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 action is responsive to the Application filed on 08/09/2024
Claims 1-23 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 23 are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/18/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the 08/09/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/26/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the 08/09/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the 08/09/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “integration module configured to”, “resistance monitoring module” in claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure can be found in paragraph [0018] and figure 1, module are within the base station
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 12, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grau et al, U. S. Patent Publication No. 8085199, published on 2011-12-27 (hereinafter Grau) in view of Farrell et al, U. S. Patent Publication No. 5539413, published on 1996-07-23 (hereinafter Farrell), in view further of Hu, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20190173156, published on 2019-06-06 (hereinafter Hu), in view further of Riley et al, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20030054813, published on 2003-03-20 (hereinafter Riley).
As for claim independent claim 1, Grau discloses a system and method comprising a phased array antenna configured to receive wireless signals from a plurality of wireless devices in an environment, wherein the phased array antenna includes phase shifters arranged in a predetermined configuration
(Grau col 9, lines 36-37 disclose an antenna with phase shifters for receiving wireless signals, “The receiver 14 includes an antenna array 16, a plurality of phase shifters”)
a signal processor configured to calculate an angle from which each wireless signal arrives to triangulate a location of each wireless device within the environment based on relative phase shifts caused by different paths the wireless signals take to reach each graphene-based phase shifter of the graphene phased array antenna
(Grau col 7, lines 55-60 disclose a sign processor (receiver) calculating the angle of the received signal based on the pattern it left in the antenna, “Via the antenna array, the receiver 14 receives the beacon signal from the transmitter 20. The receiver 14 interprets how the beacon signal is received with respect to each antenna radiation pattern to determine the angular location of the transmitter 20 and, hence, the object with respect to the receiver 14.”)
Grau does not appear to disclose, the antenna being graphene or an integration module configured to optimize performance of the graphene phased array antenna based on one or more conditions in the environment or a network interface configured to transmit the location of each of the plurality of wireless devices to a remote system.
However, Hu discloses a system and method comprising a graphene antenna and graphene-based phase shifters
(Hu paragraph [0073] discloses a graphene antenna that performs phase modulation, meaning it is arranged as a phase array, “An RFID antenna 12 may be formed as a printed graphene RFID antenna. When oxygenated graphene 9 coated on a printed graphene RFID antenna 12 absorbs vapor 13, its permittivity changes, which alters the antenna impedance. The backscattering signal 14 phase changes accordingly and can be detected by an RFID reader”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Hu with Grau in order to have an antenna that works in a wider range of conditions.
Hu does not appear to discloses an integration module configured to optimize performance of the graphene phased array antenna based on one or more conditions in the environment or a network interface configured to transmit the location of each of the plurality of wireless devices to a remote system.
However, Farrell does disclose a system and method comprising an integration module configured to optimize performance of the graphene phased array antenna based on one or more conditions in the environment
(Farrell col 5, lines 7-13 disclose a module (called an integrated circuit) sensing an environmental condition (temperature) and adjusting the performing of the antenna based on the condition, “Remote beam control integrated circuit 200 includes a temperature sensor 260 for sensing the temperature of the integrated circuit and providing a signal indicative of the sensed temperature to output control unit 240. When the sensed temperature exceeds a predetermined threshold level, output control unit 240 inhibits transmission and/or reception by the associated antenna element.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Farrell with Hu and Grau in order to have a more compact antenna and control system.
Farrell does not appear to disclose a network interface configured to transmit the location of each of the plurality of wireless devices to a remote system.
However, Riley does disclose a system and method comprising a network interface configured to transmit the location of each of the plurality of wireless devices to a remote system.
(Riley paragraph [0016] discloses a network interface (BTS) transmitting location data to a remote entity (PDE), “In an alternative embodiment, the mobile unit will transmit data that it receives to a BTS (e.g., the BTS 12) to permit the position calculation to be determined by the BTS. In yet another alternative embodiment, the mobile unit transmits data to the BTS (e.g., the BTS 12) which in turn transmits the data to a position determining entity (PDE) 26.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Riley with Hu, Grau, and Farrell in order to make the position determination more robust in regards to limited information.
As for claim 2, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Hu discloses a system and method wherein the integration module includes a resistance monitoring module configured to provide real-time monitoring of changes of resistance of the graphene-based phase shifters due to the one or more conditions in the environment.
(Hu paragraph [0016] discloses the graphene antenna responding to environmental conditions and determining the change in resistance based on them, “The electrical property of the circuit that is altered in response to the environmental changes may be the resistivity of the region of oxygenated graphene. Although oxygenated graphene is itself a substantially dielectric material, the adsorption of certain chemical substances or water may introduce a degree of electronic conductivity across a region of oxygenated graphene. Thus, in one simple embodiment, the invention relates to an electrical circuit including a resistor comprising a region of oxygenated graphene placed in the circuit and arranged such that current flows through the resistor. A change in the resistance of the resistor can be sensed by determining changes in the current flowing through the resistor,”)
wherein the integration module is configured to adjust one or more parameters of the graphene phased array antenna in response to the changes of resistance.
(Hu paragraph [0031] discloses changing the state of the antenna (attached to an RFID) based on environmental conditions, “It may be that the RFID tag is configured to switch on/off to two different states in response to environmental changes experienced by the oxygenated graphene.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Hu with Grau, Farrell, and Riley in order to have an antenna that works in a wider range of conditions.
As for claim 10, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Riley discloses a system and method wherein the graphene phased array antenna is further configured, prior to receiving the wireless signals, to transmit at least one wireless signal to the plurality of wireless devices.
(Riley paragraph [0016] discloses a wireless device (mobile unit) being sent a signal from the BTS before position determination, “A mobile unit, such as the mobile unit 10, which measures a signal from a donor BTS may be receiving that signal directly from the BTS or it may be receiving the signal via the repeater.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Riley with Hu, Grau, and Farrell in order to make the position determination more robust in regards to limited information.
As for claim 12, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Grau discloses a system and method wherein the individual transmit/receive modules are configured to perform at least one of actively steering beams, scanning multiple directions simultaneously, providing targeting and tracking capabilities, and providing beam shaping and adaptation to changing signal environments.
(Grau col 5, lines 3-10 disclose the system has object tracking capabilities, “Once the object's position is determined, the locating device tracks its motion. For example, the locating device 12 may determine the position of the object 20 within a positioning tolerance (e.g., within a meter) at a positioning update rate (e.g., once every second or once every few seconds) and tracks the motion within a motion tracking tolerance (e.g., within a few millimeters) at a motion tracking update rate (e.g., once every 10-100 milliseconds).)
As for claim independent 23, claim 23 reflects a method for implementing the system in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grau et in view of Farrell, in view further of Hu, in view further of Riley, in view further of Soler et al, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20080062049, published on 2008-03-13 (hereinafter Soler).
As for claim 3, the limitations of the parent claim 2 have been discussed. Soler discloses a system and method wherein the one or more parameters include amplifier gain or filter bandwidth.
(Soler paragraph [0183] discloses adjusting the gain and bandwidth of an antenna for different environments, “The configurability of the antenna may provide the end-user with extra degrees of freedom to adjust for instance the resonance frequency, input impedance, bandwidth, gain, efficiency and radiation pattern of the antenna to an even wider variety of application environments with PCBs of many different sizes, shapes and clearances.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Soler with Riley, Hu, Grau, and Farrell in order to have a more easily configurable antenna.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grau et in view of Farrell, in view further of Hu, in view further of Riley, in view further of Ryan et al, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20150147067, published on 2015-05-28 (hereinafter Ryan).
As for claim 4, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Ryan discloses a system and method wherein the integration module includes an electromagnetic interference (EMI) module configured to provide real-time monitoring of changes of EMI in the environment, and wherein the integration module is configured to filter out or compensate for detected EMI.
(Ryan paragraph [0136] discloses an antenna being adjusted to compensate for measured environmental factors including EMI (RF interference), “If re-settable, system RF characteristics may be altered in a regular manner, or in response to measured characteristics of system environment such as usage patterns, RF interference, or by other criteria.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Ryan with Riley, Hu, Grau, and Farrell in order to have a more easily configurable antenna.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grau et in view of Farrell, in view further of Hu, in view further of Riley, in view further of Forester, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20210271949, published on 2021-09-02 (hereinafter Forester), in view further of Mower, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20070081503, published on 2007-04-12 (hereinafter Mower).
As for claim 5, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Forster discloses a system and method wherein the integration module includes an integrity module configured to continuously monitor the graphene-based phase shifters for one or more signs of a physical change in structure.
(Forster paragraph [0032] discloses analyzing the resistance (inferred by voltage) of an antenna to detect changes in structure (cracking), “The coupling of energy from the magnetic field generator 70 to the antenna 40 can be used to assess the state of the antenna 40 and determine the effectiveness of the self-regulating mechanism. As explained above, heating of the antenna 40 involves the transfer of energy from the magnetic field generator 70 to the antenna 40. For a magnetic field generator 70 driven with a defined current, the voltage across the drive coil 50 will increase as less energy is dissipated in the coupled coil antenna 40. Analyzing the voltage over time should, therefore, provide insight to the state of the antenna 40, with increasing voltage indicating a successful transfer of energy to the antenna 40. An unusual profile (e.g., in which the voltage alternately increases and decreases or remains substantially unchanged) could indicate issues with the adhesive chemistry and/or mechanical issues with the antenna 40, such as cracking.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Forster with Riley, Hu, Grau, and Farrell in order to have an antenna function is a wider variety of situations.
Forster does not appear to disclose a system wherein the integration module is configured, in response to detecting the one or more signs of the physical change in the structure of the graphene-based phase shifters, to generate an alert.
However, Mower discloses a system and method wherein the integration module is configured, in response to detecting the one or more signs of the physical change in the structure of the graphene-based phase shifters, to generate an alert.
(Mower paragraph [0028] disclose an alert being sent in response to an error in the antenna, “The alert may include a location of the AP 20 and a problem type (e.g., low signal strength, erroneous antenna orientation, etc.).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Mower with Forster, Riley, Hu, Grau, and Farrell in order to have better error handling for an antenna.
As for claim 6, the limitations of the parent claim 5 have been discussed. Forster discloses a system and method wherein the one or more signs of the physical change in the structure of the graphene-based phase shifters include strain, deformation, or vibration.
(Forster paragraph [0032] disclose the physical change of the antenna being a deformation (cracking), “An unusual profile (e.g., in which the voltage alternately increases and decreases or remains substantially unchanged) could indicate issues with the adhesive chemistry and/or mechanical issues with the antenna 40, such as cracking.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Forster with Riley, Hu, Grau, and Farrell in order to have an antenna function is a wider variety of situations.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grau et in view of Farrell, in view further of Hu, in view further of Riley, in view further of Noonan et al, U. S. Patent Publication No. 9936442, published on 2018-04-03 (hereinafter Noonan).
As for claim 7, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Noonan discloses a system and method wherein the integration module includes a signal monitoring module configured to continuously monitor signals received or transmitted by the graphene-based phase shifters
(Noonan col 18, lines 42-48 disclose an antenna monitoring signals, “In the illustrated embodiment 1600, antenna 1602 is a multi-band directional array that operates to detect signals in a low band and in a high band”)
wherein the integration module is configured, in response to detecting signal strengths outside of a predetermine range, to dynamically adjust one or both of transmission power and reception sensitivity of the graphene phased array antenna.
(Noonan col 18, lines 59-63 disclose an antenna adjusting the reception sensitivity (gain amplifier) in response to the signals received being in one band (or in other words outside the other band) or in the other (outside the first), “Wideband RF amplifier 1606 represents a variable gain amplifier that adjusts the detected signal amplitude based on the band in which a detected signal is detected by antenna”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Noonan with Riley, Hu, Grau, and Farrell in order to have better management of location finding transmissions.
As for claim 8, the limitations of the parent claim 7 have been discussed. Hu discloses a system and method wherein the integration module includes an impedance module configured to monitor an impedance of the graphene-based phase shifters and adjust the impedance in response to detection of an impedance mismatch.
(Hu paragraph [0074] discloses adjusting the impedance of an antenna based on the change of impedance of graphene, “In RFID antenna design, antenna 12 impedance is typically conjugately matched to the higher impedance state of the chip 17 in order to maximize the collected power.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Hu with Riley, Noonan, Grau, and Farrell in order to have an antenna that works in a wider range of conditions.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grau et in view of Farrell, in view further of Hu, in view further of Riley, in view further of Simmons, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20140231499, published on 2014-08-21 (hereinafter Simmons).
As for claim 9, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Simmons discloses a system and method wherein the graphene phased array antenna is configured to operate in a passive mode without transmitting a wireless signal to the plurality of wireless devices.
(Simmons paragraph [0049] disclose an antenna operating in passive mode, “The RF antenna is a general loop antenna used for both passive and active mode.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Simmons with Riley, Hu, Grau, and Farrell in order to save power.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grau et in view of Farrell, in view further of Hu, in view further of Riley, in view further of Wichgers, U. S. Patent Publication No. 12498447, filed on 2023-11-10 (hereinafter Wichgers).
As for claim 11, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Wichgers discloses a system and method wherein the graphene phased array antenna is configured to operate as an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA), and wherein each graphene-based phase shifter is equipped with individual transmit/receive modules allowing for independent control of each graphene-based phase shifter.
(Wichgers col 8, lines 29-27 disclose an location tracker using an AESA and controlling independently different subsystems, “the relative range vector indicating a relative position between the node 102 (e.g., 102-O) and the other node 102 (e.g., 102-A or 102-B); and/or based at least on the relative range vector, at least one of (a) output instructions to adjust communication parameters (e.g., adjust a power gain, steer an electronically scanned array (ESA, such as an active ESA (AESA)) or a directional antenna, and/or adjust frequency), (b) output instructions to adjust operational parameters of at least one of at least one sub-system”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Wichgers with Riley, Hu, Grau, and Farrell in order to reduce RF congestion.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grau et in view of Farrell, in view further of Hu, in view further of Riley, in view further of Dawar et al, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20220196782, published on 2022-06-23 (hereinafter Dawar).
As for claim 13, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Dawar discloses a system and method wherein the signal processor includes a Kalman module configured to predict a position in the environment of each wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices by filtering and smoothing the wireless signals.
(Dawar paragraph [0135] discloses a location tracker using a Kalman filter to perform filtering and smoothing, “Example tracking filters include a Kalman filter, an extended Kalman filter, a particle filter, and the like. The tracking filter operation 530 generates output 542. The output 542 can include smoothed range (in meters, centimeters or other distance based metrics). The output 542 can also include the smoothed AoA_el and the smoothed AoA_az (in degrees, radians or other angle based metrics). FIGS. 9A-10C describe the tracking filter operation 530 in greater detail.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Dawar with Riley, Hu, Grau, and Farrell in order to have a more accurate locator.
As for claim 14, the limitations of the parent claim 13 have been discussed. Dawar discloses a system and method wherein the Kalman module is further configured to: initialize a state vector representing the position and a velocity of a first wireless device, the state vector being based on initial measurements obtained from the graphene phased array antenna; and use a Kalman filter to predict a future state of the first wireless device using a mathematical model.
(Dawar paragraphs [0117 - 0120] disclose using a vector with position and velocity to make a prediction, “In certain embodiments, various feature vectors can be generated by the measurements 502 and the features 504. The 3D FoV classifier 510 then uses the feature vectors from for generating the initial prediction of whether the target device is within the FoV of the electronic device. For example, a generated feature vector that includes one or more of the measurements 502 and the features 504 could be expressed as:… The features SNRFirst, SNRMain, and ToAGap correspond to a single antenna of the electronic device. To generate a 3D FoV prediction”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Dawar with Riley, Hu, Grau, and Farrell in order to have a more accurate locator.
As for claim 15, the limitations of the parent claim 14 have been discussed. Dawar discloses a system and method wherein the mathematical model considers a previous state and incorporates one or more assumptions about movement of the first wireless device to make a prediction by calculating a predicted state vector and an associated uncertainty using a covariance matrix.
(Dawar paragraphs [0163] and [0191] disclose a system using a covariance matric (rotation matrix which must be covariant) making an assumption about acceleration (within standard deviation it is taken to be constant) and making prediction of location (increases time), “In certain embodiments, if the electronic device is equipped with a motion sensor (such as the sensor 265 of FIG. 23 or the sensor module 376), then a rotation matrix can be used as the state matrix A (instead of the identity matrix). A rotation matrix can be used to further improve the quality of the measurements….Upon determining that the stopping criteria is not reached, the electronic device generates an initial prediction of a presence of the target device relative to a FoV of the electronic device using the 3D FoV classifier 510. The motion detection engine 520 determines whether detected motion necessitates a reset to a tracking filter of the tracking filter operation. For example, in step 1104, the motion detection engine 520 compares the standard deviation of acceleration to a threshold. When the standard deviation of acceleration is greater than the threshold, the motion detection engine 520, in step 1106, performs a hard reset to the tracking filter of the tracking filter. When the standard deviation of acceleration is not greater than the threshold, or after the hard reset is performed with respect to the tracking filter of the tracking filter, the tracking filter operation 530 is performed. In step 1020, the tracking filter operation 530 increases the time and returns to step 1002”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Dawar with Riley, Hu, Grau, and Farrell in order to have a more accurate locator.
As for claim 16, the limitations of the parent claim 15 have been discussed. Dawar discloses a system and method wherein the one or more assumptions include at least one of constant velocity or acceleration.
(Dawar paragraph [0191] discloses assuming the acceleration is constant and using this to make a prediction of future state (increase time), “When the standard deviation of acceleration is not greater than the threshold, or after the hard reset is performed with respect to the tracking filter of the tracking filter, the tracking filter operation 530 is performed. In step 1020, the tracking filter operation 530 increases the time and returns to step 1002”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Dawar with Riley, Hu, Grau, and Farrell in order to have a more accurate locator.
As for claim 17, the limitations of the parent claim 16 have been discussed. Dawar discloses a system and method wherein the Kalman module compares the predicted state vector with actual measurements to compute a residual, and wherein the Kalman filter adjusts the state vector and the covariance matrix based on the residual.
(Dawar paragraph [0176] discloses the covariance matrix being adjusted using a residual value which is found using measured values, “Similarly, the measurement noise covariance matrix, R, can be adaptively adjusted based on a residual value, described in Equation (43), below. The residual value is the difference between the updated value and the measured value.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Dawar with Riley, Hu, Grau, and Farrell in order to have a more accurate locator.
Claims 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grau et in view of Farrell, in view further of Hu, in view further of Riley, in view further of Thoresen et al, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20190182627, published on 2019-06-13 (hereinafter Thoresen).
As for claim 18, the limitations of the parent claim 1 have been discussed. Thoresen discloses a system and method comprising a track module configured to match the wireless signals to respective tracked devices by preprocessing the wireless signals to extract signal features
(Thoresen paragraph [0064] discloses preprocessing data to extract signal features (meta data), “the edge sensor logic may perform preprocessing on the collected data to generate metadata which is then stored in block”)
and for each incoming signal, comparing the extracted signal features to generate a list of potential matches from an existing set of tracked devices.
(Thoresen paragraphs [0129] and [0130] disclose a system which allowing access based on lists of devices, “Access control support 1304 allows an admin user to define access for other users…Event and notification support 1305 can facilitate admin users defining “watchlists” of devices and/or zones for security applications or otherwise or defining “blacklisted” or “whitelisted” devices or device profiles.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Thoresen with Riley, Hu, Grau, and Farrell in order to have a more intelligent infrastructure.
As for claim 19, the limitations of the parent claim 18 have been discussed. Thoresen discloses a system and method wherein the extracted signal features include one or more of signal strength, time of arrival, and angle of arrival.
(Thoresen paragraph [0188] disclose extracting features based on angle of arrival, “The first wireless device 1910A uses the tracking system to determine point-of-origin vectors for each target device 1910 in the environment based on an angle of arrival and signal range associated with the received signals 1915. In one embodiment, the tracking system of the wireless device 1910A applies a number of tools to determine an angle of arrival for each received signal, to compute an estimation value representative of the target wireless device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Thoresen with Riley, Hu, Grau, and Farrell in order to have a more intelligent infrastructure.
As for claim 20, the limitations of the parent claim 18 have been discussed. Thoresen discloses a system and method comprising a Joint Probabilistic Data Association (JPDA) module configured to optimize assignment of the wireless signals to wireless devices.
(Thoresen paragraph [0224] discloses a JPDA (called a JPDAF) used to assign devices to RF signals when there are more than one possibilities, “The JPDAF process is married to a Nearest Neighbor Standard Filter to generate a hybrid Nearest Neighbor—Joint Probabilistic Data Association Filter (NN-JPDAF). The hybrid NN-JPDAF accounts for the possibility that more than one potential candidate RF signal corresponds to an actual target and supports a measurement oriented system capable of near real-time tracking.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Thoresen with Riley, Hu, Grau, and Farrell in order to have a more intelligent infrastructure.
As for claim 21, the limitations of the parent claim 20 have been discussed. Thoresen discloses a system and method wherein the JPDA module is configured to evaluate all possible assignments and select a first assignment that maximizes an overall likelihood of being a match.
(Thoresen paragraph [0249] disclose maximizing the likelihood (probability) of matching a device with a measurement, “The probability β.sub.tj of track t associating with measurement j is approximated by”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Thoresen with Riley, Hu, Grau, and Farrell in order to have a more intelligent infrastructure.
As for claim 22, the limitations of the parent claim 21 have been discussed. Thoresen discloses a system and method wherein the JPDA module calculates a likelihood score based on consistency of the extracted signal features with expected values for each tracked wireless device.
(Thoresen paragraph [0263] disclose a system finding the probability based on features of the signal, “The tracking system computes the current state and covariance terms using the out-of-sequence measurement by performing a series of steps: (1) state retrodiction, to return the tracking system to a historical state; (2) measurement retrodiction, to construct a historical covariance matrix; (3) mode likelihood functions, to apply a probabilistic filter to the historical covariance matrix; (4) data association, to apply a mode likelihood filter to the historical covariance matrix; (5) state update within each filter model, to associate the incoming data with existing data; (6) update of the current mode probabilities, to propagate the updated probabilities to the current state; and (7) update of the current combined estimate and covariance, to propagate the updated combined estimate and covariance to the current state.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Thoresen with Riley, Hu, Grau, and Farrell in order to have a more intelligent infrastructure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C LAWRENCE whose telephone number is (571)272-9833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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.
/JOHN CALEB LAWRENCE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/JEANETTE J PARKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights