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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2024 and 08/16/2025 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
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:
state determination module in claim 12
difference calculation module in claim 12
position determination module in claim 12
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.
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.
Contingent Limitations:
The Examiner would like to point out that claims 6 and 11 are method claims which include the contingent limitations of “and updating any channel impulse response received by the antenna in the continuous period of time as the steady state sensed by the antenna when it is determined that the difference of the channel impulse responses received by the same antenna at the first moment and the second moment is less than a preset difference threshold” (claim 6) and “wherein the angle parameter and the time parameter of each path are determined according to a maximum value within an ambiguity range of each path when the sensing signal is capable of undergoing the path separation” (claim 11). The feature after “when…” indicates that the limitation is contingent on occurrence of the feature after “when…”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of these method claims, these limitation do not need to occur. Therefore, these method claims are being interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation where no “and updating any channel impulse response received by the antenna in the continuous period of time as the steady state sensed by the antenna” and “wherein the angle parameter and the time parameter of each path are determined according to a maximum value within an ambiguity range of each path” is performed (SEE MPEP 2111.04, II. Contingent Limitations).
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 4-6 and 17-18 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.
Claims 4 and 6 recites the limitation "the antenna in a continuous period of time". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims dependent on these claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Claim 1:
A wireless sensing method, comprising:
performing modeling according to a sensing signal received by antennas, and determining a reference state of a sensing environment;
calculating a difference between a current sensing signal and the reference state; and
determining, according to the difference, a position parameter of a changing sensing object in the sensing environment.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method and therefore, is eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of:
“ determining a reference state of a sensing environment;
calculating a difference between a current sensing signal and the reference state; and
determining, according to the difference, a position parameter of a changing sensing object in the sensing environment.”
These limitations, as drafted, are observations or evaluations that are simply mathematical concepts (e.g., algorithms, mathematical functions, optimization, spatial relationships, geometry, etc.). MPEP § 2106.4(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations”. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A), “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.”
When given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, these limitations are simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitation(s) of “performing modeling according to a sensing signal received by antennas” is/are recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely is/are used to perform the abstract idea, and is/are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The additional limitation of “performing modeling according to a sensing signal received by antennas” represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic devices, and furthermore, can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to particular field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). The recitation of these claim limitation(s) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”, as implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the mathematical concept itself.
The additional limitation(s) of “ performing modeling according to a sensing signal received by antennas” is/are at a high level of generality. The limitation(s) is/are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation(s) therefore does not/ do not amount to significantly more.
Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of the claim(s) and does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, independent claim is 1 not patent-eligible.
Independent claim(s) 12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 due to same analysis and rationale as independent claim 1 above where claim 12 is an apparatus claim.
Dependent claim(s) 2-11 and 13-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claims are directed to the mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate from the abstract idea. The additional limitation(s) in claims 2-9 and 11-18 merely is/are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitation(s) is/are recited at a high level of generality, and is/are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1-18 are not patent eligible.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 8-11 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections and to include in independent form all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Chen et al. (US 20160018508 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses
A wireless sensing method (see paragraph 0004, “We describe exemplary embodiments of wireless positioning systems using location-specific waveforms that have been shown to achieve location better than 5 cm using the inventive apparati and methods disclosed here.”), comprising:
performing modeling according to a sensing signal received by antennas (see paragraph 0071-0072, “In one exemplary embodiment, devices in a venue at known locations may send channel probe signals to a locator and the locator may determine the estimated channel responses for devices in those locations and store that data in a database. In some implementations, a mapping between locations in a venue and corresponding reference channel responses may be established experimentally or by measurement prior to the operation of the positioning system and then the mapping is used to determine the locations of the terminal devices within the venue. In some implementations, a mapping between locations in a venue and corresponding reference channel responses is established by computation and then mapping is used to determine the locations of the terminal devices within the venue”), and determining a reference state of a sensing environment (see paragraph 0073, “In some implementations, the reference channel responses may be established prior to the operation of the positioning system or they may be established on-the-fly or at the same time the positioning system is operating. In embodiments, pre-established reference channel responses may be periodically checked for accuracy or validity, for example by performing some or all of the techniques used to generate the reference channel responses in the first place. In some embodiments, only a few reference channel responses may be checked and/or recalibrated.”);
calculating a difference between a current sensing signal and the reference state (see paragraph 0072, “In one exemplary embodiment, devices in a venue at known locations may send channel probe signals to a locator and the locator may determine the estimated channel responses for devices in those locations and store that data in a database. In some implementations, a mapping between locations in a venue and corresponding reference channel responses may be established experimentally or by measurement prior to the operation of the positioning system and then the mapping is used to determine the locations of the terminal devices within the venue. In some implementations, a mapping between locations in a venue and corresponding reference channel responses is established by computation and then mapping is used to determine the locations of the terminal devices within the venue”); and
determining, according to the difference, a position parameter of a changing sensing object in the sensing environment (see paragraph 0070, “For example, the change of position of a device may be determined by comparing positions of a device at different times. For example, a device could be mounted on doors or windows of a house and determining a change in position (or a change in estimated channel response) may be used to indicate that a door or window has been opened. Such a system could be used for intruder detection or home monitoring applications. In embodiments, a device mounted on the shirt pocket or wrist of a senior citizen may be used to detect if the senior citizen has fallen to the ground. A device may be attached to a product in a warehouse and used to detect the type and location of the product and update inventory in real-time. A device may be held and/or carried by a person hanging around in a shopping mall and used for targeted advertising or store navigation. In embodiments, a device may be held or carried by a visitor and used for guided tours and/or to provide indoor navigation instructions.”).
Regarding claim 2, Chen further discloses
The method according to claim 1, wherein the antennas are an antenna array (see paragraph 0132, “In multiple antenna, transmitter and/or receiver embodiments, the multiple antennas, transmitters and/or receivers may operate completely independently of each other or they may operate in conjunction with each other. In embodiments, a subset of antennas, transmitters and/or receivers in a device may operate independently of others or in conjunction with others. In multiple antenna, transmitter and/or receiver embodiments, the multiple antennas, transmitters and/or receivers may share certain hardware components and software code.”), and the reference state of the sensing environment comprises a steady state sensed by each antenna of the antenna array (see paragraph 0073, “the reference channel responses may be established prior to the operation of the positioning system or they may be established on-the-fly or at the same time the positioning system is operating.”, further NOTE: “sensed by each antenna” simply implies that the reference state was determined using the system of multiple antennas based on BRI).
Regarding claim 3, Chen further discloses
The method according to claim 2, wherein the performing modeling according to a sensing signal received by antennas, and determining a reference state of a sensing environment comprise:
determining channel impulse responses of the antennas according to the sensing signal received by the antennas (see paragraph 0139, “When a terminal device, for example 154 is oriented differently such that the antenna points to different directions, the multiple paths propagated by the probe signals may be different. Thus even if the terminal device 154 is at the same location, when the terminal device 154 is oriented differently, the locator 182 may calculate different channel impulse responses based on the received probe waveforms. If the terminal device 154 is intended to be held at multiple orientations (e.g., users may hold mobile phones at various orientations), then during the training phase, the terminal device 154 may be held at various orientations and the locator 182 may determine the corresponding channel impulse responses. The coordinates of each position may map to a set of channel impulse responses corresponding to different orientations of the terminal device at the position.”); and
performing the modeling according to the channel impulse responses of the antennas (NOTE: modeling is broad and determining the impulse responses is indeed “modeling”), and
determining the reference state of the sensing environment (see paragraph 0073, “the reference channel responses may be established prior to the operation of the positioning system or they may be established on-the-fly or at the same time the positioning system is operating.”).
Regarding claim 12, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 13, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Chen further discloses,
A communication device, comprising: a memory, and one or more processors; wherein the memory is configured to store one or more programs; and when the one or more programs are executed by the one or more processors, the one or more processors are caused to implement the method according to claim 1 (see paragraph 0144, “The one or more processors can perform various calculations described above. The calculations can also be implemented using application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs). The term “computer-readable medium” refers to a medium that participates in providing instructions to a processor for execution, including without limitation, non-volatile media (e.g., optical or magnetic disks), and volatile media (e.g., memory) and transmission media. Transmission media includes, without limitation, coaxial cables, copper wire and fiber optics.”, further see paragraph 0146).
Regarding claim 14, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Chen further discloses,
A non-volatile computer storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program implements the wireless sensing method according to claim 1 when executed by a processor (see paragraph 0144, “The one or more processors can perform various calculations described above. The calculations can also be implemented using application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs). The term “computer-readable medium” refers to a medium that participates in providing instructions to a processor for execution, including without limitation, non-volatile media (e.g., optical or magnetic disks), and volatile media (e.g., memory) and transmission media. Transmission media includes, without limitation, coaxial cables, copper wire and fiber optics.”, further see paragraph 0146).
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) 4, 7 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20160018508 A1) in view of SMITH et al. (US 20220011394 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses [Note: what Chen fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method according to claim 3, wherein the performing the modeling according to the channel impulse responses of the antennas, and determining the reference state of the sensing environment comprise:
SMITH discloses,
determining the steady state sensed by each antenna according to a difference of channel impulse responses received by the antenna in a continuous period of time (see paragraph 0041, “A further aspect of the present disclosure describes a method implemented in a network node. The method comprises: summing sequential uplink data signals at each of a plurality of antennas of the network node to produce a plurality of antenna signal sums; selecting one of the antenna signal sums to be used as a reference antenna signal sum; determining a channel impulse response for each of a plurality of other antennas based on the reference antenna signal sum and the others of the plurality of antenna signal sums; estimating a time difference of arrival from the channel impulse responses of the plurality of antennas; estimating an error of the estimated time difference of arrival of each antenna; and calculating a position of a wireless device using the estimated time differences of arrival.”, further see paragraphs 0164-0165); and
determining the reference state of the sensing environment according to the determined steady state sensed by each antenna (see paragraph 0041, “A further aspect of the present disclosure describes a method implemented in a network node. The method comprises: summing sequential uplink data signals at each of a plurality of antennas of the network node to produce a plurality of antenna signal sums; selecting one of the antenna signal sums to be used as a reference antenna signal sum; determining a channel impulse response for each of a plurality of other antennas based on the reference antenna signal sum and the others of the plurality of antenna signal sums; estimating a time difference of arrival from the channel impulse responses of the plurality of antennas; estimating an error of the estimated time difference of arrival of each antenna; and calculating a position of a wireless device using the estimated time differences of arrival.”, further see paragraphs 0164-0165).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by SMITH into the invention of Chen. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the comparison of channel impulse responses to a reference channel impulse response (i.e. steady state) The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the data resolution of the system.
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses [Note: what Chen fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method according to claim 2, wherein the calculating a difference between a current sensing signal and the reference state comprises:
SMITH discloses,
determining channel impulse responses of the antennas according to the sensing signal currently received by the antennas (see paragraph 0041, “A further aspect of the present disclosure describes a method implemented in a network node. The method comprises: summing sequential uplink data signals at each of a plurality of antennas of the network node to produce a plurality of antenna signal sums; selecting one of the antenna signal sums to be used as a reference antenna signal sum; determining a channel impulse response for each of a plurality of other antennas based on the reference antenna signal sum and the others of the plurality of antenna signal sums; estimating a time difference of arrival from the channel impulse responses of the plurality of antennas; estimating an error of the estimated time difference of arrival of each antenna; and calculating a position of a wireless device using the estimated time differences of arrival.”, further see paragraphs 0164-0165); and
calculating a difference between a channel impulse response of each antenna of the antenna array and a steady state sensed by each antenna, and obtaining the difference matrix of the current sensing signal and the reference state (see paragraph 0041, “A further aspect of the present disclosure describes a method implemented in a network node. The method comprises: summing sequential uplink data signals at each of a plurality of antennas of the network node to produce a plurality of antenna signal sums; selecting one of the antenna signal sums to be used as a reference antenna signal sum; determining a channel impulse response for each of a plurality of other antennas based on the reference antenna signal sum and the others of the plurality of antenna signal sums; estimating a time difference of arrival from the channel impulse responses of the plurality of antennas; estimating an error of the estimated time difference of arrival of each antenna; and calculating a position of a wireless device using the estimated time differences of arrival.”, further see paragraphs 0164-0165).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by SMITH into the invention of Chen. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the comparison of channel impulse responses to a reference channel impulse response (i.e. steady state) The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the data resolution of the system.
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as claim 7 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, the same cited section and rationale as claim 7 is applied.
Regarding claim 17, the same cited section and rationale as claim 7 is applied.
Regarding claim 18, the same cited section and rationale as claim 7 is applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. (US 20200292690 A1) determines angle of arrivals using data obtained from each antenna’s channel impulse response (see Fig. 11 and paragraph 0110 and paragraph 0072).
Xu et al. (US 20180365975 A1) determines changes in channel state information between each transmit and receive antenna pair.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights