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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on Feb 7, 2025, November 7, 2025, and April 24, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDSs have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is invited to point out any particular reference(s) in the IDS that they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this Office Action. It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff ’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite identify (identifying) that the target device is in "a same space" as the electronic device without providing any objective physical metric or standard (such as a distance range) to define the boundaries of the “same space,” which fails to specify the classification or criteria of the space, rendering the scope of the claims highly uncertain and indefinite.
Claims 6 and 16 recite analyzing patterns based on at least one of “a type of the transmitting device” or “a type of the electronic device,” which fails to specify the classification or criteria of the types, rendering the scope of the claims highly uncertain and indefinite.
Other claims depend from one of the independent claims 1 or 11, thus carry the same issues as described above, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds discussed above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 10-14, 16, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230136293, hereinafter “Pierson”) in view of IEEE Access, “Secret Key Generation Between Ambient Backscatter Devices”, JARI LIETZÉN AND OLAV TIRKKONEN, February 13, 2023, hereinafter “LIETZÉN”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Pierson unless otherwise mentioned.
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding Claim 1, An electronic device (Fig. 8, an example wireless device 800), comprising:
a communication interface (Fig. 8 and para [0093]: a radio 804);
a memory (Fig. 8 and para [0095]: memory 816) configured to store at least one instruction; and
at least one processor (Fig. 8 and para [0094]: “processor 808”…that execute machine-executable instructions) configured to execute the at least one instruction to :
control the communication interface to configure (para [0096]: the machine-executable instructions 812 may be stored on a web server and be deliverable to the memory 816 of the wireless device over the Internet and any further communications network(s) needed to complete the connection to the wireless device, such as a local-area network, cellular network, etc) (The missing/crossed out limitations will be discussed in view of LIETZÉN.), based on a request to add an Internet of Things (IoT) device being received (para [0002]: Internet of Things (IoT) devices…) (para [0026]: pairing method 100 may include at an optional block 110 at which a user triggers one or both of the first and second wireless devices to enter a pairing mode, such as by actuating a user-actuated control on one or both of the first and second wireless devices.) (para [0060]: At block 410 the user takes a deliberate action to enter D1 and D2 into a Fresnel-zone multipath propagation disturbance pairing mode.);
receive a first signal (para [0009]: wirelessly receiving, by the first wireless device from a second wireless device during the time period, a receive signal);
acquire first information on a first change pattern of the first signal (para [0009]: generating, by the first wireless device, first signal-strength-pattern information regarding a first signal-strength pattern of the receive signal received during the time period as determined by the first wireless device);
receive second information on a second change pattern of a second signal transmitted to the target device (para [0009]: wirelessly receiving, by the first wireless device from the second wireless device, second signal-strength-pattern information regarding a second signal-strength pattern of the send signal received during the time period by the second wireless device as determined by the second wireless device);
acquire a value indicating a similarity between the first change pattern and the second change pattern based on the first information and the second information (para [0009]: determining, by the first wireless device, whether or not the first signal-strength-pattern information and the second signal-strength-pattern information substantially match one another); and
identify that the target device is in a same space as the electronic device and register the target device as the IoT device, based on the value indicating the similarity being greater than or equal to a threshold value (para [0009]: when the first wireless device determines that the first signal-strength-pattern information and the second signal-strength-pattern information substantially match one another, determining that the second wireless device is a trusted device) (para [0029]: In some embodiments, the ability to determine whether or not another wireless device, here, the second wireless device from the perspective of the first wireless device, can be trusted is based upon particular properties of RF waves transmitted between two wireless devices when the two devices are located physically proximate to one another. Specifically, when two wireless devices, such as the first and second wireless devices, are located proximate to one another, not only do the signals received from one another experience extrema in the received signal strength (e.g., as represented by a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) or other signal strength value) due to local disturbances, but the patterns of the extrema in the two received signals substantially match one another.).
Pierson teaches a device performing a pairing process (e.g., adding an IoT device) triggered by user action to enter a pairing mode (see paragraphs [0009], [0026], [0060]). Pierson further teaches receiving a signal, generating first signal-strength-pattern information regarding a first signal-strength pattern of the receive signal (e.g., multipath RSSI extrema), and receiving from a target device second signal second signal-strength-pattern information regarding a second signal-strength pattern of a signal received by the target device (see paragraphs [0009], [0041]-[0051]). Based on the first and second information, the device determines whether the signal-strength pattern information substantially matches one another, and upon determining a substantial match, identifies that the target device is a trusted device to bootstrap a secure channel (registering as an IoT device) (See paragraphs [0009], [0029], [0044]-[0045], [0053], [0056]).
