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 .
Priority
The pending application 18/495,967, filed on 27 OCT 2023, is a continuation of a national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT/EP2022/061140, filed on 27 APR 2022, and claims priority from foreign application DE10 2021 204 374.7, filed on 30 APR 2021 in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 18 FEB 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 7, and 11-15 have been amended. Claims 3-4 and 6 have been cancelled. Claims 16-17 have been added. Claims 1-2, 5, and 7-17 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 16 being independent.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections of claims 7 and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) made in the previous office action dated 18 NOV 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) made in the previous office action dated 18 NOV 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 18 FEB 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Gupta et al. in view of Ulrich, the applicant argues that the cited reference fails to disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, specifically “communication for positioning measurement purposes from the UWB mobile unit to the plurality of UWB anchors is performed in a first frequency band via first UWB anchor antennas; and time synchronization of the plurality of UWB anchors is performed in a second frequency band via the second UWB anchor antennas.”
Applicant argues that “Gupta does not contemplate using different frequency bands for position measurement and time synchronization. Nor does Gupta contemplate utilizing different methods/standards for position measurement and time synchronization.” (Applicant’s remarks p. 9)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Gupta et al is relied upon to teach the communication for positioning measurement purposes, where “The ranging operation may be performed via communication links 125.” (Gupta et al. ¶ [0028]; Figs. 1A-1B) Gupta et al. also discloses performing time synchronization of the UWB anchor antennas, where “A first AP with one or more oscillators and timers may be used to synchronize neighboring APs. For example, the first AP may transmit narrowband signals or ultra-wideband (UWB) signals, or both, to other Aps in the area.” (Gupta et al. ¶ [0005]) Although Gupta et al. does not explicitly disclose that separate frequency bands are used for performing the positioning measurement and the time synchronization, Gupta et al. does contemplate using different bands of signals – narrowband and ultra-wideband. Ulrich was relied upon to specifically teach the use of different frequencies to perform different functions. Ulrich discloses “a first wireless connection for user data transmission” (Ulrich ¶ [0021]) and “a second transmission channel, different from the first, is used to transmit the synchronization signals” (Ulrich ¶ [0019]). Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that “Ulrich also fails to disclose or suggest using a CCC or Fine Ranging Standard.” (Applicant’s remarks p. 9)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the previous office action, Henry et al. was relied upon to teach using a standard of the fine ranging (fira consortium), where “in some embodiments, be configured to use some default parameters (e.g., as potentially defined through an interoperability organization, such as the fine ranging (fira) consortium or the like).” (Henry et al. ¶ [0061]) Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that “Henry is silent to using different standards for different frequency bands or for position measurement versus time synchronization.” (Applicant’s remarks p. 9)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the previous office action, Ulrich was relied upon to specifically teach the use of different frequencies to perform different functions. Ulrich discloses “a first wireless connection for user data transmission” (Ulrich ¶ [0021]) and “a second transmission channel, different from the first, is used to transmit the synchronization signals” (Ulrich ¶ [0019]). Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that “Becuwe is also silent as to using different standards for different frequency bands for position measurement versus time synchronization. In fact, Becuwe is silent as to utilizing Omlox for time synchronization.” (Applicant’s remarks p. 9)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the previous office action, Ulrich was relied upon to specifically teach the use of different frequencies to perform different functions. Ulrich discloses “a first wireless connection for user data transmission” (Ulrich ¶ [0021]) and “a second transmission channel, different from the first, is used to transmit the synchronization signals” (Ulrich ¶ [0019]). Becuwe was only relied upon to teach the use an omlox standard. Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that “it would appear the primary motivation for utilizing Omlox (as suggested by Becuwe) is to eliminate the need for using multiple systems for processing data (e.g., using different standards for different frequency bands for the same UWB anchor). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be dissuaded from using both Omlox and a different standard (such as FiRa Consortium standard of Henry) for different frequency bands, let alone for different purposes (e.g. location measurement versus time synchronization) for the same UWB anchor.” (Applicant’s remarks p. 9-10)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Becuwe also discloses that “In zones where high-precision localization of assets is requires, for example, UWB can be used. In zones where room-accurate positioning is sufficient, more cost-effective BLE/RSSI can be used. With Omlox, position data obtained in different ways can still be displayed in a single coordinate system.” (Becuwe p. 3) Becuwe suggests that different methods, UWB or BLE/RSSI, can be used depending on accuracy requirements and optimized in order to reduce the cost of implementation. Additionally, Ulrich discloses that, “According to the invention, units 1, 2 also have a second wireless transmission option for the time synchronization signals 14, 24, which is separate from the first data transmission option and, as already described above, can be designed in a very simple technical manner. (Ulrich ¶ [0028]) “The hardware and software required for transmitting pulses or simple telegrams are readily available and inexpensive.” (Ulrich ¶ [0035]) Thus, Ulrich also teaches a reduction in implementation costs by using different frequencies for different purposes. Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, line 2 “the the time” should be “the time”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites, “using a standard of Car Connectivity Consortium (CCC) and/or Fine Ranging (fira) Consortium… using an Omlox standard.” The only support for in the specification for using a standard of CCC and/or fira is found in paragraph [0019]:
“The position of the UWB mobile unit can be determined using the standard of the Car Connectivity Consortium (CCC, see https://carconnectivity.org/) and/or the Fine Ranging (fira, see https://www.firaconsortium.org/) Consortium. The communication in the standard of the CCC and/or of the fira Consortium preferably takes place in a frequency band around 8 GHz. This allows a UWB mobile unit in the form of a consumer device, in particular in the form of a smartphone and/or handheld device, to be detected.”
However, the specification does not define a specific standard of the CCC or the fira consortium, nor do the referenced websites. As written, any standard of the CCC or fira consortium could be implemented, but a comprehensive technical standard of any sort was not found on either website. At best, a CCC whitepaper states “CCC member companies have been optimizing the High Rate Pulse repetition frequency (HRP) UWB standard in IEEE 802.15.4z to achieve this level of accuracy within this specific use case, while ensuring safety and security.”(see attached NPL “CCC Digital Key Whitepaper”) and the fira consortium states that one of their goals is to “develop compelling use cases based on IEEE 802.15.4z” (see attached NPL “fira consortium goals”). However, “optimizing” the IEEE 802.15.4z standard” in the case of the CCC and “based on” the IEEE 802.15.4z standard in the case of the fira consortium, can include and go beyond the scope of the IEEE 802.15.4z standard. Therefore, the specification lacks sufficient written description.
Claim 1 also recites, “using an Omlox standard.” The Omlox standard is described in paragraph [0022]:
“Omlox is an open standard for a precise real-time localization system for indoor spaces. Omlox defines open interfaces for an interoperable localization system. Omlox allows different tag manufacturers to use the same infrastructure with different applications from different providers. Since the same infrastructure is used, the overall operating costs are lowered, which allows simple integration of different applications. A key feature of omlox is that it enables a cyberphysical simplification and combines the integration of industrial software and hardware solutions into a shared ecosystem.”
This description in the specification is broad and fails to define the omlox standard at a technical level. Therefore, the specification lacks sufficient written description.
Claims 1-15 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “using a standard of Car Connectivity Consortium (CCC) and/or Fine Ranging (fira) Consortium… using an Omlox standard.” However, the specification fails to precisely define the CCC, fira or omlox standards. Use of standards change over time; hence, it is inappropriate to have the scope of a claim change with time. Since organizations implementing standards meet regularly and have the authority to modify standards, any connection a claim may have to these standards may vary scope over time. If the standard changes, the disclosure may no longer support the limitation. Therefore, the specification lacks enablement.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites, “using a standard of Car Connectivity Consortium (CCC) and/or Fine Ranging (fira) Consortium; and wherein the synchronization of the UWB anchors is performed using an Omlox standard.” However, the specification fails to precisely define the CCC, fira or Omlox standards. Use of standards change over time; hence, it is inappropriate to have the scope of a claim change with time. Since organizations implementing standards meet regularly and have the authority to modify standards, any connection a claim may have to these standards may vary scope over time. Therefore, the scope of the claim cannot be determined. For the purpose of prosecution, claim 1 has been interpreted as “using time difference of arrival methods for positioning and synchronizing the UWB anchors.”
Claims 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being depending on rejected claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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) 1-2, 5, 7-9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2015/0092753 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 27 OCT 2023, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Ulrich (EP 379673 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 27 OCT 2023, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Gupta et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Gupta et al. has been struck-through]
A method for locating an ultra wideband technology (UWB) mobile unit (Gupta et al. tags 115, Figs. 1A-4), the method comprising:
locating a position of the UWB mobile unit (Gupta et al. “The system 100 provides location tracking of assets (e.g., objects) or people, or both, throughout the coverage area 110 associated with an indoor and/or enterprise environment.” - ¶ [0028]) using a plurality of UWB anchors (Gupta et al. “ Within the coverage area 110, multiple APs 105 may be deployed at specific locations…” - ¶ [0028]; Figs. 1A-1B), each UWB anchor comprising a first UWB anchor antenna and a second UWB anchor antenna (Gupta et al. “Some embodiments of the AP 105-c include a single antenna; other embodiments include multiple antennas.” - ¶ [0052]), wherein:
communication for positioning measurement purposes (Gupta et al. “The ranging operation may be performed via communication links 125.” - ¶ [0028]; Figs. 1A-1B) from the UWB mobile unit to the plurality of UWB anchors
time synchronization of the plurality of UWB anchors is performed in a second frequency band via the second UWB anchor antennas (Gupta et al. “A first AP with one or more oscillators and timers may be used to synchronize neighboring APs. For example, the first AP may transmit narrowband signals or ultra-wideband (UWB) signals, or both, to other APs in the area. - ¶ [0005]),
wherein the position of the UWB mobile unit is determined by a time difference of arrival method (Gupta et al. “In order to determine a location of a tag based on estimation of time difference of arrival (TDOA) by a set of APs, high precision time synchronization be acquired and maintained among all the APs in a network.” - ¶ [0024]) using a standard of Car Connectivity Consortium (CCC) and/or Fine Ranging (fira) Consortium (Examiner notes that “using a standard of Car Connectivity Consortium (CCC) and/or Fine Ranging (fira) Consortium” has been interpreted as “using time difference of arrival methods for positioning” as discussed above), and
wherein the synchronization of the UWB anchors is performed using an Omlox standard (Gupta et al. “A first AP with one or more oscillators and timers may be used to synchronize neighboring APs. For example, the first AP may transmit narrowband signals or ultra-wideband (UWB) signals, or both, to other APs in the area.” - ¶ [0005]; “The narrowband transceiver may be capable of communicating with wireless local area network (WLAN) products that are based on the IEEE 802.11 family of standards (WiFi). In some embodiments, the narrowband transceiver is a two-way digital radio based on the IEEE 802.15 family of standards (ZigBee). In another embodiment, the narrowband transceiver is a two-way digital radio based on the IEEE 801.11 family of standards, such as Wi-Fi.” - ¶ [0054]; Examiner notes that “wherein the synchronization of the UWB anchors is performed using an Omlox standard” has been interpreted as “synchronizing the UWB anchors” as discussed above).
Ulrich discloses:
a plurality of UWB anchors (Ulrich elements 1, 2, Fig. 1), each UWB anchor comprising a first UWB anchor antenna (Ulrich first antennas 131, 231, Fig. 1) and a second UWB anchor antenna (Ulrich second antennas 141, 241, Fig. 1), wherein:
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 (Ulrich “a first, wireless connection for the actual user data transmission…” - ¶ [0019]; “first connection element for establishing a first wireless connection for user data transmission…” - ¶ [0021]; antennas 131. 231, Fig. 1); and
time synchronization of the plurality of UWB anchors is performed in a second frequency band via the second UWB anchor antennas (Ulrich “a second transmission channel, different from the first, is used to transmit the synchronization signals, and this second transmission channel is also implemented as a wireless connection.” - ¶ [0019]; “second connecting element for transmitting the synchronization signals via a second transmission channel different from the first…” - ¶ [0021]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Ulrich into the invention of Gupta et al. to yield the invention of claim 1 above. Both Gupta et al. and Ulrich are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose UWB positioning systems. Gupta et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1 outlined above. However, Gupta et al. fails to explicitly disclose 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. This feature is disclosed by Ulrich where a “first connection element for establishing a first wireless connection for user data transmission…” is included (Ulrich ¶ [0021]. The combination of Gupta et al. and Ulrich would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a simple UWB system that generates short pulses which enable very precise synchronization (Ulrich ¶ [0023]).
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Gupta et al. as modified above discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: each of the first UWB anchor antennas is controlled by a first microcontroller (Gupta et al. “A general-purpose processor may be a microprocessor, but in the alternative, the processor may be any conventional processor, controller, microcontroller, or state machine.” - ¶ [0074]) and/or
Although Gupta et al. does not explicitly disclose that each of the second UWB anchor antennas is controlled by a second microcontroller and/or second SOC, Gupta et al. does disclose that “the components of the device 105-b are, individually or collectively, implemented with one or more ASICs adapted to perform some or all of the applicable functions in hardware.” (Gupta et al. ¶ [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s filing to provide a second microcontroller for the second UWB anchor antenna for the purpose of independently controlling the antennas in order to enhance the flexibility of the functions of the UWB anchors.
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Gupta et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Gupta et al. has been struck-through]
The method as claimed in claim 1
Ulrich discloses:
wherein the second frequency band is around 4 GHz (Ulrich “in the frequency band 3-7 GHz” - ¶ [0023])
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Ulrich into the invention of Gupta et al. to yield the invention of claim 5 above. Both Gupta et al. and Ulrich are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose UWB positioning systems. Gupta et al. as modified above discloses the method of claim 1. However, Gupta et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second frequency band is around 4 GHz. This feature is disclosed by Ulrich where synchronization is performed in the 3-7 GHz frequency band. The combination of Gupta et al. and Ulrich would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to distinguish the synchronization frequency and provide a simple UWB system that generates short pulses which enable very precise synchronization (Ulrich ¶ [0023]).
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), Gupta et al. as modified above discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising determining the position of the UWB mobile unit using the the time synchronization of the plurality of UWB anchors (Gupta et al. “As shown in FIG. 3, signals transmitted from a tag 115-a may be transmitted to and/or received by the AP 105-c via the antenna(s) in the antenna(s) module 335… the AP 105-c may use the received signals for determining a location of a tag unit 115.” - ¶ [0052]).
Regarding claim 8 (Original), Gupta et al. as modified above discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a wired and/or (Examiner notes that “and/or” has been interpreted as “or”) wireless data transfer from the plurality of UWB anchors to a computing unit is performed (Gupta et al. “In some embodiments, the tracking management server 150 is connected to the APs 105 through a network 140. The connection may be by way of a radio network associated with the APs 105.” - ¶ [0036]).
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Gupta et al. as modified above discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 8, wherein the data transfer from the plurality of UWB anchors to the computing unit is performed via the second UWB anchor antennas (Gupta et al. “In some embodiments, the tracking management server 150 is connected to the APs 105 through a network 140. The connection may be by way of a radio network associated with the APs 105.” - ¶ [0036]).
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), Gupta et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Gupta et al. has been struck-through]
A system for locating an ultra wideband technology (UWB) mobile unit, for carrying out the method as claimed in claim 1, the system comprising:
the UWB mobile unit (Gupta et al. tags 115, Figs. 1A-4);
the plurality of UWB anchors (Gupta et al. “ Within the coverage area 110, multiple APs 105 may be deployed at specific locations…” - ¶ [0028]; Figs. 1A-1B), each of the plurality of UWB anchors comprising a first UWB anchor antenna and a second UWB anchor antenna (Gupta et al. “Some embodiments of the AP 105-c include a single antenna; other embodiments include multiple antennas.” - ¶ [0052]), the first UWB anchor antennas being configured to receive UWB signals of the UWB mobile unit in a first frequency band (Gupta et al. “The ranging operation may be performed via communication links 125.” - ¶ [0028]; Figs. 1A-1B), and the second UWB anchor antennas being configured to send and receive UWB signals between the UWB anchors for synchronization of the UWB anchors in a (Gupta et al. “A first AP with one or more oscillators and timers may be used to synchronize neighboring APs. For example, the first AP may transmit narrowband signals or ultra-wideband (UWB) signals, or both, to other APs in the area. - ¶ [0005]).
Ulrich discloses:
the first UWB anchor antennas being configured to receive UWB signals of the UWB mobile unit in a first frequency band (Ulrich “a first, wireless connection for the actual user data transmission…” - ¶ [0019]; “first connection element for establishing a first wireless connection for user data transmission…” - ¶ [0021]; antennas 131. 231, Fig. 1), and the second UWB anchor antennas being configured to send and receive UWB signals between the UWB anchors for synchronization of the UWB anchors in a second frequency band (Ulrich “a second transmission channel, different from the first, is used to transmit the synchronization signals, and this second transmission channel is also implemented as a wireless connection.” - ¶ [0019]; “second connecting element for transmitting the synchronization signals via a second transmission channel different from the first…” - ¶ [0021]).
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), Gupta et al. as modified above discloses:
The system as claimed in claim 11, further comprising:
a computing unit connected to the plurality of UWB anchors wirelessly and/or by wire for determining the position of the UWB mobile unit (Gupta et al. “In some embodiments, the tracking management server 150 is connected to the APs 105 through a network 140. The connection may be by way of a radio network associated with the APs 105.” - ¶ [0036]).
Regarding claim 13 (Currently Amended), Gupta et al. as modified above discloses:
The system as claimed in claim 12, wherein the plurality of UWB anchors are configured to communicate with the computing unit via the second UWB anchor antennas (Gupta et al. “In some embodiments, the tracking management server 150 is connected to the APs 105 through a network 140. The connection may be by way of a radio network associated with the APs 105.” - ¶ [0036]).
Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended), Gupta et al. as modified above discloses:
The system as claimed in claim 11, wherein each of the plurality of UWB anchors comprises at least one of:
a common housing for the first UWB anchor antenna and the second UWB anchor antenna;
a common printed circuit board connected to both the first UWB anchor antenna and the second UWB anchor antenna;
a first microcontroller for controlling the first UWB anchor antenna (Gupta et al. “According to some embodiments, the components of the device 105-b are, individually or collectively, implemented with one or more ASICs adapted to perform some or all of the applicable functions in hardware. In other embodiments, the functions of device 105-b are performed by one or more processing units (or cores), on one or more integrated circuits.” - ¶ [0048]; “A general-purpose processor may be a microprocessor, but in the alternative, the processor may be any conventional processor, controller, microcontroller, or state machine.” - ¶ [0074])
a first system on chip (SOC) for controlling the first UWB anchor antenna and a second SOC for controlling the second UWB anchor antenna.
Although Gupta et al. does not explicitly disclose that each of the second UWB anchor antennas is controlled by a second microcontroller and/or second SOC, Gupta et al. does disclose that “the components of the device 105-b are, individually or collectively, implemented with one or more ASICs adapted to perform some or all of the applicable functions in hardware.” (Gupta et al. ¶ [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s filing to provide a second microcontroller for the second UWB anchor antenna for the purpose of independently controlling the antennas in order to enhance the flexibility of the functions of the UWB anchors.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2015/0092753 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 27 OCT 2023, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Ulrich (EP 379673 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 27 OCT 2023, previously relied upon by the examiner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Diorio et al. (US 9,881,473 B1, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Regarding claim 10 (Original), Gupta et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Gupta et al. has been struck-through]
The method as claimed in claim 1
Diorio et al. discloses:
radiation by the first UWB anchor antennas takes place conically (Diorio et al. “A beam generated by an SBR has a coverage volume, also known as the beam's “field-of-view” (FoV), which is a volume in three-dimensional space where, during transmission, the transmitted energy density exceeds a threshold, and where, during receiving, the received energy density exceeds a threshold. A beam's coverage area is a projection of the beam's FoV on a surface. The FoV and coverage area may be different during transmit and receive, and may vary with reader or tag power, the thresholds, the distance between the SBR and the surface, and other parameters.” – Col. 13, lines 22-32; the synthesized-beam RFID reader 1010 emits beams 1012-1015 are conically shaped, Fig. 10); and/or (Examiner notes that “and/or” has been interpreted as “or”)
radiation by the second UWB anchor antennas takes place circularly.
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Diorio et al. into the invention of Gupta et al. to yield the invention of claim 10 above. Gupta et al., Ulrich and Diorio et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose positioning systems for tracking assets. Gupta et al. as modified above discloses the method of claim 1. However, Gupta et al. fails to explicitly disclose radiation by the second UWB anchor antennas takes place conically. This feature is disclosed by Diorio et al. where the synthesized-beam RFID reader 1010 emits beams 1012-1015 are conically shaped (Diorio et al. Fig. 10). The combination of Gupta et al., Ulrich and Diorio et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a simple UWB system that generates short pulses which enable very precise synchronization (Ulrich ¶ [0023]) and provide adjustable, directional beams to enhance the connection between the UWB anchors and the UWB mobile unit.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2015/0092753 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 27 OCT 2023, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Ulrich (EP 379673 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 27 OCT 2023, previously relied upon by the examiner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2016/0349353 A1, newly cited by the examiner).
Regarding claim 15 (Currently Amended), Gupta et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Gupta et al. has been struck-through]
The method as claimed in claim 10
Wang et al. discloses:
wherein at least one UWB anchor is integrated in a smoke detector and/or in a light (Wang et al. “For example if each anchor node 6 is integrated or co-located with a respective luminaire and the location is being determined for the purpose of controlling those luminaires, then in some embodiments it may only be necessary to determine the user's location relative to the framework of points defined by the anchor nodes of these luminaires (though in other similar arrangements it may still be desired to define lighting control regions relative to the floorplan of a building or the like).” - ¶ [0045]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Wang et al. into the invention of Gupta et al. to yield the invention of claim 15 above. Gupta et al., Ulrich and Wang et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose positioning systems for tracking assets. Gupta et al. as modified above discloses the method of claim 10. However, Gupta et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one UWB anchor is integrated in a smoke detector and/or in a light. This feature is disclosed by Wang et al. where anchor nodes are integrated or collocated with luminaires (Wang et al. ¶ [0045]). The combination of Gupta et al., Ulrich and Wang et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a simple UWB system that generates short pulses which enable very precise synchronization (Ulrich ¶ [0023]) and provide detect a user’s location for the purpose of controlling the luminaires (Wang et al. ¶ [0045]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2015/0092753 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 27 OCT 2023, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of (Mao et al. US 2021/0067915 A1, newly cited by the examiner).
Regarding claim 16 (New), Gupta et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Gupta et al. has been struck-through]
A method for locating an ultra wideband technology (UWB) mobile unit (Gupta et al. tags 115, Figs. 1A-4), the method comprising:
locating a position of the UWB mobile unit (Gupta et al. “The system 100 provides location tracking of assets (e.g., objects) or people, or both, throughout the coverage area 110 associated with an indoor and/or enterprise environment.” - ¶ [0028]) using a plurality of UWB anchors (Gupta et al. “ Within the coverage area 110, multiple APs 105 may be deployed at specific locations…” - ¶ [0028]; Figs. 1A-1B), each UWB anchor comprising a first UWB anchor antenna and a second UWB anchor antenna (Gupta et al. “Some embodiments of the AP 105-c include a single antenna; other embodiments include multiple antennas.” - ¶ [0052]), wherein:
communication for positioning measurement purposes (Gupta et al. “The ranging operation may be performed via communication links 125.” - ¶ [0028]; Figs. 1A-1B) from the UWB mobile unit to the plurality of UWB anchors
time synchronization of the plurality of UWB anchors is performed in a second frequency band via the second UWB anchor antennas (Gupta et al. “A first AP with one or more oscillators and timers may be used to synchronize neighboring APs. For example, the first AP may transmit narrowband signals or ultra-wideband (UWB) signals, or both, to other APs in the area. - ¶ [0005]),
Mao et al. discloses:
wherein radiation by the second UWB anchor antennas takes place circularly (Mao et al. “The anchor antenna is linearly polarized or circularly polarized, and its orientation is vertical with rotating angle φ from −225° to 90°.” - ¶ [0061]; Fig. 4A), and
wherein beam angles of the second UWB anchor antennas are circular in a horizontal direction (Mao et al. “The anchor antenna is linearly polarized or circularly polarized, and its orientation is vertical with rotating angle φ from −225° to 90°.” - ¶ [0061]; Fig. 4A).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Mao et al. into the invention of Gupta et al. to yield the invention of claim 16 above. Both Gupta et al. and Mao et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose positioning systems for tracking assets. Gupta et al. discloses the limitations of claim 16 outlined above. However, Gupta et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein radiation by the second UWB anchor antennas takes place circularly, and wherein beam angles of the second UWB anchor antennas are circular in a horizontal direction. This feature is disclosed by Mao et al. where “The anchor antenna is linearly polarized or circularly polarized, and its orientation is vertical with rotating angle φ from −225° to 90°.” (Mao et al. ¶ [0061]; Fig. 4A). The combination of Gupta et al. and Mao et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “enhance the time-domain characteristics of UWB system with high signal fidelity (>0.98), low standard deviation (STD) of time delay (0.05 ns), and arbitrary orientation between tag and anchor.” (Mao et al. ¶ [0052]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2015/0092753 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 27 OCT 2023, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Mao et al. (US 2021/0067915 A1, newly cited by the examiner) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Diorio et al. (US 9,881,473 B1, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Regarding claim 17 (New), Gupta et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Gupta et al. has been struck-through]
The method of claim 16
Diorio et al. discloses:
wherein radiation by the first UWB anchor antennas takes place conically (Diorio et al. “A beam generated by an SBR has a coverage volume, also known as the beam's “field-of-view” (FoV), which is a volume in three-dimensional space where, during transmission, the transmitted energy density exceeds a threshold, and where, during receiving, the received energy density exceeds a threshold. A beam's coverage area is a projection of the beam's FoV on a surface. The FoV and coverage area may be different during transmit and receive, and may vary with reader or tag power, the thresholds, the distance between the SBR and the surface, and other parameters.” – Col. 13, lines 22-32; the synthesized-beam RFID reader 1010 emits beams 1012-1015 are conically shaped, Fig. 10)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Diorio et al. into the invention of Gupta et al. to yield the invention of claim 17 above. Gupta et al., Mao et al. and Diorio et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose positioning systems for tracking assets. Gupta et al. as modified above discloses the method of claim 16. However, Gupta et al. fails to explicitly disclose radiation by the second UWB anchor antennas takes place conically. This feature is disclosed by Diorio et al. where the synthesized-beam RFID reader 1010 emits beams 1012-1015 are conically shaped (Diorio et al. Fig. 10). The combination of Gupta et al., Mao et al. and Diorio et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “enhance the time-domain characteristics of UWB system with high signal fidelity (>0.98), low standard deviation (STD) of time delay (0.05 ns), and arbitrary orientation between tag and anchor.” (Mao et al. ¶ [0052]) and provide adjustable, directional beams to enhance the connection between the UWB anchors and the UWB mobile unit.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rechenberger (US 2022/0201427 A1) discloses omlox and fira for fixed infrastructure real time location systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 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, Resha 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.
NAOMI M. WOLFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/N.M.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
26 MAY 2026
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights