (2) a processing circuitry coupled to each of the first and second BT cores (lines 15-23). These features appear to correspond to what is shown in Applicant’s Fig. 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
554
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Fig. 2, the first and second BT cores are shown at 220-1 and 220-2, with the respective antennas and duplexors shown at 210-1, 210-2, 212-1, and 212-2, and the processing circuitry shown at least at 260.
Lines 15-23 then recite:
PNG
media_image2.png
252
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claim therefore recites the first angle-of-arrival as “corresponding to the receiver of the first BT core” and “based on a first phase difference... with respect to the respective antenna of the first BT core”, and the second angle-of-arrival as “corresponding to the receiver of the second BT core” and “based on a second phase difference ... with respect to the respective antenna of the second BT core”. However it is unclear what it means for the angles-of-arrival to “correspond to” one or the other of the BT core receivers, or to be “with respect to the respective antenna” of either of the BT cores. The angle of arrival is determined based on phase difference of signals received at the antennas of the first and second BT cores and the distance between the antennas – for example see specification paras. [0014] and [0027] - and therefore appears to “correspond” equally to both of the cores and to be determined “with respect to” both of the antennas. The specification does not describe, and one of ordinary skill would not understand, what is meant by the first and second angles-of-arrival as claimed.
Further, as best understood, the first and second angles are both recited as being based on “a ... phase difference between the first RF signal of the first BT core and the second RF signal of the second BT core” (claim 1 lines 17-23), that is, they are based on the same phase difference. Therefore, they appear to be identical angles. However, according to the specification, the location determination recited in lines 15-23 requires a structure as shown in Applicant’s Fig. 4, which includes a plurality of dual-core devices 410-i, each used to measure an angle of arrival as shown in Fig. 5, the intersection of the angles providing the location of the device 502. Para. [0029] further describes the location of the device determined “using a triangulation computation”.
PNG
media_image3.png
840
538
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
558
764
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Amended claim 1, in contrast, amounts to a single dual-core device, as shown in Fig. 2 or at 422 in Fig. 4. While claim 1 recites first and second angles-of-arrival determined using this structure, these angles, as discussed above, appear to be identical, and will therefore not provide an intersection at the device as shown in Fig. 5, or provide sufficient information for triangulation. Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite the structure required for determining the location of the device.
Regarding claim 16 line 11, “the multi-core BT transceiver” lacks antecedent basis in the claim, as all previous instances of “multi-core BT transceiver” have been removed by amendment.
The remaining claims are dependent.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims recite new matter:
Regarding claim 1 lines 15-23, determining location of a device based on first and second angles of arrival “corresponding to” the receivers of the first and second BT cores, where the first and second angles of arrival are based on first and second phase differences “with respect to the respective antenna of the first BT core” and “with respect to the respective antenna of the second BT core”, respectively, was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey possession of the claimed invention and therefore comprise new matter.
The remaining claims are dependent.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification does not enable the full scope of the claims.
Regarding claim 1 lines 15-23, the claim includes within its scope embodiments wherein the location of a device is determined based on signals received from the device at first and second BT cores, that is, at a single pair of BT cores (lines 15-23).
However the specification does not provide any description of such embodiments. The specification only describes embodiments where the location of a device is determined based on signals received from the device at a plurality of pairs of first and second BT cores, each pair providing a corresponding angle of arrival – for example see Figs. 4 and 5, where each element 410-i comprises a pair of BT cores and is referred to as a “dual-core” at 422, Fig. 4 and throughout the specification. Fig. 5 is described in para. [0029] as showing the location of device 502 determined using “a triangulation computation based on the known location of the beacon devices 410 and the values of their corresponding AoAs”, where para. [0028] describes each beacon device 410 as comprising a dual-core BT chip.
PNG
media_image3.png
840
538
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
558
764
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The specification does not describe determining the location of a device based on signals received at a single pair of BT cores, that is, at a single “dual-core”, and one of ordinary skill would not understand how to do it. A single pair of BT cores would provide only a single angle of arrival, and a single angle of arrival is insufficient for determining device location as described in the specification and as would be understood by one of ordinary skill. The specification therefore does not enable one of ordinary skill to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with the claims.
The remaining claims are dependent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simileysky (US 20180267131) in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Regarding claim 16, Simileysky teaches [NOTE: limitations added by amendment are underlined; limitations not taught by Simileysky are lined through; language added to explain Simileysky’s teachings is italicized] a device comprising:
a Bluetooth (BT) transceiver (Fig. 3, which includes transmitter 305 and receivers 304 and 312 and is therefore a transceiver) configured to receive a plurality of BT packets from a second device, the BT transceiver comprising at least two cores (312 and 310, Fig. 3) and each core of the at least two cores is coupled to a radio-frequency (RF) antenna (305, 315...319, Fig. 3)
a first BT core (312, Fig. 3) of the at least two cores of the BT transceiver is coupled to a first radio-frequency (RF) antenna (one of 315-319, Fig. 3) and configured to generate based at least on one or more BT packets of the plurality of BT packets, a first signal responsive to a first RF signal of the first RF antenna for the one or more BT packets (output of partial receiver 312);
a second BT core (310, Fig. 3) of the at least two cores of the multi-core BT transceiver is coupled to a second RF antenna (305, Fig. 3) that is located a distance from the first RF antenna (antenna 305 is a distance from antennas 315-319 as shown in Fig. 3) and configured to generate based at least on the one or more of the plurality of BT packets, a first signal responsive to a second RF signal of the second RF antenna for the one or more BT packets (output of receiver 304, Fig. 3); and
a processor (320, 302, 340, Fig. 3 and “any network node” para. [0072]), coupled to each of the first BT core and the second BT core of the BT transceiver (see coupling via BUS SYS 301, Fig. 3), configured to determine an angle-of-arrival of the one or more BT packets (ϴ1, Fig. 6) using a phase difference between the first signal and the second signal from the first BT core and the second BT core and the distance between the first RF antenna and the second RF antenna (2:13-16 “a wireless device can estimate AoA based on a phase difference of an RF signal concurrently received at two antennas spaced by a known amount”; also see paras. [0041], [0028]-[0030]).
As indicated by the lined through language above, Simileysky does not teach the antennas coupled to the cores via a duplexor. However Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is well-known to couple antennas to cores via a duplexor in order to provide isolation. It would have been obvious to modify Simileysky by coupling transceivers 310 and 312 to their respective antennas via duplexors in order to isolate receivers 304 and 312 from any nearby transmitters such as transmitter 305.
Regarding claim 18, Simileysky does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to measure a time-of-arrival difference between the first signal and the second signal based on the phase difference. However, Simileysky teaches determining time difference of arrival (para. [0041]), and time difference of arrival is closely related to phase difference - for example see Simileysky's para. [0029], in which an equation is given relating path difference D to phase difference ФА2 - ФА1. One of ordinary skill would recognize that path difference D is equal to the time-of- arrival difference times the speed of light. It would have been obvious to further modify Simileysky by determining a time-of-arrival difference based on the measured phase difference because it is a method of obtaining time-of-arrival difference comprising a mere conversion from angular degrees to units of time that could be done with predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, Simileysky teaches wherein the first BT core and the second BT core are configured to be powered by a same oscillator circuit (322, Fig. 3; para. [0043] “local oscillator whose signal is coupled to both the receiver 304 and the partial receiver 312”).
Regarding claim 20, Simileysky teaches wherein the device is an electronic device used by one or more consumers (para. [0017] “used in ... consumer... applications”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simileysky (US 20180267131) in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Haynes (“A Primer on Digital Beamforming” pages 3-5).
Regarding claim 17, Simileysky does not teach wherein the distance between the first RF antenna and the second RF antenna is selected to be equal to half of a wavelength of one of the first RF signal or the second RF signal. However it is well- known to separate antennas in an array by half of a wavelength. For example see Haynes pages 3-5. Haynes teaches that a half wavelength spacing reduces sidelobes (page 3 bottom - page 5). It would have been obvious to modify Simileysky in view of Haynes by separating the first and second antennas by half of a wavelength because it is a well- known spacing with the advantage of reducing sidelobes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15 are allowed because the claim amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in the 7/31/2025 Final Rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, WILLIAM KELLEHER can be reached on (571)270-5144. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648