Pierson discloses that the signals used for extracting the change patterns are actively transmitted directly between the first device and the second device (peer-to-peer). Pierson does not explicitly disclose forming an ad hoc network that includes a third-party “transmitting device,” nor does it disclose that the first and second signals are commonly received from said third-party transmitting device.
However, LIETZÉN teaches a three -node network topology in which two proximal devices do not actively transmit probe signals to each other. Instead, the network includes a third-party ambient transmitting device (e.g., an ambient RF source/AP). Both devices (‘Backscatter device and Receiver’) receive a common signal from the ambient transmitting device, measure the channel fading (change pattern) variations of that common signal, and exchange information via communication to compare their spatial correlation (see LIETZÉN, Section II.A-C, Figs 1 and 3). In Fig. 1 of LIETZÉN, Receiver is interpreted as “electronic device”, Backscatter device is interpreted as “target device”, Ambient transmitter is interpreted as “transmitting device”, and the Ambient backscatter communication system is interpreted as “ad hoc network”.
PNG
media_image1.png
566
936
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 1 of LIETZÉN)
PNG
media_image2.png
638
1062
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 3 of LIETZÉN)
Also see LIETZÉN, Section III.A-C, Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
844
1062
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 5 of LIETZÉN)
LIETZÉN further teaches that, in right column of page 13460, Section III. DISTILLING A SHARED SECRET FROM AMBIENT SIGNAL:… The sensors are receiving the ambient signal and measuring the received signal power. This is shown in Fig. 5 as step (a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the proximity-based device pairing system of Pierson to utilize a third-party transmitting device (e.g., an ambient transmitter) for providing the initial probe signals, as taught by LIETZÉN. The motivation for this modification would be to conserve battery power and reduce processing overhead, which are critical constraints in IoT environments (as acknowledged in Pierson). By eliminating the need for the IoT devices to actively generate and transmit continuous probing frames to each other (active P2P probing), the device can seamlessly leverage existing ambient RF signals (passive sensing) to achieve the identical spatial correlation matching and secure device onboarding process.
Regarding Claim 11, it is a method claim corresponding to the electronic device claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding Claim 2, Pierson and LIETZÉN teach The electronic device claimed in claim 1, Pierson further teaches
wherein the first change pattern indicates a change in signal by an object between the transmitting device and the electronic device (Fig. 3 and para [0033]: Suppose a user places an object, O (such as their hand), at some position (d1, d2) between R1 and R2, at a height h above the radios, as shown in FIG. 3 . The object O acts as a point reflector and causes multipath propagation of the signal from R1 to R2.), and
wherein the second change pattern indicates the change in signal by the object between the transmitting device and the target device (para [0033]: …The object O acts as a point reflector and causes multipath propagation of the signal from R1 to R2.).
Regarding Claim 3, Pierson and LIETZÉN teach The electronic device claimed in claim 1,
Pierson further teaches wherein the electronic device is pre-registered as the IoT device (para [0003]: Manufacturers cannot easily pre-configure devices to work with a user's existing electronics since these existing devices and their pairing credentials are unknown at the time of production. For example, a manufacturer of Internet-connected thermostats will not know the name or Wi-Fi® password of an end-user's wireless network and cannot program the device to immediately pair with their access point (AP).) (para [0004]: With existing pairing protocols, users may need a secondary device, such as a smartphone, to facilitate configuration.) (para [0020]: it can also be desirable that at least a first one of the wireless devices desired to be paired, either on its own or as a proxy for another device, can be, at least temporarily, moved to or located at a location proximate to the other one of the wireless devices desired to be paired to the first one of the wireless devices. ), and
LIETZÉN further teaches wherein the transmitting device is an access point (AP) connected to the electronic device (Fig 1 of LIETZÉN: Ambient transmitter).
Pierson teaches that the electronic device facilitating the configuration and pairing process for a new unconfigured target device can be a user’s existing secondary device, such as a smartphone (see paragraphs [0003]-[0004]). It is a well-known and inherent prerequisite in IoT networking that a host device utilized to authenticate and onboard a new target device onto a network must already be an established and pre-registered device on that network (see para [0020]).
Regarding Claim 4, Pierson and LIETZÉN teach The electronic device claimed in claim 1, Pierson further teaches wherein the first information and the second information comprise at least one of reception strengths of the first signal and the second signal or a multipath of the first signal and the second signal (para [0009]: generating, by the first wireless device, first signal-strength-pattern information regarding a first signal-strength pattern of the receive signal received during the time period as determined by the first wireless device… wirelessly receiving, by the first wireless device from the second wireless device, second signal-strength-pattern information regarding a second signal-strength pattern of the send signal received during the time period by the second wireless device as determined by the second wireless device).
Regarding Claim 6, Pierson and LIETZÉN teach The electronic device claimed in claim 1, Pierson further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to acquire the first information by analyzing the first change pattern based on at least one of a type of the transmitting device or a type of the electronic device (para [0009]: generating, by the first wireless device, first signal-strength-pattern information regarding a first signal-strength pattern of the receive signal received during the time period as determined by the first wireless device) (paragraphs [0039-0040]: the reflected signal arrives in-phase with the line-of-sight signal, and the two add constructively. This causes a large increase in the received signal strength when R2 measures the received signal from R1. … This is a consequence of the Friis transmission model, which states that:
PNG
media_image4.png
119
356
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein Pr is the power at the receiving antenna, Pt is the power transmitted, Gt is the gain of the transmitting antenna, Gr is the gain of the receiving antenna, and l is the length of the signal path…).
Pierson explicitly teaches that the received signal strength (RSSI) and multipath extrema depend on hardware-specific antenna gains per the Friis transmission model (see paras [0039-0040]).
Regarding Claim 10, Pierson and LIETZÉN teach The electronic device claimed in claim 1, Pierson further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to input the first information and the second information to a trained neural network model to acquire the value indicating the similarity between the first change pattern and the second change pattern (para [0044]: …Executed properly, this movement provides sufficient variation and extrema in the received signal strength and, therefore, allows each wireless device to generate received signal-strength-pattern information that matches, or substantially matches, against the received signal-strength-pattern information of the other wireless device.) (para [0045]: In practice, the sets of received signal-strength-pattern information do not necessarily need to match perfectly to effect a decision of trust. … Other processes of determining whether or not sets of received signal-strength-pattern information substantially matches include, but are not limited to machine learning or statistical pattern matching, function approximation algorithms, and error correction code (ECC) techniques such as Reed-Solomon coding or Viterbi decoding, among others. For the sake of simplicity, an exact match is a subset of a substantial match.).
Regarding claim 12, Claim 12 has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 2, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 2.
Regarding claim 13, Claim 13 has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 3, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 3.
Regarding claim 14, Claim 14 has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 4, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 4.
Regarding claim 16, Claim 16 has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 6, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 6.
Regarding claim 20, Claim 20 has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 10, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 10.
Claim(s) 5, 7-9, 15, and 17-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierson in view of LIETZÉN, and further in view of WIPO Publication WO 2022/015316, hereinafter LAGNADO”).
Regarding Claim 5, Pierson and LIETZÉN teach The electronic device claimed in claim 1, Pierson and LIETZÉN fail to teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to identify the target device as participating in the ad hoc network, based on a registration request being received from the target device through the communication interface, and wherein the ad hoc network is configured by controlling the communication interface to transmit a request for configuration of the ad hoc network to the target device and the transmitting device.
In analogous art, LAGNADO teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to identify the target device as participating in the ad hoc network, based on a registration request being received from the target device through the communication interface (para [0028] of LAGNADO: the communication interface 124 may receive a registration request. For example, the communication interface 124 may receive a registration request from the target device 128, from the ad-hoc device 126 and/or from another device. In some examples, the computing device 102 (e.g., processor 104) may generate a pattern or patterns.) and
wherein the ad hoc network is configured by controlling the communication interface to transmit a request for configuration of the ad hoc network to the target device and the transmitting device (Fig. 1 and para [0020] of LAGNADO: the computing device 102 may be in communication with (e.g., have a communication link 130 with) an ad-hoc device 126 (interpreted as “transmitting device”). For example, the computing device 102 may communicate with the ad-hoc device 126 using a communication link 130 via a network (e.g., established network, cellular network, the Internet, ad-hoc network, etc.).)(para [0021] of LAGNADO: an ad-hoc device 126 may communicate with (e.g., receive a signal from and/or transmit a signal to) a target device 128. For example, an ad-hoc device 126 may send an ad-hoc communication 132 to the target device 128 and/or may receive an ad-hoc communication 132 from the target device 128. For instance, the ad-hoc device 126 and/or the target device 128 may form an ad-hoc network for ad-hoc communication(s) 132.) (para [0028] of LAGNADO: … In some examples, the computing device 102 (e.g., processor 104) may generate a pattern or patterns. The communication interface may send the pattern(s) (interpreted as “a request for configuration of the ad hoc network”) to the target device 128. … For example, the processor 104 may generate the pattern as a unique random string (e.g., number(s) and/or character(s)) and/or may generate a unique string based on an identifier of the target device 128.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the proactive network configuration signaling taught by LAGNADO into the pairing system of Pierson and LIETZÉN. The motivation to combine these teachings is to establish a more secure, centrally-managed wireless topology. By configuring the host electronic device to actively respond to a registration request and explicitly transmit configuration request to both the target device and the transmitting node (e.g., the ad-hoc relay device), a person of ordinary skill could ensure reliable signal synchronization and strict access control during the onboarding process.
Regarding Claim 7, Pierson and LIETZÉN teach The electronic device claimed in claim 1, Pierson and LIETZÉN fail to teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to control the communication interface to transmit information on the target device to a server that provides a platform to register the target device as the IoT device.
In analogous art, LAGNADO teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to control the communication interface to transmit information on the target device to a server that provides a platform to register the target device as the IoT device (para [0016] of LAGNADO: The computing device 102 may be an electronic device, such as a server computer, a cloud computer, …) (para [0026] of LAGNADO: the memory 106 of the computing device 102 may store device data 108, location data 110, device selection instructions 112, and/or command instructions 114. The device data 108 may be data about a device or devices (e.g., the target device 128). … the target device 128 may be registered (e.g., initially registered) with the computing device 102. For instance, the target device 128 may undergo an initial setup and/or registration with the computing device 102. During the initial setup and/or registration, the computing device 102 may receive some of the device data 108 associated with the target device 128.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combined local pairing system of Pierson and LIETZÉN by incorporating the teaching of LAGNADO. The motivation to incorporate a server or cloud computer to receive and store the target device information is to provide a centralized platform for the user to reliably register, manage, and access their onboarded IoT devices remotely across multiple platforms. Implementing a standard server-based registration platform to centrally store data transmitted from locally paired IoT devices is a predictable and routine application of known cloud computing technology.
Regarding Claim 8, Pierson and LIETZÉN teach The electronic device claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: Pierson further teaches:
based on the ad hoc network being configured, periodically receive the first signal from the transmitting device through the communication interface for a preset reception period (para [0009]: wirelessly receiving, by the first wireless device from a second wireless device during the time period, a receive signal) (The missing/crossed out limitations will be discussed in view of LAGNADO.); and
transmit a request not to transmit the first signal to the transmitting device based on it being identified that the target device is in the same space as the electronic device before the preset reception period (para [0061]: At block 415, in response to being placed into the Fresnel-zone multipath propagation disturbance pairing mode, each of D1 and D2 broadcast start frames indicating that they are ready to pair. Each of D1 and D2 continue broadcasting start frames until they receive a response from another wireless device looking to pair…) (para [0072]: At block, 450 D1 and D2 bootstrap a secure communications channel between themselves using a suitable bootstrapping protocol.) .
Pierson teaches early termination by disclosing that devices broadcast start frames until they receive a response and authenticate, after which they immediately bootstrap a secure channel (see paras [0061], [0072]).
In the actively controlled ad-hoc topology of LAGNADO (see para [0016], [0020],[0021] of LAGNADO), it would have been obvious to configure the electronic device to send a stop-transmission control signal to the transmitting device (e.g., the ad-hoc relay or AP, see Fig. 1 of LAGNADO) once pairing is successful. Terminating probe signal transmissions upon successful early pairing is a routine optimization to conserve wireless bandwidth and battery life.
Regarding Claim 9, Pierson and LIETZÉN teach The electronic device claimed in claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: Pierson further teaches
periodically acquire the first information on the first change pattern (para [0009]: wirelessly receiving, by the first wireless device from a second wireless device during the time period, a receive signal) (Fig. 6 and para [0067]: each of D1 and D2 identifies a number m of extrema in their recorded RSSI. (In an example implementation, m=24 extrema. This is discussed below in more detail.) FIG. 6 shows RSSI patterns recorded by the PR and the SR during a sample pairing session using the example pairing protocol 400 of FIG. 4.);
periodically receive the second information on the second change pattern periodically transmitted to the target device by the transmitting device, from the target device through the communication interface (para [0065]: In some embodiments, D1 and D2 exchange frames as quickly as possible. In this example, each frame that D1 and D2 exchange is indexed, with its index (here, a number) included in the payload of the frame. I) (Fig. 6 and para [0067]: each of D1 and D2 identifies a number m of extrema in their recorded RSSI. (In an example implementation, m=24 extrema. This is discussed below in more detail.) FIG. 6 shows RSSI patterns recorded by the PR and the SR during a sample pairing session using the example pairing protocol 400 of FIG. 4.);
periodically acquire the value indicating the similarity between the first change pattern and the second change pattern based on the first information and the second information (para [0009]: determining, by the first wireless device, whether or not the first signal-strength-pattern information and the second signal-strength-pattern information substantially match one another) (para [0065]: In some embodiments, D1 and D2 exchange frames as quickly as possible. In this example, each frame that D1 and D2 exchange is indexed, with its index (here, a number) included in the payload of the frame. I) (para [0068]: In an example of generating signal-strength pattern information, from the extrema each of D1 and D2 forms an authentication key as a binary string.) (para [0069]: At block 440 D1 and D2 exchange hashes of their authentication keys and the frame indices used to build the authentication keys.) ;
increase a score indicating that the target device is in the same space as the electronic device based on each cycle that the value indicating the similarity is greater than or equal to the threshold value (para [0070]: At block 445 D1 and D2 attempt to validate one another's authentication keys. If D1 and D2 are in proximity to one another, they should have similar signal-strength patterns during the time period that included the user waiving their hand O as discussed above, for example, in connection with block 430. In an example, each of D1 and D2 computes a second key KB using its own RSSI pattern and the indices {i1, i2, . . . , ik, . . . , im} provided by the other one of D1 and D2. If the RSSI patterns are similar, then the extrema should be comparable as well. Accordingly, the relevant wireless device compares the RSSI value of each frame k to its mean RSSI value to build KB. In this example, when the relevant wireless device (D1 or D2) determines that the RSSI of frame k is greater than the mean RSSI value, then this wireless device maps frame k to a binary “1”. Otherwise, the wireless device maps frame k to binary “0”. Once complete, the relevant device (D1 or D2) hashes KB using the same hashing function used to hash KA, for example, bcrypt.); and
identify that the target device is in the same space as the electronic device and register the target device as the IoT device, based on the score being greater than or equal to a threshold score (para [0071]: If the hash of KB determined by each of D1 and D2 matches the hash sent by the other one of D1 and D2, then that wireless device deems the other wireless device as being authentic, i.e., as a trusted device.) (para [0009]: when the first wireless device determines that the first signal-strength-pattern information and the second signal-strength-pattern information substantially match one another, determining that the second wireless device is a trusted device) (para [0029]: In some embodiments, the ability to determine whether or not another wireless device, here, the second wireless device from the perspective of the first wireless device, can be trusted is based upon particular properties of RF waves transmitted between two wireless devices when the two devices are located physically proximate to one another. Specifically, when two wireless devices, such as the first and second wireless devices, are located proximate to one another, not only do the signals received from one another experience extrema in the received signal strength (e.g., as represented by a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) or other signal strength value) due to local disturbances, but the patterns of the extrema in the two received signals substantially match one another.).
Regarding claim 15, Claim 15 has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 5, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 5.
Regarding claim 17, Claim 17 has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 7, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 7.
Regarding claim 18, Claim 18 has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 8, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 8.
Regarding claim 19, Claim 19 has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 9, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON JUN CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1695. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 08:00 - 17:00.
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, Derrick W Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/WON JUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights