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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REM (6/5/2026, page 10, section II) with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim 1 under 35USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of CN114216457A (which has been provided in the International Search Report 6/30/2026).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1, 7 - 8, 14 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN115767412 (which has been provided in the International Search Report 10/15/2024) in view of CN114216457A (which has been provided in the International Search Report 6/30/2026).
Regarding claim 1, CN115767412 discloses a method comprising:
whether at least one wireless signal measurement was received, each wireless signal measurement associated with a pair of anchors (page 5, lines 2 – 4 discloses using two anchors; page 5, line 20, step S1 discloses UWB ranging to determine distance between UWB base station and tag; wherein the measurement is the UWB ranging);
and whether at least one step was detected (page 9, lines 10 – 17 discloses obtaining information on steps; page 10, lines 7+ discloses PDR is used to … obtain the motion distance and heading of the target to be measured; page 11, lines 1 – 2 discloses counting number of steps of pedestrians; page 6, line 1, step S2);
selecting a state of a tracking filter state machine based on whether the at least one wireless signal measurement was received and whether the at least one step was detected (page 6, line 3, step S3 discloses obtaining position from UWB and step measurements; page 13, lines 13 - 15);
and determining a location of an object using the tracking filter state machine based on the selected state (page 6, lines 7 - 8).
CN115767412 does not explicitly disclose (1) the measurements are made in a time interval and (2) that the selection of a state of a tracking filter state machine is made out of a set of different states of the tracking filter state machine.
However, “the measurements are made in a time interval” is obvious to try or an obvious variation (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F)), since CN115767412 discloses use of a sampling interval for measurement purposes (page 14, line 9; page 13, lines 13+). Hence, the time interval could be interpreted as the sampling interval or a multiple of the sampling interval.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use a sampling interval or a multiple of the sampling interval as the time interval, as this would enable one to control the rate at which measurements are done e.g. if the time interval is a sampling interval, then measurements are performed at the sampling rate, which would be useful if the target moves fast. For a slow-moving target, the time interval could be selected to be an integer multiple of the sampling interval, thereby reducing the processing and power requirements.
In the same field of endeavor, however, CN114216457A discloses the selection of a state of a tracking filter state machine is made out of a set of different states of the tracking filter state machine ([0065] – [0066], [0072] discloses selecting a state based on high or weak UWB signal strength or based on the number of UWB stations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method, as taught by CN114216457A, in the system of CN115767412 because this would provide the optimal state to be used based on signal strength conditions and number of UWB stations.
Regarding claim 7, CN115767412 discloses the at least one step was detected using one or more measurements from one or more motion sensors associated with the object (page 9, lines 10 – 17 discloses the tag has IMU and motion state can be outputted).
Claim 8 is similarly analyzed as claim 1, with claim 8 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations. Claim 8 recites transceiver and processor. These are inherent in any UWB system.
Claim 14 is similarly analyzed as claim 7.
Claim 15 is similarly analyzed as claim 1.
Claims 2, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN115767412 (which has been provided in the International Search Report) in view of CN114216457A (which has been provided in the International Search Report 6/30/2026) and further in view of Hol et al. (US 20110025562 A1).
Regarding claim 2, CN115767412 discloses use of UWB ranging (page 5, line 20, step S1 discloses UWB ranging to determine distance between UWB base station and tag) and downlink times (page 8, line 8 – page 9, line 6).
CN115767412 does not disclose use of TDOA.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Hol discloses time difference of arrival (TDOA) measurements ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the TDOA method, as taught by Hol, in the system of CN115767412 because this would eliminate the time of transmission, as disclosed by Hol ([0042]).
Claim 9 is similarly analyzed as claim 2.
Claim 16 is similarly analyzed as claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 - 6, 10 - 13, 17 - 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to position determination:
Kassas et al. (US 20210109234 A1) Discloses Indoor Localization System with LTE Code and Carrier Phase Measurements and an IMU.
Gustafson et al. (US 20130249784 A1) discloses Method and Device for Pose Tracking Using Vector Magnetometers.
Beadle et al. (US 20100027603 A1) discloses use of Kalman filters in position estimation.
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 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights