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 amendments filed March 30, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 5, and 7-10 have been amended. Claims 9-20 are new. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed December 29, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-15, filed March 30, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-7 and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Forstrom et al. (US 20030092448 A1) and Kaio (US 10042034 B2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Forstrom et al. (US 20030092448 A1), hereinafter Forstrom.
Regarding claim 1, Forstrom teaches a method for determining a position of a transmitter, the method comprising:
synchronizing a multiplicity of receivers by forwarding a list of measurement parameters from a central controller to the multiplicity of receivers, wherein the list of measurement parameters comprises a multiplicity of measurement time intervals (paras. 42-43, “As depicted in FIG. 2 at steps 32, 34, and 36, if, based upon the considerations presented above, a receiver radio determines that it is necessary to synchronize its clock with the reference radio, the receiver radio will initiate a two-way or round-trip time synchronization scheme based upon the exchange of a series of time synchronization signals with the reference radio. By precisely knowing the time of transmission of the outbound time synchronization signal, the far-end turn around time at the reference radio, and the time of arrival of the reply time synchronization signal, the receiver radio can precisely determine the signal propagation time between itself and the reference radio [step 37].”; each time synchronization contains a turn around time at the reference radio, described as “the time between reception of the outbound ranging signal and transmission of the reply ranging signal” in para. 5, in other words an interval, also see Fig. 4 for a depiction of multiple synchronization signals together constituting a list; Fig. 1, Examiner is construing the reference radio 12 as part of a central controller that synchronizes a multiplicity of receivers RX radios 1-3),
measuring signals by the multiplicity of receivers using the list of measurement parameters (see para. 51 for list of measurement parameters; para. 43, “By precisely knowing the time of transmission of the outbound time synchronization signal, the far-end turn around time at the reference radio, and the time of arrival of the reply time synchronization signal, the receiver radio can precisely determine the signal propagation time between itself and the reference radio [step 37].”),
forwarding data relating to the measured signals from the multiplicity of receivers to the central controller, wherein the data relating to the measured signals comprise a measurement time and a measurement position of the measured signal, and evaluating the forwarded data to determine the position of the transmitter by the central controller (see para. 24 for evidence that trilateration processor 14 and reference radio 12 may be part of a single device, which Examiner is construing as a central controller; para. 61, “As indicated in FIG. 1 by dashed arrows leading from receiver radios 16, 18, and 20 to trilateration processor 14, once the receiver signal detection times and/or internal clocks have been synchronized to the common time reference frame, the receiver radios notify the trilateration processor with a signal detection notification containing the synchronized time of detection and information about the detected signal [step 40 in FIG. 2]. The trilateration processor receives and correlates signal detection notifications from multiple receiver radios based upon time of receipt and/or signal content [FIG. 2, steps 42 and 44]. If three or more signal detection notifications can be correlated, trilateration processing techniques are used to calculate the position of the emitter, based upon the respective synchronized detection times and the positions of the respective receiver radios at the time of detection [FIG. 2, steps 46 and 48].”).
Regarding claim 2, Forstrom teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the list of measurement parameters further comprises a measurement start time, a measurement time interval length and/or a measurement duration (para. 55, “Note that turn around time (T TA) is an absolute time duration, unrelated to a particular timing reference of any local clock. That is, the turn around time [which can be a fixed period of time] is determined by the reference radio as the difference between the time of transmission of the reply time synchronization signal transmitted by the reference radio and the time of arrival of the outbound time synchronization signal at the reference radio.”).
Regarding claim 3, Forstrom teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the list of measurement parameters further comprises a frequency measurement range (para. 51, “In this manner, N sets of time synchronization signals are transmitted at N different carrier frequencies.”).
Regarding claim 4, Forstrom teaches the method according to claim 3,
wherein the frequency measurement range is divided into a multiplicity of sub-ranges and one of the multiplicity of sub-ranges is assigned to each of the multiplicity of measurement intervals (para. 51, “In this manner, N sets of time synchronization signals are transmitted at N different carrier frequencies.”; see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Forstrom teaches the system accordinq to claim 9,
wherein the multiplicity of receivers are confiqured as mobile (para. 37, “As used herein and in the claims, a “communication device” or “radio” includes any device, mobile or stationary, that is capable of transmitting and/or receiving communication signals, including but not limited to […]and any type of position estimating transmitter/receiver.”; see Fig. 1 for a multiplicity of radios).
Regarding claim 9, Forstrom teaches
a system having a multiplicity of receivers and a central controller configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 (see Fig. 1 and rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Forstrom teaches the system according to claim 9,
wherein the multiplicity of receivers are configured as stationary and/or mobile (see para. 37; see Fig. 1 for a multiplicity of radios).
Regarding claim 11, Forstrom teaches the system according to claim 9,
wherein the multiplicity of receivers are configured such that at least one receiver of the multiplicity of receivers is configured as stationary and at least one further receiver of the multiplicity of receivers is configured as mobile (see para. 37; see Fig. 1 for a multiplicity of radios).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forstrom in view of Kaio (US 10042034 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Forstrom teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the data relating to the measured signals comprise the measured signals (see para. 61 and step 42 in Fig. 4) but fails to teach
wherein the central controller determines whether the measured signals originate from the transmitter.
However, Kaio teaches
wherein the central controller determines whether the measured signals originate from the transmitter (col. 3 lines 46-53, “Since the search target finding unit is configured to analyze the electrical signal using the analysis means, whether or not the electrical signal is one transmitted from the signal generation device carried by the search target can be determined with high reliability. Further, since the signal generation device, search target finding unit and position measuring means constitute a network, the analysis signal can be quickly transmitted to the position measuring means.”; Examiner is construing the analysis means of Kaio as a central controller).
Forstrom and Kaio are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of transmitter position determination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Forstrom with the teachings of Kaio with the motivation of having assurance of a transmitter’s identity.
Regarding claim 6, Forstrom teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the multiplicity of receivers determine whether the measured signals originate from the transmitter.
However, Kaio teaches
wherein the multiplicity of receivers determine whether the measured signals originate from the transmitter (see col. 3 lines 46-53 and Fig. 1, where each target finding unit 20 [each construed as a receiver] contains an analysis means 24 and GPS receiver 28).
Forstrom and Kaio are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of transmitter position determination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Forstrom with the teachings of Kaio with the motivation of having assurance of a transmitter’s identity.
Regarding claim 7, Forstrom in view of Kaio teaches the method according to claim 6, but Forstrom fails to teach
wherein each of the multiplicity of receivers transmits the data relating to the measured signals only upon determining if it has been determined that the measured signals originate from the transmitter.
However, Kaio teaches
wherein each of the multiplicity of receivers transmits the data relating to the measured signals only upon determining if it has been determined that the measured signals originate from the transmitter (see col. 2 lines 41-55; see col. 5 line 57 – col. 6 line 19 for transmission of an analysis signal 200 which is data relating to electrical signal 100 which is a measurement signal).
Forstrom and Kaio are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of transmitter position determination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Forstrom with the teachings of Kaio with the motivation of having assurance of a transmitter’s identity.
Claims -12-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forstrom in view of Sagey et al. (US 4740792 A), hereinafter Sagey.
Regarding claim 12, Forstrom teaches a method for determining a position of a transmitter, the method comprising:
synchronizing a multiplicity of receivers by forwarding a list of measurement parameters from a central controller to the multiplicity of receivers, wherein the list of measurement parameters comprises a multiplicity of measurement time intervals, measuring signals by the multiplicity of receivers using the list of measurement parameters, forwarding data relating to the measured signals from the multiplicity of receivers to the central controller, wherein the data relating to the measured signals comprise a measurement time and a measurement position of the measured signal, evaluating the forwarded data to determine the position of the transmitter by the central controller (see rejection of claim 1), but fails to teach
determining a position of a multiplicity of transmitters.
However, Sagey teaches
determining a position of a multiplicity of transmitters (col. 5 line 67 – col. 6 line 10, “Illustrated in FIG. 1 as comprising VLS 20 is a central processing station or center 22 at which vehicle locations are computed from transmitted signal time differences of arrival [TDOA]. Further comprising VLS 20 are at least first, second and third elevated radio signal relay stations 24, 26 and 28 which receive vehicle transmitter RF signals and relay or retransmit these signals to processing center 22 for processing. Also comprising VLS 20 are a large number of what may be termed ‘vehicle transmitters’, only three of which are shown in FIG. 1, being identified by the reference numbers 30, 32 and 34.”).
Forstrom and Sagey are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of transmitter position determination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Forstrom with the teachings of Sagey with the motivation of being able to locate multiple transmitters concurrently.
Regarding claim 13, Forstrom in view of Sagey teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein:
the list of measurement parameters further comprises a measurement start time, a measurement time interval length and/or a measurement duration (see Forstrom para. 55), or
the data relating to the measured signals comprise the measured signals and
the central controller determines whether the measured signals originate from the multiplicity of transmitters.
Regarding claim 14, Forstrom in view of Sagey teaches the method according to claim 12,
wherein the list of measurement parameters further comprises a frequency measurement range (see Forstrom para. 51 and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Forstrom in view of Sagey teaches the method according to claim 14,
wherein the frequency measurement range is divided into a multiplicity of sub-ranges and one of the multiplicity of sub-ranges is assigned to each of the multiplicity of measurement intervals (see Forstrom para. 51 and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Forstrom in view of Sagey teaches
a system having a multiplicity of receivers and a central controller configured to carry out the method according to claim 12 (Forstrom; see rejection of claim 12).
Regarding claim 19, Forstrom in view of Sagey teaches the system according to claim 18,
wherein the multiplicity of receivers are configured as stationary and/or mobile (Forstrom; see para. 37; see Fig. 1 for a multiplicity of radios).
Regarding claim 20, Forstrom in view of Sagey teaches the system according to claim 18,
wherein the multiplicity of receivers are configured such that at least one receiver of the multiplicity of receivers is configured as stationary and at least one further receiver of the multiplicity of receivers is configured as mobile (Forstrom; see para. 37; see Fig. 1 for a multiplicity of radios).
Claims -16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forstrom in view of Sagey and further in view of Kaio.
Regarding claim 16, Forstrom in view of Sagey teaches the method according to claim 12, but fails to teach
wherein the multiplicity of receivers determine whether the measured signals originate from the multiplicity of transmitters.
However, Kaio teaches
wherein the multiplicity of receivers determine whether the measured signals originate from the transmitter (see col. 3 lines 46-53 and Fig. 1), where
Sagey teaches
a multiplicity of transmitters (see Fig. 1).
Forstrom, Sagey, and Kaio are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of transmitter position determination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Forstrom with the teachings of Sagey with the motivation of being able to locate multiple transmitters concurrently, and with the teachings of Kaio with the motivation of having assurance of a transmitter’s identity.
Regarding claim 17, Forstrom in view of Sagey and further in view of Kaio teaches the method according to claim 16, but Forstrom fails to teach
wherein each of the multiplicity of receivers transmits the data relating to the measured signals only upon determining that the measured signals originate from the multiplicity of transmitters.
However, Kaio teaches
wherein each of the multiplicity of receivers transmits the data relating to the measured signals only upon determining that the measured signals originate from the transmitter (see col. 3 lines 46-53 and Fig. 1), where
Sagey teaches
a multiplicity of transmitters (see Fig. 1).
Forstrom, Sagey, and Kaio are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of transmitter position determination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Forstrom with the teachings of Sagey with the motivation of being able to locate multiple transmitters concurrently, and with the teachings of Kaio with the motivation of having assurance of a transmitter’s identity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K HODAC whose telephone number is (571) 270-0123. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6.
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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/ERIC K HODAC/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights