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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The three information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 8th, 2024, Jun 24th, 2025, and September 04th, 2025, have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the statements are hereby attached.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because some of the text in Figs. 2 and 6 is illegible. Please enlarge the text, change the font color, or make some other correction such that the text is clear. . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 300. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 0058, there is a small grammatical error "This increase in transmit power is local regulation in the deployment area".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase ".. wherein the processor circuitry further configured to: sending a range request ..." is grammatically incorrect. The phrase should be corrected to " ...wherein the processor circuitry is further configured to: send a range request ..." for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “ … the system includes a human-machine interface (HMI) to enables a human to …” is grammatically incorrect. The phrase should be corrected to “… the system includes a human-machine interface (HMI) that enables a human to …” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “ … wherein the finder module to determine a distance to the beacon module …” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “ …, the antenna array further configured to …” should be corrected to “ …, the antenna array is further configured to …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a clear practical utility. A full analysis of subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 will proceed from this point, which is also described in detail in the MPEP §§ 2106.
101 Analysis Step 1:
Claims 1 and 11 are directed to systems, and therefore fall within one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1:
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine if they recite subject matter that falls into one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1 and 11 include limitations that recite an abstract idea. The claim limitations will be recited below, where the limitations that recite an abstract idea are bold and those that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are underlined.
Claim 1 recites,
- A system to track personnel, the system comprising:
-an antenna array associated with a first node to communicate with a second node; and
-processor circuitry to:
-determine a plurality of positions of the second node; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine a position of the second mode based on signals collected by the system. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental process).
-determine a distance between the first node and the second node; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine the distance between the first and second nodes based on signals collected by the system. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental process).
-determine a bearing between the first node and at least one of the positions; and (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine a bearing between the first node and at least one of the positions based on signals collected by the system. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental process).
-determine a direction for the first node to follow based on the bearing. (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine a direction for the first node to follow based on the bearing. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental process).
Claim 11 recites,
-A system to track personnel, the system comprising:
-an antenna array associated with a first node to communicate with a second node; and
-processor circuitry to:
-determine a distance between the first node and the second node; and
-maintain a position relative to the second node based on an operational mode.
Regarding claim 11, the same rationale as claim 1 is applied.
101 analysis Step 2A, Prong 2:
Regarding prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
Here, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions represent the “abstract idea”).
Claim 1 recites,
A system to track personnel, the system comprising:
an antenna array associated with a first node to communicate with a second node; and (This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use an antenna array to perform the process. In particular, the use of antennas for communications between nodes is well understood in the art, as the usage of antennas to achieve direction finding between nodes is cited as well understood by the applicant in paragraph 0048 of the instant application.)
processor circuitry to: (This limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor circuitry) to perform the process.)
determine a plurality of positions of the second node;
determine a distance between the first node and the second node;
determine a bearing between the first node and at least one of the positions; and
determine a direction for the first node to follow based on the bearing.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a particular technology, are directed towards a treatment / prophylaxis, are directed towards a particular machine, or are directed towards a transformation of an article into a new state. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites,
-A system to track personnel, the system comprising:
-an antenna array associated with a first node to communicate with a second node; and
-processor circuitry to:
-determine a distance between the first node and the second node; and
-maintain a position relative to the second node based on an operational mode.
Regarding claim 11, the same rationale as claim 1 applies.
101 Analysis – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, independent claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as a combination) such that they are sufficient to amount so significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above, with respect to the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As previously discussed, the additional element appears to be merely data gathering by the transmission and reception of a signal which can bey analyzed by an abstract mental process. Additionally, as discussed, the additional limitations which the examiner submits are insignificant extra-solution activities. Because of this, the examiner has deemed the claims to be not patent eligible.
The dependent claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the parent claims 1 and 11 to be patent eligible. The limitations in the dependent claims are further considered insignificant extra-solution activity. At no point do the extra limitations cite the control of the motion of the vehicle or node. Instead, they cite “maintaining” distances based on various modes, which can be classified by a mental process- See MPEP §§ 2106.04(a).
Based on this analysis, claims 1-15 are ineligible under 35 USC § 101.
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.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2022/0137629 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses:
A system to locate personnel, the system comprising: a beacon module to be carried by a person (Lee Fig. 2, further paragraph 0050 "Referring to FIG. 2, the unmanned following vehicle 202 of the present embodiment moves in parallel with a moving object 201 by following the moving object 201 on the left side or the right side of the moving object 201."); and a finder module in communication with the beacon module, the finder module configured to locate and track the beacon module (Lee paragraph 0041 " In an embodiment, the control unit of the second mobile robot may calculate distance information to the first mobile robot based on a time between when the signals are transmitted and received between the first module and the second module, and determine the relative position of the first mobile robot based on the calculated distance information and the direction information.").
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses:
The system of claim 16, wherein the finder module includes an antenna array, wherein the antenna array is configured to communicate with the beacon module using an ultra-wide band (UWB) impulse radio (Lee paragraph 0025 "According to an embodiment, the unmanned following vehicle further includes ultra-wideband (UWB) sensor-receivers installed at different locations, wherein the controller is further configured to control movement of the unmanned following vehicle according to respective signals of the UWB sensor-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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-15, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kwak et al. (US 2022/0022719 A1), hereinafter Kwak.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses [Note: what Lee does not disclose is strike-through]:
A system to track personnel, the system comprising (Lee Fig. 1, further paragraph 0010 "One or more embodiments of the present disclosure provide an unmanned following vehicle that follows a moving object like a person or vehicle by autonomous driving"):
processor circuitry to (Lee paragraph 0026 "According to one or more embodiments, a method performed by a controller including at least one processor is provided."):
determine a plurality of positions of the second node (Lee paragraph 0025 "calculate distances between respective ones of the UWB sensor-receivers and an UWB sensor-transmitter provided at the moving object, calculate X-axis coordinates, Y-axis coordinates, and Z-axis coordinates of the moving object based on the distances obtained, and calculate the Y-axis coordinate difference value, the X-axis coordinate difference value, and the Z-axis coordinate difference value based on the distances obtained.");
determine a distance between the first node and the second node (Lee, previous paragraph 0025 citation, further Fig. 5);
determine a bearing between the first node and at least one of the positions (Lee previous paragraph 0025 citation); and
determine a direction for the first node to follow based on the bearing (Lee paragraph 0020 " and control the unmanned following vehicle to make a left turn or a right turn toward a moving direction of the moving object based on the X-axis coordinate difference value being greater than the first reference value and less than the third reference value, or based on the X-axis coordinate difference value being greater than or equal to the fourth reference value and less than the second reference value.").
Kwak discloses,
an antenna array associated with a first node to communicate with a second node; and (Kwak paragraph 0239 " … each of the first mobile robot 100a and the second mobile robot 100b should be provided with one receiver antenna or a plurality of receiver antennas.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Kwak into the invention of Lee. Both Lee and Kwak are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the use of UWB transceivers to determine the relative location of two nodes, for example robots and personnel. Lee discloses a device that uses a UWB signal emitted by an antenna; however, fails to disclose an array of antennas used to communicate with a second node. This feature is disclosed by Kwak, where Kwak discloses the use of several antennas to emit / receive UWB signals to locate a second node. The combination of Lee and Kwak would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to construct a personnel tracking system using an antenna array to communicate between nodes.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses [Note: what Lee does not clearly disclose is strike-through]:
The system of claim 1, wherein the distance between the first node and the second node is determined
Kwak discloses,
using Time of Flight (ToF) ranging (Kwak paragraph 0231 " The UWB sensor of the first mobile robot 100a and the UWB sensor of the second mobile robot 100b radiate UWB signals to each other, and measure distances and relative speed using Time of Arrival (ToA) or Time of Flight (ToF) which is a time that the signals come back by being reflected from the robots.").
Lee discloses a system that can determine the distance between a first and second node; however, fails to disclose the use of ToF ranging to achieve this. This feature is disclosed by Kwak, where Kwak discloses the use of UWB sensors on robots where the distance between robots is determined by time of flight ranging. The combination of Lee and Kwak would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to apply the concept of ToF ranging to the invention of Lee and determine a distance between a first and second node.
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses [Note: what Lee does not clearly disclose is strike-through]:
The system of claim 2, wherein the processor circuitry further configured to:
Kwak discloses,
sending a ranging request to the second node;
receiving a ranging response from the second node, the ranging response including a timestamp indicating a time that the ranging response was sent by the second node (Kwak paragraph 0237 " The control unit of the second mobile robot 100b may calculate a signal transmission time, namely, Time of Flight (ToF) between the first mobile robot and the second mobile robot using an output time t1 of the first signal, a received time t2 of the second signal, and the delay time t_reply included in the second signal.");
determining a time of flight of the ranging response from the second node based on a difference between the timestamp and a received time at the first node (Kwak paragraph 0237 “The control unit of the second mobile robot 100b may calculate a signal transmission time, namely, Time of Flight (ToF) between the first mobile robot and the second mobile robot using an output time t1 of the first signal, a received time t2 of the second signal, and the delay time t_reply included in the second signal.”); and
determining the distance based on the time of flight (Kwak paragraph 0041 " In an embodiment, the control unit of the second mobile robot may calculate distance information to the first mobile robot based on a time between when the signals are transmitted and received between the first module and the second module, and determine the relative position of the first mobile robot based on the calculated distance information and the direction information.").
Lee discloses a personnel tracking system, which can determine a distance between a first and second node; however, Lee fails to disclose the use of time of flight to achieve this, along with the ranging response method described in the instant claim. Kwak discloses the transmission and reception of a timestamped ranging signal to determine the distance between a first and second node. The combination of Lee and Kwak would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to determine the distance between a first and second node using a time-of-flight method, using the comparison of the transmitted and received timestamps respectively.
Regarding claim 4, Lee further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first node is configured to communicate with the second node using an ultra-wide band (UWB) impulse radio (Lee paragraph 0025 "According to an embodiment, the unmanned following vehicle further includes ultra-wideband (UWB) sensor-receivers installed at different locations, wherein the controller is further configured to control movement of the unmanned following vehicle according to respective signals of the UWB sensor-receivers").
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses [Note: what Lee does not clearly disclose is strike-through]:
The system of claim 1,
Kwak discloses,
wherein the system includes a human-machine interface (HMI) to enables a human to control and observe the system (Kwak paragraph 0112 " In addition, the input unit 1200 may be implemented as a hard key, a soft key, a touch pad, or the like and may be disposed on a top of the mobile robot. For example, the input unit 1200 may implement a form of a touch screen together with the output unit 1500.").
Lee discloses a personnel tracking system where a robotic device tracks the position of a person; however, Lee fails to disclose a specific interface by which one can control and observe the system. Kwak discloses such an interface, where a touchscreen is used for both purposes. The combination of Lee and Kwak would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to employ an interface from which one could observe and control the system.
Regarding claim 7, Lee further discloses [Note: what Lee does not clearly disclose is strike-through]:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first node and the second node are each configured to operate in a (Lee Figs. 1, 3, and 6, further paragraph 0005 "Referring to FIG. 1, the unmanned following vehicle 102 follows a moving object 101 and controls a following speed to maintain a reference distance to the moving object 101.”).
Lee discloses a following mode where the following node remains at a fixed displacement vector with respect to the personnel / second node. While this is not precisely the same as the mode described in the current claim, the difference between the mode is merely a simple modification that would yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One would merely need to change elements S601 and S605 of flow diagram 6 in Lee to a different inequality. In the case of the leash mode described here, such an inequality would be
x
R
1
>
x
D
, for example.
Regarding claim 8, the same references and arguments as claim 7 apply.
Regarding claim 9, the same references and arguments as claim 7 apply.
Regarding claim 10, the same references and arguments as claim 7 apply.
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses [Note: what Lee does not clearly disclose is strike-through]:
A system to track personnel, the system comprising:
an (Lee paragraph 0025 “Lee paragraph 0025 "calculate distances between respective ones of the UWB sensor-receivers and an UWB sensor-transmitter provided at the moving object, calculate X-axis coordinates, Y-axis coordinates, and Z-axis coordinates of the moving object based on the distances obtained, and calculate the Y-axis coordinate difference value, the X-axis coordinate difference value, and the Z-axis coordinate difference value based on the distances obtained."); and
determine a distance between the first node and the second node; and (“Paragraph 0041 " In an embodiment, the control unit of the second mobile robot may calculate distance information to the first mobile robot based on a time between when the signals are transmitted and received between the first module and the second module, and determine the relative position of the first mobile robot based on the calculated distance information and the direction information.")
maintain a position relative to the second node based on an operational mode (Lee Figs. 1 and 3, further paragraph 0005 "Referring to FIG. 1, the unmanned following vehicle 102 follows a moving object 101 and controls a following speed to maintain a reference distance to the moving object 101.").
Kwak discloses,
an antenna array associated with a first node to communicate with a second node (Kwak paragraph 0239 " In order to use the AoA (Angle of Arrival) positioning technique, each of the first mobile robot 100a and the second mobile robot 100b should be provided with one receiver antenna or a plurality of receiver antennas.")
Lee discloses a system to track personnel, where communication between a robot and a person is used to maintain a constant displacement between said person and said robot. However, Lee does not disclose the use of an antenna array. Kwak disclose the use of a plurality of receiver antennas (antenna array). The combination of Lee and Kwak would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize an antenna array in the personal tracking system of Lee.
Regarding claim 13, the same references and arguments a claim 3 apply.
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses [Note: what Lee does not clearly disclose is strike-through]:
The system of claim 11, wherein a bearing to the second node is determined (Lee abstract, Fig. 2)
Kwak discloses,
by at least one of a rotating antenna, a power of arrival via directional antennas, and a phase difference of arrival of a signal generated by the second node and received by the first node (Kwak paragraph 0040 In an embodiment, the control unit of the second mobile robot may calculate angle information regarding where the first mobile robot is located with respect to a forward direction of the second mobile robot based on a phase difference of the signals received in the first UWB anchor and the second UWB anchor, and determine direction information regarding where the first mobile robot is located with respect to the forward direction of the second mobile robot based on the calculated angle information.").
Lee discloses a system for the tracking of personnel intended to follow said personnel and track their distance and bearing. Lee does not disclose the method by which said bearing is determined. Kwak discloses the use of a phase difference method to extract angular information regarding the second mode. The combination of Lee and Kwak would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize an antenna array and phase difference information to determine the bearing of the second node.
Regarding claim 15, the same references and arguments as claim 4 apply.
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses [Note: what Lee does not clearly disclose is strike-through]:
The system of claim 16,
Kwak discloses,
wherein the finder module to determine a distance to the beacon module using Time of Flight (ToF) ranging (Kwak paragraph 0041 “Paragraph 0041 " In an embodiment, the control unit of the second mobile robot may calculate distance information to the first mobile robot based on a time between when the signals are transmitted and received between the first module and the second module, and determine the relative position of the first mobile robot based on the calculated distance information and the direction information.").
Lee discloses a system to track personnel, utilizing communication between a robot and a maker carried by a person. However, Lee does not disclose the use of a time-of-flight method. Kwak disclose the use of a time-of-flight method to measure the distance between two nodes. The combination of Lee and Kwak would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize a time-of-flight method in the system of Lee.
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses [Note: what Lee does not clearly disclose is strike-through]:
The system of claim 18,
Kwak discloses,
the antenna array further configured to calculate an angle of arrival (Kwak paragraph 0239 " In order to use the AoA (Angle of Arrival) positioning technique, each of the first mobile robot 100a and the second mobile robot 100b should be provided with one receiver antenna or a plurality of receiver antennas.").
Lee discloses a personnel tracking system, utilizing communication between a first and second node. Lee does not disclose an antenna array configured to calculate an angle of arrival. Kwak discloses a plurality of antennas configured to use angle of arrival methods. The combination of Leek and Kwak would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize a phase-difference method with an antenna array to determine the angular information required by the system of Lee.
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses [Note: what Lee does not clearly disclose is strike-through]:
The system of claim 18,
Kwak discloses,
wherein two finder modules are each used to track a relative position of any other finder module (Kwak paragraph 0162 "In FIG. 5A, the communication unit of the first autonomous mobile robot 100a and the communication unit of the second autonomous mobile robot 100b may also directly communicate with each other or indirectly communicate with each other via another router (not shown), to recognize information related to a traveling state and positions of counterparts.").
Lee discloses a personnel tracking system, utilizing communication between a first and second node. Lee does not disclose a plurality of finder modules, nor does Lee disclose the tracking of relative positions between them. Kwak discloses a system whereby a plurality of autonomous robots is in communication, and share information regarding their states and positions. The combination of Lee and Kwak would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to facilitate location sharing and communication between finder modules (personnel).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kwak, further in view of Fox, V., et al. "Bayesian filtering for location estimation." IEEE pervasive computing 2.3 (2003): 24-33., hereinafter Fox.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lee and Kwak teaches [Note: what the combination of Lee and Kwak does not teach clearly is strike-through]:
The system of claim 1,
Fox teaches,
wherein a Bayesian filter uses mathematical models to estimate a true state/position of the second node. (Fox page 2, “Second, estimating an object’s location is arguably the most fundamental sensing task in many pervasive computing scenarios. It is thus a natural domain in which to illustrate the
application of Bayesian filter techniques. Representing locations statistically enables a unified interface for location information. This lets us write applications independent of the sensors used—even when using very different sensor types, such as GPS and infrared badges. (A comparative survey of location systems appears elsewhere.1)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Fox into the combination of Lee and Kwak. Lee, Kwak, and Fox are analogous in that they all teach the detection of objects using noisy sensors. While the combination of Lee and Kwak teach the detection of a second node using UWB sensors, they do not teach how these signals are processed and how noisy signals are overcome. While they do not specifically state the use of Bayesian filtering techniques, they also do not exclude the possibility. Fox teaches that Bayesian methods are in fact standard in the art of position sensing (Fox Pg. 24 “Bayes filters probabilistically estimate a dynamic system’s state from noisy observations. In location estimation for pervasive computing, the state is a person’s or object’s location, and
location sensors provide observations about the state. The state could be a simple 2D position or
a complex vector including 3D position, pitch, roll, yaw, and linear and rotational velocities.”), providing a direct motivation for their use in the context of the invention of Lee and Kwak. Thus, the combination of Lee, Kwak, and Fox would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in the context of the application of a Bayesian filter to estimate a true state / position of a second node.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JAMES HALLORAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8643. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs. 7:30am-5pm.
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 Keller can be reached at (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.
/T.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights