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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
1. This is in response to application filed on 11/28/2023 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sendonaris et al., (US 2014/0266904), (hereinafter, Sendonaris) in view of Sarrigeorgidis (US 10,466,345), (hereinafter, Sarrigeorgidis).
Regarding claim 1, Sendonaris discloses a method of improving accuracy of a distance measurement between two wireless network devices (= distance estimate between transmitter and receiver, see [0007]; receiver 200 may receive one or more position/location modules for receiving signals from transmitters 110 and processing the signals to determine position/location information, see [0075]; and processing received signals to discard spurious estimates of time of arrival of the earliest signal….which may be used to improve overall positioning accuracy, see [0084]) comprising:
performing a channel sound procedure using the two wireless network devices a plurality of times so as to acquire a plurality of measurements (= performing multipath signal processing in Fig 7-13, see [0075-76]; and in a WAPS receiver, the direct path signal and one or more delayed signals should be separated to determine the earlier arrival time for distance estimation/ via “superresolution” algorithms, see [0084 and 0088]);
executing a MUSIC algorithm for each of the plurality of measurements to create a plurality of pseudo-spectrums, wherein each of the plurality of pseudo-spectrums comprises a graph that indicates magnitude as a function of distance (= the orthogonality property allows for calculation of a pseudospectrum which has peaks at locations related to times of arrival of the various received signals…variety of algorithms such as MUSIC and Root-MUSIC etc., to produce such pseudospectrum, FIG 14A and 14B provides examples of pseudospectrum amplitude versus delay, see [0092 and 0108]; a superresolution algorithm or similar or equivalent algorithm may be implemented to determine a set of arrival times (TOA) of the components of the received positioning signal components, see [0110]; and the TOA may be used for distance and/or location determination of the receiver, see [0121]);
performing an operation on the plurality of pseudo-spectrums to produce a final pseudo-spectrum (= spurious noise peaks (in the pseudospectrum) may be filtered out using MUSIC algorithm or similar or equivalent algorithm, see [0121 and 0116]); and
determining a distance between the two wireless network devices based on the final pseudo-spectrum (= a superresolution algorithm or similar or equivalent algorithm may be implemented to determine a set of arrival times (TOA) of the components of the received positioning signal components, see [0110]; and the TOA may be used for distance and/or location determination of the receiver, see [0121 and 0007]).
Sendonaris explicitly fails to disclose the claim limitations of “performing a mathematical operation on the plurality of pseudo-spectrums”.
However, Sarrigeorgidis which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of: “performing a mathematical operation on the plurality of pseudo-spectrums” (= see the mathematical express for moving-average and final covariance matrix estimation, see col. 11, line 31-col. 12, line 19; and col. 12, lines 53-61)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Sarrigeorgidis with Sendonaris for the benefit of achieving a communication system that performs false-peak mitigation for MUSIC-based time-of-arrival estimation using a feature-selection technique, such as LASSO.
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned in claim 1, Sendonaris explicitly fails to disclose the method wherein the mathematical operation comprises multiplying corresponding elements from each of the plurality of pseudo-spectrums to form the final pseudo-spectrum.
However, Sarrigeorgidis, which is an analogous art equivalently disclose the method wherein the mathematical operation comprises multiplying corresponding elements from each of the plurality of pseudo-spectrums to form the final pseudo-spectrum (see col. 11, line 31-col. 12, line 19; and col. 12, lines 53-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Sarrigeorgidis with Sendonaris for the benefit of achieving a communication system that performs false-peak mitigation for MUSIC-based time-of-arrival estimation using a feature-selection technique, such as LASSO.
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned in claim 2, Sendonaris further disclose the method wherein a weight is used to compute each element in the final pseudo-spectrum
(= removing selected time of arrival from set of potential times of arrivals to generate an adjusted set of times of arrival, see [0023]).
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned in claim 3, Sendonaris further disclose the method wherein the weight includes a compressing factor that causes the magnitude of peaks in the final pseudo- spectrum to be more closely spaced (see [0059]).
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned in claim 4, Sendonaris further disclose the method wherein the compressing factor comprises a logarithm or square root function (see [0058-59]).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned in claim 3, Sendonaris further disclose the method wherein the weight includes a selective factor, which indicates a likelihood that a certain peak represents an actual distance between the two wireless network devices (see [0071]).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned in claim 1, Sendonaris further disclose the method wherein the plurality of measurements are acquired at a plurality of different frequencies (see [0070]).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned in claim 1, Sendonaris explicitly fails to disclose the method wherein pseudo-spectrums are continuously created and the final pseudo-spectrum is generated using a rolling average.
However, Sarrigeorgidis, which is an analogous art equivalently disclose the method wherein pseudo-spectrums are continuously created and the final pseudo-spectrum is generated using a rolling average (see col. 8, lines 44-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Sarrigeorgidis with Sendonaris for the benefit of achieving a communication system that performs false-peak mitigation for MUSIC-based time-of-arrival estimation using a feature-selection technique, such as LASSO.
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned in claim 1, Sendonaris further disclose the method wherein values of the distance are varied for different pseudo-spectrums (see [0105]).
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned in claim 1, Sendonaris further disclose the method wherein a first pseudo-spectrum is created using a first plurality of grid positions, and wherein based on peaks found in the first pseudo-spectrum, a number of grid positions used for subsequent pseudo-spectrums is reduced (see [0071, 0106 and 0113]).
Regarding claim 11, as mentioned in claim 1, Sendonaris further disclose the method wherein the distance is determined to be a leftmost peak in the final pseudo-spectrum (see [0071, 0106 and 0113]).
Regarding claim 12, as mentioned in claim 1, Sendonaris further disclose the method wherein the distance is determined to be a leftmost peak in the final pseudo-spectrum having a magnitude greater than a predetermined threshold (see, [0071 and 0113]).
Regarding claim 13, Sendonaris discloses a method of improving accuracy of a distance measurement between two wireless network devices (= distance estimate between transmitter and receiver, see [0007]; receiver 200 may receive one or more position/location modules for receiving signals from transmitters 110 and processing the signals to determine position/location information, see [0075]; and processing received signals to discard spurious estimates of time of arrival of the earliest signal….which may be used to improve overall positioning accuracy, see [0084]), comprising:
a. performing a channel sound procedure using the two wireless network devices so as to acquire an initial measurement (= performing multipath signal processing in Fig 7-13, see [0075-76]; and in a WAPS receiver, the direct path signal and one or more delayed signals should be separated to determine the earlier arrival time for distance estimation/ via “superresolution” algorithms, see [0084 and 0088]);
b. executing a MUSIC algorithm using the initial measurement to create a first pseudo-spectrum, wherein the first pseudo-spectrum comprises a graph that includes a plurality of grid positions that represent distance values and a magnitude associated with each of the distance values (= the orthogonality property allows for calculation of a pseudospectrum which has peaks at locations related to times of arrival of the various received signals…variety of algorithms such as MUSIC and Root-MUSIC etc., to produce such pseudospectrum, FIG 14A and 14B provides examples of pseudospectrum amplitude versus delay, see [0092 and 0108]; a superresolution algorithm or similar or equivalent algorithm may be implemented to determine a set of arrival times (TOA) of the components of the received positioning signal components, see [0110]; and the TOA may be used for distance and/or location determination of the receiver, see [0121]);
c. assigning a weight to the magnitude for each distance value in the first pseudo-spectrum (= removing selected time of arrival from set of potential times of arrivals to generate an adjusted set of times of arrival, see [0023]);
e. performing a channel sound procedure using the two wireless network devices so as to acquire a subsequent measurement (= performing multipath signal processing in Fig 7-13, see [0075-76]; and in a WAPS receiver, the direct path signal and one or more delayed signals should be separated to determine the earlier arrival time for distance estimation/ via “superresolution” algorithms, see [0084 and 0088]);
f. executing a MUSIC algorithm using the subsequent measurement to create a subsequent pseudo-spectrum (= the orthogonality property allows for calculation of a pseudospectrum which has peaks at locations related to times of arrival of the various received signals…variety of algorithms such as MUSIC and Root-MUSIC etc., to produce such pseudospectrum, FIG 14A and 14B provides examples of pseudospectrum amplitude versus delay, see [0092 and 0108]; a superresolution algorithm or similar or equivalent algorithm may be implemented to determine a set of arrival times (TOA) of the components of the received positioning signal components, see [0110]; and the TOA may be used for distance and/or location determination of the receiver, see [0121]);
g. assigning a weight to the magnitude for each distance value in the subsequent pseudo-spectrum (= removing selected time of arrival from set of potential times of arrivals to generate an adjusted set of times of arrival, see [0023]).
Sendonaris explicitly fails to disclose the claim limitations of “
d. multiplying the weight and the magnitude for each distance value to generate a final pseudo-spectrum;
h. multiplying the weight and the magnitude for each distance value in the subsequent pseudo-spectrum with a corresponding value in the final pseudo-spectrum and using a product of the multiplying as a new value in the final pseudo-spectrum; and
i. determining a distance between the two wireless network devices based on the final pseudo-spectrum.”
However, Sarrigeorgidis which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
“d. multiplying the weight and the magnitude for each distance value to generate a final pseudo-spectrum (= see the mathematical express for moving-average and final covariance matrix estimation, see col. 11, line 31-col. 12, line 19; and col. 12, lines 53-61);
h. multiplying the weight and the magnitude for each distance value in the subsequent pseudo-spectrum with a corresponding value in the final pseudo-spectrum and using a product of the multiplying as a new value in the final pseudo-spectrum
(= see the mathematical express for moving-average and final covariance matrix estimation, see col. 11, line 31-col. 12, line 19; and col. 12, lines 53-61); and
i. determining a distance between the two wireless network devices based on the final pseudo-spectrum (= circuit 314 may generate pseudospectra 318, see col. 8, lines 44-60; and in some embodiment, interface circuit 341 can determine a distance 326 between device 110-1 and access point 112, see col. 9, lines 6-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Sarrigeorgidis with Sendonaris for the benefit of achieving a communication system that performs false-peak mitigation for MUSIC-based time-of-arrival estimation using a feature-selection technique, such as LASSO.
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned in claim 13, Sendonaris explicitly fails to disclose the method wherein steps e-h are repeated a plurality of times.
However, Sarrigeorgidis, which is an analogous art equivalently disclose the method wherein steps e-h are repeated a plurality of times (see col. 12, line 53- col. 13, line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Sarrigeorgidis with Sendonaris for the benefit of achieving a communication system that performs false-peak mitigation for MUSIC-based time-of-arrival estimation using a feature-selection technique, such as LASSO.
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned in claim 13, Sendonaris further disclose the method wherein the weight includes a compressing factor that causes the magnitude of peaks in the final pseudo-spectrum to be more closely spaced (see [0059]).
Regarding claim 16, as mentioned in claim 15, Sendonaris further disclose the method wherein the compressing factor comprises a logarithm or square root function (see [0058-59]).
Regarding claim 17, as mentioned in claim 13, Sendonaris further disclose the method wherein the weight includes a selective factor, which indicates a likelihood that a certain peak represents an actual distance between the two wireless network devices (see [0071]).
Regarding claim 18, as mentioned in claim 14, Sendonaris further disclose the method wherein the plurality of subsequent measurements are acquired at a plurality of different frequencies (see [0070]).
Regarding claim 19, as mentioned in claim 13, Sendonaris further disclose the method wherein the distance is determined to be a leftmost peak in the final pseudo-spectrum (see [0071, 0106 and 0113]).
Regarding claim 20, as mentioned in claim 13, Sendonaris further disclose the method wherein the distance is determined to be a leftmost peak in the final pseudo-spectrum having a magnitude greater than a predetermined threshold (see, [0071 and 0113]).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KWASI KARIKARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8566. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904. 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.
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.