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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN 202210196160.2, filed on Feb 28, 2022.
Status of Claims
Amendments to claims 1, 11, 13 and 17 have been entered.
Claims 2 – 5, 12 and 18 – 20 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 6 – 11 and 13 – 17 are currently pending.
Response to Remarks
Regarding amended claim 11, Applicant states that Agrawala fails to disclose a synchronization handshake in which the second device records an eleventh moment and returns a synchronization feedback identifier comprising the eleventh moment and twelfth sending moment. See Remarks Page 9.
In response, the Examiner believes moment refers to time. Note that no second through tenth moments are required by claim 11. Each device would have to have a clock in order to determine range as evidenced by Agrawala at Para. 55 stating “the locally generated timing information is simply collected and adaptively synchronized for distance measurement, location finding, or any other such suitable use requiring consistently precise interpretation of the collected timing information.” Wherein each clock is corrected for drift. See Agrawla Para. 42 – 44. Agrawla’s Fig. 4 shows the exchange of timing information between devices wherein an infinite number of times can be shared as evidenced by Fig. 9. Agrawla’s MAC clock (Para. 107) includes identifiers as is known in the art and by IEEE standards - inherent.
In view of Applicant’s amendments and remarks, all other rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Agrawala (US 20110268097 A1).
As to claim 11, Agrawala discloses the distance measurement method, applied to a second device, and comprising:
obtaining a first moment at which a distance measurement signal is sent; sending the first moment to a first device; and sending the distance measurement signal to the first device at the first moment based on a system clock of the second device (Figs. 4 & 9 see also Paras. 55, 107 – 110 and 118 – 122);
wherein before the sending the distance measurement signal at the first moment based on a system clock of the second device, the method further comprises:
receiving at least one synchronization instruction from the first device, and recording, based on the system clock of the second device, an eleventh moment at which each synchronization instruction is received (Para. 55, 118 – 122 and Figs. 4 & 9); and
sending a synchronization feedback identifier to the first device in response to each synchronization instruction, wherein the synchronization feedback identifier comprises the eleventh moment and a twelfth moment at which the synchronization feedback identifier is sent, and the twelfth moment is recorded based on the system clock of the second device (Para. 55, 118 – 122 and Fig. 4).
As to claim 13, Agrawala discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein the obtaining a first moment at which a distance measurement signal is sent comprises: determining that synchronization with the first device is completed; and using, as the first moment, a moment at which preset duration elapses after it is determined that the synchronization is completed (Para. 130).
As to claim 15, Agrawala discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein the sending the first moment to a first device comprises: sending the first moment to the first device after the first moment is obtained; or sending the at least one first moment to the first device in response to a first moment query instruction from the first device (Fig. 1D and Paras. 102 and 118 – 122).
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 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawala in view of Rausch (US 20120201195 A1).
As to claim 14, Agrawala does not disclose the method according to claim 11, wherein the obtaining a first moment at which a distance measurement signal is sent comprises: receiving a distance measurement signal sending instruction, and obtaining at least one the first moment comprised in the distance measurement signal sending instruction; or obtaining at least one preset the first moment based on device identification information of the second device.
In the same field of endeavor, Rausch teaches “The method involves a core-network component: (a) receiving a request from a second base station for a time-of-flight delay between a first base station and the second base station, wherein the request includes (i) an identifier of a first base station and (ii) a the geographic location of the second base station, and wherein the second base station is configured to use the time-of-flight delay to synchronize a frame-start timing signal with frames in a broadcast signal of the first base station; (Para. 20).”
In view of the teachings of Rausch, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before filing to apply an Identifier in order to know which node is currently being positioned thus improving positioning accuracy by pairing the correct signals with the correct node.
As to claim 16, Agrawala in view Rausch teaches the method according to claim 14, wherein the sending the first moment to a first device further comprises: sending the device identification information of the second device to the first device in response to a first moment query instruction from the first device (As modified in claim 14 wherein a request is used to limit the amount of processing to only requesting nodes.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6 – 10 and 17 are allowed. The Examiner agrees with Applicant’s remarks.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
