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
Examiner acknowledges no foreign priority is claimed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2024 and 4/29/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Claim 1. A method comprising:
determining a plurality of Access Point (AP) pairs;
determining a schedule for the plurality of AP pairs to perform AP-to-AP ranging; and
determining preamble codes for each AP pair to manage cross-correlation between AP pairs of the plurality of AP pairs scheduled to perform AP-to-AP ranging simultaneously, wherein the plurality of AP pairs are operable to perform AP-to-AP ranging using Ultra-Wideband (UWB) and according to the schedule and the preamble codes for each AP pair.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of determining a plurality of Access Point (AP) pairs; determining a schedule for the plurality of AP pairs to perform AP-to-AP ranging; determining preamble codes for each AP pair to manage cross-correlation between AP pairs of the plurality of AP pairs scheduled to perform AP-to-AP ranging simultaneously, wherein the plurality of AP pairs are operable to perform AP-to-AP ranging using Ultra-Wideband (UWB) and according to the schedule and the preamble codes for each AP pair.
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at information and making a simple judgement of visually determining that a pair of Access point pairs, scheduling to perform simultaneously and mentally estimating, or using a pen and paper, to determine which merely amount to a statement of the underlying problem, without providing the technical features necessary for achieving this result, namely how
the schedule for the plurality of AP pairs and the preamble codes are determined; which are the steps in the procedure leading to the determination algorithm.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing no limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of access point pairs.
The determining a plurality of access point pairs are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of selecting information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The the “one or more processors” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using generic or general-purpose vehicle components and generic computer components.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim,as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the determining step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the access points are all conventional network elements, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is nothing but conventional computing element. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 8
Claim 8. A system comprising:
a memory storage; and
a processing unit coupled to the memory storage, wherein the processing unit is operative to:
determine a plurality of Access Point (AP) pairs;
determine a schedule for the plurality of AP pairs to perform AP-to-AP ranging; and
determine preamble codes for each AP pair to manage cross-correlation between AP pairs of the plurality of AP pairs scheduled to perform AP-to-AP ranging simultaneously, wherein the plurality of AP pairs are operable to perform AP-to-AP ranging using Ultra-Wideband (UWB) and according to the schedule and the preamble codes for each AP pair.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a system including at least one structure. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of determine a plurality of Access Point (AP) pairs; determine a schedule for the plurality of AP pairs to perform AP-to-AP ranging; determine preamble codes for each AP pair to manage cross-correlation between AP pairs of the plurality of AP pairs scheduled to perform AP-to-AP ranging simultaneously, wherein the plurality of AP pairs are operable to perform AP-to-AP ranging using Ultra-Wideband (UWB) and according to the schedule and the preamble codes for each AP pair.
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at information and making a simple judgement of visually determining that a pair of Access point pairs, scheduling to perform simultaneously and mentally estimating, or using a pen and paper, to determine which merely amount to a statement of the underlying problem, without providing the technical features necessary for achieving this result, namely how
the schedule for the plurality of AP pairs and the preamble codes are determined; which are the steps in the procedure leading to the determination algorithm.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of a memory storage; a processing unit coupled to the memory storage;
The determining a plurality of access point pairs are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of selecting information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “a processing unit” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using generic or general-purpose vehicle components and generic computer components.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the determining steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the access points are all conventional network elements, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is nothing but conventional computing element. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 15
Claim 15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a set of instructions which when executed perform a method executed by the set of instructions, comprising:
determining a plurality of Access Point (AP) pairs; determining a schedule for the plurality of AP pairs to perform AP-to-AP ranging; and
determining preamble codes for each AP pair to manage cross-correlation between AP pairs of the plurality of AP pairs scheduled to perform AP-to-AP ranging simultaneously, wherein the plurality of AP pairs are operable to perform AP-to-AP ranging using Ultra-Wideband (UWB) and according to the schedule and the preamble codes for each AP pair.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a product claim. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of determining a plurality of Access Point (AP) pairs; determining a schedule for the plurality of AP pairs to perform AP-to-AP ranging; determining preamble codes for each AP pair to manage cross-correlation between AP pairs of the plurality of AP pairs scheduled to perform AP-to-AP ranging simultaneously, wherein the plurality of AP pairs are operable to perform AP-to-AP ranging using Ultra-Wideband (UWB) and according to the schedule and the preamble codes for each AP pair.
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at information and making a simple judgement of visually determining that a pair of Access point pairs, scheduling to perform simultaneously and mentally estimating, or using a pen and paper, to determine which merely amount to a statement of the underlying problem, without providing the technical features necessary for achieving this result, namely how
the schedule for the plurality of AP pairs and the preamble codes are determined; which are the steps in the procedure leading to the determination algorithm.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a set of instructions.
The determining a plurality of access point pairs are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of selecting information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “a processing unit” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using generic or general-purpose vehicle components and generic computer components.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the determining steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the access points are all conventional network elements, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is nothing but conventional computing element. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claims.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are mathematical process without actually applying the outcome to change network operations in any way and are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 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.
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 2015/094081 A1), and further in view of Scherzer et al. (US 2004/0037258 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gupta (‘081) discloses “a method (paragraph 4: methods, systems, and/or devices that provide for automatically determining coordinates of access points (APs) within a tracking area of a position location network) comprising:
determining a plurality of Access Point (AP) pairs (paragraph 5: once the coordinates of one AP are ascertained, and the distance between that AP and one or more of its neighbors is established, the unknown coordinates of remaining APs within a tracking area may be calculated and transmitted as coordinate sets to a location tracking server…distances between any neighboring pair of APs may be calculated by two-way ranging…the coordinates of each AP may be calculated from known values and/or values measurable by the APs…the coordinates may be defined with respect to one or more axis. For APs having the same elevation, coordinates may be defined for two dimensions…in cases where elevation between APs differ, coordinates may be defined for three dimensions);
determining a schedule for the plurality of AP pairs to perform AP-to-AP ranging (paragraph 36: the system 100 includes a tracking management server 150, which also may be referred to as a tag tracking management server…the tracking management server 150 is connected to the APs 105 through a network 140…the connection may be by way of a radio network associated with the APs 105…the tracking management server 150 may receive information from the APs 105 to perform various types of calculations, including: determining one or more sets of receive filters for the APs 105…detecting whether a tag 115 is mobile or stationary and adjusting update rates accordingly…estimating characteristics of communication channels…and/or estimating a location of an asset or person being tracked within the coverage area 110…the tracking management server 150 may also schedule or coordinate various operations associated with the APs 105, including when to have an AP 105 wirelessly communicate (e.g., when to transmit UWB and/or narrowband signals) with other APs 105 or with tags 115…the tracking management server 150 stores information about different APs 105 and subsets of APs 105…it may use stored information to schedule or coordinate various operations between individual APs 105 and/or subsets of APs 105);”
wherein the plurality of AP pairs are operable to perform AP-to-AP ranging using Ultra-Wideband (UWB) and according to the schedule for each AP pair (paragraph 2: different systems and devices may be used to locate assets and/or people in a particular indoor environment…an ultra-wideband (UWB) network, or some other radio frequency network deployed throughout at least a portion of the indoor environment, may be configured to perform indoor tracking…systems may employ multiple access points (APs) placed at specific locations in the indoor environment…a location tracking tag also may be attached to each mobile asset and/or to each person to be tracked…the tag may send waveforms (e.g., beacon signals) that are received by the APs for ranging measurements to determine the distance between the tag and the APs that receive the waveforms…once the distances between the tag and at least three different APs are obtained, triangulation or trilateration may be used to estimate the location of the asset or person to which the tag is attached; paragraph 5: once the coordinates of one AP are ascertained, and the distance between that AP and one or more of its neighbors is established, the unknown coordinates of remaining APs within a tracking area may be calculated and transmitted as coordinate sets to a location tracking server…distances between any neighboring pair of APs may be calculated by two-way ranging…the coordinates of each AP may be calculated from known values and/or values measurable by the APs…the coordinates may be defined with respect to one or more axis…for APs having the same elevation, coordinates may be defined for two dimensions…in cases where elevation between APs differ, coordinates may be defined for three dimensions).”
Gupta (‘081) describes the APs 105 may communicate with one another by sending and/or receiving UWB signals and/or narrowband signals…the channels between APs 105, which are associated with communication links 125, are often characterized by noise and signal-degrading impedances…it may therefore be beneficial to maximize the signal transmit power (paragraph 37). Gupta (‘081) does not explicitly disclose “determining preamble codes for each AP pair to manage cross-correlation between AP pairs of the plurality of AP pairs scheduled to perform AP-to-AP ranging simultaneously”, “to perform AP-to-AP ranging using the preamble codes for each AP pair.”
Scherzer et al. (‘258) relates to wireless networks. Scherzer et al. (‘258) teaches “determining preamble codes for each AP pair to manage cross-correlation between AP pairs of the plurality of AP pairs scheduled to perform AP-to-AP ranging simultaneously”, “to perform AP-to-AP ranging using the preamble codes for each AP pair (paragraph 45: central controller 20 may form a channel gain matrix, which may also be denoted as the spatial signature matrix…an example of a channel gain matrix 50 for a WLAN having multiple APs and STAs is shown in FIG. 3…channel gain matrix 50 includes all channel gains/signal strengths between each AP antenna element/beam and each STA (in the AP/STA section) and the channel gains between each AP antenna element/beam and neighboring AP antenna elements/beams (in the AP/AP section)…central controller 20 may use the channel gain matrix to schedule the transmissions by APs 35 and 40; paragraph 47: the frame preamble transmitted by each STA and AP can simplify the collection of signal strength values and signal-to-noise ratio or channel-to-interference ratio (C/I) estimation…because the structure of a preamble is well known to each receiver, a matched filter can be used to accurately determine the strength and timing of the incoming transmission…if the preamble was received on multiple APs (or antenna beams in separate APs), central controller 20 may require that the frame will be demodulated by a single AP…by correlating the time of the demodulated frame with the time of the measured preambles, central controller 20 can associate the "preamble signature" with a specific STA…because a matched filter may be used for signal strength estimation, the preambles may be measured even in the presence of other signals arriving at the APs…(Cross correlation may be used in place of a matched filter approach)…there may be two types of preamble detection: with and without demodulation…this allows for preamble detection at an AP from many STAs and other APs that are beyond the communication range (e.g., too great a path loss) as well as in the presence of interference…the measured signal strength from this preamble detection of frames received from other STAs or APs at all the beams/antenna elements of a given AP may be denoted as the spatial signature vector (or in short: spatial signature) of these other devices…the aggregation of this information for all the STAs and APs is the channel gain matrix, which may also be denoted as a spatial signature matrix; paragraph 48: a preamble may be detected without demodulation for a number of reasons, such as Forward Error Correction (FEC) failure, insufficient C/I to even attempt demodulation, or preemption by demodulation of another frame…a detection of frame preamble without demodulation provides an AP with information that includes the receiving antenna element, the preamble start time, the signal strength, and the C/I…an educated guess may then be made as to the source STA of this preamble so that its spatial signature may be updated…the start time of a preamble detection may be matched to the start time of a valid frame demodulation to determine the source…because the start time of valid frame demodulations can only be known after the complete packet is received, a certain amount of latency is required…preamble detections may be queued in the order of arrival until they can be matched to corresponding frame demodulations; paragraph 49: if the preamble detection occurs with demodulation, the available information includes the source BSS identification number, STA identification number or AP identification number, the receiving antenna element, preamble start time, signal strength, and C/I…if the source STA or AP is part of the relevant BSS, then the corresponding spatial signature may be updated as a "high" confidence update…updates to the spatial signature vector based on preamble detections without demodulation, i.e., matching the start time of a preamble detection with the start time of a valid frame demodulation, are "low" confidence updates since there is a possibility the match is in error; paragraph 50: although preambles are convenient for determining the spatial signature matrix, cross-correlation of entire packets may also be used to build this information…cross-correlation may be used to perform entire packet detection on any packets whose content is substantially known, e.g., acknowledgement (ACK) and Clear-to-Send (CTS)…both MAC frames are 14 octets long…the power management bit in the frame control field is the only bit unknown to the receiver (the value of this bit also determines the FCS)…coordinated scheduling by the central controller can take advantage of cross-correlation packet detection and allow other communications which would interfere with frame demodulation during the time an AP performs cross-correlation packet detection).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gupta (‘081) with the teaching of Scherzer et al. (‘258) for more efficient communicaiotn (Scherzer et al. (‘258) – paragraph 22). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Gupta (‘081) and Scherzer et al. (‘258)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, location determination using plurality of access points in a network.
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258) discloses the method of claim 1. Gupta (‘081) further discloses “APs of the plurality of AP pairs are operable to perform AP-to-AP ranging to determine AP locations and enable ranging orchestration for client tracking (paragraph 5: once the coordinates of one AP are ascertained, and the distance between that AP and one or more of its neighbors is established, the unknown coordinates of remaining APs within a tracking area may be calculated and transmitted as coordinate sets to a location tracking server…distances between any neighboring pair of APs may be calculated by two-way ranging…the coordinates of each AP may be calculated from known values and/or values measurable by the APs…the coordinates may be defined with respect to one or more axis…for APs having the same elevation, coordinates may be defined for two dimensions…in cases where elevation between APs differ, coordinates may be defined for three dimensions).”
Regarding independent claim 8, which is a corresponding system claim of independent method claim 1, Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 1. Gupta (‘081) further discloses “a memory storage; and a processing unit coupled to the memory storage (paragraph 13: a processor and memory in electronic communication with the processor …. instructions may be stored in the memory…the instructions may be executable by the processor; paragraph 14: the computer-program product may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by a processor ).”
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on independent claim 1, and which is a corresponding system claim of method claim 2, Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 2.
Regarding independent claim 15, which is a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium claim of independent method claim 1, Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 1. Gupta (‘081) further discloses “a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a set of instructions which when executed perform a method executed by the set of instructions comprising (paragraph 13: a processor and memory in electronic communication with the processor… Instructions may be stored in the memory …the instructions may be executable by the processor; paragraph 14: the computer-program product may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by a processor).”
Regarding claim 16, which is dependent on independent claim 15, and which is a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium claim of method claim 2, Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 2.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 2015/094081 A1)/Scherzer et al. (US 2004/0037258 A1), and further in view of Gupta et al. (US 2015/0249907 A1).
Regarding claim 4, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258) discloses the method of claim 1. Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258) does not explicitly disclose “maximizing a function of path loss for the plurality of AP pairs; and attenuating signal strengths of the plurality of AP pairs during AP-to-AP ranging based on maximizing the function of path loss.”
Gupta et al. (‘907) relates to the field of location estimation. Gupta et al. (‘907) teaches “maximizing a function of path loss for the plurality of AP pairs; and attenuating signal strengths of the plurality of AP pairs during AP-to-AP ranging based on maximizing the function of path loss (paragraph 110: a geometric measure is computed based on locations associated with each access point from among the identified primary set of access points and the secondary set of access points. In an embodiment, the geometric measure is one of a centroid measure and a RSSI weighted centroid measure…at operation 1410, an imaginary 3D grid is generated around the geometric measure and is configured to extend across one or more floors in the multi-floor environment…the 3D grid includes a plurality of grid points. At operation 1412, a likelihood value is computed (for example, by the location estimation module 204 of FIG. 2) at each grid point of the plurality of grid points. At operation 1414, a set of grid points associated with a floor location from among the one or more floors and associated with likelihood values which when averaged maximizes the pre-defined objective function is identified (for example by the location estimation module 204)…the pre-defined objective function is maximum a posteriori (MAP) probability distribution function configured to maximize a probability of a user being located at a floor from among the plurality of floors in the multi-floor environment so as to receive the first set of RSSI measurements…the value of the pre-defined objective function may be computed as explained with reference to equations (1) to (7)…the probability is estimated based on a 3D channel model comprising a plurality of channel model parameters…the plurality of channel model parameters include at least one of log-normal shadowing model parameters and a parameter accounting for signal attenuation across floors in the multi-floor environment …the log-normal shadowing model parameters may include a reference RSSI and a path loss coefficient. In an embodiment, an example of the parameter accounting for signal attenuation across floors in the multi-floor environment may be a measure by which an RSSI measurement of an access point in an adjacent floor is attenuated as compared to the RSSI measurement of an access point in a same floor…the attenuation is termed as `Floor Attenuation Factor).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258) with the teaching of Gupta et al. (‘907) for more efficient communication (Scherzer et al. (‘258) – paragraph 4). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Gupta (‘081), Scherzer et al. (‘258) and Gupta et al. (‘907)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, location determination using plurality of access points in a network.
Regarding claim 11, which is dependent on independent claim 8, and which is a corresponding system claim of method claim 4, Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258)/ Gupta et al. (‘907) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, which is dependent on independent claim 8, and which is a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium claim of method claim 4, Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258)/Gupta et al. (‘907) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 4.
Claims 5-7, 12-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 2015/094081 A1)/Scherzer et al. (US 2004/0037258 A1), and further in view of Reddy et al. (WO 2023/164384 A1).
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258) discloses the method of claim 1. Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258) does not explicitly disclose “determining frames between two AP pairs of the plurality of AP pairs collided; and in response, changing the preamble code of one AP pair of the two AP pairs.”
Reddy et al. (‘384) relates to ultra-wideband (UWB) positioning. Reddy et al. (‘384) teaches “determining frames between two AP pairs of the plurality of AP pairs collided; and in response, changing the preamble code of one AP pair of the two AP pairs (paragraph 61: Figure 4A is an illustration of different packet configurations that can be used in a UWB session (e.g., for sensing and/or positioning) at the UWB PHY layer, which may be used in some embodiments (e.g., in ranging initiation and/or response messages, as shown in FIGS. 3 A and 3B above)…these packet configurations may be defined and/or used in relevant UWB standards (e.g., IEEE 802.15.4z)…as shown, ranging functionality may be based on channel estimation using the SYNC preamble, included in each of the for possible configurations (e.g., configurations 0-3) used in current configurations…(Configuration 0 is currently used as a default configuration.)..the SYNC preamble may comprise a bit sequence (such as a Ipatov ternary sequence, Gold sequence, Golay sequence, polyphase sequence like Zadoff-Chu sequence, etc.) that exhibits good autocorrelation properties (e.g., sufficient for ranging/sensing measurements)…as illustrated, the different packet configurations may also include a start of frame delimiter (SFD) to help demarcated the SYNC preamble from the rest of the packet, a PHY payload for conveying data (e.g., for communication, time stamp information, etc.), and/or a scrambled timestamp sequence (STS)…the STS is a security feature with a unique sequence known to transmitter and receiver, which can authenticate the data packet source and help prevent over-the-air attacks that can falsify a ToA estimate for ranging/sensing in a UWB session… Figure 4B; paragraph 77: a controlee UWB device may prioritize a UWB session based on location information of a controller UWB device…in scenario 800, for instance, UWB controlee 810 may prioritize sessions with UWB controllers 820 that can serve as an anchor node and provide its location information for frame of reference…this type of functionality can be particularly relevant in applications such as asset tracking, for example…UWB devices at known, fixed locations may be capable of serving as anchors at any time, and mobile UWB devices also may be capable of serving as anchors for a period of time during which their position is known within a degree of accuracy (e.g., if their position has been determined, and they are currently immobile for their motion is being tracked).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258) with the teaching of Reddy et al. (‘384) for more efficient communication (Reddy et al. (‘384) – paragraph 4). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Gupta (‘081), Scherzer et al. (‘258) and Reddy et al. (‘384)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, location determination using plurality of access points in a network.
Regarding claim 6, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258) discloses the method of claim 1. Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258) does not explicitly disclose “determining the schedule is based at least in part on any one of (i) a session priority, (ii) a queue system, or (iii) both (i) and (ii).”
Reddy et al. (‘384) relates to ultra-wideband (UWB) positioning. Reddy et al. (‘384) teaches “determining the schedule is based at least in part on any one of (i) a session priority, (ii) a queue system, or (iii) both (i) and (ii) (paragraph 77: a controlee UWB device may prioritize a UWB session based on location information of a controller UWB device…in scenario 800, for instance, UWB controlee 810 may prioritize sessions with UWB controllers 820 that can serve as an anchor node and provide its location information for frame of reference…this type of functionality can be particularly relevant in applications such as asset tracking…it can be noted that UWB devices at known, fixed locations may be capable of serving as anchors at any time, and mobile UWB devices also may be capable of serving as anchors for a period of time during which their position is known within a degree of accuracy (e.g., if their position has been determined, and they are currently immobile for their motion is being tracked).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258) with the teaching of Reddy et al. (‘384) for more efficient communication (Reddy et al. (‘384) – paragraph 4). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Gupta (‘081), Scherzer et al. (‘258) and Reddy et al. (‘384)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, location determination using plurality of access points in a network.
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258) discloses the method of claim 1. Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258) does not explicitly disclose “determining the schedule is based at least in part on any one of (i) a number of supported AP-to-AP ranging sessions per interval, (ii) an number of supported UWB radio sessions, or (iii) both (i) and (ii).”
Reddy et al. (‘384) relates to ultra-wideband (UWB) positioning. Reddy et al. (‘384) teaches “determining the schedule is based at least in part on any one of (i) a number of supported AP-to-AP ranging sessions per interval, (ii) an number of supported UWB radio sessions, or (iii) both (i) and (ii) (paragraph 69: the DL-TDoA measurements in UWB may be in accordance with the standards set forth by FiRa™, the standards organization comprising a consortium of multiple member entities developing standards for UWB ranging and positioning. In DL-TDoA (DT) positioning, a DL-TDoA Anchor may transmit a DL-TDoA Message (DTM) that can be used by tags to perform localization based on DL-TDoA…the tag may then measure the reception times of every DTM that it receives from a cluster of DL-TDoA Anchors, and utilize the reception timestamp along with the obtained coordinates of the DL-TDoA Anchors to estimate its position…the DTM messages also may be used for synchronization between the anchors; paragraph 70: a cluster is a set of DT-Anchors that exchange DTMs with each other to provide a localization service to tags…the cluster may consist of one Initiator DT- Anchor (or “Init-anchor”) and one or more Responder DT-Anchors (or “RESP Anchors”)…a Bluetooth (and/or other wireless) advertiser broadcasts OOB configuration messages and creates a cluster of anchors within coverage area…to perform DL-TDoA positioning anchors in a cluster may transmit DTMs during different rounds of a positioning session, following the timing structure of a UWB positioning session…Figure. 4…in each round, the transmission of the DTMs may comprise a poll DTM transmitted by the Init-anchor (e.g., in an initial slot of the respective round), followed by response DTMs transmitted by different Resp-anchors during different subsequent slots of the round. Optionally, there may be a final DTM message, again transmitted by the Init-anchor. ..using the differential timing at which these messages are received by the tag, the location of the tag with respect to the anchors can be determined).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258) with the teaching of Reddy et al. (‘384) for more efficient communication (Reddy et al. (‘384) – paragraph 4). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Gupta (‘081), Scherzer et al. (‘258) and Reddy et al. (‘384)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, location determination using plurality of access points in a network.
Regarding claim 12, which is dependent on independent claim 8, and which is a corresponding system claim of method claim 5, Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258)/Reddy et al. (‘384) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, which is dependent on independent claim 8, and which is a corresponding system claim of method claim 6, Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258)/Reddy et al. (‘384) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, which is dependent on independent claim 8, and which is a corresponding system claim of method claim 7, Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258)/Reddy et al. (‘384) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, which is dependent on independent claim 15, and which is a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium claim of method claim 5, Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258)/Reddy et al. (‘384) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, which is dependent on claim 15, and which is a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium claim of method claim 6, Gupta (‘081)/Scherzer et al. (‘258)/Reddy et al. (‘384) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable subject matter:
“determining the preamble codes comprises: determining a first preamble code for a first AP pair of the plurality of AP pairs on a first floor of a building; and determining a second preamble code for a second AP pair of the plurality of AP pairs on a second floor of the building, wherein the second AP pair is adjacent to the first AP pair and the first preamble code and the second preamble code have a cross-correlation below a threshold.”
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable subject matter:
“determining the preamble codes comprises to: determine a first preamble code for a first AP pair of the plurality of AP pairs on a first floor of a building; and determine a second preamble code for a second AP pair of the plurality of AP pairs on a second floor of the building, wherein the second AP pair is adjacent to the first AP pair and the first preamble code and the second preamble code have a cross-correlation below a threshold.”
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable subject matter:
“determining the preamble codes comprises: determining a first preamble code for a first AP pair of the plurality of AP pairs on a first floor of a building; and determining a second preamble code for a second AP pair of the plurality of AP pairs on a second floor of the building, wherein the second AP pair is adjacent to the first AP pair and the first preamble code and the second preamble code have a cross-correlation below a threshold.”
Closet prior art found to be:
Gupta (US 2015/094081 A1) describes subsequent APs 105 may iteratively use the two closest APs 105 as references when determining coordinates…the two closest APs 105 must have previously determined coordinates in order to be used by subsequent APs 105…once the locations of the first three APs 105-h, 105-i, 105-j have been determined the location of the fourth AP 105-k may be determined using the two APs 105 nearest AP 105-k…some APs 105-l, 105-m may be the closest APs to the fourth AP 105-k, but have not yet had coordinates determined…the fourth AP 105-k may use the second 105-i and third APs 105-j to determine its coordinates since they are the closest APs 105 with determined coordinates…the fourth AP 105-k may use a fourth distance 630 from the fourth AP 105-k to one of the closest neighbor APs 105-j and a fifth distance 635 from the fourth AP 105-k to the other closest neighbor AP 105-i to determine a coordinate location…after an orientation has been established and initial coordinates have been determined, subsequent coordinates may be iteratively determined in this manner, by using ranging operations with the two closest APs that have determined coordinates (paragraph 69); Figure 6B shows a three-dimensional representation of a system 600-a similar to the system 600 from FIG. 6A…the system 600-a includes a z-axis 640, as well as an x-605-a and y-axis 610-a, which may be similar to or the same as the x-axis 605 and the y-axis 610 from Figure 6A…similar calculations as those described above may be used to determine the location of the fifth AP 105-p, although new parameters may be introduced…a z-axis displacement 645 may be used to determine the elevation or height difference between the other two APs…the angle of incline 660 between the first AP 105-n and the fifth AP 105-p may be used to calculate the location 690 of the fifth AP 105-p…the third distance 625-a in this example includes a change in elevation, and has a planar third distance 655 that lies in the x-y plane…the second distance 620-a includes a change in elevation and has a planar second distance 650 that lies in the x-y plane. In some embodiments, the z-axis displacement 645 is known, such as the difference between a first floor and a second floor in a shopping mall…the z-axis displacement is calculated, such as based on a difference in elevation…the z-axis displacement is calculated based on a determined angle of incline 660, 665 and the determined third distance 625-a and/or the determined second distance 620-a (paragraph 70).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aldana et al. (US 2023/0021454 A1) describes electing, by a first device, a first preamble code of a plurality of preamble codes for a data transmission sent via at least one ultra-wideband (UWB) antenna to a second device…each of the plurality of preamble codes may have a sidelobe suppression ratio of at least 12 dB with respect to another one of the plurality of preamble codes… transmitting, by the first device, the data transmission including the first preamble code via the UWB antenna to the second device (paragraph 3); the first device may include at least one ultra-wideband (UWB) antennas…the first device may include at least one processor configured to select a first preamble code of a plurality of preamble codes for a data transmission sent via at least one ultra-wideband (UWB) antenna to a second device…each of the plurality of preamble codes may have a sidelobe suppression ratio of at least 12 dB with respect to another one of the plurality of preamble codes…the processor may be configured to transmit, via the at least one UWB antenna, the data transmission including the first preamble code via the UWB antenna to the second device (paragraph 6).
Tian et al. (US 2023/0328783 A1) describes a method of wireless communication performed by a wireless device…performing a listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure for a narrowband communication that provides one or more of time and frequency synchronization or scheduling information for an ultra-wideband (UWB) communication …transmitting the narrowband communication in response to the LBT procedure being successful…transmitting the UWB communication based at least in part on the one or more of time and frequency synchronization or scheduling information (paragraph 6); 6); the apparatus may include means for performing an LBT procedure for a narrowband communication that provides one or more of time and frequency synchronization or scheduling information for a UWB communication…means for transmitting the narrowband communication in response to the LBT procedure being successful… means for transmitting the UWB communication based at least in part on the one or more of time and frequency synchronization or scheduling information (paragraph 15).
Barton et al. (US 2022/0070613 A1) describes techniques for prioritized scheduling of UWB anchors and mobile devices for UWB client ranging…techniques presented herein may facilitate limiting airtime consumption for UWB ranging by pacing ranging activity based on location, e.g., by slowing down ranging in areas where crowd density is high or movement is reduced and/or predictable, and/or accelerating ranging in other area types…enable different UWB pacing levels based on client device criticality. For example, techniques presented herein may enable UWB interference between UWB anchors to be avoided, with high priority devices being ranged before other devices, which may be queued according to priority (paragraph 24); the control device can designate one of the UWB anchor devices as a primary UWB anchor and other of the UWB anchor devices as secondary UWB anchors…the primary UWB anchor can communicate with the mobile device to complete a location exchange, while the secondary UWB anchors (which are in RF proximity to the primary UWB anchor) can operate as “receive-only anchors,” which passively receive UWB transmissions from the mobile device and from the primary UWB anchor but do not send communications to the mobile device. The secondary UWB anchors can, e.g., report the UWB transmissions, and/or information based on the UWB transmissions, to the control device for processing…each of the secondary UWB anchors can report to a controller of the control device each frame it detects, and to a location engine of the control device, each frame that allows computation of a range/location (paragraph 26).
Namgoong et al. (US 2014/0368321 A1) describes a method for location tracking includes assigning to each tag in a set of tags a distinct frequency shift associated with ranging waveforms, where each of the tags in the set is attached to a different asset or person being tracked…receiving the ranging waveforms from one or more of the tags in the set, where the ranging waveforms are transmitted by the one or more tags using the assigned distinct frequency shifts…determining a location estimate for the one or more tags based at least in part on the ranging waveforms…receiving one or more UWB signals having the ranging waveforms…the distinct frequency shift assigned to each of the tags in the set may be based on a total number of tags in the set…the ranging waveforms may be concurrently received during a specified time slot assigned to the tags in the set…the frequency shift assigned to each of the tags in the set may be based on a period of a pseudo-random noise (PN) sequence used in the ranging waveforms…the frequency shift assigned to each of the tags in the set may be inversely proportional to a period of the ranging waveforms…the set of tags may correspond to a first specified time slot, and a different set of tags may correspond to a second specified time slot different from the first specified time slot (paragraph 6).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUZHAT PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/NUZHAT PERVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648 95
Prosecution Insights