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 § 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.
Claims 1, 7-9, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2021/0321219 (Rauhala et al.).
As to claims 1, 9 and 17, Rauhala teaches a device (2, fig 2) comprising: a first radio (24, fig 2); a second radio (24, fig 2); one or more memories (22/23, fig 2); and one or more processors (21, fig 2) communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors configured to, individually or collectively:
transmit, at a first time and using the first radio, a message to a first access point (see paragraphs 86-88 and 108-109, FTM request sent by mobile device to first AP that may be a WLAN AP);
transmit, at the first time and using the second radio, the message to a second access point different from the first access point (see paragraphs 86-88 and 108-109, FTM request sent by mobile device to a second AP that may be a BLE AP);
receive, at a second time after the first time and from the first access point, a first response to the message (see paragraphs 86-88 and 108-109, WLAN AP responds to FTM request would be received by mobile device at a time that is dependent on far said WLAN AP is away from the mobile device);
receive, at a third time after the first time and from the second access point, a second response to the message (see paragraphs 86-88 and 108-109, BLE AP responds to FTM request would be received by mobile device at a time that is dependent on far said BLE AP is away from the mobile device); and
determine, based on the second time and the third time, a location of the device (see paragraphs 86-88 and 108-109, using RTT times derived from the times of the responses of the APs the position of the mobile device determined).
As to claims 7 and 15, Rauhala further teaches wherein determining the location is further based on a location of the first access point and a location of the second access point (see paragraphs 86-88 and 108-109, locations of APs used to determine location of mobile device).
As to claims 8, 16 and 20, Rauhala further teaches wherein determining the location is based on a difference between the second time and the third time (see paragraphs 86-88 and 108-109, position estimate of mobile device would be based the RTT differences between the APs which would include the differences in the times which the mobile device receives response from the APs).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauhala in view of US 2014/0187259 (Kakani et al.)
As to claims 2, 10 and 18, what is explicitly lacking from Rauhala is wherein the one or more processors are configured to, individually or collectively: transmit, using the first radio, a request to the first access point; transmit, using the second radio, the request to the second access point; receive a first acknowledgement to the request from the first access point; and receive a second acknowledgement to the request from the second access point, wherein transmitting the message to the first access point and to the second access point is in response to receiving the first acknowledgement and the second acknowledgement.
In analogous art, Kakani teaches a client device transmitting a sending a request to an access point and receiving an acknowledgement in return before a round trip ranging operation for location determination is performed between the client device and access point (see Kakani, figure 2 and paragraphs 16-22). In combination with Rauhala this would occur between the device and first and second access points.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rauhala, so as to ensure that the device has permission to perform ranging with the access point.
Claims 3, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauhala in view of Well Known Prior Art (Official Notice).
As to claims 3, 11 and 19, what is lacking from Rauhala is wherein transmitting the message to the first access point and the second access point uses a frequency range that comprises a first frequency used by the first access point and a second frequency used by the second access point.
Examiner takes Official Notice that it was well known in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for different access points to use different frequencies.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rauhala, so as to minimize interference between access points.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauhala in view of US 2015/0131460 (Sridhara et al.).
As to claims 4 and 12, what is lacking from Rauhala is wherein the one or more processors are configured to, individually or collectively, connect to the first access point based on the third time being after the second time.
In analogous art, Sridhara teaches a mobile device performing RTT measurements with multiple access points that are around it and connecting to a given access point based on it having a better RTT/shorter distance (~third time being after the second time) (see Sridhara, paragraph 48).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rauhala, so as to ensure that the best access point is connected to.
Claims 5-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauhala in view of US 2016/0219549 (Wong et al.).
As to claims 5 and 13, what is lacking from Rauhala is wherein the one or more processors are configured to, individually or collectively, determine an orientation of the device based on (i) the second time and the third time and (ii) a distance between the first radio and the second radio.
In analogous art, Wong teaches a mobile device using distance measurements between the mobile device and access points (~second and third time) as well as distances between the access points to determine and orientation of the mobile device (see Wong, paragraphs 27 and 30).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rauhala, so as to enhance the contextual knowledge of the device.
As to claims 6 and 14, what is lacking from Rauhala is wherein the one or more processors are configured to, individually or collectively, determine, based on the second time and the third time, that the first radio is more aligned with the first access point than the second access point.
In analogous art, Wong teaches a mobile device using distance measurements between the mobile device and access points (~second and third time) as well as distances between the access points to determine an orientation of the mobile device with respect to each of the access points (see Wong, paragraphs 27 and 30).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Rauhala, so as to enhance the contextual knowledge of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0015041 (Cariou et al.) teaches enhanced location negotiation. US 2014/0022920 (Dua et al.) teaches relative positioning applications in wireless devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights