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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5 and 15 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 5 and 15, “DL-TDoA” is a term not defined in the claims and therefore the claim is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10-11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy (US 20230276401) in view of Meng et al (US 20230109909).
Regarding claim 1 and 11, Reddy teaches a method for operating an electronic device, the method comprising: identifying two-way ranging (TWR) values for a plurality of anchors (para 53 and 58); allocating a ranging round to each of the first cluster and the second cluster (para 64)
Regarding claim 1, Reddy does not teach configuring a first cluster including a first initiator anchor and first responder anchors based on the TWR values; configuring a second cluster including a second initiator anchor and second responder anchors based on the TWR value Meng teaches configuring a first cluster including a first initiator anchor and first responder anchors based on the TWR values; configuring a second cluster including a second initiator anchor and second responder anchors based on the TWR values (para 25). It would have been obvious to modify Reddy to include configuring a first cluster including a first initiator anchor and first responder anchors based on the TWR values; configuring a second cluster including a second initiator anchor and second responder anchors based on the TWR values because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to establish the size of the clusters of Reddy with the method to establish the size of the clusters of Meng to yield a predictable method to establish the size of the clusters to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5 and 15, Reddy teaches the first initiator anchor included in the first cluster is a global initiator anchor controlling spatial reuse of a DL-TDoA infrastructure (para 29 and 73).
Regarding claim 10, Reddy teaches the electronic device is a UWB device or a server device (para 2).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy in view of Meng as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Zhang et al (US 20230071554).
Regarding claim 2 and 12, Zhang teaches identifying a first value corresponding to an average TWR between the first anchor and the second anchor; identifying a second value corresponding to a distance between the first anchor and the second anchor; and determining whether a non-line-of-sight (NLOS) occurs between the first anchor and the second anchor based on the first value and the second value (para 3 and 5). It would have been obvious to modify Reddy in view of Meng to include identifying a first value corresponding to an average TWR between the first anchor and the second anchor; identifying a second value corresponding to a distance between the first anchor and the second anchor; and determining whether a non-line-of-sight (NLOS) occurs between the first anchor and the second anchor based on the first value and the second value because it would help determine if the two way ranging was accurate.
Regarding claim 3 and 13, Zhang teaches determining that a link between the first anchor and the second anchor is ineffective based on determining that the non-line-of-sight (NLOS) occurs between the first anchor and the second anchor (para 3). It would have been obvious to modify Reddy in view of Meng to include determining that a link between the first anchor and the second anchor is ineffective based on determining that the non-line-of-sight (NLOS) occurs between the first anchor and the second anchor because it would have the device increase strength or reduce packet signal to make to improve signal performance.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy in view of Meng as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Abraham et al (US 20190166572).
Regarding claim 4 and 14, Abraham teaches the second initiator anchor included in the second cluster is one of the first responder anchors included in the first cluster (fig 2). It would have been obvious to modify Reddy in view of Meng to include the second initiator anchor included in the second cluster is one of the first responder anchors included in the first cluster because it is merely a substitution of the connect the clusters into a signal network
Claim(s) 6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy in view of Meng as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Patil (US 11412466)
Regarding claim 6, Patil teaches configuring a third cluster including a third initiator anchor and third responder anchors based on the TWR values, wherein the third initiator anchor included in the third cluster is one of the second responder anchors included in the second cluster (fig 5 and 6). It would have been obvious to modify Reddy in view of Meng to include configuring a third cluster including a third initiator anchor and third responder anchors based on the TWR values, wherein the third initiator anchor included in the third cluster is one of the second responder anchors included in the second cluster because it is merely adding a third cluster to the system to yield a predictable clusters.
Regarding claim 8, Patil teaches an area of each of the first cluster to the third cluster is equal to or larger than a minimum area value (fig 8). It would have been obvious to modify Reddy in view of Meng to include an area of each of the first cluster to the third cluster is equal to or larger than a minimum area value because it expected that the clusters would have minimum area.
Regarding claim 9, Reddy teaches a number of responder anchors included in each of the first cluster to the third cluster is limited by a number of slots allocable in one ranging round (fig 4).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy in view of Meng in view of Patil as applied to claims 6 above, and further in view of Huseth et al (US 20080220780).
Regarding claim 7, Huseth teaches identifying whether the distance between the first initiator anchor and the third initiator anchor is larger than or equal to a minimum distance (para 34). It would have been obvious to modify Reddy in view of Meng in view of Patil to include identifying whether the distance between the first initiator anchor and the third initiator anchor is larger than or equal to a minimum distance because it would indicate where the clusters overlap.
Regarding claim 7, Reddy teaches identifying a number of clusters in an entire positioning space and a number of allocable ranging rounds (fig 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A BRAINARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights