Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11, 13-17, and 20-23 remain pending in this application. Claims 1, 11, 13, and 16 have been amended. Claims 12, 18, and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 21-23 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/18/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All prior art rejections are overcome in consideration of amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 23 recites “the second device transmits the third signal only while the first device is operating in the second mode”. However, in Remarks the Applicant does not clearly point to support of this limitation anywhere in the drawings or specification. Rather, the Applicant states that the claim amendment is sourced to overcome the teachings of prior art. Claim 1, which claim 23 depends on states “while in the second mode, receiving a third signal from the second device, wherein the third signal is not provided by the second device in response to a signal from the first device”. The limitation of claim 1 sets the operation of the first and second device with regards to a third signal as independent of one another, therefore it is unclear to the Examiner how a second device would only transmit a third signal when a first device is in a certain mode of operation without having knowledge of a mode change. The specification does not provide clarifying details and does not reference any exclusivity of signals between operating modes. The specification does refer to switching between a transmitting and receiving mode of the first device (see at least [0047]), but that does not disclose anything equating to “the second device transmits the third signal only while the first device is operating in the second mode”. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 11, 13, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeSalvo (US 11474227 B1), hereinafter DeSalvo, in view of Hiemstra (US 20210099203 A1), hereinafter Hiemstra, in view of Couture (US 20200069375 A1), hereinafter Couture.
Regarding claim 1, DeSalvo, as shown below, discloses a device system comprising the following limitations:
while in a first mode, transmitting a first signal and receiving a second signal, the second signal comprising a reflection of the first signal by the second device (See at least Fig. 6, Col. 2 Lines 51-54 “After transmitting an FMCW signal, a radar system may receive a reflected, echoed, and/or otherwise returned signal from a target that received and/or encountered the FMCW signal.”, Col. 11 Lines 19-21 “radar devices 616 and/or 618 may determine the range of one or more of the transponders secured to glove 602”);
determining, based on the received second signal, a radiation signature of the second device; determining, based on the radiation signature, a position of the second device relative to the first device (See at least Fig. 6, Col. 11 Lines 19-21 “radar devices 616 and/or 618 may determine the range of one or more of the transponders secured to glove 602”);
determining, based on the third signal, an orientation of the second device relative to the first device (See at least Col. 2 Lines 38-40 “The disclosed radar systems may utilize various types of radar to track or determine the position, orientation, and/or physical location of a wearable” DeSalvo discloses an analogous third signal which is transmitted from an active second device. See also Col. 3 Lines 15-40.),
wherein: the first device comprises one or more receiving antennas and one or more transmitting antennas (See at least Fig. 5, Items 550-560, Col. 10 Lines 47-49 “radar devices 550 and 560 may include any number or type of additional components, such as a receiving antenna, a transmitting antenna,”),
the second device comprises one or more transmitting antennas (See at least Figs 1, 4, Items 155, 420-465, Col. 9 Lines 55-56 “wearable device 400 may include transponders 420, 425, 430”, Col. 5 Lines 31-40 “FIG. 1, transponder 100 may include a receiver 110 […] a transmitter 155”),
the third signal corresponds to one or more transmitting antennas of the second device, (See at least Col. 11 Lines 19-21 “radar devices 616 and/or 618 may determine the range of one or more of the transponders secured to glove 602”)
DeSalvo does not explicitly disclose transitioning from the first mode to a second mode; while in the second mode, receiving a third signal from the second device, wherein the third signal is not provided by the second device in response to a signal from the first device. However, Hiemstra, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
transitioning from the first mode to a second mode (See at least Fig. 12, Item 208, [0162] “After the wireless communication link is configured, device 130 may be in a data transfer state 208, during which data may be freely conveyed between devices 130 and 10”);
while in the second mode, receiving a third signal from the second device, wherein the third signal is not provided by the second device in response to a signal from the first device (See at least Fig. 12, Item 208, [0078] “these wireless communication connections may transmit and/or receive data using high data rates in a bidirectional data link” Hiemstra discloses a bidirectionally free communication link between two devices); and
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device system disclosed by DeSalvo with the third signal system disclosed by Hiemstra. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously efficiently manage power and device states (See at least [0162] “Device 130 may return to idle state 202 when device 10 is removed from the proximity of device 130, when data transfer operations are no longer necessary,”).
The combination of DeSalvo and Hiemstra does not explicitly disclose wherein the radiation signature is associated with a passive reflection profile derived from at least one of at least one reflector disposed on the second device or housing reflection characteristics of the second device. However, Couture, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
wherein the radiation signature is associated with a passive reflection profile derived from at least one of at least one reflector disposed on the second device or housing reflection characteristics of the second device (See at least Fig. 1, Item 21, [0027] “passive marker, such as an emitter or a reflector. Each reference marker 21 is therefore an active or passive trackable object, and can operate using optical, RF, ultrasound, or electromagnetic signals.”); and
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device system disclosed by DeSalvo with the third signal system disclosed by Hiemstra with the passive reflection system disclosed by Couture. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously track a user in a non-invasive and non-obstructive manner (See at least [0005] “An alternate option for tracking bones is to position such markers in a non-invasive manner”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, and Couture, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. DeSalvo further discloses
the first signal, the second signal, and the third signal comprise radar signals (See at least Fig. 6, Col. 2 Lines 51-54 “After transmitting an FMCW signal, a radar system may receive a reflected, echoed, and/or otherwise returned signal from a target that received and/or encountered the FMCW signal.”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, and Couture as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. DeSalvo further discloses
the first device and the second device are components of a wearable system (See at least Fig. 6, Col. 3 Lines 41-45 “The radar systems disclosed herein may track and/or determine the position, orientation, and/or physical location of any type or form of wearable artificial reality device, including headsets, head-mounted displays, helmets, neckbands, wristbands, belts, ankle bands, and/or gloves.”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, and Couture as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3. DeSalvo further discloses
the first device comprises a wearable head unit and the second device comprises a handheld controller (See at least Fig. 6, Col. 3 Lines 41-45 “The radar systems disclosed herein may track and/or determine the position, orientation, and/or physical location of any type or form of wearable artificial reality device, including headsets, head-mounted displays, helmets, neckbands, wristbands, belts, ankle bands, and/or gloves.”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, and Couture, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The combination of DeSalvo and Hiemstra does not disclose the radiation signature is based on a configuration of at least one retroreflector reflector disposed on the second device. However, Couture further discloses
the radiation signature is based on a configuration of at least one retroreflector reflector disposed on the second device (See at least Fig. 1, [0028] “the retroreflective reference markers 21 are in a known pattern”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device system disclosed by DeSalvo with the third signal system disclosed by Hiemstra with the passive reflection system disclosed by Couture. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously track a user in a non-invasive and non-obstructive manner (See at least [0005] “An alternate option for tracking bones is to position such markers in a non-invasive manner”).
Regarding claim 13, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 15, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 12. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 12, shown above.
Regarding claim 16, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, and Couture, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 16. DeSalvo further discloses
said determining the position of the second device relative to the first device further comprises identifying a radiation signature of one or more portions of a human body (See at least Col. 2 Lines 38-42 “The disclosed radar systems may utilize various types of radar to track or determine the position, orientation, and/or physical location of a wearable artificial reality device and/or a user of an artificial reality system”, Col. 2 Lines 52-54 “a radar system may receive a reflected, echoed, and/or otherwise returned signal from a target that received and/or encountered the FMCW signal”, Col 3 Lines 19-20 “Examples of passive targets may include a body part of a user”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeSalvo, in view of Hiemstra, in further view of Couture, in further view of Godlieb (US 10656604 B2), hereinafter Godlieb.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, and Couture as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, and Couture does not explicitly disclose the second device comprises an orientation sensor, and the orientation of the second device relative to the first device is determined further based on an output of the orientation sensor. However, Godlieb, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the second device comprises an orientation sensor, and the orientation of the second device relative to the first device is determined further based on an output of the orientation sensor (See at least Fig. 5, Col. 2 Lines 12-22 “The first orientation measuring unit and the second orientation measuring unit may be accelerometer. By placing an accelerometer in the first device, the relative orientation of the appliance to the world is known. By placing an accelerometer on a second device at fixed position on the person on the relevant body part, the relative orientation of the person to the world is known. By comparing (e.g. by geometric subtraction) these orientations the orientation of the appliance relative to the person or person's relevant body part can be determined”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device system disclosed by DeSalvo with the third signal system disclosed by Hiemstra with the passive reflection system disclosed by Couture with the orientation sensor system disclosed by Godlieb. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously determine orientation in a processing power efficient way (See at least Col. 2 Lines 8-12 “This provides a convenient way of determining an orientation of a first device relative to a user that is very efficient in terms of required processing power”).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeSalvo, in view of Hiemstra, in further view of Couture, in further view of Tuttle (US 7880618 B2), hereinafter Tuttle.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, and Couture as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, and Couture does not explicitly disclose wherein said determining the orientation of the second device relative to the first device comprises determining a polarization of the third signal. However, Tuttle, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
wherein said determining the orientation of the second device relative to the first device comprises determining a polarization of the third signal (See at least Col. 10 Lines 31-34 “The embodiments with respect to determining an orientation based on the polarization of electromagnetic signals are discussed as having vertical and horizontal electromagnetic signals and related antennas”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device system disclosed by DeSalvo with the third signal system disclosed by Hiemstra with the passive reflection system disclosed by Couture with the orientation system disclosed by Tuttle. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously accurately obtain orientation in challenging environments (See at least Col. 9 Lines 1-9 “The system 100 may thus determine an orientation, in these embodiments the orientation being which side of the RFID tag 16 and attached object 10 face or are exposed to a particular direction. Moreover, combined with the various embodiments using RSSI to determine whether the RFID tag 16 and attached object 10 are moving (and in some cases which direction), the system 100 may thus determine which face of the object is exposed to the particular reading antenna, and in which direction the face is moving.”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, and Couture as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, and Couture does not explicitly disclose said determining the orientation of the second device relative to the first device comprises determining a ratio of a signal power of the third signal to an expected maximum signal power of the one or more transmitting antennas to which the third signal corresponds. However, Tuttle, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
said determining the orientation of the second device relative to the first device comprises determining a ratio of a signal power of the third signal to an expected maximum signal power of the one or more transmitting antennas to which the third signal corresponds (See at least Claims 16-17 “wherein the RFID system is configured to determine that the RFID tag has a substantially vertical rotational orientation when the signal strength detected by the first antenna is substantially greater than the signal strength detected by the second antenna” Col. 4 Lines 1-16 “Here too, the RFID reader 19, in addition to extracting the message from the electromagnetic signal, also generates a parameter (RSSI) indicative of the signal strength of the electromagnetic signal that carried the message. In the case of RSSI for passive tags, the RSSI may be an indication of the ratio of the peak reflected signal strength (i.e., RFID tag reflecting power) to the background signal strength (i.e., RFID tag absorbing power). In other embodiments, the RSSI for passive tags may be the ratio of a maximum possible reflected power (i.e., signal strength with RFID tag close to the reading antenna and the RFID tag reflection) to the actual reflected power.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device system disclosed by DeSalvo with the third signal system disclosed by Hiemstra with the passive reflection system disclosed by Couture with the orientation system disclosed by Tuttle. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously accurately obtain orientation in challenging environments (See at least Col. 9 Lines 1-9 “The system 100 may thus determine an orientation, in these embodiments the orientation being which side of the RFID tag 16 and attached object 10 face or are exposed to a particular direction. Moreover, combined with the various embodiments using RSSI to determine whether the RFID tag 16 and attached object 10 are moving (and in some cases which direction), the system 100 may thus determine which face of the object is exposed to the particular reading antenna, and in which direction the face is moving.”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, Couture, and Tuttle as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 7. The combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, and Couture does not explicitly disclose said determining the orientation of the second device relative to the first device further comprises determining, based on a radiation model associated with the one or more transmitting antennas of the second device, an orientation of the antenna corresponding to the ratio. However, Tuttle, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
said determining the orientation of the second device relative to the first device further comprises determining, based on a radiation model associated with the one or more transmitting antennas of the second device, an orientation of the antenna corresponding to the ratio (See at least Col. 10 Lines 31-35 “The embodiments with respect to determining an orientation based on the polarization of electromagnetic signals are discussed as having vertical and horizontal electromagnetic signals and related antennas; however, any two different polarizations may be used.” Cols. 10-11 Lines 66-5, Claims 14-16 “the first antenna has a vertical polarization; wherein the second antenna has a horizontal polarization; and wherein the RFID system is configured to determine that the RFID tag has a substantially vertical rotational orientation when the signal strength detected by the first antenna is substantially greater than the signal strength detected by the second antenna.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device system disclosed by DeSalvo with the third signal system disclosed by Hiemstra with the passive reflection system disclosed by Couture with the orientation system disclosed by Tuttle. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously accurately obtain orientation in challenging environments (See at least Col. 9 Lines 1-9 “The system 100 may thus determine an orientation, in these embodiments the orientation being which side of the RFID tag 16 and attached object 10 face or are exposed to a particular direction. Moreover, combined with the various embodiments using RSSI to determine whether the RFID tag 16 and attached object 10 are moving (and in some cases which direction), the system 100 may thus determine which face of the object is exposed to the particular reading antenna, and in which direction the face is moving.”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeSalvo, in view of Hiemstra, in further view of Couture, in further view of Pratt (US 20170353210 A1), hereinafter Pratt.
Regarding claim 9, The combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, and Couture as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, and Couture does not explicitly disclose s the first device comprises a plurality of receiving antennas, each receiving antenna of the plurality orthogonal to the other receiving antennas of the plurality of receiving antennas; and the second device comprises a plurality of transmitting antennas, each transmitting antenna of the plurality orthogonal to the other transmitting antennas of the plurality of transmitting antennas. However, Pratt, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the first device comprises a plurality of receiving antennas, each receiving antenna of the plurality orthogonal to the other receiving antennas of the plurality of receiving antennas (See at least Figs. 1-2 [0044] “Further, in the example of the FIG. 1 system 100 which is shown in FIG. 2, the receiver 220 is connected to two spatially-separated receiving antennas R1, R2, each having two orthogonally-polarized antenna elements.”); and
the second device comprises a plurality of transmitting antennas, each transmitting antenna of the plurality orthogonal to the other transmitting antennas of the plurality of transmitting antennas (See at least Figs. 1-2 [0025] “In the particular example shown in FIG. 1, the transmitter 110 has two transmit ports which are respectively coupled to two orthogonally-polarized antenna elements.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device system disclosed by DeSalvo with the third signal system disclosed by Hiemstra with the passive reflection system disclosed by Couture with the antenna orthogonality system disclosed by Pratt. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously transmit and identify/receive multiple signals simultaneously (See at least [0029] “But, according to the systems and methods described herein, the transmit signals can advantageously be synthesized in a manner such that they are mutually coherent and separable at the receiver 120. For example, the transmit signals may have one or more separability characteristics that allow the receiver 120 to identify, isolate, and/or distinguish the respective receiver responses to the transmit signals from one another.”)
Claims 10, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeSalvo, in view of Tuttle, in further view of Couture, in further view of Palero (US 20200037927 A1), hereinafter Palero.
Regarding claim 10, The combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, and Couture as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, and Couture does not explicitly disclose the method further comprises receiving a fourth signal from the second device while in the second mode, wherein the fourth signal corresponds to data from an inertial measurement unit of the second device. However, Pratt, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the method further comprises receiving a fourth signal from the second device while in the second mode, wherein the fourth signal corresponds to data from an inertial measurement unit of the second device (See at least Figs. 1-2, items 120, 220, [0059] “The posture measurement device 120, 220, 320, 420, 520 (or the measurement element or sensor of the posture measurement device) may comprise at least one of electromyography (EMG) instrumentation; body joint flex sensing instrumentation; an inertial measurement unit (IMU);”, [0049] “The measured posture is, in some embodiments, then transmitted to the processing apparatus 230 either via a wire or cable, or wirelessly.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device system disclosed by DeSalvo with the third signal system disclosed by Hiemstra with the passive reflection system disclosed by Couture with the inertial data system disclosed by Palero. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously create a more effective system for estimating location and orientation with respect to a user (See at least [0007] “Existing means for determining a location of a device can be ineffective. Furthermore, some existing means can require images to be acquired, or data to be obtained from multiple sensors. Therefore, there is a desire for a more effective means for estimating the location and/or orientation of a personal care device with respect to a user of the device.”).
Regarding claim 14, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 10. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 10, shown above.
Regarding claim 17, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 10. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 10, shown above.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeSalvo, in view of Hiemstra, in view of Couture, in further view of Pathirana (US 20150375108 A1), hereinafter Pathirana.
Regarding claim 21, The combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, and Couture, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, and Couture does not explicitly disclose the third signal is autonomously transmitted by the second device, independent of any transmission by the first device. However, Pathirana, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the third signal is autonomously transmitted by the second device, independent of any transmission by the first device (See at least Fig. 1, [0038] “The signals are independently generated at each emitter unit. Referring to FIG. 11, transmissions of radio signals from the emitter units 16-26 are effected in repetitive time cycles T” Pathirana discloses independently activating emitters in a repetitive manner based on time, not as a response to transmission from a first device.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device system disclosed by DeSalvo with the third signal system disclosed by Hiemstra with the passive reflection system disclosed by Couture with the emitter system disclosed by Pathirana. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously minimize error (See at least [0097] “The method of the invention is particularly advantageous because, by using the time difference of arrival of signal from an emitter for localisation of the emitter, significant immunity to error in the relevant data may be conferred”).
Regarding claim 22, The combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, and Couture, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of DeSalvo, Hiemstra, and Couture does not explicitly disclose the third signal is transmitted unidirectionally from the second device to the first device. However, Pathirana, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the third signal is transmitted unidirectionally from the second device to the first device (See at least Figs. 1, 7, [0047] “The depicted emitter unit includes a signal generator 80 generating a fixed frequency sinusoidal signal f.sub.TX,” Partirana discloses the emitter only having a transmitter and no receiving capabilities. See also [0038].).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device system disclosed by DeSalvo with the third signal system disclosed by Hiemstra with the passive reflection system disclosed by Couture with the emitter system disclosed by Pathirana. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously minimize error (See at least [0097] “The method of the invention is particularly advantageous because, by using the time difference of arrival of signal from an emitter for localisation of the emitter, significant immunity to error in the relevant data may be conferred”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights