DETAILED ACTIONStatus of the Claims
This office action is in response to communication(s) filed on March 23rd, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 23rd, 2026 have been fully considered but are respectfully found to be not persuasive for at least the following reason(s).
In regard to applicant’s remarks March 23rd, 2026 (i.e. on pg. 2-5), regarding the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. §103 with regards to claims 1, 6 and 14, applicant asserts that
In rejecting claim 14, the Office Action concedes that "Amsalem fails to teach the limitation: modifying in response to identifying the tag as exhibiting the zone ambiguity condition, a transmission power of the signals used to track the location of the tag until the tag no longer exhibits the zone ambiguity condition" and therefore cites Chung as allegedly disclosing the same. See Office Action at page 3, lines 9-18 citing Chung at ¶ 25, 43-46, and 78. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Chung merely generically describes that (1) "[e]ach RFID tag preferably transmits electromagnetic signals at different relative levels of transmitted power at different times, e.g., according to a defined sequence," (2) the system employs "dynamic zoning" and "recursive zoning" to "overcome the effect of the less than ideal reception of the messages transmitted by the RFID tags T," and (3) "a transmission power level, a sequence of transmission power levels,... may be stored in memory M" of an RFID tag T. See Chung at ¶ 25, 43-46, and 78. Thus, Chung is silent regarding "modifying, ... a transmission power of the signals used to track the location of the tag," as required in claim 14.
Indeed, in Chung, the RFID tags Tare merely programmed to "transmit[t] electromagnetic signals at different relative levels of transmitted power at different times, e.g., according to a defined sequence," and/or store "a transmission power level, a sequence of transmission power levels ... " See Chung at ¶ 25 and 78. Additionally, Chung employs "dynamic zoning" and "recursive zoning" to "overcome the effect of the less than ideal reception of the messages transmitted by the RFID tags T." See Chung at ¶ 43-46. However, "dynamic zoning" and "recursive zoning" merely require "weight[ing] the received messages relative to their respective power levels." See Chung at ¶ 44 and 45. One of ordinary skill would understand that "weighting the received messages relative to their respective power levels" in Chung is not synonymous with "modifying, ... a transmission power of the signals used to track the location of the tag," as required in claim 14.
Therefore, Amsalem and Chung do not disclose, teach or suggest a system performing, among other features, "modifying, in response to identifying the tag as exhibiting the zone ambiguity condition, a transmission power of the signals used to track the location of the tag until the tag no longer exhibits the zone ambiguity condition," as recited in independent claim 14.
Applicant’s argument(s) are fully considered, however found to be not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
Chung discloses circumstances in which location determination may unreliable as a result of less than ideal reception of tag transmissions and therefore, there is an identified need to improve location resolution (Chung, Page 4, Paragraph 43-46, messages transmitted by an RFID tag T at a given power level or at different power levels are received by two or more relay devices 30 wherein there is no ordinary intersecting area for the circles 31, 32 corresponding to the received messages and power levels of the sort illustrated in FIGS. 1A and 1B. This could arise, for example, due to objects blocking transmissions, weather and other environmental conditions, reflections and other interferences and the like. In such instances, alternative locating processes may be employed to overcome the effect of the less than ideal reception of the messages transmitted by the RFID tags T by relay devices 30.)
Chung further teaches that location determination is performed using tag transmission at multiple transmission power levels and that varying transmission power. As a result, the set of relay devices receiving the transmissions used for location determination changes as the power level changes. (Chung, Pages 2-3, Page 2, Paragraph 25,” each RFID tag preferably transmits electromagnetic signals at different relative levels of transmitted power at different times, e.g., according to a defined sequence. Signals received by the relay devices 30 and the transmitted relative power level of the received signals are employed to locate the RFID tag T when it is within the area 20. Monitoring includes, but is not limited to, locating and/or tracking”; Paragraphs 33-36, RFID tag T capable of transmitting signals at different levels of transmitted power in on a self-controlled sequencing basis or on a random basis).
Furthermore, Chung discloses programmable power level control, including control information, such as transmission power levels and sequences of transmission power levels, stored in device memory (Chung, Page 8, Paragraph 78, RFID device T and relay device 30 also include a memory device M, typically a read-only memory, although it may be a programable read-only memory such as an EEPROM. Memory device M is coupled to transmitter RT for providing information to be modulated and transmitted thereby, and for providing control information. Information such as… a transmission power level, a sequence of transmission power levels, one or more transmission time intervals, and the like, may be stored in memory M) and adjusting device operating behavior through internal controls or external programming commands (Pages 8-9, Paragraphs 83-85, configuration and characteristics of device operating modes), wherein the transmission rates of an operating mode is adjustable, each transmission includes transmissions at multiple power levels (Page 9, Paragraph 86, operations using transmissions at two or more different power levels).
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Chung discloses transmitting location-tracking signals at multiple power levels, storing transmission power levels and sequences of transmission power levels as operating parameters, and programmable operating modes that include transmissions at multiple power levels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably interpret that Amsalem in view of Chung teaches the system of claim 14, wherein “modifying, in response to identifying the tag as exhibiting the zone ambiguity condition, a transmission power of the signals used to track the location of the tag until the tag no longer exhibits the zone ambiguity condition.” Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. §103 over the prior arts of record, Amsalem in view of Chung, with regards to claims 1, 6 and 14 are remained proper and therefore maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amsalem et al. US 2017 0230801 A1 (hereinafter “Amsalem”) in view of Chung et al. US 2006 0055552A1 (hereinafter “Chung”).
Regarding Claim 14, Amsalem teaches a system, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform operations including (Page 4, Paragraph 33, Fig. 1, computer module 13, location engine of the location system):
tracking a location of a tag among a plurality of zones via signals transmitted by the tag (Page 4, Paragraph 33, radio frequency tag 5a) that are received by one or more anchors of a plurality of anchors, each anchor of the plurality of anchors being associated with a corresponding zone of the plurality of zones (Page 4, Paragraph 33, radio frequency units 7), and the tag is tracked as being located in no more than one zone of the plurality of zones at any given time (Page 3, Paragraph 21, communication via RF units, RF signal [BLE]); identifying that the tag exhibits a zone ambiguity condition (Page 6, Paragraphs 49-52, level of confidence in the room location determination decision); and
Amsalem fails to teach the limitation: modifying, in response to identifying the tag as exhibiting the zone ambiguity condition, a transmission power of the signals used to track the location of the tag until the tag no longer exhibits the zone ambiguity condition.
However, Chung further teaches the limitation:
modifying, in response to identifying the tag as exhibiting the zone ambiguity condition (Chung, Page 4, Paragraphs 43-46, less than ideal reception of messages transmitted by tag), a transmission power of the signals used to track the location of the tag until the tag no longer exhibits the zone ambiguity condition (Chung, Pages 2-3, Paragraph 25 and 33-35, tag transmits signals at different levels of transmitted power; Pages 8-9, Paragraph 78 and 86, stored control information, including transmission power levels, operating modes that include transmissions at multiple power levels).
Although Amsalem addresses the remaining limitations of Claim 14, Chung demonstrates the following limitations of a system, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (Chung, Page 2, Paragraphs 26-28, tracking station TS), perform operations including:
tracking a location of a tag among a plurality of zones via signals transmitted by the tag that are received by one or more anchors of a plurality of anchors, each anchor of the plurality of anchors being associated with a corresponding zone of the plurality of zones (Page 2, Paragraphs 26-27, Fig. 1, device T, plurality of relay devices 30, area 20), and the tag is tracked as being located in no more than one zone of the plurality of zones at any given time (Chung, Page 3, Paragraph 36); identifying that the tag exhibits a zone ambiguity condition (Page 4, Paragraphs 43-46).
Chung and Amsalem are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of position-fixing by coordinating two or more direction or position line determinations and radio direction-finding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amsalem to incorporate the teachings of Chung for modifying, in response to identifying the tag as exhibiting the zone ambiguity condition, a transmission power of the signals used to track the location of the tag until the tag no longer exhibits the zone ambiguity condition.
Regarding Claim 1, Amsalem in view of Chung teaches a method (Amsalem, Page 4, Paragraph 36, Figs. 2a-2b), comprising:
transmitting a poll request to a tag via one or more anchors of a plurality of anchors respectively positioned in a plurality of zones (Amsalem, Page 4, Paragraph 37-38, opening advertising channels);
receiving poll request responses from at least two anchors of the plurality of anchors when the at least two anchors of the plurality of anchors receive a signal from the tag (Amsalem, Page 4, Paragraph 39, mobile unit collects beacon signals; Chung, Pages 3-4, Paragraphs 40-41, relay devices receive information transmitted by tag);
storing the poll request responses received from the at least two anchors to a first queue (Amsalem, Pages 4-5, Paragraph 40, list of measured RSS values of the received beacon signals);
storing a weight for each anchor of the at least two anchors to a second queue (Amsalem, Page 6, Paragraph 49, calculated room-representative received signal strength);
identifying a zone of the plurality of zones in which the tag is located based on the second queue (Amsalem, Pages 5-6, Paragraphs 47, 51-52, highest room representative, level of confidence in determination); and
modifying a transmission signal power of the tag (Chung, Page 2, Paragraph 25, tag transmits signals at different levels of power; Page 8, Paragraph 78, control information, transmission power levels) when the tag exhibits a zone ambiguity condition associated with the identified zone and at least one other zone of the plurality of zones in which the tag was previously located (Chung, Page 4, Paragraphs 43-46).
Method Claim 6 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in Claim 14. Therefore, method Claim 6 corresponds to apparatus Claim 14 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness used above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amsalem as modified by Chung and further in view of Sugar et al. US 2022 0369068 A1 (hereinafter “Sugar”).
Regarding Claim 2, Amsalem in view of Chung teaches the method of claim 1, wherein when the at least two anchors of the plurality of anchors receive the signal from the tag, each anchor of the at least two anchors:
identifies a tag identification (ID) (Amsalem, Page 3, Paragraph 26, device identifier, RF unit identifier; Chung, Page 11, Paragraphs 110-111, identifier);
determines a set of parameters including a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) (Amsalem, Page 3, Paragraph 20, RSSI), an azimuth of the tag, and an elevation of the tag; and
transmits the tag ID, the set of parameters, and an anchor ID of the given anchor to a tracking system (Amsalem, Page 3, Paragraph 26, identifier transmitted as part of a wireless message; Chung, Page 11, Paragraphs 110-111, identifier, transmitted as part of the stored data).
Amsalem in view of Chung fails to fully teach the limitation: determines a set of parameters including a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI), an azimuth of the tag, and an elevation of the tag; and
However, Sugar further teaches the limitation:
determines a set of parameters including a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) (Sugar, Page 4, Paragraph 51, RSSI measurement), an azimuth of the tag, and an elevation of the tag (Sugar, Page 3, Paragraph 47, azimuth angle, elevation angle to the tag device);
Although Amsalem in view of Chung addresses the remaining limitations of claim 2, Sugar demonstrates the method of claim 1, wherein when the at least two anchors of the plurality of anchors (Sugar, Page 8, Paragraphs 94-96, Fig. 16, multiple monitors) receive the signal from the tag (Sugar, Page 8, Paragraph 88, tag device, zones 121, multi-zone range), each anchor of the at least two anchors:
identifies a tag identification (ID) (Sugar, Pages 3-4, Paragraph 50, tag device ID);
determines a set of parameters including a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI), an azimuth of the tag, and an elevation of the tag (Sugar, Page 3, Paragraph 47, azimuth and elevation of the tag; Page 4, Paragraph 51, RSSI); and
transmits the tag ID, the set of parameters, and an anchor ID of the given anchor to a tracking system (Sugar, Pages 3-4, Paragraph 50, monitor ID, transmit the room detection event message).
Sugar, Amsalem and Chung are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of services specially adapted for wireless communication networks. Furthermore, Sugar incorporates these determinations in the disclosed disambiguation procedure in the event that the tag has an associated entry event within multiple rooms during the same time period (Sugar, Page 6, Paragraph 68, disambiguation process 60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amsalem in view of Chung to incorporate the teachings of Sugar to wherein each anchor of the at least two anchors determines a set of parameters including an azimuth of the tag, and an elevation of the tag. Doing so would assist the tracking system in accurately distinguishing an associated zone by incorporating the determined directional information from the azimuth and elevation of the tag.
Claims 3-5, 11-13, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amsalem as modified by Chung and further in view of Valentino et al. US 2019 0311596 A1 (hereinafter “Valentino”).
Regarding Claim 3, Amsalem in view of Chung teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
comparing a first anchor ID of a first received poll request response from the tag with a highest anchor ID associated with a highest weight in the second queue (Amsalem, Page 6, Paragraph 50, room separation factor; Page 8, Paragraph 64, beacon representative RSS).
Amsalem in view of Chung fails to teach the limitation:
incrementing, when the first anchor ID does not match the highest anchor ID, a current jitter counter.
However, Valentino further teaches the limitation:
incrementing, when the first anchor ID does not match the highest anchor ID, a current jitter counter (Valentino, Page 4, Paragraphs 45, monitor on-device data 320 to identify jitter).
Valentino, Chung and Amsalem are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using radio beacon systems for determining position. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amsalem in view of Chung to incorporate the teachings of Valentino in incrementing, when the first anchor ID does not match the current anchor ID, a current jitter counter. Doing so would allow the detection of a zone ambiguous condition through monitoring of inconsistencies between current measurements and historical zone dominance.
Regarding Claim 4, Amsalem as modified by Chung and further in view of Valentino teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising:
comparing a second anchor ID of a second received poll request response from the tag after the first anchor ID was received with the highest anchor ID associated with the highest weight in the second queue (Amsalem, Page 6, Paragraph 50, room separation factor; Page 8, Paragraph 64, beacon representative RSS; Chung, Page 4, Paragraph 45, weights assigned);
comparing the current jitter counter against a jitter counter threshold when the second anchor ID matches the highest anchor ID and the current jitter counter is not equal to zero (Valentino, Page 4, Paragraphs 44-45, monitor on-device data 320 to identify jitter, threshold);
identifying that the tag exhibits the zone ambiguity condition when the current jitter counter is greater than the jitter counter threshold (Chung, Page 4, Paragraph 46; Valentino, Page 4, Paragraphs 44-45, monitor on-device data 320 to identify jitter, threshold); and
instructing, in response to identifying the tag exhibiting the zone ambiguity condition, the tag to enable a power diversity mode at the tag through the plurality of anchors (Chung, Page 2, Paragraph 25; Page 8, Paragraph 78).
Regarding Claim 5, Amsalem in view of Chung teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the power diversity mode adjusts the transmission signal power of the tag to a different level (Chung, Page 8, Paragraph 78, control information, transmission power levels) and the transmission signal power of the tag remains unchanged until a next time the zone ambiguity condition is identified (Amsalem, Page 6, Paragraphs 49-52, level of confidence in the room location determination decision; Chung, Page 4, Paragraph 43, less than ideal reception of transmitted messages by the tag; Page 9, Paragraphs 84-86, programmable transmission intervals, transmission power levels).
Regarding Claim 11, Amsalem as modified by Chung and further in view of Valentino teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising:
tracking a duration (Chung, Page 8, Paragraph 79, storing received information; Page 10, Paragraphs 97-99, location of the device T may be tracked over time) that the tag exhibits the zone ambiguity condition (Amsalem, Page 6, Paragraphs 49-52, level of confidence in the room location determination decision; Chung, Page 4, Paragraph 43, less than ideal reception of transmitted messages by the tag); and
transmitting, in response to the duration satisfying a threshold, an alert to a device associated with the tag (Chung, Page 13, Paragraph 123, alert under predetermined conditions; Valentino, Page 4, Paragraph 44, alert, alert thresholds).
Regarding Claim 12, Amsalem in view of Chung teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising:
instructing the tag to reserve use of a highest available transmission power level (Chung, Page 2, Paragraph 25, tag transmits signals at different levels of transmitted power; Page 8, Paragraph 78, control information, transmission power levels) when exhibiting the zone ambiguity condition (Amsalem, Page 6, Paragraphs 49-52, level of confidence in the room location determination decision; Chung, Page 4, Paragraph 43, less than ideal reception of transmitted messages by the tag).
Regarding Claim 13, Amsalem as modified by Chung teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising:
tracking a duration that the tag does not exhibit the zone ambiguity condition (Amsalem, Page 6, Paragraphs 49-52, level of confidence in the room location determination decision; Chung, Page 8, Paragraph 79, storing received information, Page 10, Paragraphs 97-99, location of the device T may be tracked over time); and
transmitting, in response to the duration satisfying a threshold, an instruction to the tag to reduce the transmission power (Chung, Page 9, Paragraphs 84-86, programmable transmission intervals, transmission power levels).
Regarding Claim 19, Amsalem as modified by Chung and further in view of Valentino teaches the system of claim 14, the operations further comprising:
tracking a duration (Chung, Page 8, Paragraph 79, storing received information; Page 10, Paragraphs 97-99, location of the device T may be tracked over time) that the tag exhibits the zone ambiguity condition (Amsalem, Page 6, Paragraphs 49-52, level of confidence in the room location determination decision; Chung, Page 4, Paragraph 43, less than ideal reception of transmitted messages by the tag) and
transmitting, in response to the duration satisfying a threshold, an alert to a supervisory device associated with the tag (Chung, Page 13, Paragraph 123, alert under predetermined conditions; Valentino, Page 4, Paragraph 44, alert, alert thresholds).
Regarding Claim 20, Amsalem in view of Chung teaches the system of claim 14, the operations further comprising:
instructing the tag to reserve use of a highest available transmission power level (Chung, Page 2, Paragraph 25, tag transmits signals at different levels of transmitted power; Page 8, Paragraph 78, control information, transmission power levels) when exhibiting the zone ambiguity condition (Amsalem, Page 6, Paragraphs 49-52, level of confidence in the room location determination decision).
Claims 7-10, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amsalem as modified by Chung in view of Valentino and further in view of Keal et al. US 2019 0104383 A1 (hereinafter “Keal”).
Regarding Claim 7, Amsalem as modified by Chung and further in view of Valentino teaches the method of claim 6, wherein identifying the tag as exhibiting the zone ambiguity condition comprises:
storing an anchor identification (ID) of each anchor of the plurality of anchors and a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) for the signals as received by each anchor of the plurality of anchors from the tag to fill a first queue (Amsalem, Page 8, Paragraphs 60-61, computer module 13 prepares a list of all the received RSS reports, RF unit identifier; Chung, Page 8, Paragraph 78, stored information; Page 21, Paragraph 202, listing of the identities of the devices present);
weighting the first queue based on a number of entries for each anchor of the plurality of anchors in the first queue and associated RSSIs thereof to generate a weight for each anchor of the plurality of anchors (Amsalem, Page 8, Paragraph 64, representative RSS, RF unit; Chung, Page 4, Paragraph 45, weights assigned) in a second queue; and
tracking, based on a current jitter counter value relative to a threshold (Valentino, Page 4, Paragraphs 45, monitor on-device data 320 to identify jitter; Chung, Page 20, Paragraph 195, collision avoidance methods), whether the tag is non-consecutively associated with a queued anchor of the plurality of anchors with a highest weight in the second queue.
Amsalem as modified by Chung and further in view of Valentino fails to fully teach the limitations: weighting the first queue based on a number of entries for each anchor of the plurality of anchors in the first queue and associated RSSIs thereof to generate a weight for each anchor of the plurality of anchors in a second queue; and
tracking, based on a current jitter counter value relative to a threshold, whether the tag is non-consecutively associated with a queued anchor of the plurality of anchors with a highest weight in the second queue.
However, Keal further teaches the limitation:
weighting the first queue based on a number of entries for each anchor of the plurality of anchors in the first queue (Keal, Page 2, Paragraph 20, sensors, Paragraph 22, sensed condition of the structure) and associated RSSIs thereof to generate a weight for each anchor of the plurality of anchors in a second queue (Keal, Page 2, Paragraph 25, combined set of weighted likelihoods); and
tracking, based on a current jitter counter value relative to a threshold, whether the tag is non-consecutively associated with a queued anchor of the plurality of anchors with a highest weight in the second queue (Keal, Page 2, Paragraph 26, greatest weighted likelihoods of the combined set of likelihoods).
Although Amsalem as modified by Chung and further in view of Valentino addresses the remaining limitations of claim 7, Keal demonstrates the method of claim 6, wherein identifying the tag as exhibiting the zone ambiguity condition comprises:
storing an anchor identification (ID) of each anchor of the plurality of anchors and a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) for the signals as received by each anchor of the plurality of anchors from the tag (Keal, Page 4, Paragraphs 42-43, RSSI between the sensors 410, 412 and tag 550) to fill a first queue (Keal, Page 2, Paragraph 20, sensors, Paragraph 22, sensed condition of the structure);
Keal, Valentino, Chung and Amsalem are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using radio beacon systems for determining position. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amsalem as modified by Chung and further in view of Valentino to incorporate the teachings of Keal for weighting the first queue based on a number of entries for each anchor of the plurality of anchors in the first queue and associated RSSIs thereof to generate a weight for each anchor of the plurality of anchors in a second queue; and tracking, based on a current jitter counter value relative to a threshold, whether the tag is non-consecutively associated with a queued anchor of the plurality of anchors with a highest weight in the second queue. Doing so would enable a tracking system to more accurately detect a zone ambiguity condition by generating a secondary queue of weighted historical anchor dominance values, which could be considered alongside of a jitter counter threshold to identify persistent nonconsecutive associations.
Regarding Claim 8, Amsalem as modified by Valentino and further in view of Keal teaches the method of claim 7, wherein tracking whether the tag is non-consecutively associated with the queued anchor further comprises:
comparing a first anchor ID of a first received poll request response from the tag with a highest anchor ID associated with a highest weight in the second queue (Amsalem, Page 6, Paragraph 50, room separation factor; Keal, Page 2, Paragraph 28, Fig. 2, exemplary map 210, weighted likelihood, first condition of the structure);
incrementing, when the first anchor ID does not match the highest anchor ID, a current jitter counter (Valentino, Page 4, Paragraphs 45, monitor on-device data 320 to identify jitter);
comparing a second anchor ID of a second received poll request response from the tag after the first anchor ID was received with the highest anchor ID associated with the highest weight in the second queue (Amsalem, Page 6, Paragraph 50, room separation factor; Keal, Page 2, Paragraph 29, Fig. 2, exemplary map 220, weighted likelihood, second condition of the structure); and
comparing the current jitter counter against the threshold when the second anchor ID matches the highest anchor ID and the current jitter counter is not equal to zero (Valentino, Page 4, Paragraphs 45, monitor on-device data 320 to identify jitter).
Regarding Claim 9, Amsalem as modified by Chung and further in view of Keal teaches the method of claim 6, wherein modifying the transmission power of the signals used to track the location of the tag further comprises, when the tag operates in a bi-directional communication mode with the plurality of anchors (Amsalem, Page 4, Paragraph 34, bi-directional; Keal, Page 5, Paragraphs 59-60, Page 6, Paragraph 76, bi-directional communication):
instructing the tag to modify, based on an output of a random number generator, the transmission power at a subsequent polling time to be one of higher than or lower than the transmission power at a current polling time (Chung, Page 3, Paragraph 35, tag capable of transmitting at different power levels on a random basis).
Regarding Claim 10, Amsalem as modified by Chung and further in view of Keal teaches the method of claim 6, wherein modifying the transmission power of the signals used to track the location of the tag further comprises, when the tag operates in a uni-directional communication mode with the plurality of anchors (Amsalem, Page 4, Paragraph 35, uni-directional; Keal, Page 6, Paragraph 76, using lower transmit power of the tag is varied over time):
receiving a plurality of beacon signals from the tag with different power levels in response to a polling interval occurring (Chung, Page 3, Paragraph 35, tag capable of transmitting at different power levels on a self-controlled basis); and
selecting a given beacon signal from the plurality of beacon signals for a current polling time with a different power level than a previously selected beacon signal for a previous polling time (Chung, Page 3, Paragraph 36, selection of transmitted tag signals among power levels).
Regarding Claim 15, Amsalem as modified by Chung in view of Valentino and further in view of Keal teaches the system of claim 14, wherein identifying the tag as exhibiting the zone ambiguity condition comprises:
storing an anchor identification (ID) of each anchor of the plurality of anchors and a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) for the signals as received by each anchor of the plurality of anchors from the tag to fill a first queue (Amsalem, Page 8, Paragraphs 60-61, computer module 13 prepares a list of all the received RSS reports, RF unit identifier; Chung, Page 8, Paragraph 78, stored information; Page 21, Paragraph 202, listing of the identities of the devices present; Keal, Page 2, Paragraph 20, sensors, Paragraph 22, sensed condition of the structure);
weighting the first queue based on a number of entries for each anchor of the plurality of anchors in the first queue to generate a weight for each anchor of the plurality of anchors in a second queue (Amsalem, Page 8, Paragraph 64, representative RSS, RF unit; Chung, Page 4, Paragraph 45, weights assigned; Keal, Page 2, Paragraph 25, combined set of weighted likelihoods); and
tracking, based on a current jitter counter value relative to a threshold Valentino, Page 4, Paragraphs 45, monitor on-device data 320 to identify jitter; Chung, Page 20, Paragraph 195, collision avoidance methods), whether the tag is non-consecutively associated with a queued anchor of the plurality of anchors with a highest weight in the second queue (Keal, Page 2, Paragraph 26, greatest weighted likelihoods of the combined set of likelihoods).
Regarding Claim 16, Amsalem as modified by Valentino and further in view of Keal teaches the system of claim 15, wherein tracking whether the tag is non-consecutively associated with the queued anchor further comprises:
comparing a first anchor ID of a first received poll request response from the tag with a highest anchor ID associated with a highest weight in the second queue (Amsalem, Page 6, Paragraph 50, room separation factor; Keal, Page 2, Paragraph 28, Fig. 2, exemplary map 210, weighted likelihood, first condition of the structure);
incrementing, when the first anchor ID does not match the highest anchor ID, a current jitter counter (Valentino, Page 4, Paragraph 45, monitor on-device data 320 to identify jitter);
comparing a second anchor ID of a second received poll request response from the tag after the first anchor ID was received with the highest anchor ID associated with the highest weight in the second queue (Amsalem, Page 6, Paragraph 50, room separation factor; Keal, Page 2, Paragraph 29, Fig. 2, exemplary map 220, weighted likelihood, second condition of the structure); and
comparing the current jitter counter against the threshold when the second anchor ID matches the highest anchor ID and the current jitter counter is not equal to zero (Valentino, Page 4, Paragraph 45, monitor on-device data 320 to identify jitter).
Regarding Claim 17, Amsalem as modified by Chung and further in view of Keal teaches the system of claim 14, wherein altering the transmission power of the signals used to track the location of the tag further comprises, when the tag operates in a bi-directional communication mode with the plurality of anchors (Amsalem, Page 4, Paragraph 34, bi-directional; Keal, Page 5, Paragraphs 59-60, Page 6, Paragraph 76, bi-directional communication):
instructing the tag, based on an output of a random number generator, to modify the transmission power at a subsequent polling time to be one of higher than or lower than the transmission power at a current polling time (Chung, Page 3, Paragraph 35, tag capable of transmitting at different power levels on a random basis).
Regarding Claim 18, Amsalem as modified by Chung and further in view of Keal teaches the system of claim 14, wherein modifying the transmission power of the signals used to track the location of the tag further comprises, when the tag operates in a uni-directional communication mode with the plurality of anchors (Amsalem, Page 4, Paragraph 35, uni-directional; Keal, Page 6, Paragraph 76, using lower transmit power of the tag is varied over time):
receiving a plurality of beacon signals from the tag with different power levels in response to a polling interval occurring (Chung, Page 3, Paragraph 35, tag capable of transmitting at different power levels on a self-controlled basis); and
selecting a given beacon signal from the plurality of beacon signals for a current polling time with a different power level than a previously selected beacon signal for a previous polling time (Chung, Page 3, Paragraph 36, selection of transmitted tag signals among power levels).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GABRIELLE N DAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu. 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, AKWASI SARPONG can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/GABRIELLE N DAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2681
/AKWASI M SARPONG/SPE, Art Unit 2681 6/23/2026
Prosecution Insights