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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) is submitted on 11/12/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. According, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Objection to the Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract recites “such as”. This form and legal phraseology should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 9 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “wherein identifying an AP pair association” on line 1. Examiner suggest changing the phrase to “wherein identifying [[an]] the AP pair association”, or similar wording.
Claim 9 recites “determining that that AP pair” on line 4. Examiner suggest changing the phrase to “determining that [[that]] the AP pair”, or similar wording. Claim 16 recites similar features and therefore is objected for similar reason.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 11-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghupathy et al. (US 20230258824 A1 and Raghupathy hereinafter), in view of Bowers et al. (US 20250347792 A1 and Bowers hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Raghupathy teaches a method for timestamping a direct wireless path signal (Figure 26), comprising:
receiving, by a first device, a plurality of signals from a second device (Figure 26 and Paragraph 0169; cross-correlate the received samples y[n] with the transmit sequence x[n] to obtain the result z[n]);
recording, by the first device, a signal strength value and a time of arrival corresponding to each of the plurality of signals (Figure 26 and Paragraph 0071; time of arrival of peak represents the time of arrival of the transmitted signal at the receiver. Examiner asserts that peak may be interpreted as a signal strength value of the transmitted signal received at the receiver);
identifying, by the first device, one or more peak signal strength values in a search window preceding a highest signal strength value from the signal strength values (Figure 26 and Paragraph 0172; locate the highest peak of z[n] and denote it as n.sub.peak. Extract wL samples to the left of the peak and wR samples to the right of the peak of z[n]. Paragraph 0173; the integers wL and wR should be chosen to include all possible multipath components especially on the left side (i.e. through choice of wL) to help resolve far-out multipath components); and
selecting, by the first device, a timestamp at an earliest peak (Figure 26 and Paragraph 0174; estimate the earliest arriving path in the channel) greater than a threshold value (Paragraph 0173; the optimal method to choose wL and wR are to choose them as the non-zero values (or, more generally, values>a certain threshold defined as a fraction of the peak value are selected) present on the left and right side of the peak) as a time of arrival of the direct wireless path signal (Paragraph 0222; first peak will correspond to LOS path).
Raghupathy does not explicitly teach a first access point (AP) and a second AP; and at a rising edge of an earliest peak. In an analogous art, Bowers teaches a first access point (AP) and a second AP (Figure 6 and Paragraphs 0054 and 0056; RTT/RSSI data include a plurality of distance measurements by multipath signals indicative of distances between two APs); at a rising edge of an earliest peak (Figure 7B and Paragraph 0131; uses the corrected RTT/RSSI measurements to determine a more precise distance between the transmitting antenna 602A and the receiving antenna 602B. The true LOS are identified as the point on the rising edge of an earliest peak). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raghupathy and Bowers because it may provide RTT/RSSI measurements to provide more accurate location of one or more APs associated with a wireless network (Bowers, Paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Raghupathy and Bowers teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Raghupathy teaches wherein the plurality of signals comprises multipath propagating signals of a packet transmitted by the second device (Figure 26 and Paragraph 0173; the integers wL and wR should be chosen to include all possible multipath components especially on the left side (i.e. through choice of wL) to help resolve far-out multipath components).
In addition, Bowers teaches the second AP (Figure 6 and Paragraphs 0054 and 0056; RTT/RSSI data include a plurality of distance measurements by multipath signals indicative of distances between two APs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raghupathy and Bowers because it may provide RTT/RSSI measurements to provide more accurate location of one or more APs associated with a wireless network (Bowers, Paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Raghupathy and Bowers teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Raghupathy teaches further comprising identifying, by the first device, the earliest peak (Figure 26 and Paragraph 0174; estimate the earliest arriving path in the channel. Paragraph 0222; first peak will correspond to LOS path) greater than the threshold value (Figure 6 and Paragraph 0173; the integers wL and wR should be chosen to include all possible multipath components especially on the left side (i.e. through choice of wL) to help resolve far-out multipath components).
In addition, Bowers teaches the first AP (Figure 6 and Paragraphs 0054 and 0056; RTT/RSSI data include a plurality of distance measurements by multipath signals indicative of distances between two APs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raghupathy and Bowers because it may provide RTT/RSSI measurements to provide more accurate location of one or more APs associated with a wireless network (Bowers, Paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Raghupathy and Bowers teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Raghupathy teaches further comprising determining, by the first device, the threshold value based on the signal strength values in the search window (Figure 26 and Paragraph 0174; estimate the earliest arriving path in the channel. Paragraph 0222; first peak will correspond to LOS path) greater than the threshold value (Figure 6 and Paragraph 0173; the optimal method to choose wL and wR are to choose them as the non-zero values (or, more generally, values>a certain threshold defined as a fraction of the peak value are selected) present on the left and right side of the peak. The integers wL and wR should be chosen to include all possible multipath components especially on the left side (i.e. through choice of wL) to help resolve far-out multipath components).
In addition, Bowers teaches the first AP (Figure 6 and Paragraphs 0054 and 0056; RTT/RSSI data include a plurality of distance measurements by multipath signals indicative of distances between two APs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raghupathy and Bowers because it may provide RTT/RSSI measurements to provide more accurate location of one or more APs associated with a wireless network (Bowers, Paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Raghupathy and Bowers teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as described above. Further, Raghupathy teaches further comprising: sorting, by the first device, the signal strength values in the search window in an ascending order; and selecting, by the first device from the sorted signal strength values, a signal strength at a predefined percentile of a total count of signal strength values (Figure 26 and Paragraph 0173; the optimal method to choose wL and wR are to choose them as the non-zero values (or, more generally, values>a certain threshold defined as a fraction of the peak value are selected) present on the left and right side of the peak. Paragraphs 0174 and 0222; estimate the earliest arriving path in the channel, the other effects need to be eliminated, first peak will correspond to LOS path).
In addition, Bowers teaches the first AP (Figure 6 and Paragraphs 0054 and 0056; RTT/RSSI data include a plurality of distance measurements by multipath signals indicative of distances between two APs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raghupathy and Bowers because it may provide RTT/RSSI measurements to provide more accurate location of one or more APs associated with a wireless network (Bowers, Paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Raghupathy and Bowers teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Bowers teaches further wherein the plurality of signals comprises signals communicated between the first AP and the second AP during a Fine Timing Measurement (FTM) sequence (Figure 6 and Paragraphs 0054 and 0056; example Wi-Fi RTT/RSSI techniques are described in the IEEE 802.11mc (i.e., IEEE 802.11-2016) standard, which defines a fine-time measurement (FTM) protocol that can be used to measure the Wi-Fi signal RTT between two wireless devices). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raghupathy and Bowers because it may provide RTT/RSSI measurements to provide more accurate location of one or more APs associated with a wireless network (Bowers, Paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, Raghupathy teaches a first access point (AP), the first AP comprising: a machine-readable storage medium storing executable instructions (Claim 11; non-transitory processor readable memory storing program instructions); and a processing resource coupled to the machine-readable storage medium, wherein the processing resource is configured to execute one or more of the instructions (Claim 11; when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement a method).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Raghupathy and Bowers teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as described above. Further, Raghupathy teaches wherein the plurality of signals comprises multipath propagating signals of an omnidirectional packet transmitted by the second AP (Paragraph 0103; transmit antenna of an embodiment includes an omni-directional antenna, or multiple antennas/arrays that can help with diversity, sectoring etc.).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites similar features as claim 4, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites similar features as claim 5, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, Raghupathy teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions executable by a processing resource (Claim 11; non-transitory processor readable memory storing program instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement a method).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites similar features as claim 5, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites similar features as claim 7, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 7.
Claims 7-9, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghupathy in view of Bowers, as applied to the claims above, further in view of Zorgui et al. (WO 2023201158 A1 and Zorgui hereinafter).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Raghupathy and Bowers teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Raghupathy teaches tuning, by the first device, one or both of the search window or the threshold value based on the propagation environment (Figure 26 and Paragraph 0222; based on information about the propagation environment which could be encoded in the transmission from the base-station, it is possible to control τ.sub.max. For example, if the delay-spread is large, then τ.sub.max can be chosen to be larger (e.g. 10) and if it is less then τ.sub.max can be chosen as a smaller value (e.g. 4)).
In addition, Bowers teaches AP pair (Figure 6 and Paragraphs 0054 and 0056; RTT/RSSI data include a plurality of distance measurements by multipath signals indicative of distances between two APs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raghupathy and Bowers because it may provide RTT/RSSI measurements to provide more accurate location of one or more APs associated with a wireless network (Bowers, Paragraph 0056).
The combination of Raghupathy and Bowers does not explicitly teach identifying an AP pair classification associated with an AP pair comprising the first AP and the second AP, wherein the AP pair classification specifies whether the first AP and the second AP are in Line of Sight (LoS) or Non-Line of Sight (NLoS) from each other; and tuning based on the AP pair classification. In an analogous art, Zorgui teaches identifying an AP pair classification associated with an AP pair comprising the first AP and the second AP (Paragraphs 0029 and 0082; the measurement report may include a line-of-sight (LOS) or non-line-of-sight (NLOS) indicator associated with the positioning procedure, with an indication of whether a line-of-sight (LOS) is detected between the transmitting and receiving devices), wherein the AP pair classification specifies whether the first AP and the second AP are in Line of Sight (LoS) or Non-Line of Sight (NLoS) from each other (Paragraphs 0029 and 0082; indication of whether a line-of-sight (LOS) is detected between the transmitting and receiving devices); and tuning, by based on the AP pair classification (Paragraph 0031; reporting of an LOS indicator may enable the LMF to determine or estimate a reliability or accuracy of one or more results of the positioning procedure. The LMF may adjust the one or more access points indicated by the assistance data to reduce a geometric dilution of precisions (GDOP), or others). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raghupathy, Bowers and Zorgui because it may provide RTT/RSSI measurements to provide more accurate location of one or more APs associated with a wireless network (Bowers, Paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Raghupathy/Bowers/Zorgui teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as described above. Further, Bowers teaches the AP pair (Figure 6 and Paragraphs 0054 and 0056; RTT/RSSI data include a plurality of distance measurements by multipath signals indicative of distances between two APs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raghupathy and Bowers because it may provide RTT/RSSI measurements to provide more accurate location of one or more APs associated with a wireless network (Bowers, Paragraph 0056).
In addition, Zorgui teaches wherein identifying an AP pair classification comprises performing a look-up into AP pair classification to find a classification tag associated with the AP pair (Paragraphs 0029 and 0082; the measurement report may include a line-of-sight (LOS) or non-line-of-sight (NLOS) indicator associated with the positioning procedure, with an indication of whether a line-of-sight (LOS) is detected between the transmitting and receiving devices). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raghupathy, Bowers and Zorgui because it may provide RTT/RSSI measurements to provide more accurate location of one or more APs associated with a wireless network (Bowers, Paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Raghupathy/Bowers/Zorgui teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as described above. Further, Raghupathy teaches wherein tuning the search window comprises: widening the search window responsive to determining delay-spread is large, and narrowing the search window responsive to determining that the delay-spread is small (Figure 26 and Paragraph 0222; based on information about the propagation environment which could be encoded in the transmission from the base-station, it is possible to control τ.sub.max. For example, if the delay-spread is large, then τ.sub.max can be chosen to be larger (e.g. 10) and if it is less then τ.sub.max can be chosen as a smaller value (e.g. 4)).
In addition, Bowers teaches the AP pair (Figure 6 and Paragraphs 0054 and 0056; RTT/RSSI data include a plurality of distance measurements by multipath signals indicative of distances between two APs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raghupathy and Bowers because it may provide RTT/RSSI measurements to provide more accurate location of one or more APs associated with a wireless network (Bowers, Paragraph 0056).
Further in addition, determining that the device pair is an NLoS pair, and determining that the AP pair is a LoS pair (Paragraphs 0029 and 0082; the measurement report may include a line-of-sight (LOS) or non-line-of-sight (NLOS) indicator associated with the positioning procedure, with an indication of whether a line-of-sight (LOS) is detected between the transmitting and receiving devices). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Raghupathy, Bowers and Zorgui because it may provide RTT/RSSI measurements to provide more accurate location of one or more APs associated with a wireless network (Bowers, Paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites similar features as claim 7, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites similar features as claim 9, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 9.
Pertinent but not Cited References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fellhauer et al. (US 20210341565 A1) discloses perform a fine timing measurement to calculate estimated time of arrival of the channel tap belonging to line-of-sight path and non-line-of-sight path.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 17 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Applicant's invention is drawn to determine a time of arrival of a direct wireless path signal.
The prior arts of record, Raghupathy, Bowers, Zorgui, Fellhauer, and a thorough search discloses various aspects and features of applicant's claimed invention but fail to explicitly or implicitly teach or disclose wherein tuning the threshold value comprises: decreasing the threshold value responsive to determining that the AP pair is an NLoS pair, and increasing the threshold value responsive to determining that the AP pair is a LoS pair. These functions, in combination of remaining functions are neither taught nor disclosed by the prior art.
Accordingly, Applicant’s dependent claims 10 and 17 would have been allowable for these reasons.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jing Gao whose telephone number is (571)270-7226. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 6pm M-F.
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 Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jing Gao/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights