DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant purports that the claims are not directed to a mathematical concept or mental process specifically pointing to the limitations “measure an elevation of the first device with respect to a device of the plurality of second devices” and “determine possible values of a three-dimensional (3D) position of the first device, and select one of the possible values as the 3D position of the first device based on the measured elevation" as recited by independent claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is initially noted that in the non-final rejection filled 12/23/2025, the limitation “measure an elevation of the first device with respect to a device of the plurality of second devices” is not indicated as being directed to a judicial exception. As indicated in the previously filled non-final rejection and in the 101 rejection below the aforementioned limitation is mere data gathering and is extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
In reference to the remaining above limitations, the applicant argues that the claimed method cannot be practically preformed in the human mind as “Trilateration is not recited as an abstract formula but as a computation applied to physical sensor data,” and that “Under MPEP §2106.04(d)(1), processing physical measurement signals with mathematics does not constitute a mathematical concept exception.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is further noted that MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) is concerned with “Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer” and does not disclose that “processing physical measurement signals with mathematics does not constitute a mathematical concept exception.” The Examiner points to MPEP2106.04(a)(2)(c) as disclosing, “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation.“ Paragraph [0015] of the Applicant’s specification discloses, “the intersection of the spheres 210, 220 and 230 can be mathematically calculated by the processor 114, which can determine the possible values of the 3D position of first device 110, as two points P1 (having a higher elevation value) and P2 (having a lower elevation value) located on the intersection of the three spheres, as shown in FIG. 2.” In light of the specification the claimed limitation “determine possible values of a three-dimensional (3D) position of the first device” requires mathematical calculation and falls with the abstract idea grouping of a mathematical concept. The Examiner maintains that the aforementioned limitation is directed to a judicial exception.
The Applicant further argues that the limitation “select one of the possible values as the 3D position of the first device based on the measured elevation” is not a “mental act” as “No human mind is capable of real-time RF time-of-flight measurement, timestamp synchronization, or analyzing correlated gradients of pressure-derived elevation and RF distance. These operations necessarily require hardware and are therefore not mental processes.“ In response the examiner points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.” Although the above limitation requires a physical aid such as data collection and processing means, comparing values to make a determination regarding 3D position is still a judgment and falls with the abstract idea grouping of a mental process. This similarly applies to the limitation “determine possible values of a three-dimensional (3D) position of the first device.” The Examiner maintains that the above limitations are directed to a judicial exception.
The Applicant argues on page 8 of their remarks that “Although trilateration involves mathematical computation, the claims do not recite the mathematics themselves; instead, they recite a processor performing trilateration on physical sensor inputs (RF time-of-flight and barometric elevation),“ relying upon MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) for support. It is again noted that MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) is concerned with “Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer” and does not disclose that “processing physical measurement signals with mathematics does not constitute a mathematical concept exception.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(c) states “a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” As the limitation “determine possible values of a three-dimensional (3D) position of the first device,” as recited by claim 1, is a step of “performing’ a mathematical operation” it falls with the abstract idea grouping of a mathematical concept. The Examiner maintains that the aforementioned limitation is directed to a judicial exception.
The Applicant argues that the “elevation- and distance-measurement operations” recited in independent claim 1 are not mere data gathering as they provide an improvement to the functioning of localization systems. The Applicant states that “The specification makes clear that the processor's examination of time-correlated pairs of elevation and distance readings is the mechanism by which the trilateration ambiguity is resolved (Spec. [0015]-[0017]). These operations represent a device-level application of sensor fusion and are not ancillary or nominal.” In response the applicant is reminded that Claims 7 and similarly claims 8-10 and 14-18 of the originally filed disclosure recite “wherein the processor is further configured to select the one of the possible values having a higher value of the measured elevation when an increase in an elevation of the first device causes an increase in the measured distance.” As explained in greater detail above, comparing values to make a determination regarding 3D position is a judgment and falls with the abstract idea grouping of a mental process. MPEP2106.05(a) states, “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” The above limitation recites a judicial exception and may not provide an improvement. It is additionally noted that Claims 1 and 11 disclose the collection of elevation data and do not disclose collecting distance data. Similarly claims 6 and 13 refer to the simple collection of distance information and are silent on elevation data. No claim explicitly discloses the “examination of time-correlated pairs of elevation and distance readings” beyond the claims reciting a judicial exception. Further, the claims as presently filled are silent on data fusion techniques and make no explicit reference to the term. The Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
The Applicant argues that “Under Step 2B, the Office Action asserts that the hardware and correlated sensor processing are ‘routine and conventional,’ but cites no evidence. Office Action 8-11. That is insufficient under Berkheimer and the USPTO's April 19, 2018 memo. When a Step 2B determination depends on whether elements are widely prevalent or conventional, the Office must cite factual support. “ This statement improperly misrepresents the office action filled 12/23/2025. While the introductory paragraph for Step 2B on page 8 of the office action the provides generic introductory information regarding Step 2B and "routine and conventional" limitations, no claim or individual limitation was indicated as specifically "routine and conventional." Claims and/or limitations examined under step 2A prong two and step 2B were indicated as either being directed to “mere data gathering” or “adding a general-purpose computer or computer components.” As the above argument improperly misrepresents the previous office action the examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
On page 11 of their remarks filled 03/23/2026 the Applicant repeats their above arguments with respect to the newly amended claim 21, ”the processor is further configured to perform the selecting with respect to a particular one of the plurality of second devices based on a comparison between a change in the measured elevation of the first device and a contemporaneous change in a radio-frequency-derived distance between the first device and the particular one of the plurality of second devices.” As explained in greater detail above, comparing values to make a determination is a judgment and falls with the abstract idea grouping of a mental process. MPEP2106.05(a) prohibits a judicial exception from providing an improvement. The examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
The Applicant further argues that claim 21 cannot be performed mentally as, ”the processor constructs time-aligned elevation and distance tables, identifies changes in both measurements over corresponding time intervals, and determines which trilateration solution corresponds to the actual physical movement of the device.” The above steps are drawn from the paragraphs [0015-0018] of the Applicant’s specification and are absent from claim 21. The Examiner finds that applicant misinterprets the principle that claims are interpreted in the light of the specification. Although the above steps are found in the specification, they are not claimed. Nor were the words that are used in the claims defined in the specification to require these limitations. A reading of the specification provides no evidence to indicate that these limitations must be imported into the claims to give meaning to disputed terms. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the applicant purports on page 12 of the remarks that Booij fails to teach, “the transducer is configured to measure an elevation of the first device with respect to a device of the plurality of second devices ... and the processor is configured to:... select one of the possible values as the 3D position of the first device based on the measured elevation” arguing that “Booij does not select between those points based on elevation. Booij expressly states that ‘determining the third coordinate (e.g. corresponding to height or altitude) may be done by a different mechanism’ (e.g., Booij 48).” The Applicant’s remarks recite similarly on pages 16-17 with respect to newly amended claim 21. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s quotation of paragraph [0048] of Booij excludes necessary context regarding the term “different mechanism.” Paragraph [0048] of Booij states “Determining the third coordinate (e.g. corresponding to height or altitude) may be done by a different mechanism—e.g. by selecting the set of one or more mobile devices from a larger group of devices, using a signal strength condition that limits all the devices to being on the same floor of a building (which may then all be assigned a common height value, corresponding to a known height of the floor).” It is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that the initial steps in three-sphere trilateration involve identifying two possible preliminary position values. It is then necessary to identify a “third coordinate” to confirm which of the two possible values of position is correct. Booij’s step of “Determining the third coordinate” is synonymous to selecting “one of the possible values as the 3D position.” Further, paragraph [0048] of Booij explicitly discloses that the third coordinate may be determined using devices limited to the same floor of a building and assigned a common height value. The Applicants statement that “Booij does not select between those points based on elevation” is an overt misinterpretation of paragraph [0048]. In response to the Applicants additional arguments on page 13 of their remarks, it is noted that Examiner is not relying upon a broad interpretation paragraph [0048] of Booij and did not express that opinion in the interview on 03/20/2026. Paragraph [0048] of Booij explicitly teaches to the above limitation. Alternatively, while not indefinite, the meets and bounds of the phrase “based on the measured elevation” as recited by claim 1 are broadly established. Booij’s use of common height values falls within the broadly recited limitation “based on the measured elevation” as recited by claim 1. The Examiner maintains the art rejection.
The Applicant further argues that the secondary reference Meadow fails to teach “select one of the possible values as the 3D position of the first device based on the measured elevation.” In the office action filled 12/23/2025, Meadow is not used to teach the above limitation. With respect to claim 1 Meadow is exclusively relied upon to teach, “the transducer is configured to measure an elevation of the first device with respect to a device of the plurality of second devices.” The Examiner maintains that Booij discloses, “select one of the possible values as the 3D position of the first device based on the measured elevation” as recited by independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)).
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recites an apparatus. The claim therefore recites a product.
Claim 11 (and its dependents) recites an device. The claim therefore recites a product.
Claim 18 (and its dependents) recites a mobile communication device. The claim therefore recites a product.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 1 and similarly claims 11 and 18 recites,
determine possible values of a three-dimensional (3D) position of the first device,
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating a location from distance data (see, Specification [0015]). Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
select one of the possible values as the 3D position of the first device based on the measured elevation
The claim recites a step of comparing values to make a determination of a 3D position, therefore performing a judgement, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 2 and similarly claims 11 and 18 recites,
the processor is further configured to determine the possible values as two points located on a mathematically calculated intersection of three spheres.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating a location from distance data (see, Specification [0015]). Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
Claim 3 and similarly claim 12 recites,
the processor is further configured to determine a radius of each of the three spheres based on a measured distance between the first device and one of the plurality of second devices.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating radius. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
Claim 7 and similarly claim 14 recites,
the processor is further configured to select the one of the possible values having a higher value of the measured elevation when an increase in an elevation of the first device causes an increase in the measured distance.
The claim recites a step of comparing values to make a determination of a 3D position, therefore performing a judgement, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 8 and similarly claim 15 recites,
the processor is further configured to select the one of the possible values having a lower value of the measured elevation when an increase in an elevation of the device causes a decrease in the measured distance.
The claim recites a step of comparing values to make a determination of a 3D position, therefore performing a judgement, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 9 and similarly claim 16 recites,
the processor is further configured to select the one of the possible values having a lower value of the measured elevation when a decrease in an elevation of the first device causes an increase in the measured distance.
The claim recites a step of comparing values to make a determination of a 3D position, therefore performing a judgement, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 10 and similarly claim 17 recites,
the processor is further configured to select the one of the possible values having a higher value of the measured elevation when a decrease in an elevation of the first device causes a decrease in the measured distance.
The claim recites a step of comparing values to make a determination of a 3D position, therefore performing a judgement, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 19 recites
the processor is further configured to select the one of the two possible positions that corresponds to a higher elevation when an increase or decrease in the measured elevation of the device causes a respective increase or decrease in a distance between the device and the at least one of the plurality of static devices.
The claim recites a step of comparing values to make a determination of a 3D position, therefore performing a judgement, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 20 recites
the processor is further configured to select the one of the two possible positions that corresponds to a lower elevation when an increase or decrease in the measured elevation of the device causes a respective decrease or increase in a distance between the device and the at least one of the plurality of static devices.
The claim recites a step of comparing values to make a determination of a 3D position, therefore performing a judgement, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 21 recites
the processor is further configured to perform the selecting with respect to a particular one of the plurality of second devices based on a comparison between a change in the measured elevation of the first device and a contemporaneous change in a radio-frequency-derived distance between the first device and the particular one of the plurality of second devices.
The claim recites a step of comparing values to make a determination of a 3D position, therefore performing a judgement, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 and similarly claims 11 and 18 also recites,
a first device in radio frequency (RF) communication with a plurality of second devices
This is a step that merely describes providing data. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
the transducer is configured to measure an elevation of the first device with respect to a device of the plurality of second devices
This is a step that merely describes providing data. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 4 also recites,
wherein the first device comprises a mobile communication device including a smartphone or a smartwatch, and wherein the transducer comprises a pressure sensor.
This is a step that merely describes the contents of the data. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 6 and similarly claim 13 also recites,
the processor is further configured to measure a distance between the first device and the device of the plurality of second devices using the RF communication.
This is a step that merely describes the contents of the data. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. See Memorandum.
Claim 1 and similarly claims 11 and 18 also recites,
a first device in radio frequency (RF) communication with a plurality of second devices wherein
This is a step that merely describes providing data. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
the transducer is configured to measure an elevation of the first device with respect to a device of the plurality of second devices
This is a step that merely describes providing data. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 1 and similarly claims 11 and 18 further recites,
a transducer and a processor
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components, i.e. an interactive user display, after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 4 also recites,
wherein the first device comprises a mobile communication device including a smartphone or a smartwatch, and wherein the transducer comprises a pressure sensor.
This is a step that merely describes the contents of the data. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 5 further recites,
the plurality of second devices comprises three static communication devices including routers or range extenders
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components, i.e. an interactive user display, after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 6 and similarly claim 13 also recites,
the processor is further configured to measure a distance between the first device and the device of the plurality of second devices using the RF communication.
This is a step that merely describes the contents of the data. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for estimating, analyzing, and evaluating and requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well- understood, routine, and conventional activities.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 11-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOOIJ(US20240248164A1) in view of Meadow(US20220198862A1).
Regarding claim 1, BOOIJ discloses
An apparatus, comprising: a first device in radio frequency (RF) (“the wireless signals may be radio signals” [0019]) communication with a plurality of second devices (FIG.4, Parts.i & j1-j3)wherein: the first device includes […] a processor (“a processor “ [0022])[…] and the processor is configured to: determine possible values of a three-dimensional (3D) position of the first device (“three-dimensional (3D) coordinates can be determined for one or more mobile devices “ [0017]), and select one of the possible values as the 3D position of the first device based on the measured elevation(“Determining the third coordinate (e.g. corresponding to height or altitude)” [0048]).
BOOIJ does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein a transducer is used to measure elevation. Meadow discloses the wherein, the first device includes a transducer (“ the Sensors 109 may be substantially any transducer that is capable of sensing an Event Signal produced by the Event Source 121” [0105]), […] the transducer is configured to measure an elevation of the first device with respect to a device of the plurality of second devices (“This apparatus and method will allow for accurate altitude determination by any device that can listen compare accurate air pressure data in a building or campus wide area” [0261])
Meadow teaches in the same field of endeavor of device trilateration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOOIJ with the teachings of Meadow to incorporate the features a transducer used to measure elevation so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning accuracy [0261, Meadow]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, BOOIJ as modified by Meadow disclose all the limitations of claim 1. BOOIJ discloses wherein, the processor is further configured to determine the possible values as two points located on a mathematically calculated intersection of three spheres (“Two intersection points (one above and one below the z-axis) can be determined for the three spheres” [0151])
Regarding claim 3, BOOIJ as modified by Meadow disclose all the limitations of claim 2. BOOIJ discloses wherein, the processor is further configured to determine a radius of each of the three spheres based on a measured distance between the first device and one of the plurality of second devices (see EQU.00023).
Regarding claim 4, BOOIJ as modified by Meadow disclose all the limitations of claim 1. BOOIJ discloses wherein, the first device comprises a mobile communication device including a smartphone or a smartwatch (“ one or more of the mobile devices may be a smartphone or an electronic tag configured to send and receive wireless signals” [0019]),
BOOIJ does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the transducer comprises a pressure sensor. Meadow discloses the wherein, the transducer (“ the Sensors 109 may be substantially any transducer that is capable of sensing an Event Signal produced by the Event Source 121” [0105]) comprises a pressure sensor (“This apparatus and method will allow for accurate altitude determination by any device that can listen compare accurate air pressure data in a building or campus wide area” [0261])
Meadow teaches in the same field of endeavor of device trilateration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOOIJ with the teachings of Meadow to incorporate the features the transducer comprises a pressure sensor so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning accuracy [0261, Meadow]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 5, BOOIJ as modified by Meadow disclose all the limitations of claim 1. BOOIJ discloses wherein, the plurality of second devices comprises three (FIG.4, Parts j1-j3) static communication devices (“a network of devices (which may also include one or more static devices)” [0002])
BOOIJ does not explicitly disclose the use of routers or range extenders. Meadow discloses wherein, including routers or range extenders (“The GRL Device 100 may include one or more generally fixed locations, such as […] routers” [0087])
Meadow teaches in the same field of endeavor of device trilateration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOOIJ with the teachings of Meadow to incorporate the features of routers or range extenders employed as static communication devices so as to gain the advantage of improving logistical efficiency [0241, Meadow]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 6, BOOIJ as modified by Meadow disclose all the limitations of claim 1. BOOIJ discloses wherein, the processor is further configured to measure a distance between the first device and the device of the plurality of second devices using the RF communication (“distance estimates from a mobile device 3 to one or more other devices 3, 4 may be determined based on one or more received signal strength indicators (RSSI)” [0072])
Regarding claim 11, BOOIJ discloses
A device, comprising: a processor (“a processor “ [0022]); a transceiver configured to establish radio frequency (RF) communication (“the wireless signals may be radio signals” [0019]) with a plurality of static devices (FIG.4, Parts.i & j1-j3); […], wherein: the processor is configured to determine a 3D position of the device (“three-dimensional (3D) coordinates can be determined for one or more mobile devices “ [0017])by: determining two possible values of the 3D positions of the device by using a mathematically calculated intersection of three spheres(“Two intersection points (one above and one below the z-axis) can be determined for the three spheres” [0151]); and selecting one of the two possible values as the 3D position of the device based at least on the measured elevation (“Determining the third coordinate (e.g. corresponding to height or altitude)” [0048]).
BOOIJ does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein a transducer is used to measure elevation. Meadow discloses the wherein, a transducer (“ the Sensors 109 may be substantially any transducer that is capable of sensing an Event Signal produced by the Event Source 121” [0105]) configured to measure an elevation of the device with respect to at least one of the plurality of static devices (“This apparatus and method will allow for accurate altitude determination by any device that can listen compare accurate air pressure data in a building or campus wide area” [0261])
Meadow teaches in the same field of endeavor of device trilateration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOOIJ with the teachings of Meadow to incorporate the features a transducer used to measure elevation so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning accuracy [0261, Meadow]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 12, BOOIJ as modified by Meadow disclose all the limitations of claim 11. BOOIJ discloses wherein, the processor is further configured to determine a radius of each of the three spheres based on a measured distance between the device and one of the plurality of static devices (see EQU.00023).
Regarding claim 13, BOOIJ as modified by Meadow disclose all the limitations of claim 11. BOOIJ discloses wherein, the processor is further configured to measure a distance between the device and the at least one of the plurality of static devices using the RF communication (“distance estimates from a mobile device 3 to one or more other devices 3, 4 may be determined based on one or more received signal strength indicators (RSSI)” [0072]).
Regarding claim 18, BOOIJ discloses
A mobile communication device, the device comprising: a transceiver in radio frequency (RF) communication (“the wireless signals may be radio signals” [0019]) with a plurality of static devices (FIG.4, Parts.i & j1-j3); […] ; and a processor configured to determine a three-dimensional (3D) position of the device (“three-dimensional (3D) coordinates can be determined for one or more mobile devices “ [0017]) by: determining two possible positions of the device using a mathematically calculated intersection of three spheres (“Two intersection points (one above and one below the z-axis) can be determined for the three spheres” [0151]); and selecting one of the two possible positions as the 3D position of the device based at least on a change of the measured distance between the device and the at least one of the plurality of static devices in response to a change in an elevation of the device (“Determining the third coordinate (e.g. corresponding to height or altitude)” [0048]).
BOOIJ does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein a transducer is used to measure elevation. Meadow discloses, a pressure sensor configured to measure an elevation of the device with respect to at least one of the plurality of static devices based on a measured pressure (“This apparatus and method will allow for accurate altitude determination by any device that can listen compare accurate air pressure data in a building or campus wide area” [0261])
Meadow teaches in the same field of endeavor of device trilateration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOOIJ with the teachings of Meadow to incorporate the features a transducer used to measure elevation so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning accuracy [0261, Meadow]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 7-10, 14-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOOIJ(US20240248164A1) as modified by Meadow(US20220198862A1) and further in view of Lundgren(US20110199257A1)
Regarding claim 7, BOOIJ as modified by Meadow disclose all the limitations of claim 6. BOOIJ does not appear to disclose using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location. Lundgren discloses wherein, the processor further is configured to select the one of the possible values having a higher value of the measured elevation (“Once the latitude for a determined location is received, the wireless device may track the altitude of the device as it moves” [0034]) when an increase in an elevation of the first device causes an increase in the measured distance (“ In this manner, the wireless device 107 may be operable to accurately determine its altitude without requiring an altimeter capable of absolute accuracy,” [0034])
Lundgren teaches in the same field of endeavor of device trilateration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOOIJ as modified by Meadow with the teachings of Lundgren to incorporate the features of using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning accuracy when absolute altitude data is unavailable. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 8, BOOIJ as modified by Meadow disclose all the limitations of claim 6. BOOIJ does not appear to disclose using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location. Lundgren discloses wherein, the processor is further configured to select the one of the possible values having a lower value of the measured elevation (“Once the latitude for a determined location is received, the wireless device may track the altitude of the device as it moves” [0034]) when an increase in an elevation of the first device causes a decrease in the measured distance (“ In this manner, the wireless device 107 may be operable to accurately determine its altitude without requiring an altimeter capable of absolute accuracy,” [0034])
Lundgren teaches in the same field of endeavor of device trilateration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOOIJ as modified by Meadow with the teachings of Lundgren to incorporate the features of using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning accuracy when absolute altitude data is unavailable. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 9, BOOIJ as modified by Meadow disclose all the limitations of claim 6. BOOIJ does not appear to disclose using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location. Lundgren discloses wherein, the processor is further configured to select the one of the possible values having a lower value of the measured elevation (“Once the latitude for a determined location is received, the wireless device may track the altitude of the device as it moves” [0034]) when a decrease in an elevation of the first device causes an increase in the measured distance (“ In this manner, the wireless device 107 may be operable to accurately determine its altitude without requiring an altimeter capable of absolute accuracy,” [0034])
Lundgren teaches in the same field of endeavor of device trilateration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOOIJ as modified by Meadow with the teachings of Lundgren to incorporate the features of using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning accuracy when absolute altitude data is unavailable. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 10, BOOIJ as modified by Meadow disclose all the limitations of claim 6. BOOIJ does not appear to disclose using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location. Lundgren discloses wherein, the processor is further configured to select the one of the possible values having a higher value of the measured elevation (“Once the latitude for a determined location is received, the wireless device may track the altitude of the device as it moves” [0034]) when a decrease in an elevation of the first device causes a decrease in the measured distance (“ In this manner, the wireless device 107 may be operable to accurately determine its altitude without requiring an altimeter capable of absolute accuracy,” [0034])
Lundgren teaches in the same field of endeavor of device trilateration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOOIJ as modified by Meadow with the teachings of Lundgren to incorporate the features of using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning accuracy when absolute altitude data is unavailable. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 14, BOOIJ as modified by Meadow disclose all the limitations of claim 13. BOOIJ does not appear to disclose using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location. Lundgren discloses wherein, the processor is further configured to select the one of the two possible values having a higher value of the measured elevation (“Once the latitude for a determined location is received, the wireless device may track the altitude of the device as it moves” [0034]) when an increase in an elevation of the device causes an increase in the measured distance (“ In this manner, the wireless device 107 may be operable to accurately determine its altitude without requiring an altimeter capable of absolute accuracy,” [0034])
Lundgren teaches in the same field of endeavor of device trilateration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOOIJ as modified by Meadow with the teachings of Lundgren to incorporate the features of using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning accuracy when absolute altitude data is unavailable. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 15, BOOIJ as modified by Meadow disclose all the limitations of claim 13. BOOIJ does not appear to disclose using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location. Lundgren discloses wherein, the processor is further configured to select the one of the two possible values having a lower value of the measured elevation (“Once the latitude for a determined location is received, the wireless device may track the altitude of the device as it moves” [0034]) when an increase in an elevation of the device causes a decrease in the measured distance (“ In this manner, the wireless device 107 may be operable to accurately determine its altitude without requiring an altimeter capable of absolute accuracy,” [0034])
Lundgren teaches in the same field of endeavor of device trilateration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOOIJ as modified by Meadow with the teachings of Lundgren to incorporate the features of using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning accuracy when absolute altitude data is unavailable. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 16, BOOIJ as modified by Meadow disclose all the limitations of claim 13. BOOIJ does not appear to disclose using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location. Lundgren discloses wherein, the processor further is configured to select the one of the two possible values having a lower value of the measured elevation (“Once the latitude for a determined location is received, the wireless device may track the altitude of the device as it moves” [0034]) when a decrease in an elevation of the device causes an increase in the measured distance (“ In this manner, the wireless device 107 may be operable to accurately determine its altitude without requiring an altimeter capable of absolute accuracy,” [0034])
Lundgren teaches in the same field of endeavor of device trilateration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOOIJ as modified by Meadow with the teachings of Lundgren to incorporate the features of using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning accuracy when absolute altitude data is unavailable. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 17, BOOIJ as modified by Meadow disclose all the limitations of claim 13. BOOIJ does not appear to disclose using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location. Lundgren discloses wherein, the processor further is configured to select the one of the two possible values having a higher value of the measured elevation (“Once the latitude for a determined location is received, the wireless device may track the altitude of the device as it moves” [0034]) when a decrease in an elevation of the device causes a decrease in the measured distance (“ In this manner, the wireless device 107 may be operable to accurately determine its altitude without requiring an altimeter capable of absolute accuracy,” [0034])
Lundgren teaches in the same field of endeavor of device trilateration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOOIJ as modified by Meadow with the teachings of Lundgren to incorporate the features of using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning accuracy when absolute altitude data is unavailable. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 19, BOOIJ as modified by Meadow disclose all the limitations of claim 18. BOOIJ does not appear to disclose using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location. Lundgren discloses wherein, the processor further is configured to select the one of the two possible positions that corresponds to a higher elevation when an increase or decrease in the measured elevation (“Once the latitude for a determined location is received, the wireless device may track the altitude of the device as it moves” [0034]) of the device causes a respective increase or decrease in a distance between the device and the at least one of the plurality of static devices (“ In this manner, the wireless device 107 may be operable to accurately determine its altitude without requiring an altimeter capable of absolute accuracy,” [0034])
Lundgren teaches in the same field of endeavor of device trilateration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOOIJ as modified by Meadow with the teachings of Lundgren to incorporate the features of using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning accuracy when absolute altitude data is unavailable. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 20, BOOIJ as modified by Meadow disclose all the limitations of claim 18. BOOIJ does not appear to disclose using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location. Lundgren discloses wherein, the processor is further configured to select the one of the two possible positions that corresponds to a lower elevation when an increase or decrease in the measured elevation (“Once the latitude for a determined location is received, the wireless device may track the altitude of the device as it moves” [0034]) of the device causes a respective decrease or increase in a distance between the device and the at least one of the plurality of static devices (“ In this manner, the wireless device 107 may be operable to accurately determine its altitude without requiring an altimeter capable of absolute accuracy,” [0034])
Lundgren teaches in the same field of endeavor of device trilateration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOOIJ as modified by Meadow with the teachings of Lundgren to incorporate the features of using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning accuracy when absolute altitude data is unavailable. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 21, BOOIJ as modified by Meadow disclose all the limitations of claim 1. BOOIJ as modified by Meadow discloses measuring both radio-frequency-derived distance and elevation, the combination does not appear to disclose using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location. Lundgren discloses wherein, the processor is further configured to perform the selecting with respect to a particular one of the plurality of second devices based on a comparison between a change in the measured elevation of the first device (“Once the latitude for a determined location is received, the wireless device may track the altitude of the device as it moves” [0034]) and a contemporaneous change in a radio-frequency-derived distance between the first device and the particular one of the plurality of second devices (“ In this manner, the wireless device 107 may be operable to accurately determine its altitude without requiring an altimeter capable of absolute accuracy,” [0034])
Lundgren teaches in the same field of endeavor of device trilateration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOOIJ as modified by Meadow with the teachings of Lundgren to incorporate the features of using changes in distance and altitude to resolve location so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning accuracy when absolute altitude data is unavailable. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
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.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
ANTILLE(US20230039932A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0072] “ These components cooperate to provide a positioning system, capable of estimating the position of the mobile device 7 in up to three dimensions—e.g. as an (x, y, z) coordinate—within the room 1.”
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 CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights