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 .
Claim interpretation – Formal Matters
1. A double patenting rejection is put forth – This is a Continuation application.
2. The examiner interprets that the claims are statutory under the requirements and guidelines as set forth in 35 USC 112. Written support is found and the claims particularly point out the inventive concept(s).
3. The examiner interprets that the claims are statutory under the requirements and guidelines as set forth in 35 USC 101 (ie. directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories, no abstract idea, above judicial bar).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,463,971. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite determining a user’s currently location based on the known location of other devices based upon message ToA and ToD.
Current Claim 17/942273
1. A method of determining a location of an unknown device (UD) from a plurality of known devices (KDs), the method comprising:
receiving, at the UD, periodically broadcasted messages from each of a plurality of KDs;
recording a corresponding arrival time stamp (Tarrival-i-UD) of each periodically broadcasted message from each of the plurality of KDs,
wherein each of the plurality of KDs are clock synchronized to a common clock source at a master device (MD),
wherein a departure time of the periodically broadcasted message from each of the plurality of KDs is known by the UD in master device time units (Tdepart-i-md) and
wherein x, y and z coordinates of a location of each of the KDs is known by the UD; and
calculating the x, y and z coordinates of an actual location of the UD using the x, y and z coordinates of each of the KDs, the recorded arrival times (Tarrival-i-UD) of each of the periodically broadcasted messages from each of the plurality of KDs and the known departure times of each of the periodically broadcasted messages (Tdepart-i-md) from each of the plurality of KDs.
A method of determining a location of an unknown device (UD) from a plurality of known devices (KDs), wherein the plurality of KDs periodically transmit broadcast messages, are clock synchronized to a common clock source (MD), the method comprising:receiving, at the UD, the transmitted broadcast messages and recording arrival timestamps associated with the transmitted broadcast messages, wherein the departure times of the broadcast messages from the plurality of KDs (Tdepart-i-md) in MD units is known by the UD and wherein the x, y, z positions of the plurality of KDs are known by the UD;collecting timestamps, at the UD, from the plurality of KDs; andcalculating a location for the UD based on the recorded arrival timestamps and departure times of the broadcast messages from the plurality of KDs (Tdepart-i-md),wherein calculating the location for the UD comprises: formulating an initial guess (Lguess) of a position of the UD; calculating a set of Distances (Di) based on the position of Lguess and each of the plurality of KDs (KD-i); translating the set of distances (Di) into estimated departure times (T-depart-kd-i) from the UD based on arrival times of all KD-i and a corresponding distance; creating an error function based on differences in values of the estimated departure times (T-depart-kd-i); and modifying the initial guess (Lguess) based on the error function to provide a location of the UD
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. US 2005/0002481 and further in view of {Steiner et al. US 2015/0222602 OR Segev US 2015/0181553}
As per claim 1, Woo et al. US 2005/0002481 teaches a method of determining a location of an unknown device (UD) from a plurality of known devices (KDs) – Para #27 taeches determining a user’s unknown location based on known locations of other (known) devices (KD’s), the method comprising:
[0027] Many conventional local positioning systems use time of flight measurements of a signal sent from a transmitter to a receiver to determine a respective range between the transmitter and the receiver. In some systems, the receiver is located on a device whose position is unknown and the transmitter on a device whose position is known.
[0013] FIG. 2A is a schematic diagram of a two-way positioning system having at least four devices, in which the position of three static devices are known. The position of a fourth, possibly mobile, device is determined from the range from the fourth device to each of the other three devices.
receiving, at the UD, periodically broadcasted messages from each of a plurality of KDs (Para #6 teaches that the KD’s periodically broadcast messages which can be received by any device within receiving distance, e.g. KD, UD, etc.);
[0006] In a preferred embodiment, the positioning system comprises a number of devices that exchange RF signals amongst themselves. Each device includes a transceiver for exchanging RF signals with other devices. The transceiver of each device periodically receives a message from each other device during time slots assigned to the other devices. Each device further includes a local clock for generating a local clock signal and receiver logic for determining a time of arrival, relatively to the local clock signal, of the message from each of the other devices. Transmitter logic is also present in each device for periodically transmitting messages to the other devices during a time slot assigned to that device, each transmitted message including information representing the determined time of arrival for at least one of the other devices. The message received from each other device includes information representing a time of arrival at the other device of a respective message transmitted by the receiving device. Finally, at least one of the devices in the system further includes ranging logic for determining a respective range to a number of the other devices, the determined respective range to a respective device of the other devices being determined as function of the determined time of arrival of the message from the other device and the time of arrival information in the message received from the other device.
recording a corresponding arrival time stamp (Tarrival-i-UD) of each periodically broadcasted message from each of the plurality of KDs (See Para #27 above teaching each device can receive a message that includes (and/or determine) Time of Arrival),
wherein each of the plurality of KDs are clock synchronized to a common clock source at a master device (MD) AND in master device time units (Woo teaches at least a local clock AND a master devices that synchronizes all other devices in the system),
[0052] In a preferred embodiment, each data symbol 512 includes eleven chips 516 which correspond to one of four possible length-11 Barker code sequences. The first two Barker code sequences (10110111000 and its logical complement, 01001000111) are transmitted only by a device referred to as a "master device". The master device is responsible for synchronizing the local time values of all other devices in the system relative to the TDM frame. Any transmission containing these chip sequences can be unambiguously interpreted as having come from the master device, making the synchronization task simpler.
wherein x, y and z coordinates of a location of each of the KDs is known by the UD (Para #2 teaches location in 2D and 3D); and
[0004] A relatively low-cost (.ltoreq.$2000) local positioning system able to determine 2D or 3D positions to accuracies of a few millimeters would enable a large set of potential products, in such application areas as precision indoor and outdoor construction, mining, precision farming, and stadium field mowing and treatment. The present invention overcomes the cost and accuracy limitations of conventional local positioning systems.
[0013] FIG. 2A is a schematic diagram of a two-way positioning system having at least four devices, in which the position of three static devices are known. The position of a fourth, possibly mobile, device is determined from the range from the fourth device to each of the other three devices.
calculating the x, y and z coordinates of an actual location of the UD using the x, y and z coordinates of each of the KDs, the recorded arrival times (Tarrival-i-UD) of each of the periodically broadcasted messages from each of the plurality of KDs (Tdepart-i-md) from each of the plurality of KDs (Woo teaches using the message ToA’s and ToF to determine position.
[0001] The present invention relates generally to positioning systems, and, more specifically, to an apparatus and method for operating a positioning system in which a plurality of devices exchange messages with one another, enabling at least one of the devices to determine the relative positions of at least one other device in the system based on the information in, and time-of-arrival of, the message received from the other device.
[0028] For a receiver to determine the time of flight between a transmitter and the receiver using the time of arrival of the transmitted signal, the receiver must know the time at which the transmitter sent the signal. In some positioning systems, the transmitter may transmit at a time agreed upon in advance and known to the receiver. In other systems, the transmitter may encode the time at which the signal has been sent into the signal itself. In both cases, both the transmitter and receiver need a local time reference by which to measure time. Unless the time reference of the transmitter and receiver are synchronized, there will be significant errors in any determination of time of flight by the receiver.
But is silent on
wherein a departure time of the periodically broadcasted message from each of the plurality of KDs is known by the UD (Tdepart-i-md);
the known departure times of each of the periodically broadcasted messages.
Woo understands ToA and ToF, hence the Departure Time can be easily calculated by subtracting the ToF from the ToA (i.e. if the message arrives at 3:01pm and it took 1 minute of flight, the ToD was 3pm)
That said, the examiner adds Steiner OR Segev the following:
Steiner et al. US 2015/0222602 teaches using ToA and ToD to determine a user’s location:
From Steiner’s Claim 8: The computer-readable medium of claim 3, wherein determining the location of the user device further comprises determining the location of the user device based at least in part on the at least one timer, a time of departure of the first message, the time of arrival of the first message, the time of departure of the second message, and a time of arrival of the second message.
Segev US 2015/0181553 teaches using ToA and ToD to determine a user’s location:
[0175] Example 10 includes the subject matter of Example 9, and optionally, wherein the controller is to control the mobile device to transmit an FTM request to the STA, to receive an FTM request ACK from the STA, to receive a first FTM message from the STA, to transmit a first FTM ACK to the STA in response to the first FTM message, to receive a second FTM message from the STA, and to transmit a second FTM ACK to the STA in response to the second FTM message, and wherein the controller is to determine the distance between the first location and the STA based on a time of arrival (ToA) of the first FTM message, a time of departure (ToD) of the first FTM ACK, and timing information included in the second FTM message.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention’s filing date, to modify Woo, such that wherein a departure time of the periodically broadcasted message from each of the plurality of KDs is known by the UD (Tdepart-i-md) AND the known departure times of each of the periodically broadcasted messages, to provide the ability to use various parameters of the message to determine the user’s location.
Allowable Subject Matter
The examiner suggests the applicant amend claim 1 in a similar fashion as the previous parent/child applications previously allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is the PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M. D'AGOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-7862. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 4pm (IFW).
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, Edan (Dan) Orgad can be reached on 571-272-7884. 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.
/STEPHEN M D AGOSTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414