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 Amendment
In the amendments filed February 9th, 2026, the following has occurred: claims 1 and 4-6 have been amended; claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garner et al. (US 20190369206 A1, “Garner”).
Regarding claim 9, Garner discloses an electronic device (Fig. 3A (116-1)) comprising: a speaker (implicit, [0093], control device may emit acoustic token signal illustrated by (314); a memory (Fig. 2 (212)); and one or more processors(Fig. 2 (214)) configured to: obtain a location of the electronic device; and generate, with the speaker, an audio output that encodes location information for the location of the electronic device ([0114]-[0115], control device may receive request to determine information from the mobile device. In response, control device transmits acoustic token data including delay, distance, and/or mobile device direction information.)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that distance and/or mobile device direction information relative to the control device is location data)
Regarding claim 10, Garner discloses the electronic device of claim 9. Garner further discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate the audio output that encodes the location information by modulating emission times of multiple portions of the audio output.([0114]-[0115], control device may receive request to determine information from the mobile device. In response, control device transmits acoustic token data including delay, distance, and/or mobile device direction information and simultaneously reset a high resolution timer.)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that distance and/or mobile device direction information relative to the control device is location data)
Regarding claim 11, Garner discloses the electronic device of claim 10. Garner further discloses wherein the multiple portions of the audio output are emitted with one or more frequencies that are determined based on a resonance feature of the electronic device.(implicit, [0114] acoustic token transmission information transmitted by the control device may include frequency information)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the frequency is implicitly determined based on a resonance feature of the control device in order for the control device to be capable of the transmission)
Regarding claim 15, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 9 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 10 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 11 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
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, 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garner in view of Da Silva Freitas et al. (US 20130344842 A1, “Da Silva Freitas”).
Regarding claim 1, Garner discloses an electronic device (Fig. 3A (118-1)), comprising: a handheld or wearable housing (Implicit, Fig. 3A (118-1) illustrates a mobile device, which the examiner interprets to implicitly have a housing); one or more microphones disposed in the handheld or wearable housing (Fig. 3A (262-1-1) and (262-1-2)); a display mounted to the handheld or wearable housing ([0024] mobile device (118-1 may be configured to utilize a touch screen display); a memory disposed in the handheld or wearable housing (Fig. 2 (252)); display, using the display of the electronic device, a visual indicator of a direction from the electronic device to the location of the other electronic device ([0113], mobile device may receive distance and direction information to the control device. mobile device may update in substantially real-time, the control device location UI view).
Garner may not explicitly disclose one or more processors disposed in the handheld or wearable housing and configured to: receive, using the one or more microphones, an audio output from another electronic device without establishing a wireless connection with the other device, the audio output including at least part of a location of the other electronic device encoded therein; decode the audio output to obtain at least the part of the location of the other electronic device.
Da Silva Freitas teaches one or more processors disposed in the handheld or wearable housing and configured to: receive, using the one or more microphones, an audio output from another electronic device without establishing a wireless connection with the other device, the audio output including at least part of a location of the other electronic device encoded therein; decode the audio output to obtain at least the part of the location of the other electronic device. ([0031], audio signals are transmitted periodically by an infrastructure without any connection to the mobile device)([0037] mobile device embodiment includes an experimentally confirmed scenario in which spread spectrum signals from loudspeakers are received at the mobile device’s microphone in order to estimate ranges to the loudspeaker. Through demodulation and de-spreading of the emitted signals, the Golay encoded sequences are revealed and via decoding allow retrieval of GPS coordinates of the loudspeakers which emitted the signals)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic localization, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Garner, to include the local portion location information of Da Silva Freitas with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing device location information based on proximity [0037].
Regarding claim 2, Garner, as modified in view of Da Silva Freitas, teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Garner further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, at the electronic device, a user request to locate the other electronic device([0106], Fig. 5B, at step 510, mobile device receives user input requesting location of the control device); and provide, responsive to the user request, a trigger signal to the other electronic device, the trigger signal comprising an instruction to emit the audio output([0112], Fig. 5B, at sept 550 mobile device transmits request to determine information to the control device).
Regarding claim 4, Garner, as modified in view of Da Silva Freitas teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Da Silva Freitas further teaches the one or more processors are configured to: receive the audio output by receiving a first audio output from a first speaker of the other electronic device and receiving a second audio output from a second speaker of the other electronic device, and determine the location of the other electronic device based on a difference between the first audio output and the second audio output and based on the at least the part of the location of the other electronic device obtained from the decoded audio output([0033]-[0034], one or more loudspeakers emitting regularly audio signals together and in consonance with possible pre-existent public address sound emissions. Each loudspeaker emission is composed by a sequence of operations that creates the signal do be emitted to the channel. Useful data like the loudspeaker position, the air temperature, or simply some area identification, is packed in a frame)([0037] mobile device embodiment includes an experimentally confirmed scenario in which spread spectrum signals from loudspeakers are received at the mobile device’s microphone in order to estimate ranges to the loudspeaker. Through demodulation and de-spreading of the emitted signals, the Golay encoded sequences are revealed and via decoding allow retrieval of GPS coordinates of the loudspeakers which emitted the signals. Using this information with the previously determined ranges will allow global position determination via tri/multilateration)(Fig. 1. Illustrates infrastructure having one or more loudspeakers, which implicitly means the infrastructure may have two loudspeaker, thus reading upon the claim limitations).
Regarding claim 6, Garner, as modified in view of Da Silva Freitas teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Da Silva Freitas further teaches wherein the at least the portion of the location of the other electronic device comprises a local part of the location of the other part of the device, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to: obtain a regional part of the location based on a location of the electronic device; determine the location of the other electronic device based on the at least local part of the location of the other electronic device obtained from the decoded audio output and the regional part of the location obtained based on the location of the electronic device ([0031], audio signals are transmitted periodically by an infrastructure without any connection to the mobile device)([0037] mobile device embodiment includes an experimentally confirmed scenario in which spread spectrum signals from loudspeakers are received at the mobile device’s microphone in order to estimate ranges to the loudspeaker. Through demodulation and de-spreading of the emitted signals, the Golay encoded sequences are revealed and via decoding allow retrieval of GPS coordinates of the loudspeakers which emitted the signals)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the degrees minutes seconds (DMS) is a standard form of expressing GPS coordinates and implicitly includes a local and regional part of location information in line with Applicant’s specification at [0064])
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garner in view of Da Silva Freitas and Hwang (KR 20140092283 A, “Hwang”).
Regarding claim 3, Garner, as modified in view of Da Silva Freitas teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Garner, as modified in view of Da Silva Freitas may not explicitly teach the audio output comprises an audio distress sound emitted from the other electronic device to indicate distress of a user of the other electronic device, the audio distress sound including at least a portion having one or more frequencies between approximately twenty Hertz and approximately twenty kilohertz
Hwang teaches wherein the audio output comprises an audio distress sound emitted from the other electronic device to indicate distress of a user of the other electronic device, the audio distress sound including at least a portion having one or more frequencies between approximately twenty Hertz and approximately twenty kilohertz([attached machine translation, pg. 1], acoustic communication system uses the speaker of a mobile telephone during an emergency in which service is disconnected in order to modulate a sound wave to generate a distress signal including current location information)([attached machine translation, pg. 2] audio speaker propagates an audio output using an audio coded which generates an emergency distress signal that is an amplified soundwave)([attached machine translation, pg. 2] frequency range of the speaker of example mobile terminals are in the range of 0-20kHZ. Sound waves of the speaker mode frequency typically fall in the ~1-10KHZ range).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic localization, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Garner, as modified in view of Da Silva Freitas to include the distress signal of Hwang with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of generating an emergency rescue signal in an situation in which mobile telephone service is disconnected [abstract].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garner in view of Da Silva Freitas and Halavee et al. (US 10735933 B2, “Halavee”).
Regarding claim 5, Garner, as modified in view of Da Silva Freitas teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Da Silva Freitas further teaches teach determine the location of the other electronic device based on the at least portion of the location the other electronic device obtained from the decoded audio output([0031], audio signals are transmitted periodically by an infrastructure without any connection to the mobile device)([0037] mobile device embodiment includes an experimentally confirmed scenario in which spread spectrum signals from loudspeakers are received at the mobile device’s microphone in order to estimate ranges to the loudspeaker. Through demodulation and de-spreading of the emitted signals, the Golay encoded sequences are revealed and via decoding allow retrieval of GPS coordinates of the loudspeakers which emitted the signals).
Garner, as modified in view of Da Silva Freitas may not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive the audio output by receiving a first portion of the audio output with a first microphone of the electronic device and receiving a second portion of the audio output with a second microphone of the electronic device, and determine the location of the other electronic device based on a difference between the first portion of the audio output and the second portion of the audio output.
Halavee teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive the audio output by receiving a first portion of the audio output with a first microphone of the electronic device and receiving a second portion of the audio output with a second microphone of the electronic device, and determine the location of the other electronic device based on a difference between the first portion of the audio output and the second portion of the audio output ([column 9, lines 49-64], by knowing the distance between microphones on a smart device, the time difference at which each microphone receives a signal can be measured. By interchanging signals between time synchronized speakers and microphones, measuring the times of arrivals and employing a geometric algorithm, the location of each emitter in space is found).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic localization, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Garner, as modified in view of Da Silva Freitas to include the localization method of Halavee with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of determining the location of an emitting device based on geometrical relationships between the signal and the microphones [column 9, lines 61-64].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garner in view of Da Silva Freitas and Weksler (US 20230194654 A1, “Weksler”).
Regarding claim 7, Garner, as modified in view of Da Silva Freitas teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Garner, as modified in view of Da Silva Freitas may not explicitly teach one or more processors are further configured to: generate, using a speaker of the electronic device, an audio indicator of the direction from the direction the electronic device to the location of the other electronic device.
Weksler further teaches the one or more processors are further configured to: generate, using a speaker of the electronic device, an audio indicator of the direction from the direction the electronic device to the location of the other electronic device ([0062], user device may provide an audible response to the user to indicate the location of the sound-emitting device)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic localization, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Garner, as modified in view of Weksler to include the audio direction indicator of Weksler with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of audibly guiding a user to the location of the other electronic device [0062].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garner in view of Da Silva Freitas and Le Faucher (EP 3096534 A1, Le Faucher”).
Regarding claim 8, Garner, as modified in view of Da Silva Freitas the electronic device of claim 1. Garner, as modified in view of Da Silva Freitas may not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive the audio output while operating the electronic device in a low power mode of operation; and responsive to receiving the audio output, switch the electronic device to a higher power mode of operation for determining the location of the other electronic device.
Le Faucher teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive the audio output while operating the electronic device in a low power mode of operation; and responsive to receiving the audio output, switch the electronic device to a higher power mode of operation for determining the location of the other electronic device ([0005], the digital signal processor is configured to set the microphone in a low power operational mode until a signal is received that is higher than a predefined threshold. Once the digital signal processor identifies a signal was received that is higher than the predefined threshold, then the microphone is switched into a normal operational mode).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic localization, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Garner, as modified in view of Da Silva Freitas to include the microphone power mode switching of Le Faucher with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preserving the device battery [abstract].
Claim(s) 12-14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garner in view of McDonald et al. (US 20130344842 A1, “McDonald”) and Gabai.
Regarding claim 12, Garner discloses the electronic device of claim 9. Garner may not explicitly disclose wherein the location information comprises a local portion the location of the electronic device; and wherein the audio output includes at least a portion having one or more frequencies between approximately twenty Hertz and approximately twenty kilohertz.
McDonald teaches wherein the location information comprises a local portion the location of the electronic device ([0038] SPS receivers include GPS and/or GNSS)([0044], device location may be expressed in location coordinates derived from the SPS element in the device, device may transmit device related data to other mobile devices wirelessly.)([0081] transmission media may be acoustic waves that can be encoded)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the location coordinates implicitly include a local portion, as they are GPS coordinates which may be formatted in Degree, Minutes, Seconds (DMS), which is in line with Applicant’s specification at [0041])
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic localization, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Garner, to include the local portion location information of McDonald with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing device information in areas that have low or no cellular coverage [abstract].
Garner, as modified in view of McDonald may not explicitly teach wherein the audio output includes at least a portion having one or more frequencies between approximately twenty Hertz and approximately twenty kilohertz.
Gabai teaches the audio output includes at least a portion having one or more frequencies between approximately twenty Hertz and approximately twenty kilohertz. ([0085] smartphones device may generate a loud beep to guide the user to their lost smartphone)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that if the beep is to be heard by the user, it implicitly falls within the frequency range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz as that is the approximate range of human hearing)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic localization, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Garner, as modified in view of McDonald to include the distress signal of Gabai with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of alerting the user to the presence and location of the smart phone [0085].
Regarding claim 13, Garner, as modified in view of McDonald and Gabai, teaches the electronic device of claim 12. McDonald further teaches wherein the location comprises the local portion and a regional portion that is omitted from the location information that is encoded in the audio output.([0038] SPS receivers include GPS and/or GNSS)([0044], device location may be expressed in location coordinates derived from the SPS element in the device, device may transmit device related data to other mobile devices wirelessly.)([0081], transmission media may be acoustic waves that can be encoded)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of modifying the device of Garner, as modified in view of McDonald, to only encode the local portion of the information in the audio output)
Regarding claim 14, Garner, as modified in view of McDonald and Gabai, teaches the electronic device of claim 13. McDonald further teaches wherein an audio range of the audio output is within the regional portion of the location of the electronic device.(Implicit, [0038] SPS receivers include GPS and/or GNSS)([0044], device location may be expressed in location coordinates derived from the SPS element in the device, device may transmit device related information to other mobile devices wirelessly.)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that two devices located in the same regional portion that successfully transmit device related information to one another would implicitly have an audio range within the region portion of the location of the electronic device).
Regarding claim 18, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 12 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 13 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 14 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed September 18th, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pg. 3 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that Garner fails to teach the limitations of claims 9 and 15 for the following reason:
Garner fails to teach signal transmissions via a speaker and instead relies upon wireless signal transmission and does not encode location information
With respect to (1), the examiner agrees that the devices of Garner establish a wireless connection to one another, however the examiner disagrees that Garner doesn’t teach the transmission of acoustic signals between the devices. For example, Garner at [0058] discloses that through the use of specific acoustic token signals generated in accordance with the acoustic token transmission information, determinations of distance and direction are possible even in noisy environments. It is the examiner’s interpretation that this means the acoustic token transmission information and acoustic transmission token signals are encoded with location data in order to make such distance and direction determinations possible. Garner at [0005] describes the mobile device control device locator as a process that includes receiving an acoustic signal including an acoustic token signal from the control device via a plurality of acoustic sensors operatively coupled to the at least one processor, and determining distance information of the control device based on the received acoustic token signal generated by the electroacoustic transducer of the control device. Garner at [0049] further specifies that the acoustic token information causes the device to generate an acoustic signal with the specified information such as frequency, phase, power, and timing. Additionally, Garner at [0034]and [0074] specifically states that both the mobile device and the control device may include an acoustic input/output component which is configured to convert received sound waves into electronic signals indicative of acoustic input information, and additionally to generate acoustic waves via speakers. While the acoustic token transmission information may be a wireless signal, the acoustic token signal is an acoustic signal generated by a speaker and received by a microphone between two devices and is generated based on the acoustic token information to indicate distance information between the two devices. It is the examiner’s interpretation that the “location information” as currently drafted in the limitations of claim 9, does not preclude this interpretation. Therefore the rejections of claims 9 and 15 are therefore maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On pg. 4 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that Garner, as modified in view of McDonald fails to teach the limitations of claim 13 for the following reasons:
The examiner’s interpretation doesn’t adequately support the rejection of the limitations regarding a regional part of the location information being omitted and that it would not be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to do so.
With respect to (1) the examiner respectfully disagrees as McDonald at [0044] teaches that the device location may be expressed in location coordinates derived from the SPS element in the device, device may transmit device related data to other mobile devices wirelessly. McDonald further goes on to describe at [0037] that “location coordinates” may include any partial set of real and/or complex location information such as longitudinal, latitudinal, and positional coordinates. This implicitly means that the transmitted location data may include partial longitudinal/latitudinal/positional coordinates, including partial sets where the regional portion is omitted. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include the teachings of McDonald as McDonald states at [0035] that communication between mobile devices in low coverage areas may be useful to emergency services in an emergency situation. It is the examiner’s interpretation that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the communication of even partial sets of coordinates (such as a partial set of coordinates without the regional coordinates) would still be useful to emergency services in an emergency situation. Therefore the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Qu et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 20190025402) which discloses methods and systems for detecting and locating a mobile device using sound
Suryavanshi et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 20150141005) which discloses methods and systems for using sensor data to provide information between proximally-located device groups
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645