DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
The drawings of March 15, 2024 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) of March 15, 2024; December 4, 2024; and, April 7, 2025 have been considered during examination.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file (IFW), not to any claim as it may be reproduced below.
On line 5 of paragraph [0104] of the specification, it appears that the text, “(AoD or AoD)” may be a typographical error since the two alternatives are identical.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claims 2, 5, 10, and 13 are 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.
On lines 1-2 of dependent claim 2, the phrase, “any one of which of the transmitting device and the receiving device” is indefinite and unclear in context due to the use of “any one” in a context in which there are only two alternatives. Substantially the same remarks apply to similar language on lines 5-6 of dependent claim 5, on lines 1-2 of dependent claim 10, and, on lines 6-7 of dependent claim 13. It appears that “either one of which” was meant.
Prior Art Rejections
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suresh (EP 4095541 A1) or by Suresh (‘695) or Suresh (‘270).
Please note that this rejection is making reference to Suresh (EP 4095541 A1), hereinafter Suresh (‘541), but, but the remarks apply equally to Suresh (‘695) and Suresh (‘270), being related patent documents.
The text of independent claim 1 is as follows:
“1. A method of measuring a direction between devices performing ultra-wide band (UWB) communication and each including a plurality of antennas, the method comprising: transmitting signals through a plurality of antennas by a transmitting device and receiving the signals through a plurality of antennas by a receiving device; and selecting at least one of an angle of departure (AoD) method and an angle of arrival (AoA) method depending on statuses of the transmitting device and the receiving device and measuring the direction between the devices by using a selected method, wherein the AoD method is a method of measuring an AoD of signals transmitted through two or more different antennas from the transmitting device based on a phase difference between the transmitted signals, and the AoA method is a method of measuring an AoA of signals received through two or more different antennas by the receiving device based on a phase difference between the received signals.”
The claim 1 limitation, “A method of measuring a direction” (line 1) is met in Suresh (‘541), at least, by the disclosure related to the phrase, “device to which direction is being determined” from line 58 of column 6 to line 1 of column 7.
The claim 1 limitation, “between devices” (line 1) is met in Suresh (‘541) by the use of “asset 110” and the “plurality of locators 108-1 to 108-N,” noting paragraph [25] at lines 1-3.
The claim 1 limitation, “performing ultra-wide band (UWB) communication” (lines 1-3) is met in Suresh (‘541), noting, for example, column 5, left column at lines 1-2, and, paragraph [20] at line 9 (noting the word, “Communication”).
As for the claim 1 limitation, “each including a plurality of antennas” (line 2), these are met in Suresh (‘541), at least, by “one or more antennas” and by “multiple antennae” in paragraph [24] at lines 33-35.
The claim 1 limitations, “transmitting signals through a plurality of antennas by a transmitting device and receiving the signals through a plurality of antennas by a receiving device” (lines 4-5) are met in Suresh (‘541) by transmitting and receiving signals through the antennas for the “asset 110” and the “plurality of locators 108-1 to 108-N.”
The claim 1 limitations, “selecting at least one of an angle of departure (AoD) method and an angle of arrival (AoA) method depending on statuses of the transmitting device and the receiving device and measuring the direction between the devices by using a selected method” (lines 6-8) are met in Suresh (‘541), at least, by paragraph [34], noting especially lines 18-26 of that paragraph, and by the subsequent use of whichever method is selected.
The claim 1 limitations, “wherein the AoD method is a method of measuring an AoD of signals transmitted through two or more different antennas from the transmitting device based on a phase difference between the transmitted signals, and the AoA method is a method of measuring an AoA of signals received through two or more different antennas by the receiving device based on a phase difference between the received signals” (lines 9-13) are met in Suresh (‘541) by the definition of the two disclosed of operation, also, noting, paragraph [24] at lines 33-50 (noting, especially, “phase difference”), and, paragraph [37] at lines 6-11.
In that each and every claim limitation recited in independent claim 1 is plainly disclosed in Suresh (‘541), independent claim 1 is anticipated by Suresh (‘541), as well as being individually anticipated by either one of Suresh (‘695) or Suresh (‘270).
With reference to the further limitations of dependent claim 2, the feature, “angle of orientation” (line 6) is understood to mean the direction in which the “moving device” is moving. The further limitations in dependent claim 2 are met in Suresh (‘541) by the tracking of the direction of motion of “mobile devices” (paragraph [24] at lines 5, 35, and, 44-50). So, the further limitations of dependent claim 2 are, also, anticipated by Suresh (‘541).
The further limitations of dependent claim 3 are met by Suresh (‘541) in that the angles would have to be in a range such that the transmit and receive antenna patterns would permit signals to travel between the “transmitting device” and the “receiving device.”
The further limitations of dependent claim 8 are met by Suresh (‘541) in that Suresh (‘541) discloses the invention implemented as a computer-program product. For example, please note paragraph [89], as well as, paragraph [93] at lines 21-25.
Now, looking to independent claim 9, the remarks are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 1, in that claim 9 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method of claim 1. In Suresh (‘541), please note Figures 2, 4, and 8; the word, “apparatus” on line 2 of paragraph [89]; paragraph [93] at lines 21-25; column 26 at lines 15-45; and, column 27 at lines 15-37.
The remarks with respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 10 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 2, in that claim 10 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method of claim 2.
The remarks with respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 11 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 3, in that claim 11 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method of claim 3.
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 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suresh (EP 4095541 A1) or by Suresh (‘695) or Suresh (‘270).
Please note that this rejection is making reference to Suresh (EP 4095541 A1), hereinafter Suresh (‘541), but, but the remarks apply equally to Suresh (‘695) and Suresh (‘270), being related patent documents.
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of radio-frequency, direction-determining devices.
Regarding the further limitations of dependent claim 4, although Suresh (‘541) does not disclose the claimed use of a first and second reference value, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to test for when to use the AoD method or to use the AoA method according to the size for which each operates optimally.
The remarks with respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 12 are substantially those made with respect to dependent claim 4, in that claim 12 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method of claim 4.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6, 7, 14, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aldana et al (‘336) is of general interest for the disclosed antenna arrangement used with ultrawideband signals.
Ahmed et al (‘680) is of general interest for the disclosed antenna arrangement used with ultrawideband signals.
Each of Kalliola et al (‘966); Malik et al (‘900); Sadiq et al (‘594); Li et al (‘442); and, Luong et al (‘775) is of general interest for its respective antenna arrangement.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648