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
The amendment filed on 05/01/2026 has been fully considered and entered into record.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 16, and 19 are amended
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that
Hollar does not disclose a mobile device and a UWB device each having both a UWB function and an out-of-band (OOB) function. However, the present rejection does not rely on Hollar alone for these limitations. Rather, Edwards teaches devices having both UWB and Wi-Fi/Bluetooth radios constitute the claimed OOB function, and further teaches discovery of UWB peer devices before ranging. Therefore, the combination of Hollar and Edwards teaches or at least renders obvious the disputed limitations.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 16 are likewise unpersuasive because the present rejection relies on Hollar in view of Edwards and further in view of Shin for the amended limitations concerning receiving coordinates of the UWB device, computing coordinates of the UWB device and the relative position to the UWB device, and transmitting the coordinates.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Hollar et al. (US 20210304577 A1, hereinafter “Hollar”), and in view of Edwards (US 12340472 B2, hereinafter “Edwards”)
Regarding Claim 1, Hollar teaches, a method for pairing an ultra-wideband (UWB) device in a local wireless network, “Methods have been discussed herein for associating a tag with visual attributes of the tagged object. This was done by pairing a tag with a recognized object”, and “To create the RTLS network, UWB, camera, and UWB/camera location devices are distributed throughout a facility.” [0067]
obtaining, by a mobile device, device information of the UWB device, “the UWB tag's unique identifier serves as a look up reference to the tagged object's properties” [0080], and “The UWB tag's unique identifier could be a media access control (MAC) address” [0080]
performing, by the mobile device, a UWB ranging operation with the UWB device to obtain position information of the UWB device, “The smart phone (smart device) 601 contains both a UWB tracking unit 603 and a camera senor unit 602.” [0082], and “The UWB location unit 603 performs an AoA measurement from the tag's 606 signal and determines the angle to be θ.” [0084], and “To further correlate or affirm the location of the tag on the image, a ToF measurement can be made to measure the distance 605 between the phone and the tag 606.” [0084]
displaying, by the mobile device and on a user interface widget, an augmented reality (AR) indicator showing a location of the UWB device based on the position information of the UWB device, “the user can use the phone in an augmented reality context to find the tag.” [0083], and “its location within the 2D frame of the image is overlaid onto the image 608” [0083], and “Therefore, the relative location of the tag 606 can be determined and overlaid on the image 608” [0084], and “An arrow pointing to the item could also be used as well.” [0099]
However, Hollar does not expressly teach, wherein each of the mobile device and the UJWB device is enabled with an UWB function and an out-of- band (OOB) function; and
discovering, by the mobile device using the device information and the OOB function, the UWB device within a perimeter of the local wireless network.
In the same field of endeavor, Edwards teaches devices containing both UWB and non-UWB radios, wherein each of the mobile device and the UJWB device is enabled with an UWB function and an out-of- band (OOB) function, “The one or more wireless radios may include a UWB radio and a WIFI radio” [Col. 3, lines 60-62], and “network device 102 and each of the devices depicted in environment 250 (e.g., sensor 202, smart TV 204, camera 206, thermostat 208, speaker 210, stream box 212, router 214 and tablet 216) may comprise one or more of a Wi-Fi radio, an UWB radio, a Bluetooth radio” [Col. 12, lines 27-32].
discovering, by the mobile device using the device information and the OOB function, the UWB device within a perimeter of the local wireless network, “the second network device retrieves a network address of the first network device” [Col. 3, lines 9-11], and further “control circuitry 804 may receive a network address for the UWB radio 818 of tablet 216” [Col. 33, lines 22-24]. The retrieved network address constitutes device information associated with the discovered UWB device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hollar’s UWB ranging and AR location display system to incorporate Edwards’ device-discovery technique because Edwards teaches obtaining device information, including a network address associated with a UWB device, through a communication channel separate from the UWB ranging channel. Incorporating Edwards’ discovery mechanism into Hollar would have predictably enabled identification and discovery of the UWB device before UWB ranging using known communication techniques for their intended purpose.
Regarding Claim 2, Hollar and Edwards disclose the limitations of Claim 2 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1, in addition, Hollar further discloses: comprising displaying, on the user interface widget, the UWB device, “The smart phone (smart device) 601 contains both a UWB tracking unit 603 and a camera senor unit 602.” [0082], wherein: the UWB device is located in a field of view (FOV) of an imaging device communicatively coupled to the user interface widget, “The camera sensor 602 is viewing an area and captures an image 608.” [0082], the displaying of the AR indicator comprises displaying a symbol overlaying with the UWB device, “the relative location of the tag 606 can be determined and overlaid on the image 608.” [0084]. As shown by, “Shown with circles 506 and 508” [0076]
Regarding Claim 3, Hollar and Edwards disclose the limitations of Claim 3 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1, in addition, Hollar further discloses: wherein: the UWB device is located outside a field of view (FOV) of an imaging device communicatively coupled to the user interface widget, “the user can use the phone in an augmented reality context to find the tag” [0083], and “The camera sensor 602 is viewing an area and captures an image 608.” [0082], displaying of the AR indicator comprises displaying, on the user interface widget, a symbol pointing to the location of the UWB device, “shown with circles 506 and 508” [0076], and further, “ the relative location of the tag 606 can be determined and overlaid on the image 608.” [0084], notification message prompting a user to turn the image device towards the UWB device such that the UWB device is located in the FOV of the image device, “the user can use the phone in an augmented reality context to find the tag.” [0083]
Regarding Claim 19, Hollar teaches, an ultra-wideband (UWB) device, comprising: a transceiver operable to perform a UWB communication, “The UWB unit 104 receives/transmits UWB radio frequency (RF) signals and performs one or more of the following: measuring time of flight (ToF), measuring angle of arrival (AoA), and/or measuring RF arrival timestamp.” [0064]
a memory for storing program instructions, device information, angle-of-arrivals and distances from the ranging operations, “a memory 1736 that communicates with a processor 1738.” [0144], and “each block may represent a module, segment, or portion of code that includes program instructions to implement the specified logical function(s). The program instructions may be embodied in the form of source code” [0145], and “the UWB tag's unique identifier serves as a look up reference to the tagged object's properties” [0080], and “The UWB tag's identifier further serves as the common ID to gather UWB raw location data, i.e. ToF, TDOA, AoA, and the like” [0080]
a processor coupled to the transceiver and to the memory, wherein the processor is operable to execute the program instructions, “a memory 1736 that communicates with a processor 1738.” [0144], and “each block may represent a module, segment, or portion of code that includes program instructions to implement the specified logical function(s) [0145]
which, when executed by the processor, cause the UWB device to perform the following to pair another UWB device in a wireless local network, “each block may represent a module, segment, or portion of code that includes program instructions to implement the specified logical function(s)” [0145], and “To create the RTLS network, UWB, camera, and UWB/camera location devices are distributed throughout a facility.” [0067]
obtaining device information of the other UWB device, “the UWB tag's unique identifier serves as a look up reference to the tagged object's properties” [0080], and “The UWB tag's unique identifier could be a media access control (MAC) address, for example” [0080]
performing a UWB ranging operation with other UWB device to obtain position information of the UWB device, “The UWB location unit 603 performs an AoA measurement from the tag's 606 signal and determines the angle” [0084], and “a ToF measurement can be made to measure the distance 605 between the phone and the tag 606.” 0084], and “Therefore, the relative location of the tag 606 can be determined and overlaid on the image 608.” [0084]
displaying, on a user interface widget, an augmented reality (AR) indicator showing a location of the UWB device based on the position information of the UWB device, “the user can use the phone in an augmented reality context to find the tag.” [0083], and further “its location within the 2D frame of the image is overlaid onto the image 608” [0083], and “the angle θ can be ascribed to a pixel location or specific set of pixel locations. Therefore, the relative location of the tag 606 can be determined and overlaid on the image 608.” [0084], and “An arrow pointing to the item could also be used as well.” [0099]
However, Hollar does not expressly teach, wherein each UWB device is enabled with an UWB function and an out-of-band (OOB) function; and
discovering, using the device information and the OOB function, the other UWB device within a perimeter of the local wireless network.
In the same field of endeavor, Edwards teaches devices having both UWB and OOB radios and separate Wi-Fi/Bluetooth radios, wherein each UWB device is enabled with an UWB function and an out-of-band (OOB) function, “The one or more wireless radios may include a UWB radio and a WIFI radio” [Col. 3, lines 60-62], and “network device 102 and each of the devices depicted in environment 250 … may comprise one or more of a Wi-Fi radio, an UWB radio, a Bluetooth radio” [Col. 12, lines 27-32].
discovering, using the device information and the OOB function, the other UWB device within a perimeter of the local wireless network, “when the second network device detects that the first network device is within a visual field of the camera of the second network device…, the second network device retrieves a network address of the first network device” [Col. 3, lines 6-11], and further “Process 1000 begins at 1002 where network device 102, using control circuitry, such as control circuitry 804, discovers UWB peer devices and begins ranging.” [Col. 33, lines 12-15].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hollar’s UWB ranging and AR-based device-location system with Edwards’ UWB device discovery technique because Edwards teaches device equipped with both UWB radios and separate Wi-Fi/Bluetooth radios and further teaches discovery of UWB peer devices and retrieval of device information before ranging. The combination merely applies known communication components according to their established functions to achieve predictable results.
Regarding Claim 20, Hollar and Edwards disclose the limitations of Claim 20 as recited above in the rejection of claim 19, in addition, Hollar further discloses: wherein displaying, on the user interface widget, the other UWB device “the relative location of the tag 606 can be determined and overlaid on the image 608” , [0084], and “The smart phone (smart device) 601 contains both a UWB tracking unit 603 and a camera senor unit 602.” [0082], wherein: the other UWB device is located in a field of view (FOV) of an imaging device communicatively coupled to the user interface widget, “The camera sensor 602 is viewing an area and captures an image 608” [0082], the displaying of the AR indicator comprises displaying a symbol overlaying with the other UWB device, “shown with circles 506 and 508” [0076],, and “the system can project the UWB tag 606's location within the image 608.” [0082], further “the relative location of the tag 606 can be determined and overlaid on the image 608.” [0084]
Claims 4, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hollar et al. (US 20210304577 A1, hereinafter “Hollar”), in view of Edwards (US 12340472 B2, hereinafter “Edwards”), and further in view of Ledvina et al. (US 2020/0336897 A1, hereinafter “Ledvina”)
Regarding Claim 4, Hollar and Edwards disclose the limitations of Claim 4 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1; however, Hollar and Edward do not expressly teach, wherein the discovering of the UWB device comprises: establishing an out-of-band (OOB) channel with the UWB device prior to the UWB ranging operation; receiving a device identification (ID) of the UWB device through the OOB channel; and linking the device ID to the device information.
In the same field endeavor, Ledvina discloses: establishing an out-of-band (OOB) channel with the UWB device prior to the UWB ranging operation, “Based on pairing initiator device 110 receiving (and in embodiments verifying) authentication indictor 408 (or in some embodiments authenticating pairing responder device 120 directly), pairing initiator device 110 continues with the ranging and pairing operations” [0044], receiving a device identification (ID) of the UWB device through the OOB channel, “ authentication indicator 408 is a certificate that is verified using one or more values included with authentication indicator 408” [0045], linking the device ID to the device information, “completing the pairing operation is conditioned on successfully verifying authentication indicator 408” [0045]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hollar and Edwards in specially providing discovering of the UWB device comprises: establishing an out-of-band (OOB) channel with the UWB device prior to the UWB ranging operation; receiving a device identification (ID) of the UWB device through the OOB channel; and linking the device ID to the device information, as taught by Ledvina, in order to identify a device prior to performing UWB ranging.
Regarding claim 5, Hollar, Edwards, and Ledvina disclose the limitation of Claim 5 as recited above in the rejection of claim 4. In addition, Hollar further discloses: wherein the performing of the UWB ranging operation comprises: computing the position information of the UWB device based on the location data, “the relative location of the tag 606 can be determined and overlaid on the image 608” [0084], receiving the device ID and location data, from the UWB device in the UWB channel, “The UWB location unit 603 performs an AoA measurement from the tag's 606 signal” [0084],, and further Ledvina discloses: “authentication indicator 408 is a certificate that is verified using one or more values included with authentication indicator 408” [0045]
However, Hollar and Edwards do not expressly disclose, starting a UWB channel with the UWB device following the OOB channel and linking the position information to the device ID. In the same field of endeavor, Ledvina discloses, starting a UWB channel with the UWB device following the OOB channel “Based on pairing initiator device 110 receiving (and in embodiments verifying) authentication indictor 408 …pairing initiator device 110 continues with the ranging and pairing operations [0044], and linking the position information to the device ID “completing the pairing operation is conditioned on successfully verifying authentication indicator 408.” [0045],
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hollar and Edwards in specially providing starting a UWB channel with the UWB device following the OOB channel; linking the position information to the device ID, as taught by Ledvina, in order to associate verified device identity with UWB-derived location information. Regarding claim 8, Hollar, Edwards, and Ledvina disclose the limitation of Claim 8 as recited above in the rejection of claim 4; however, Hollar and Edwards do not expressly teach wherein the OOB channel is a Bluetooth channel, and the device ID is a Bluetooth ID.
In the same field endeavor, Ledvina discloses: the OOB channel is a Bluetooth channel, “pairing initiator device 110 and pairing responder device 120 communicate via a wireless (e.g., Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, Zigbee, Ultra-wideband) …communications medium.” [0021], the device ID is a Bluetooth ID, “Such information may include, but is not limited to, one or more identifiers of the interlocutor device (e.g., a name, a MAC address, an IP address, etc.)” [0020]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hollar and Edwards in specially providing the OOB channel is a Bluetooth channel, and the device ID is a Bluetooth ID, as taught by Ledvina, in order to using Bluetooth as an out-of-band channel prior to UWB ranging is a routine pairing implementation, and identifier as the device ID is an inherent and conventional aspect of Bluetooth-based discovery.
Regarding Claim 9, Hollar, Edwards, and Ledvina disclose the limitation of Claim 9 as recited above in the rejection of claim 5. In addition, Hollar further discloses: wherein computing the position information of the UWB device comprises computing a distance to the UWB device and an angle-of-arrival of the UWB device, “The UWB location unit 603 performs an AoA measurement from the tag's 606 signal and determines the angle to be θ” [0084]
However, Hollar and Edwards do not expressly disclose computing a distance to the UWB device.
In the same field endeavor, Ledvina discloses, computing a distance to the UWB device, “At blocks 420, pairing initiator device 110 and pairing responder device 120 exchange various ranging communications 422 to determine the distance (i.e., Distance A) between pairing initiator device 110 and pairing responder device 120.” [0047]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hollar and Edwards in specially providing computing a distance to the UWB device, as taught by Ledvina, in order to enabling a more complete characterization of the relative position of a UWB device.
Claims 6 , 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hollar, in view of Edwards (US 12340472 B2, hereinafter “Edwards”), and further in view of Williams et al. (US 2022/0201460 A1, hereinafter “Williams”)
Regarding Claim 6, Hollar and Edwards disclose the limitations of Claim 6 as recited above in the rejection of claim 2. In addition, Hollar further discloses, displaying, on the user interface widget, the device information of the UWB device, “ the user can use the phone in an augmented reality context to find the tag”, and [0082], “The camera sensor 602 is viewing an area and captures an image 608” [0083], and further “the relative location of the tag 606 can be determined and overlaid on the image 608” [0084]
However, Hollar and Edwards do not expressly disclose, displaying, on the user interface widget, a notification message prompting a user to select the UWB device to be paired with the local wireless network; and receiving, on the user interface widget, a user's selection of the symbol as a confirmation to pair the UWB device with the local wireless network. In the same field of endeavor, Williams discloses, displaying, on the user interface widget, a notification message prompting a user to select the UWB device to be paired with the local wireless network, “the user can use the phone in an augmented reality context to find the tag” [0083]. Williams discloses UI prompt mechanics, “output information to the interface identifying the control device” [0005], and receiving, on the user interface widget, a user’s selection of the symbol as a confirmation to pair the UWB device with the local wireless network, Hollar teaches pairing action context, “the user can use the phone in an augmented reality context to find the tag” [0083]. Williams teaches user interaction/input, “receive input from the interface selecting the control device” [0005]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hollar and Edwards in specially providing displaying, on the user interface widget, a notification message prompting a user to select the UWB device to be paired with the local wireless network; and receiving, on the user interface widget, a user's selection of the symbol as a confirmation to pair the UWB device with the local wireless network, as taught by Williams, in order to incorporate William’s user-interface interaction techniques into Hollar’s UWB pairing system to allow a user to confirm selection of the intended UWB device prior to pairing, particularly in environments where multiple devices may be present within the local wireless network, thereby reducing the likelihood of unintended or incorrect pairing.
Regarding claim 7, Hollar , Edwards, and Williams disclose the limitation of Claim 7 as recited above in the rejection of claim 6. In addition, Hollar further discloses, wherein pairing the UWB device with the local wireless network comprises: transmitting device information to a network control device of the local wireless network, “To create the RTLS network, UWB, camera, and UWB/camera location devices are distributed throughout a facility” [0067]
However, Hollar does not teach the network control device comprising one or more of a hub, a router, a modem, a television, a set-top box, a smart speaker, a mobile device, or a range extender of the local wireless network.
In the same field endeavor, Williams discloses: “a processor, a display device configured to display an interface, and a memory storing program instructions” [0005]
the network control device comprising one or more of a hub, a router, a modem, a television, a set-top box, a smart speaker, a mobile device, or a range extender of the local wireless network, “pairing initiator device 110 includes …one or more user interfaces 116” [0021]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hollar and Edward’s local UWB pairing system to incorporate Williams’ networked control-device interface, so that device information associated with a paired UWB device may be transmitted to and managed by a network control device, enabling centralized coordination, onboarding, and manage of devices within the local wireless network.
Regarding claim 10, Hollar, Edwards, and Williams disclose the limitation of Claim 10 as recited above in the rejection of claim 7. In addition, Hollar further discloses, the local wireless network is a wireless area network established based on network standards of one or more of Matter, Zigbee, Bluetooth, WiFi, IrDA, Thread, or a combination thereof; and the network control device is communicatively coupled to the Internet: “a wireless method such as Bluetooth or near field communications (NFC) could be used in place of the cable to send data to/from 108/104 to the processor 107.” [0065]
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hollar et al. (US 20210304577 A1, hereinafter “Hollar”), in view of Edwards (US 12340472 B2, hereinafter “Edwards”), in view of Ledvina et al. (US 2020/0336897 A1, hereinafter “Ledvina”), and further in view of Larson et al. (US 2016/0205544 A1, hereinafter “Larson”).
Regarding Claim 11, Hollar and Edwards disclose the limitations of Claim 11 as recited
above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, Hollar and Edwards do not expressly disclose: receiving the device information through Bluetooth communication from the UWB device, near field communication (NFC) from the UWB device, UWB data communication from the UWB device, or scanning of a QR code of the UWB, and storing the device information in a device database.
In the same field endeavor, Ledvina teaches receiving device information via Bluetooth and UWB communication, “pairing initiator device 110 and pairing responder device 120 communicate via a wireless (e.g., Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, Zigbee, Ultra-wideband) …communications medium” [0021] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hollar and Edwards in specially providing receiving device information via Bluetooth and UWB communication, as taught by Ledvina, in order to identify a device prior to performing UWB ranging.
The combination of Hollar, Edwards, and Ledvina does not expressly teach storing the device information in a device database and use of QR code encoding device identifier information retrievable by scanning.
In the same field endeavor, Larson discloses, storing the device information in a device database and use of QR code encoding device identifier information retrievable by scanning: “Registration, or addition, of the device with the device database 104 within device engine 108 also queues the device to be registered with the cloud data provider 160” [0072], and Larson also teaches use of QR code encoding device identifier information retrievable by scanning: “The QR code is generated by the device database based on the unique identifier data provided to the device database 104 by the functional test process 510” [0071]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hollar and Ledvina in specially providing storing the device information in a device database, as taught by Larson, in order to ensure acquiring and storing device information during device onboarding.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Hollar et al. (US 20210304577 A1, hereinafter “Hollar”), in view of Edwards (US 12340472 B2, hereinafter “Edwards”), and further in view of Shin et al. (US 20170123039 A1, hereinafter “Shin”)
Regarding Claim 16, Hollar teaches, a method for pairing an ultra-wideband (UWB) device in a local wireless network, “Methods have been discussed herein for associating a tag with visual attributes of the tagged object. This was done by pairing a tag with a recognized object” [0080], and “To create the RTLS network, UWB, camera, and UWB/camera location devices are distributed throughout a facility.” [0067]
discovering, by a mobile device using an out-of-band (OOB) function, a UWB device within a perimeter of the local wireless network, “A smart phone is a special case of a UWB/camera location device. Recently, UWB technology has been embedded in smart phones” [0081], and “The phone working alone or in tandem with other location devices is able determine the location of UWB tag 606.” [0082]
determining, by the mobile device, a relative position to the UWB device via UWB ranging, “The UWB unit 104 receives/transmits UWB radio frequency (RF) signals and performs one or more of the following: measuring time of flight (ToF), measuring angle of arrival (AoA), and/or measuring RF arrival timestamp” [0064], and “The UWB location unit 603 performs an AoA measurement from the tag's 606 signal and determines the angle to be θ” [0084], and “a ToF measurement can be made to measure the distance 605 between the phone and the tag 606.” [0084], and “Using both UWB and camera sensor data, the RTLS system can determine the relative location of one another” [0109]
computing, by the mobile device, coordinates based on the coordinates of the UWB device and the relative position to the UWB device, “In some embodiments, a restricted version of triangulation calculates an object's location in two dimensional (2D) coordinates.” [0075], and “these pixel locations are mapped into coordinates on the ground and used to determine the locations of the remaining devices and tags as part of the location determination” [0108], and “The system then transforms the object's pixel location and range uncertainties into spatial coordinates” [0116]
Hollar teaches: a smart phone containing UWB and performing location determination. However, Hollar does not expressly teach, wherein each of the mobile device and the UWB device is enabled with an UWB function and the OOB function; and
discovering, by a mobile device using an out-of-band (OOB) function, a UWB device within a perimeter of the local wireless network;
In the same field of endeavor, Edwards teaches devices containing both UWB and non-UWB radios, wherein each of the mobile device and the UWB device is enabled with an UWB function and the OOB function, “The one or more wireless radios may include a UWB radio and a WIFI radio” [Col. 3, lines 60-62], and “network device 102 and each of the devices depicted in environment 250 … may comprise one or more of a Wi-Fi radio, an UWB radio, a Bluetooth radio” [Col. 12, lines 27-32].
discovering, by a mobile device using an out-of-band (OOB) function, a UWB device within a perimeter of the local wireless network, “ Process 1000 begins at 1002 where network device 102, using control circuitry, such as control circuitry 804, discovers UWB peer devices and begins ranging” [Col. 33, lines 12-15], and “when the second network device detects that the first network device is within a visual field of the camera of the second network device (e.g., based on a UWB signal from the first network device), the second network device retrieves a network address of the first network device” [Col. 3, lines 6-12]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hollar with Edwards because Edwards teaches discovering UWB peer devices using devices equipped with both UWB radios and separate Wi-Fi/Bluetooth radios prior to ranging. The combination merely applies known communication components according to their established functions to improve device discovery and pairing reliability while yielding predictable results.
The combination of Hollar and Edwards does not expressly teach, receiving, by the mobile device, coordinates of the UWB device from the UWB device; and transmitting, by the mobile device, the coordinates.
In the same field of endeavor, Shin teaches, receiving, by the mobile device, coordinates of the UWB device from the UWB device, “a user terminal which is paired with the UWB tag, and is configured to receive the measured position from the UWB tag.” [0014], and “a user terminal 30 paired to the UWB tag 20 with Bluetooth or a universal serial bus (USB), and capable of receiving the measured position of the tag from the UWB tag 20.”, and “the position information calculated in the UWB tag 20 may be transmitted to the user terminal 30” [0041]
transmitting, by the mobile device, the coordinates, “transmitting the measured position of the UWB tag to a paired user terminal.” [0019], and “the position information calculated in the UWB tag 20 may be transmitted to the user terminal 30” [0041], and “transmits the calculated position information to the user terminal 30” [0047], and “The measured position of the UWB tag may be transmitted to the paired user terminal” [0050]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Hollar and Edwards with Shin because Shin teaches transmitting and receiving UWB-derived position information between paired devices. Incorporating Shin’s coordinate exchange would have predictably enabled receipt and transmission of UWB device coordinates while using know UWB positioning techniques.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Hollar et al. (US 20210304577 A1, hereinafter “Hollar”), in view of Edwards (US 12340472 B2, hereinafter “Edwards”), in view of Shin et al. (US 20170123039 A1, hereinafter “Shin”), and further in view of Ledvina et al. (US 2020/0336897 A1, hereinafter “Ledvina”)
Regarding Claim 17, Hollar, Edwards, and Shin disclose the limitations of Claim 17 as recited above in the rejection of claim 16. In addition, Hollar further discloses: wherein: obtain an angle-of-arrival of the UWB device, “The UWB location unit 603 performs an AoA measurement from the tag's 606 signal and determines the angle to be θ” [0084]
However, the combination of Hollar, Edward, and Shin does not expressly teach, performing a UWB ranging operation to obtain a distance to the UWB device.
In the same field endeavor, Ledvina discloses, performing a UWB ranging operation to obtain a distance to the UWB device, “At blocks 420, pairing initiator device 110 and pairing responder device 120 exchange various ranging communications 422 to determine the distance (i.e., Distance A) between pairing initiator device 110 and pairing responder device 120.” [0047]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hollar, Edwards, and Shin in specially providing performing a UWB ranging operation to obtain a distance to the UWB device, as taught by Ledvina, in order to combine Hollar’s UWB-based AoA determination with Ledvina’s UWB ranging-based distance determination.
Regarding Claim 18, Hollar, Edwards, and Shin disclose the limitations of Claim 18 as recited above in the rejection of claim 16. However, the combination of Hollar, Edwards, and Shin does not expressly teach wherein the computing of the coordinate using at least one of two-way ranging, trilateration, triangulation, or multilateration on the coordinates of the UWB device.
In the same field endeavor, Ledvina discloses, wherein the computing of the coordinate using at least one of two-way ranging, trilateration, triangulation, or multilateration on the coordinates of the UWB device, “At blocks 420, pairing initiator device 110 and pairing responder device 120 exchange various ranging communications 422 to determine the distance (i.e., Distance A) between pairing initiator device 110 and pairing responder device 120” [0047], further “In such embodiments, a device 110 or 120 sends a first communication 422 to the other noting the time the first communication 422 is sent, and the interlocutor responds with a second communication 422 indicating the time the first communication was received.” [0047]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hollar, Edwards, and Shin in specially providing the computing of the coordinate using at least one of two-way ranging, trilateration, triangulation, or multilateration on the coordinates of the UWB device, as taught by Ledvina, in order to compute coordinates using two-way UWB ranging combine Hollar’s UWB-based relative position determination with Ledvina’s explicit two-way ranging.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record not relied upon and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Peterson et al. (US 20190311061 A1) Method and apparatus to correlate mobile device wireless activity and security data – discloses A computer implemented method, apparatus, and computer program are provided. The method is under control of one or more processors configured with executable instructions. The method detects, at a wireless activity (WLA) tracking apparatus, wireless activity of a mobile device in a proximity of a local wireless environment. The method automatically generates a WLA timestamp associated with the detecting the wireless activity of the mobile device and utilizes one or more of the wireless activity and WLA timestamp to identify one or more of a security device and a segment of security data collected by the security device.
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 SANG PHUOC LE whose telephone number is (571)272-3659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Appiah can be reached at 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.
SANG PHUOC. LE
Examiner
Art Unit 2641
/SANG PHUOC LE/Examiner, Art Unit 2641
/CHARLES N APPIAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights