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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant's communication filed on 04/22/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1 – 10 have been canceled; claims 11 – 20 have been newly added. Claims 11 – 20 are currently pending in the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haga et al. (hereinafter “Haga”) (2022/0272504 A1) in view of Chinnapalli (Patent # US 11,290,977 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Haga discloses a method for operating a communication system including at least three communication subscribers (see Fig. 3, [0037] for anchor nodes 302), the method comprising the following steps:
continuously transmitting localization signals from localization transmitters of the localization system (see [0025] for the anchor nodes and tag devices communicate using radio signals to perform two-way timing measurements of the time the signals travel between the anchors and tags to determine positions of tag devices within the localization area of the industrial environment using radio technology, see Fig. 3, [0037] for the determined absolute positions using the anchor node infrastructure substantially coincide with the continuously determined relative positions);
receiving the localization signals from at least two of the localization transmitters by at least one localization receiver (see Autonomous Guided Vehicles (AGV) 304 in Fig. 3, [0036] – [0037] for an AGV with an attached localization tag to determine tag’s position using the anchor node infrastructure within the localization area); and
ascertaining exact reception times of the localization signals (see [0025] for measurements of the time the signals travel between the anchors and tags to measure the distance, see Fig. 3, [0027], [0030], [0040] for using real-time detection for accuracy determine relative positions). Thus, it is obviously to show ascertaining exact reception times of the localization signals. If this is in question, using Chinnapalli’s reference as below.
In an analogous art, Chinnapalli discloses ascertaining exact reception times of the localization signals (see Chinnapalli, col. 2 lines 58 – 67, col. 3 lines 1 – 19, where Chinnapalli is teaching an autonomous mobile device (AMD) such as a robot gathers information about radio signals received and performs sentry tasks involving moving in the physical space, wherein information about radio signals received include a timestamp indicative of a time associated with the acquired data which comprise data indicative of a transmit power level used by the radio transmitter while sending the radio signal that was received).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made, to modify the invention of Haga, and have ascertaining exact reception times of the localization signals thereby provide improvement for subsequent accuracy of an estimated location, as discussed by Chinnapalli (see Chinnapalli, col. 24 lines 30 - 54).
Regarding claim 12, Haga in view of Chinnapalli disclose wherein additional information about localization accuracy is transmitted to the localization receiver (see Haga, [0010], [0035] for informing the tag device that the tag device is in an area of low positioning quality).
Regarding claim 13, Haga in view of Chinnapalli disclose wherein a current position of the localization receiver in a coordinate system of the localization system is calculated by the localization receiver based on a temporal relationship of the received localization signals (see Haga, [0025], [0038] for position of the tag can be determined based on the ranging measurements or based on the inferred coverage map, taking into consideration the known fixed coordinates of the anchor nodes, or see Chinnapalli in FIG. 1 for localization data, FIG. 5 for estimation location).
Regarding claim 14, Haga in view of Chinnapalli disclose wherein an object to be localized is to be regulated and/or controlled by at least one of the following options in the event of inaccurate localization: throttling a movement speed of the object to be localized, using further sensors to detect surroundings of the moving object, periodically transmitting warning messages, adjusting paths of the object (see Haga, Fig. 3 for adjust path of the object in the low (inaccurate) positioning quality area, see [0026], [0032], [0036] - [0037] for an AGV with an attached localization tag including movement related sensors for performing the movement related measurements of the tag device, or see Chinnapalli, col. 24 lines 34 – 54 for position of the robot is based at least in part on a speed of the robot).
Regarding claim 15, Haga in view of Chinnapalli disclose wherein an object to be localized is to be regulated and/or controlled by at least one of the following options in the event of accurate localization: increasing a movement speed of the object to be localized, using further sensors to detect surroundings of the moving object (see Haga, Fig. 3, [0026], [0036] - [0037] for an AGV with an attached localization tag including movement related sensors for performing the movement related measurements of the tag device, or see Chinnapalli, col. 24 lines 48 – 54 for the speed of the robot increases, the threshold time interval may decrease such that increases the accuracy of the overall system).
Regarding claim 16, Haga in view of Chinnapalli disclose wherein a current and local localization accuracy is ascertained in parallel by the localization receiver by comparing a position ascertained by the localization system with an absolute or relative reference point (see Haga, Fig. 2, [0023] – [0025]).
Regarding claim 17, Haga in view of Chinnapalli disclose wherein an accuracy value is transmitted together with the current position of the object to a central computing unit (see Haga, 100 in Fig. 1, [0023], [0031] for a computing unit in the AGV perform positioning qualities, and see Chinnapalli, col. 16 lines 4 – 13, col. 28 lines 36 – 67 for processors of the AMD and on the server (which AMD connected to the network) estimated location based on location data and signal strength data limited to signal strength data that is greater than a minimum signal strength, thus an accuracy value). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made in order to provide improvement for subsequent accuracy of an estimated location, as discussed by Chinnapalli (see Chinnapalli, col. 24 lines 30 - 54).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Haga in view of Chinnapalli disclose wherein information about the localization accuracies is evaluated in the central computing unit; wherein the information about the localization accuracy is transmitted to the localization receiver together with the localization signal (see Haga, 100 in Fig. 1, [0023], [0031] for the computing unit in the AGV perform positioning qualities, and see Chinnapalli, col. 28 lines 36 – 67 for processors receive location data and signal strength data, and limited to signal strength data that is greater than a minimum signal strength by filter signal strength values that are less than the minimum signal strength). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made in order to provide improvement for subsequent accuracy of an estimated location, as discussed by Chinnapalli (see Chinnapalli, col. 24 lines 30 - 54).
Regarding claim 20, Haga in view of Chinnapalli disclose wherein parameters for synchronizing the localization receiver with respect to time and phase include one or more of the following characteristics: phase clock reference, frame structure, time reference including a start of a frame, frame format (see Haga, [0025] for two-way timing (Two Way Ranging (TWR) or Time of Flight (ToF) and Time Difference of Arrival (TDoA)) measurements of the time the signals travel between the anchors and tags to thereby measure the distance therebetween, the position of the tags can then be determined based on the ranging measurements).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is 2025/0176468, using provisional 63/225219 for effected filing date (Vougioukas et al.), which discloses that a computing device of a robot receives a scheduling command from a field computer, which includes a location to report to, and possibly a time (e.g., a no-later-than time and/or a no-earlier-than time) to be at that location; the computing device generates a path of intended movement from its current location to the assigned location, while avoiding any known areas and points to avoid, ; and navigation modules constantly report the robot's location and/or speed to the computing device to ensure the path is correctly followed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONG-THUY THI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM - 6PM (IFP).
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, ANTHONY ADDY can be reached at (571)272-7795. 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.
/MONG-THUY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights