Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: derive a solution candidate distribution estimating predetermined coordinates are coordinates of the plurality of signal sources - does not appear to be grammatically correct. The Examiner asks that representatives please review the wording used. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are 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. Claims 1, 9, and 11 recite the limitation extract a plurality of peak coordinates at which gradient of a distribution value changes from positive to negative. The remarks dated 3/11/2026 explain that the amendment is supported by figs. 4 and 8 and the related description in the originally filed application. However, the figures do not appear to support these limitations as best as can be determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2, 4, 6, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Celenk (2018, Thesis).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 11, Celenk discloses a signal source position estimation apparatus, a system, and a method comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions [[pg. 2] TDOA based source localization, since such methods are desirable for real-time systems having low computational capability.], and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to [[sec. 2.3.2] systems having low computational capacity and the requirement of real-time computation necessitate a closed-form location estimator.];
calculate, for all combinations of two sensors selected from among a plurality of sensors, all candidate values of a time difference of arrival being a difference in time of arrival (TOAs) of signals generated from each of a plurality of signal sources between the two sensors [[pg. 7] equation 2.4 represents a set of the single-branch hyperbolas with the focal points si and the reference sensor s1. In figure 2.2, these hyperbola branches are drawn for two different source and sensor placement scenarios, without adding any noise to the true sensor positions and TDOA values.];
calculate a plurality of pieces of hyperbolic information, based on coordinates of each of the plurality of sensors and the all candidate values of the time difference of arrival [[pg. 67] exact positions of the sensor are known], and derive a solution candidate distribution formed by estimating predetermined coordinates are coordinates of the plurality of signal sources, based on the plurality of pieces of hyperbolic information [[pg. 7] placement scenario illustrated in the left hand side of Figure 2.2 (TDOA Hyperbolas for Two Different Placement Scenarios), it can be seen that three sensors are enough to locate the radiating source (four sensors in a 3D space). However, in some cases such as the one given in the right hand side of the Figure 2.2 , single-branch hyperbolas may intersect at two points. Therefore, even though there is no need to have a higher estimation accuracy resulting from the larger number of sensors, more than three sensors may be needed to locate the source without ambiguity. On the other hand, if the estimation method used has the ability to give both intersection points, then even a rough estimate obtained from another method based on other properties of the signal may be enough to solve the ambiguity]; and
extract a plurality of peak coordinates [note: see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above - at which gradient of a distribution value changes from positive to negative] having a distribution value higher than surrounding distribution values from the solution candidate distribution, and estimate the plurality of peak coordinates as generation positions of the plurality of signal sources [[pg. 8, sec. 2.2 TDOA estimation] another method for TDOA estimation is cross-correlation [29]. In this method, the reference sensor output and that of other sensors are cross-correlated. The time index of the peak point of a cross-correlation result gives the displacement of the source signal in the corresponding sensor output relative to the reference sensor, i.e., the TDOA value of the corresponding sensor.; [[pg. 8] one of the simple methods for TDOA estimation is leading edge detection [28]. In this method, the time instant at which the sensor output exceeds a certain threshold value is taken as the signal arrival time. Then, by subtracting the arrival time of the reference sensor from that of the others, TDOA values are obtained.],
wherein the time of arrival is a time when a signal generated from each of the plurality of signal sources arrives at each of the plurality of sensors [[pg. 9] 2.3 Source Location Estimation from TDOA Values; [pg. 67, ch. 4] TDOA vector d is constructed from the range vector r whose elements are corrupted by zero mean, independent and identically distributed Gaussian noise, i.e., di;1 = di d1; i = 2; 3; :::;N; di = ri=c + ni; i = 1; 2; :::;N; (4.1) where di;1 is the TDOA value of ith sensor, di is the TOA value of the ith sensor, ri is the true range between the ith sensor and the source].
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Celenk teaches the signal source position estimation apparatus according to claim 1 and the system of claim 8, wherein, in a case where the coordinates of the plurality of signal sources on a two-dimensional plane are estimated by using the plurality of sensors arranged in the two-dimensional plane, the plurality of sensors are four or more independent sensors [[fig. 2.2] shows plane formed from x and y coordinates; [[pg. 7] placement scenario illustrated in the left hand side of Figure 2.2 (TDOA Hyperbolas for Two Different Placement Scenarios), it can be seen that three sensors are enough to locate the radiating source (four sensors in a 3D space). However, in some cases such as the one given in the right hand side of the Figure 2.2 , single-branch hyperbolas may intersect at two points. Therefore, even though there is no need to have a higher estimation accuracy resulting from the larger number of sensors, more than three sensors may be needed to locate the source without ambiguity.].
Regarding claim 4, Celenk teaches the signal source position estimation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, when calculating the plurality of pieces of hyperbolic information, the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions not to use, among the candidate values of the time difference of arrival calculated for all combinations of the sensors, a candidate value of the time difference of arrival being equal to or more than a predetermined time [[pg. 8] one of the simple methods for TDOA estimation is leading edge detection [28]. In this method, the time instant at which the sensor output exceeds a certain threshold value is taken as the signal arrival time. Then, by subtracting the arrival time of the reference sensor from that of the others, TDOA values are obtained.].
Regarding claim 6, Celenk teaches the signal source position estimation apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to extract a plurality of specific peak coordinates having a distribution value equal to or larger than a predetermined distribution value from among the plurality of peak coordinates, and estimate the plurality of specific peak coordinates as the generation positions of the plurality of signal sources [[pg. 8, sec. 2.2 TDOA estimation] another method for TDOA estimation is cross-correlation [29]. In this method, the reference sensor output and that of other sensors are cross-correlated. The time index of the peak point of a cross-correlation result gives the displacement of the source signal in the corresponding sensor output relative to the reference sensor, i.e., the TDOA value of the corresponding sensor.; [[pg. 8] one of the simple methods for TDOA estimation is leading edge detection [28]. In this method, the time instant at which the sensor output exceeds a certain threshold value is taken as the signal arrival time. Then, by subtracting the arrival time of the reference sensor from that of the others, TDOA values are obtained].
Regarding claim 8, Celenk teaches the signal source position estimation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the time of arrival is a time when a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the signal becomes equal to or more than a predetermined SNR [[pg. 2.2 TDOA estimation] In this method, the time instant at which the sensor output exceeds a certain threshold value is taken as the signal arrival time. … another method … prefiltering before the cross-correlation could be applied to emphasize the signal at the frequencies where the SNR is high [29].].
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celenk (2018, Thesis) and Chen (2009, IEEE) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peng (US 2008/0304361 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Celenk does not explicitly teach and yet Peng teaches the signal source position estimation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to use only the time of arrival within a TOA evaluation period when calculating the candidate values of the time difference of arrival [[0036] both devices A and B examine their recorded data and locate the sample points when the previously-emitted two acoustic signals arrived. We denote the time difference between these two acoustic signal arrivals as elapsed time between the two time-of-arrivals (ETOA). [We use the term ETOA herein so as to differentiate from the well defined term DTOA (differential times of arrival) or TDOA (time differences of arrival), which usually refers to the differential between two TOAs measured at two different receivers using the same sound source.; [0083-0085] Firstly, we make use of window energy to roughly locate the possible TOA.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the hyperbolic measurement as taught by Celenk, with the windowing as taught by Peng so that the possible time of arrival may be roughly located as part of a first detection step (Peng) [[0083]].
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celenk (2018, Thesis) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (2009, IEEE).
Regarding claim 5, Celenk does not explicitly teach and yet Chen teaches the signal source position estimation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: calculate, for each of the plurality of pieces of hyperbolic information, an inverse number of an absolute value of a two-dimensional function including the hyperbolic information and using the predetermined coordinates as a variable [[eq. 4] shows an equivalent hyperbolic function in the form of circular coordinates and the square root of the square of differences between sensor and source coordinate locations which is equivalent to the absolute value; note: equation is similar to that shown in instant equation 1]; and derive the solution candidate distribution by multiplying or adding the inverse number by all of the sensors and all of the plurality of signal sources [[eq. 3 and 5] show the multiplication of the probabilities of unknown target node, and known sensor node coordinates; note: this is similar to instant equation 2].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the hyperbolic measurement as taught by Celenk, with the probability function as taught by Chen so that the cross entropy method may be used to estimate the location of signal sources (Chen) [[abstract]].
Regarding claim 7, Celenk does not explicitly teach and yet Chen teaches the signal source position estimation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in the solution candidate distribution, a distribution value becomes larger as the predetermined coordinates become closer to any one of the plurality of signal sources, and a distribution value becomes smaller as the predetermined coordinates become farther from any one of the plurality of signal sources [[sec. 2 system model] since the RSS decreases according to the distance, denoted by r, between the transmitter and receiver, the distance decays of the average RSS, denoted by P , is usually characterized as being inversely proportional to np r and can be expressed as np P C r , (1)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the hyperbolic measurement as taught by Celenk, with the probability function as taught by Chen so that the cross entropy method may be used to estimate the location of signal sources (Chen) [[abstract]].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 3/11/2026, with respect to claims 1-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of 12/11/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. (see the discussion regarding pgs. 8-12 bridging below).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
The Office rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Celenk (NPL). Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection.
A rejection based on 35 U.S.C. §102 requires every element of the claim to be included in the reference, either directly or inherently. See W.L. Gore & Assocs. V. Garlock, 721 F. 2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). "Anticipation requires the disclosure in a single prior art reference of each element of the claim under consideration." Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH V. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Office has failed to identify where all elements of claim 1 are described by the applied reference.
Claim 1 recites "calculate a plurality of pieces of hyperbolic information, based on coordinates of each of the plurality of sensors and the all candidate values of the time difference of arrival, and derive a solution candidate distribution estimating predetermined coordinates are coordinates of the plurality of signal sources, based on the plurality of pieces of hyperbolic information; and extract a plurality of peak coordinates at which gradient of a distribution value changes from positive to negative from the solution candidate distribution, and estimate the plurality of peak coordinates as generation positions of the plurality of signal sources." The Office asserted that section 2.2 and Figure 2.2 of Celenk includes the recited claim language. (Office Action at pages 5-6). Applicant respectfully traverses this assertion.
Applicant notes that Figure 2.2 of Celenk is similar to Figure 3 of the current application. However, as stated in the non-limiting description in paragraph [0025] of the originally filed application, the hyperbola shown in equation (1) is transformed into the function Z(x, y) shown in equation (2), thereby showing it as a distribution diagram of the signal source. This distribution diagram is utilized, as indicated by the claim language "derive a solution candidate distribution estimating predetermined coordinates are coordinates of the plurality of signal sources extract a plurality of peak coordinates at which gradient of a distribution value changes from positive to negative from the solution candidate distribution."
Figure 2.2 of Celenk (reproduced below) does not include a distribution diagram but merely a plot of hyperbola branches for different source and sensor placement scenarios.
The Examiner disagrees because the claims do not recite a “distribution diagram” but instead recite a solution candidate distribution. A solution candidate distribution as explained in instant para. 0004 means that for all combinations of two sensors, hyperbolic information is calculated based on coordinates of the sensor and the candidate values of TDOA, and a solution candidate distribution is derived based on the hyperbolic information. Fig. 2.2 and pgs. 47-49 of Celenk appears to describe a similar procedure for the estimation of the coordinates of a sound source based on the intersection of hyperbolic information from multiple sensors.
The plots in Celenk fail to explicitly or inherently account for any noise, As explicitly stated in Celenk "In Figure 2.2, these hyperbola branches are drawn for two different source and sensor placement scenarios, without adding any noise to the true sensor positions and TDOA values." (Celenk at page 7). The failure to consider noise means that Celenk had no need for considering a distribution diagram. Further, a review of Celenk indicates that Celenk fails to mention any type of distribution considerations beyond the distribution (placement) of sensors. Therefore, Celenk cannot reasonably be considered as explicitly or inherently disclosing the recited claim language.
The Examiner again disagrees because a distribution diagram is not recited. Sec. 3.1 of Celenk explains that when the sensor array is circular and the source is located near the array center, TDOA values become close to zero; additionally, if the noise level of the TDOA values are low, then the matrix inverted to obtain the CWLS estimate becomes ill-conditioned; to overcome this problem; a new CWLS method, which we will call as CWLS with range difference separation (CWLS-RDS). Pg. 55 appears to describe the result of handling Gaussian noise added to the TDOA values when those methods are used for circular placement scenarios. Therefore, it is inaccurate to base an argument on the premise that no noise is present in the estimate of source position.
Applicant respectfully submits that Celenk does not explicitly or inherently disclose the recited deriving of the solution candidate distribution. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1, as being anticipated by Celenk, are respectfully requested.
The Examiner seems to understand that there is a difference between a candidate source position and a distribution diagram. However, the arguments should typically form a nexus to the claims and should therefore be consistent with the content of the claims as recited.
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 8 depend from claim 1, recite additional features and distinguish over the applied reference for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1 and/or for the additional features recited.
Claim 9 recites similar language as claim 1 and distinguishes over the applied reference for reasons analogous to those set forth above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 9, as being anticipated by Celenk, are respectfully requested.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9, recites additional features and distinguishes over the applied reference for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 9 and/or for the additional features recited.
Claim 11 recites similar language as claim 1 and distinguishes over the applied reference for reasons analogous to those set forth above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 11, as being anticipated by Celenk, are respectfully requested.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Office rejected claims 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Celenk (NPL) in view of Chen (NPL). Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection.
Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual inquiries. The factual inquiries are set forth in Graham V. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966). The factual inquiries include:
(a) determining the scope and content of the prior art;
(b) ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art;
(c) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
(d) considering objective evidence of secondary considerations.
The Office failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, because the Office failed to properly determine the scope and content of the cited references.
The Office conceded that Celenk fails to teach or suggest the recited calculation details. (Office Action at page 9). The Office asserted that Chen includes the recited calculation details. (Office Action at page 9). Assuming arguendo that the combination of Celenk and Chen is proper, the Office failed to apply Chen in a manner sufficient to cure the deficiencies of Celenk. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 5 and 7, as being unpatentable over Celenk in view of Chen, are respectfully requested.
The Office rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Celenk (NPL) in view of Chen (NPL) and further in view of Peng (US 2008/0304631). Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection.
The Office conceded that Celenk fails to teach or suggest the recited use of time of arrival. (Office Action at page 10). The Office asserted that Peng includes the recited use of time of arrival. (Office Action at page 10). Assuming arguendo that the combination of Celenk and Peng is proper, the Office failed to apply Peng in a manner sufficient to cure the deficiencies of Celenk. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 3, as being unpatentable over Celenk in view of Chen and Peng, are respectfully requested.
The Examiner again disagrees for reasons similar to those described above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7339. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9am-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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights