DETAILED ACTION
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language reads like a claim (and is in fact nearly identical to the method claim 25. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 18: the intended scope of the phrases “measuring first ranging information comprising a sum of at least partially” and “measuring second ranging information comprising a sum of at least partially” is unclear and should be reworded for clarity. In particular, how does “at least partially” modify the sum?
Regarding claim 19: the limitation “the second state” in line 5 has insufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
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.
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, 3, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markhovsky et al (US 2005/0020279) in view of Hu (US 2026/0122609).
Regarding claim 1: Markhovsky discloses a user equipment comprising:
at least one processor (see processor 40 of Figure 2, for example); and
transmitting, from the user equipment, a first activation signal to a (disclosed throughout; see [0116], for example, which discloses transmitting a command sequence to “wake up” the slave unit; this is interpreted as a first activation signal as it activates/wakes up the slave unit; see also [0124], which discloses the master unit transmitting a command to the slave unit);
receiving, at the user equipment, an indication for transmitting a second activation signal (disclosed throughout; see [0124], for example, which discloses that the master unit receives (from the slave unit) a reply message that indicates a ready status; this reply triggers a second activation signal as indicated below and is thus an indication for transmitting a second activation signal);
transmitting, from the user equipment, the second activation signal to the (disclosed throughout; see [0125], for example, which indicates that upon receiving the “ready” status signal, the master unit transmits a ranging signal sequence to the slave unit; this ranging signal sequence activates the distance/time measurement sequence in the slave unit and is thus a second activation signal); and
receiving, at the user equipment, location information related to at least one of a distance between the user equipment and the (disclosed throughout; see [0126]-[0127], for example, which discloses that the ranging process is repeated and the master unit utilizes the received information to calculate a distance; thus, the information received in the ranging process is location information related to at least a distance between the user equipment (master unit) and the radio apparatus (slave unit)).
Markhovsky does not explicitly disclose the limitation that the radio apparatus is a passive radio apparatus. However, signaling with a passive radio apparatus to determine location/distance information is known in the art. Consider Hu, for example, which includes a passive radio apparatus (see the zero-power tag device disclosed throughout), that receives an activation signal and transmits to a positioning device information that includes location information to allow the positioning device to determine positioning information including a distance between the two devices. Consider Figure 8, for example, which shows in step S802 that the positioning device positions the zero-power tag device based on the first radio signal. See also [0118], for example, which indicates that this may include a distance between the zero-power tag device and the positioning device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Markhovsky to utilize a passive radio apparatus as the slave device as suggested by Hu. The rationale for doing so would have been to reduce system costs by using low-cost or battery free IoT devices as suggested by Hu in [0060], for example.
Markhovsky is also silent regarding the limitations of at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the user equipment to at least perform. However, Hu discloses this in memory 1204 of Figure 12 and [0198], for example. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Markhovsky to include a memory which includes a computer program as suggested by Hu. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable the processor to be updated inexpensively by upgrading the software in memory.
Regarding claim 24: Markhovsky discloses a method for a user equipment comprising:
transmitting, from the user equipment, a first activation signal to a (disclosed throughout; see [0116], for example, which discloses transmitting a command sequence to “wake up” the slave unit; this is interpreted as a first activation signal as it activates/wakes up the slave unit; see also [0124], which discloses the master unit transmitting a command to the slave unit);
receiving, at the user equipment, an indication for transmitting a second activation signal (disclosed throughout; see [0124], for example, which discloses that the master unit receives (from the slave unit) a reply message that indicates a ready status; this reply triggers a second activation signal as indicated below and is thus an indication for transmitting a second activation signal);
transmitting, from the user equipment, the second activation signal to the (disclosed throughout; see [0125], for example, which indicates that upon receiving the “ready” status signal, the master unit transmits a ranging signal sequence to the slave unit; this ranging signal sequence activates the distance/time measurement sequence in the slave unit and is thus a second activation signal); and
receiving, at the user equipment, location information related to at least one of a distance between the user equipment and the (disclosed throughout; see [0126]-[0127], for example, which discloses that the ranging process is repeated and the master unit utilizes the received information to calculate a distance; thus, the information received in the ranging process is location information related to at least a distance between the user equipment (master unit) and the radio apparatus (slave unit)).
Markhovsky does not explicitly disclose the limitation that the radio apparatus is a passive radio apparatus. Markhovsky also does not disclose that the first activation signal is for charging the passive radio apparatus. However, signaling with a passive radio apparatus to determine location/distance information is known in the art. Consider Hu, for example, which includes a passive radio apparatus (see the zero-power tag device disclosed throughout), that receives an activation signal and transmits to a positioning device information that includes location information to allow the positioning device to determine positioning information including a distance between the two devices. Consider Figure 8, for example, which shows in step S802 that the positioning device positions the zero-power tag device based on the first radio signal. See also [0118], for example, which indicates that this may include a distance between the zero-power tag device and the positioning device. Further, see [0071], for example, which discloses that a first signal transmitted to the zero-power tag device (called the second radio signal in Hu) “is used to energize the zero-power tag device or wake up the zero-power tag device”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Markhovsky to utilize a passive radio apparatus as the slave device as and to energize the passive radio apparatus via the first signal that wakes up the slave device suggested by Hu. The rationale for doing so would have been to reduce system costs by using low-cost or battery free IoT devices as suggested by Hu in [0060], for example.
Regarding claim 3: Markhovsky, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Markhovsky further discloses the limitations that the reader device is at least part of the user equipment (disclosed throughout; the master device (user equipment) sends the activation signals and also receives the reply to the ranging signals and thus incorporates a reader device to read these signals); the reader device is at least part of another one or more user equipment, and wherein receiving the indication for transmitting the second activation signal, and receiving the location information is received from the another one or more user equipment; or the reader device is at least part of another one or more user equipment, and wherein the receiving the indication for transmitting the second activation signal, and the receiving the location information is received from a base station or network element serving the user equipment and the another one or more user equipment (the last two limitations are claimed in the alternative; thus, the claim is rejected because Markhovsky discloses the first limitation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14, 21, and 25 are allowed.
Claims 2, 4, and 8-10 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:
Regarding claims 12 and 25, the prior art of record discloses many of the claim limitations. For example, consider Fahim et al (US 2024/0179549), which discloses a reader device (such as the TRP device of Figure 13) that receives a first activation signal directed towards a passive radio apparatus by an activator device (see the first signal received from a reference device in Figure 1304), receives from the passive radio apparatus, an initial reply to the activation signal (see the second signal received from the tag device in 1306, for example), and determines and transmits location information related to the position of the passive radio apparatus/tag device (see 1308 of Figure 13 as well as Figure 14, which indicates that the two reports include information related to the position of the tag device relative to the reference device and the TRP device). However, neither Fahim or the other prior art of record discloses the limitations of sending an indication for transmitting a second activation signal, receiving the second activation signal (from the activator) and a second initial reply (from the passive radio apparatus), or determining the location/position information based on the second initial replay signal. Therefore, claims 12 and 25 are allowable over the prior art.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Elshafie et al (US 2026/0101303) discloses a method for positioning using RFID tags.
Qi (US 2026/0025789) discloses a system including an ambient power (AMP) device that harvests energy through a first signal and performs positioning based on a second signal.
Zhang et al (US 2025/0344177) discloses a system that determines positioning using an electronic tag.
He (US 2024/0276435) discloses a system including a first activator device and one or more other reader devices that use the backscatter reply from the activation signal to identify positioning information.
Fahim et al (US 2024/0179549) discloses a method for backscatter-based positioning.
Fan et al (US 9,551,780) discloses a method for locating an object based on a charging/response time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 August 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights