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
Applicant’s amendment filed on 23 FEB 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 8, 13, 18, and 20 have been amended. Claims 4-7 have been cancelled. Claims 21-24 have been added. Claims 1-3 and 8-24 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 13, and 18 being independent.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objection(s) raised in the previous office action dated 28 NOV 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 23 FEB 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Van den Dungen (US 2018/03556490 A1), the applicant argues that the cited reference fails to disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, specifically “wherein the quality indicator is expressed as a value between 0 and 1.” (Applicant’s remarks p. 7)
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. In the instant office action, newly cited Veit et al. (US 2024/0129754 A1) which teaches that “To ensure compatibility of the different channel quality indicators, they may be normalized in a predetermined manner. For instance, the factors maybe normalized to a range from 0 to 1.” (Veit et al. ¶ [0040]) Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is moot.
Similar arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 18-20 are also moot in light of the Veit et al. reference.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Van den Dungen (US 2018/03556490 A1) in view of Do et al. (US 2014/0179340 A1), the applicant argues that the cited reference fails to disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, specifically “using a computational device to receive the distance and quality indicator from the plurality of initiator devices, wherein the computation device uses at least three of the distance and quality indicators to determine the spatial position of the wireless device.” (Applicant’s remarks p. 8-9)
Applicant argues that “Van den Dungen never uses the quality indicator for determining position” and that “Do does not disclose that the positioning server uses these compensation values (which the Examiner interprets to be quality indicators) to actually determine the spatial position of a different wireless device.” (Applicant’s remarks p. 9)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Do et al. discloses the compensation values are provided to the device (Do et al. ¶ [0051]) Do et al. also discloses: “The positioning server 600 may receive RSSI and/or RTT measurements from a node of interest for which PCC operations are desired (hereinafter "node")… Once the improved compensated range estimates are performed in the RTT module 644 and the RSSI module 646, the compensated range values may be passed to the positioning module 642 to determine an improved position of the node, which then may be passed back to the node over the network 602.” (Do et al. ¶ [0074]-[0075]) Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
Examiner also notes that for applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI. The rejection of claim 13 is further clarified in the instant office action below.
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 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van den Dungen (US 2018/03556490 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Veit et al. (US 2024/0129754 A1, newly cited by the examiner).
Regarding claim 1 (currently amended), Van den Dungen discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Van den Dungen has been struck-through]
A method of calculating a distance between two wireless devices (Van den Dungen units 12, 14, Fig. 3) and a quality indicator associated with the distance, comprising:
performing a plurality of round trip time (RTT) procedures (Van den Dungen “Based on the elapsed time, the distance between the units 12, 14 may be measured.” - ¶ [0095]), each using one of a plurality of data channels (Van den Dungen “The plurality of links 106 may be formed between diverse antennas, or may cover different frequency bands.” - ¶ [0111]), to generate a plurality of distance measurements (Van den Dungen “It is generally preferred to establish a plurality of links between involved transceiving units 42. Consequently, the database for the distance measurement and for the derivation of the distance quality indicator may be enlarged.” - ¶ [0111]);
calculating the distance based on the plurality of distance measurements (Van den Dungen “In another embodiment of the system, the quality assessment unit is arranged to calculate the distance measurement quality indicator based on average distance-indicating values, particularly moving average distance-indicating values.” - ¶ [0038]); and
calculating the quality indicator based on the distance and the plurality of distance measurements (Van den Dungen “The distance quality indicator may for instance involve a comparison of actual distance measurement values and average distance values” - ¶ [0103]).
Veit et al. discloses:
wherein the quality indicator is expressed as a value between 0 and 1 (Veit et al. “To ensure compatibility of the different channel quality indicators, they may be normalized in a predetermined manner. For instance, the factors maybe normalized to a range from 0 to 1.” - ¶ [0040]).
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 Veit et al. into the invention of Van den Dungen to yield the invention of claim 1 above. Both Van den Dungen and Veit et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose determining quality indicators and measuring distance between communication devices in a communication system. Van den Dungen discloses the limitations of claim 1 outlined above. However, Van den Dungen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the quality indicator is expressed as a value between 0 and 1. This feature is disclosed by Veit et al. where “For instance, the factors maybe normalized to a range from 0 to 1.” (Veit et al. - ¶ [0040]). The combination of Van den Dungen and Veit et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success “To ensure compatibility of the different channel quality indicators, they may be normalized in a predetermined manner.” (Veit et al. ¶ [0040]).
Regarding claim 2 (original), Van den Dungen as modified above discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the distance is calculated as an average of the plurality of distance measurements (Van den Dungen “In another embodiment of the system, the quality assessment unit is arranged to calculate the distance measurement quality indicator based on average distance-indicating values, particularly moving average distance-indicating values.” - ¶ [0038]).
Regarding claim 21 (new), Van den Dungen as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Van den Dungen has been struck-through]
The method of claim 1
Veit et al. discloses:
wherein a value of 1 represents high confidence in the distance and 0 represents no confidence in the distance (Veit et al. “In accordance with the present disclosure, only the distance estimation radios may be enabled on those responder devices that have the highest probability of delivering reliable results, based on channel information obtained using the low-power communication radio link… A list of the responder devices with the highest channel quality indicators may then be shared with the initiator.”- ¶ [0036]).
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 Veit et al. into the invention of Van den Dungen to yield the invention of claim 21 above. Both Van den Dungen and Veit et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose determining quality indicators and measuring distance between communication devices in a communication system. Van den Dungen as modified above discloses the method of claim 1. However, Van den Dungen fails to explicitly disclose wherein a value of 1 represents high confidence in the distance and 0 represents no confidence in the distance. This feature is disclosed by Veit et al. where the highest channel quality indicators are associated with more reliable results (Veit et al. ¶ [0036]). The combination of Van den Dungen and Veit et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success “To ensure compatibility of the different channel quality indicators, they may be normalized in a predetermined manner.” (Veit et al. - ¶ [0040]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van den Dungen (US 2018/03556490 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Veit et al. (US 2024/0129754 A1, newly cited by the examiner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Do et al. (US 2014/0179340 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Regarding claim 3 (original), Van den Dungen as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Van den Dungen has been struck-through]
The method of claim 1
Do et al. discloses:
wherein the distance is calculated as a median of the plurality of distance measurements (Do et al. “This may include determining differences between each measurement pair, and computing statistics of the measurement pair (such as a mean, average, median, variance, standard deviation, etc.), which may be combined to calculate an overall uncertainty parameter per wireless channel… Either type of threshold is referred to herein as a measurement error threshold, and may be an RTT threshold and/or an RSSI threshold.” - ¶ [0080]).
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 Do et al. into the invention of Van den Dungen as modified above to yield the invention of claim 3. Van den Dungen, Veit et al. and Do et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose measuring distance between communication devices in a communication system. Van den Dungen discloses the method of claim 1. However, Van den Dungen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the distance is calculated as a median of the plurality of distance measurements. This feature is disclosed by Do et al. where “This may include determining differences between each measurement pair, and computing statistics of the measurement pair (such as a mean, average, median, variance, standard deviation, etc.), which may be combined to calculate an overall uncertainty parameter per wireless channel…” (Do et al. ¶ [0080]). The combination of Van den Dungen, Veit et al. and Do et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success “To ensure compatibility of the different channel quality indicators, they may be normalized in a predetermined manner.” (Veit et al. - ¶ [0040]) and to use the median to exclude outliers and provide a more accurate measurement while “implementing efficient compensation techniques which can address time and amplitude biases to improve range-based position determination, while avoiding costly pre-deployment efforts and/or changes to network infrastructure.” (Do et al. ¶ [0006])
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van den Dungen (US 2018/03556490 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Veit et al. (US 2024/0129754 A1, newly cited by the examiner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stanciu et al. (US 12,040,846 B2, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Regarding claim 12 (original), Van den Dungen as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Van den Dungen has been struck-through]
A method of determining a more accurate distance between two wireless devices, comprising:
performing the method of claim 1
Stanciu et al. discloses:
performing the method of claim 1 a plurality of times to obtain a plurality of distances and associated quality indicators (Stanciu et al. Col. 5, lines 51-58);
creating a weight factor corresponding to each of the plurality of distances based on the associated quality indicator (Stanciu et al. Col. 5, lines 51-58); and
calculating the more accurate distance using the plurality of distances and corresponding weighting factors (Stanciu et al. “In other cases, system 100 may estimate a new distance between initiator device 101 and reflector device 102, calculate a new DQ associated with the new distance estimation, and then calculate an average distance between initiator device 101 and reflector device 102 based upon an average between the original distance weighted by the original DQ and the new distance weighted by the new DQ.” – Col. 5, lines 51-58).
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 Stanciu et al. into the invention of Van den Dungen as modified above to yield the invention of claim 3. Van den Dungen, Veit et al. and Stanciu et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose determining quality indicators and measuring distance between communication devices in a communication system. Van den Dungen as modified above discloses the method of claim 1. However, Van den Dungen fails to explicitly disclose performing the method a plurality of times to obtain a plurality of distances and associated quality indicators, creating a weight factor corresponding to each of the plurality of distances based on the associated quality indicator, and calculating the more accurate distance using the plurality of distances and corresponding weighting factors. This feature is disclosed by Stanciu et al. where “In other cases, system 100 may estimate a new distance between initiator device 101 and reflector device 102, calculate a new DQ associated with the new distance estimation, and then calculate an average distance between initiator device 101 and reflector device 102 based upon an average between the original distance weighted by the original DQ and the new distance weighted by the new DQ.” (Stanciu et al. Col. 5, lines 51-58). The combination of Van den Dungen, Veit et al. and Stanciu et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success “To ensure compatibility of the different channel quality indicators, they may be normalized in a predetermined manner.” (Veit et al. - ¶ [0040]) and to increase the spatial resolution in reflective environments (Stanciu et al. Col. 2, lines 36-48).
Claim(s) 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van den Dungen (US 2018/03556490 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Do et al. (US 2014/0179340 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner) and Veit et al. (US 2024/0129754 A1, newly cited by the examiner).
Regarding claim 13 (currently amended), Van den Dungen discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Van den Dungen has been struck-through]
A method of determining a spatial position of a wireless device (Van den Dungen “A goal of the position detection within the context of the present disclosure may be to detect an exact position (e.g. present coordinates) of the to-be-tracked object.” - ¶ [0031]), comprising:
utilizing a plurality of initiator devices, wherein each initiator device:
performs a plurality of round trip time (RTT) procedures with the wireless device (Van den Dungen “Based on the elapsed time, the distance between the units 12, 14 may be measured.” - ¶ [0095]), each procedure using one of a plurality of data channels (Van den Dungen “The plurality of links 106 may be formed between diverse antennas, or may cover different frequency bands.” - ¶ [0111]), to generate a plurality of distance measurements (Van den Dungen “It is generally preferred to establish a plurality of links between involved transceiving units 42. Consequently, the database for the distance measurement and for the derivation of the distance quality indicator may be enlarged.” - ¶ [0111]);
calculates a distance to the wireless device based on the plurality of distance measurements (Van den Dungen “In another embodiment of the system, the quality assessment unit is arranged to calculate the distance measurement quality indicator based on average distance-indicating values, particularly moving average distance-indicating values.” - ¶ [0038]); and
calculates a quality indicator based on the distance and the plurality of distance measurements (Van den Dungen “The distance quality indicator may for instance involve a comparison of actual distance measurement values and average distance values” - ¶ [0103])
Do et al. discloses:
A method of determining a spatial position of a wireless device (Do et al. node 101, Fig. 1), comprising:
utilizing a plurality of initiator devices (Do et al. nodes 102-105, Fig. 1)
using a computational device (Do et al. positioning server 600, Fig. 6) to receive the distance and quality indicator (Do et al. uncertainty ¶ [0080]) from the plurality of initiator devices (Do et al. “These pairwise measurements may be shared between nodes for processing, and/or sent to the positioning server 600 for PCC and/or position determination.” - ¶ [0079]; it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that the uncertainty could be also received by the positioning server), wherein the computational device uses at least three (Do et al. Advanced Forward Link Trilateration (AFLT), ¶ [0048]) of the distance and quality indicators to determine the spatial position of the wireless device (Do et al. “The positioning server 600 may receive RSSI and/or RTT measurements from a node of interest for which PCC operations are desired (hereinafter "node"). The node may be a mobile station 301, and/or an AP, such as, for example, a WAN-WAPs 304a-304c and/or LAN-WAPs 306a-306d. The RSSI and/or RTT measurements may be received from the node over network 602… The positioning server 600 may also determine the position of the node using positioning module 642 using ranging information derived from the RTT and RSSI values received from the node… Once the improved compensated range estimates are performed in the RTT module 644 and the RSSI module 646, the compensated range values may be passed to the positioning module 642 to determine an improved position of the node, which then may be passed back to the node over the network 602.” - ¶ [0074]-[0075])
Veit et al. discloses:
measurements, wherein the quality indicator is expressed as a value between 0 and 1 (Veit et al. “To ensure compatibility of the different channel quality indicators, they may be normalized in a predetermined manner. For instance, the factors maybe normalized to a range from 0 to 1.” - ¶ [0040])
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 Do et al. and Veit et al. into the invention of Van den Dungen to yield the invention of claim 13 above. Van den Dungen, Do et al. and Veit et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose measuring distance between communication devices in a communication system. Van den Dungen discloses the limitations of claim 13 outlined above. However, Van den Dungen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the quality indicator is expressed as a value between 0 and 1; and using a computational device to receive the distance and quality indicator from the plurality of initiator devices, wherein the computational device uses at least three of the distance and quality indicators to determine the spatial position of the wireless device. This feature is disclosed by Do et al. where a positioning server receives the RTT and RSSI measurements and determines compensation values to use with the measurements to determine the position of a mobile device (Do et al. ¶ [0074]-[0075]), and Veit et al. where “For instance, the factors maybe normalized to a range from 0 to 1.” (Veit et al. ¶ [0040]). The combination of Van den Dungen, Do et al. and Veit et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to to use trilateration to determine the position of the wireless device (Do et al. ¶ [0031]) and implement “efficient compensation techniques which can address time and amplitude biases to improve range-based position determination, while avoiding costly pre-deployment efforts and/or changes to network infrastructure.” (Do et al. ¶ [0006]) and “To ensure compatibility of the different channel quality indicators, they may be normalized in a predetermined manner.” (Veit et al. - ¶ [0040]).
Regarding claim 14 (original), Van den Dungen as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Van den Dungen has been struck-through]
The method of claim 13
Do et al. discloses:
wherein the spatial position of the wireless device is calculated using weights determined from the quality indicators (Do et al. “These compensated pairwise measurements may be further processed statistically, and/or weighted based on the channel uncertainty computed in block (710). The processed/weighted measurements determined in block (715) may then be used to determine corresponding ranges, and then an enhanced position estimate of the node using range-based position determination (720).” - ¶ [0081]).
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 Do et al. into the invention of Van den Dungen as modified above to yield the invention of claim 14. Van den Dungen, Do et al. and Veit et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose measuring distance between communication devices in a communication system. Van den Dungen discloses the method of claim 13. However, Van den Dungen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the spatial position of the wireless device is calculated using weights determined from the quality indicators. This feature is disclosed by Do et al. where “The processed/weighted measurements determined in block (715) may then be used to determine corresponding ranges, and then an enhanced position estimate of the node using range-based position determination (720).” (Do et al. ¶ [0081]). The combination of Van den Dungen, Do et al. and Veit et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to implement “efficient compensation techniques which can address time and amplitude biases to improve range-based position determination, while avoiding costly pre-deployment efforts and/or changes to network infrastructure.” (Do et al. ¶ [0006]) and “To ensure compatibility of the different channel quality indicators, they may be normalized in a predetermined manner.” (Veit et al. - ¶ [0040]).
Regarding claim 15 (original), Van den Dungen as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Van den Dungen has been struck-through]
The method of claim 14
Do et al. discloses:
wherein the quality indicator calculated by a first initiator device is used to assign a weight to a loci of possible locations associated with the first initiator device (Do et al. “These compensated pairwise measurements may be further processed statistically, and/or weighted based on the channel uncertainty computed in block (710). The processed/weighted measurements determined in block (715) may then be used to determine corresponding ranges, and then an enhanced position estimate of the node using range-based position determination (720).” - ¶ [0081]).
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 Do et al. into the invention of Van den Dungen as modified above to yield the invention of claim 15. Van den Dungen, Do et al. and Veit et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose measuring distance between communication devices in a communication system. Van den Dungen as modified above discloses the method of claim 14. However, Van den Dungen fails to explicitly disclose the quality indicator calculated by a first initiator device is used to assign a weight to a loci of possible locations associated with the first initiator device. This feature is disclosed by Do et al. where “The processed/weighted measurements determined in block (715) may then be used to determine corresponding ranges, and then an enhanced position estimate of the node using range-based position determination (720).” (Do et al. ¶ [0081]). The combination of Van den Dungen, Do et al. and Veit et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to implement “efficient compensation techniques which can address time and amplitude biases to improve range-based position determination, while avoiding costly pre-deployment efforts and/or changes to network infrastructure.” (Do et al. ¶ [0006]) and “To ensure compatibility of the different channel quality indicators, they may be normalized in a predetermined manner.” (Veit et al. - ¶ [0040]).
Regarding claim 16 (original), Van den Dungen as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Van den Dungen has been struck-through]
The method of claim 15
Do et al. discloses:
wherein, if the quality indicator for the first initiator device is outside a predetermined range, the weight assigned is set to 0 (Do et al. “The uncertainty parameter may be used determine a test as to whether outliers are present in the pairwise measurements, which may utilize a predetermined threshold and/or a calculated threshold which is adjusted as more measurements are determined.” - ¶ [0080]).
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 Do et al. into the invention of Van den Dungen to yield the invention of claim 16 above. Van den Dungen, Do et al. and Veit et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose measuring distance between communication devices in a communication system. Van den Dungen discloses the method of claim 15. However, Van den Dungen fails to explicitly disclose that if the quality indicator for the first initiator device is outside a predetermined range, the weight assigned is set to 0. This feature is disclosed by Do et al. where “The uncertainty parameter may be used determine a test as to whether outliers are present in the pairwise measurements, which may utilize a predetermined threshold and/or a calculated threshold which is adjusted as more measurements are determined.” (Do et al. ¶ [0080]). The combination of Van den Dungen, Do et al. and Veit et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to implement “efficient compensation techniques which can address time and amplitude biases to improve range-based position determination, while avoiding costly pre-deployment efforts and/or changes to network infrastructure.” (Do et al. ¶ [0006]) and “To ensure compatibility of the different channel quality indicators, they may be normalized in a predetermined manner.” (Veit et al. - ¶ [0040]).
Regarding claim 17 (original), Van den Dungen as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Van den Dungen has been struck-through]
The method of claim 13
Do et al. discloses:
wherein a subset of distances received from the plurality of initiator devices, are used to determine the spatial position of the wireless device, wherein the subset is selected based on associated quality indicators, such that only distances deemed to be most accurate are used to determine the spatial position of the wireless device (Do et al. “In order to accurately determine position using range-based techniques, pairwise measurements between the mobile station 400 and each AP may be generated, and passed to the PCC module 426. Statistics may be generated from the pairwise measurements (such parameters as averages, variances, medians, etc. may be computed) and comparisons made to detect and remove outlier measurements.” - ¶ [0060]).
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 Do et al. into the invention of Van den Dungen to yield the invention of claim 17 above. Van den Dungen, Do et al. and Veit et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose measuring distance between communication devices in a communication system. Van den Dungen discloses the method of claim 13. However, Van den Dungen fails to explicitly disclose a subset of distances received from the plurality of initiator devices, are used to determine the spatial position of the wireless device, wherein the subset is selected based on associated quality indicators, such that only distances deemed to be most accurate are used to determine the spatial position of the wireless device. This feature is disclosed by Do et al. where “In order to accurately determine position using range-based techniques, pairwise measurements between the mobile station 400 and each AP may be generated, and passed to the PCC module 426. Statistics may be generated from the pairwise measurements (such parameters as averages, variances, medians, etc. may be computed) and comparisons made to detect and remove outlier measurements.” (Do et al. ¶ [0060]). The combination of Van den Dungen, Do et al. and Veit et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to implement “efficient compensation techniques which can address time and amplitude biases to improve range-based position determination, while avoiding costly pre-deployment efforts and/or changes to network infrastructure.” (Do et al. ¶ [0006]) and “To ensure compatibility of the different channel quality indicators, they may be normalized in a predetermined manner.” (Veit et al. - ¶ [0040]).
Regarding claim 18 (currently amended), Van den Dungen discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Van den Dungen has been struck-through]
A method of calculating a distance between two wireless devices (Van den Dungen units 12, 14, Fig. 3) and a quality indicator associated with the distance, comprising:
performing a plurality of round trip time (RTT) procedures (Van den Dungen “Based on the elapsed time, the distance between the units 12, 14 may be measured.” - ¶ [0095]), each using one of a plurality of data channels (Van den Dungen “The plurality of links 106 may be formed between diverse antennas, or may cover different frequency bands.” - ¶ [0111]), to generate a plurality of distance measurements (Van den Dungen “It is generally preferred to establish a plurality of links between involved transceiving units 42. Consequently, the database for the distance measurement and for the derivation of the distance quality indicator may be enlarged.” - ¶ [0111]);
calculating the distance based on the plurality of distance measurements (Van den Dungen “In another embodiment of the system, the quality assessment unit is arranged to calculate the distance measurement quality indicator based on average distance-indicating values, particularly moving average distance-indicating values.” - ¶ [0038]); and
.
Do et al. discloses:
calculating the quality indicator based on a receive signal strength indicator (RSSI) values of the plurality of distance measurements (Do et al. “This may include determining differences between each measurement pair, and computing statistics of the measurement pair (such as a mean, average, median, variance, standard deviation, etc.), which may be combined to calculate an overall uncertainty parameter per wireless channel…Either type of threshold is referred to herein as a measurement error threshold, and may be an RTT threshold and/or an RSSI threshold.” - ¶ [0080]),
Veit et al. discloses:
wherein the quality indicator is expressed as a value between 0 and 1 (Veit et al. “To ensure compatibility of the different channel quality indicators, they may be normalized in a predetermined manner. For instance, the factors maybe normalized to a range from 0 to 1.” - ¶ [0040]).
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 Do et al. and Veit et al. into the invention of Van den Dungen to yield the invention of claim 18 above. Van den Dungen, Do et al. and Veit et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose measuring distance between communication devices in a communication system. Van den Dungen discloses the limitations of claim 18 outlined above. However, Van den Dungen fails to explicitly disclose calculating the quality indicator based on a receive signal strength indicator (RSSI) values of the plurality of distance measurements, wherein the quality indicator is expressed as a value between 0 and 1. This feature is disclosed by Do et al. where “Either type of threshold is referred to herein as a measurement error threshold, and may be an RTT threshold and/or an RSSI threshold.” (Do et al. ¶ [0080]), and Veit et al. where “For instance, the factors maybe normalized to a range from 0 to 1.” (Veit et al. - ¶ [0040]). The combination of Van den Dungen and Do et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to implement “efficient compensation techniques which can address time and amplitude biases to improve range-based position determination, while avoiding costly pre-deployment efforts and/or changes to network infrastructure.” (Do et al. ¶ [0006]) and “To ensure compatibility of the different channel quality indicators, they may be normalized in a predetermined manner.” (Veit et al. - ¶ [0040]).
Regarding claim 19 (original), Van den Dungen as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Van den Dungen has been struck-through]
The method of claim 18
Do et al. discloses:
wherein the quality indicator is calculated using a standard deviation of a plurality of RSSI values (Do et al. “This may include determining differences between each measurement pair, and computing statistics of the measurement pair (such as a mean, average, median, variance, standard deviation, etc.), which may be combined to calculate an overall uncertainty parameter per wireless channel… Either type of threshold is referred to herein as a measurement error threshold, and may be an RTT threshold and/or an RSSI threshold.” - ¶ [0080]).
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 Do et al. into the invention of Van den Dungen as modified above to yield the invention of claim 19 above. Van den Dungen, Do et al. and Veit et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose measuring distance between communication devices in a communication system. Van den Dungen as modified above discloses the method of claim 18. However, Van den Dungen fails to explicitly disclose calculating the quality indicator based on a receive signal strength indicator (RSSI) values of the plurality of distance measurements. This feature is disclosed by Do et al. where “Either type of threshold is referred to herein as a measurement error threshold, and may be an RTT threshold and/or an RSSI threshold.” (Do et al. ¶ [0080])v. The combination of Van den Dungen, Do et al. and Veit et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to implement “efficient compensation techniques which can address time and amplitude biases to improve range-based position determination, while avoiding costly pre-deployment efforts and/or changes to network infrastructure.” (Do et al. ¶ [0006]) and “To ensure compatibility of the different channel quality indicators, they may be normalized in a predetermined manner.” (Veit et al. - ¶ [0040]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11, 20 and 23-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 8, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or render obvious, either alone or in combination, the quality indicator is defined as 1 minus a product of a scaling factor multiplied by a distance deviation.
Claims 9-11 are objected to for depending from allowable claim 8.
Regarding dependent claim 20, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or render obvious, either alone or in combination, the quality indicator defined as 1 minus a product of a scaling factor multiplied by the standard deviation of the plurality of RSSI values.
Regarding dependent claim 23, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or render obvious, either alone or in combination, the quality indicator is defined as 1 minus a product of a scaling factor multiplied by a standard deviation of a plurality of RSSI values.
Regarding dependent claim 24, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or render obvious, either alone or in combination, the quality indicator is defined as 1 minus a product of a scaling factor multiplied by a distance deviation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
20 MAY 2026
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights