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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites, “The method according to claim 1, wherein the positions in each case of a multiplicity of transmitters are determined.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the positions” and “each case of a multiplicity of transmitters”, as the scope of the claim does not contain references to at least two positions and at least two cases of a multiplicity of transmitters.
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 1-5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Fireaizen et al. (US 10107892 B2), hereinafter Fireaizen.
Regarding claim 1, Fireaizen teaches a method for determining a position of a transmitter, comprising:
synchronizing a multiplicity of receivers by forwarding a list of measurement parameters from a central control unit 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 control unit, 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 control unit (col. 1 lines 57-61, “To this end, the TDOA technique requires that the two or more geographically separated receivers will be time synchronized with each other, in order to allow precise measurement of the TDOAs providing for determining the location of the emitter.”; col. 7 lines 8-16, “Yet in some embodiments of the present invention, the technique/method includes performing time synchronization between the receivers Rcn, Rcm and utilizing the time synchronization to identify the similarly modulated sections. For instance the time synchronization may be performed by processing data indicative of the signals Sn and Sm received by the receivers to determine a time delay associated with a best-fit between them and synchronizing the timings of said Rcn, Rcm based on said time delay.”).
Regarding claim 2, Fireaizen 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 (col. 2 lines 45-51, “Then, based on information indicative of the respective positions of the receivers at two time points [e.g., at the beginning and the end of the time interval], and the differences between the accumulated phases of the signals received by different receivers [i.e. based on the differential phase], the location of the signal source is accurately determined.”).
Regarding claim 3, Fireaizen teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the list of measurement parameters further comprises a frequency measurement range (col. 6 lines 56-63, “For instance, in some cases, the signal Sn from the signal source is frequency modulated. The phase θn(t) of the signal Sn is therefore a non-linear function of time. Accordingly, in certain embodiments of the invention, the technique includes identifying matching modulation patterns in the signals Sn and Sm received by the different receivers, and determining a common reference point in the signals Sn and Sm.”).
Regarding claim 4, Fireaizen 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 (col. 6 lines 16-21, “According to some embodiments, the method and system are adapted to locate a signal source emitting a modulated signal Sn [i.e., the signal Sn includes one or more signal sections modulated by at least one modulation pattern, such as frequency modulation, and/or one or more signal sections in the form of pulses].”; a frequency modulated received signal would have a frequency measurement sub-range associated with all measurement intervals).
Regarding claim 5, Fireaizen teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the data relating to the measured signals comprise the measured signals and the central control unit determines whether the measured signals originate from the transmitter (col. 2 lines 45-51, “Then, based on information indicative of the respective positions of the receivers at two time points [e.g., at the beginning and the end of the time interval], and the differences between the accumulated phases of the signals received by different receivers [i.e. based on the differential phase], the location of the signal source is accurately determined.”; col. 5 lines 30-37, “The source location processor determines a location of the signal source, such that the determined location satisfies that the differences between the changes, Δdn and Δdm, in the distances, dn and dm, from that location to the positions of the respective receivers during the respective time intervals Δtn and Δtm correspond to the distance differences {ΔDmn} that are associated with [e.g., computed from] the differential phase differences {ΔΔθmn}.”).
Regarding claim 9, Fireaizen teaches
a system having a multiplicity of receivers and a central control unit configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 (Fig. 1C, receivers Rc1 through Rcn and source location processor 250).
Regarding claim 10, Fireaizen teaches the system according to claim 9,
wherein the multiplicity of receivers are configured as stationary and/or mobile (col. 12 lines 2-5, “As indicated above, according to some embodiments of the present invention some of the receivers {Rcn}, although not all of them, may be stationary [not moving] receivers.”).
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fireaizen in view of Forstrom et al. (US 20030092448 A1), hereinafter Forstrom.
Regarding claim 6, Fireaizen 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, Forstrom teaches
wherein the multiplicity of receivers determine whether the measured signals originate from the transmitter (para. 22, “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 communication devices at the time of detection.”; para. 24, “Receiver device, reference device, and trilateration processor capabilities can be performed by separate physical devices, or within a single device.”; Examiner is construing the single device of Forstrom as a receiver device capable of transmitter position determination).
Fireaizen and Forstrom 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 Fireaizen with the teachings of Forstrom with the motivation of reducing required bandwidth.
Regarding claim 7, Fireaizen in view of Forstrom teaches the method according to claim 6, but Fireaizen fails to teach
wherein each of the multiplicity of receivers transmits the data relating to the measured signals only if it has been determined that the measured signals originate from the transmitter.
However, Forstrom teaches
wherein each of the multiplicity of receivers transmits the data relating to the measured signals only if it has been determined that the measured signals originate from the transmitter (para. 62, “There are many ways by which a trilateration processor can determine that separate signal detection notifications are associated with the same emitter signal transmission event. One technique is to compare, using digital signal processing techniques, raw signal information captured by the respective receiver radios and included within the respective detection notification signals. Another is to compare signal signatures comprised of select signal characteristic information collected by the respective receiver radios and placed within the respective detection notifications. Still another technique involves reducing the number of potentially related detection notifications based upon an analysis of the known positions of the respective receiver radios from which the detection notifications were received and the times at which the detection notification were detected by each, based upon an emitter broadcast area of interest. Using such a technique a set of maximum time of detection differences can be calculated so that only signal detection notifications resulting from signals originating from within a predetermined broadcast area are selected for signal characteristics comparison.”).
Fireaizen and Forstrom 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 Fireaizen with the teachings of Forstrom with the motivation of improving position determination accuracy.
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
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648