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 .
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 04/17/2026, in which claims 1 and 3-6 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the title of the invention to be sufficiently descriptive. Accordingly, the objection to the title of the invention has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the claim objections. Accordingly, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to remove the generic placeholders. Accordingly, the claims are no longer subject to interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections:
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 of the remarks that “Smith merely describes the acquisition of both BLE and UWB information in order to stabilize or calibrate the location estimate” and “Smith does not suggest or disclose “correct[ing] the operation allowable threshold value in accordance with a difference between a signal strength corresponding to the distance measurement by the ultra-wideband communication calculated based on a predetermined correlation between the distance measurement by the ultra-wideband communication and the signal strength of the electrical power-saving communication, and a signal strength of the electrical power-saving communication.”” Applicant also argues on page 9 of the remarks that “Smith lacks the specific correction and only generally uses UWB and BLE to enhance location detection.”
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees that Smith fails to disclose the amended limitations of the independent claims. Smith discloses using the combination of UWB and BLE communication to enhance and stabilize localization (Smith [0075], [0078], [0082]). The UWB communication supplements the RSSI ranging from BLE communication to adapt a model that uses only sensed information (Smith [0079]). The supplemental communication is used to calibrate out variance of RSSI or ranging calculations (Smith [0080]). Smith further discloses adjusting an RSSI measurement to normalize measurements at different BLE communication transmit powers (Smith [0091]). Accordingly, Smith discloses more than a general acquisition of BLE and UWB information for enhancing a location estimate because Smith discloses using BLE and UWB communication to adapt a model to calibrate out variance and adjust signal measurements for normalization.
Furthermore, Smith discloses using the differences in distance calculations to determine zone thresholds corresponding to different operations (Smith [0089], [0159]-[0163]). The signal strength from BLE and UWB communication are used to identify the differences in distance calculations and determine to implement a threshold based on the location information. For example, a device might satisfy a threshold for inside the vehicle determination while the device is located outside the vehicle, and the system completes correction by preventing the inside the vehicle determination status (Smith [0163]). Therefore, Smith discloses the amended limitations of the independent claims by using UWB and BLE communication for more accurate localization, characterized by variance calibration and signal normalization, to determine how zone thresholds are implemented for a corresponding action or status.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 04/17/2026 has been received and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0196095 A1 (hereinafter Smith).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses an information processing device (Smith Fig. 1), comprising:
a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to (see at least Smith [0055]: “The controller 58 of the object device 50 in the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 3 may include one or more processors 51 that execute one or more applications 57 (software and/or includes firmware), one or more memory units 52 (e.g., RAM and/or ROM)”):
correct an operation allowable threshold value based on a distance measurement between a vehicle and a portable information terminal calculated from a result of communication by ultra-wideband communication that temporarily has been put into an on state (see at least Smith [0162]: “The impact on thresholds is similar to or the same as that of the distance calculation output from the reference locator 210 or the adapter locator 310. For example, the reference locator 210 or the adapter locator 310 may be configured to provide an output indicative of distance or location of a remote device 20 relative to an object 10…The system 100 may be configured to implement one or more thresholds with respect to the location information that pertain to one or more zones or positions relative to the object. For instance, the one or more zones may include a region within 2 m of the object 10 and regions within an interior of the object 10 such as a vehicle cabin in the context of the object 10 being a vehicle.”; [0159]: “As shown in the illustrated embodiment, although the differences in distance calculation are more significant at further distances, the differences near the vehicle are sufficient to impact the user experience. For example, in a system where an unlock zone is configured to be entered two (2) meters from the vehicle, the reference device 200 would be correctly determined to be within the unlock zone at two (2) meters, whereas Device A would not be determined to be within the unlock zone until it reached one (1) meter and Device B would be determined to be within the unlock zone at four (4) meters.”; Smith [0080] discloses ultra-wideband communication can be used for the distance calculation),
initiate distance measurement between the vehicle and the portable information terminal by the ultra-wideband communication in a case in which a signal strength of electrical power-saving communication is equal to or higher than the corrected operation allowable threshold value (see at least Smith [0163]: “The system 100 may define an unlock zone, not as a computed distance, but as an RSSI threshold (or set of thresholds). In such a system 100, Device A may not satisfy the thresholds soon enough and Device B may satisfy them too early. For the same reasons, an inside determining threshold may not be satisfied with Device A, unlike the reference device 200 or Device B. It is noted that there are processes to determine and/or restrict relative position (driver/passenger/rear, inside/outside) that are immune to such calibration, and thus, it may still be ensured that the system 100 adequately restricts inside and outside determinations.”; [0078]-[0079]: “For instance, in a configuration in which both BLE and UWB information are obtained, this information can be combined to enhance and stabilize a localization estimate. The BLE and UWB channels used in the localization may involve different frequencies, and the signal characteristics to be exploited for ranging are different (RSSI for BLE and time-of-flight for UWB). RSSI ranging calibration may be augmented or supplemented with time-of-flight from UWB communications.”; Smith [0162] discloses the distance measurement is between the vehicle and the portable information terminal),
and enable control of the vehicle so as to perform at least one of locking, unlocking or engine starting of the vehicle in accordance with an operation signal transmitted from the portable information terminal by the electrical power-saving communication (see at least Smith [0162]-[0163]: “For instance, if the remote device 20 transitions from an outer zone considered far from the vehicle to an unlock zone identified as proximal to the vehicle (e.g., within 2 m of the vehicle), the system 100 may be configured to unlock the vehicle. The system 100 may define an unlock zone, not as a computed distance, but as an RSSI threshold (or set of thresholds).”; Smith [0078] discloses RSSI is used by BLE (i.e., electrical power-saving) communication),
wherein the processor is configured to correct the operation allowable threshold value in accordance with a difference between a signal strength corresponding to the distance measurement by the ultra-wideband communication calculated based on a predetermined correlation between the distance measurement by the ultra-wideband communication and the signal strength of the electrical power-saving communication, and a signal strength of the electrical power-saving communication (see at least Smith [0078]: “For instance, in a configuration in which both BLE and UWB information are obtained, this information can be combined to enhance and stabilize a localization estimate. The BLE and UWB channels used in the localization may involve different frequencies, and the signal characteristics to be exploited for ranging are different (RSSI for BLE and time-of-flight for UWB).”; [0082]: “As described herein, one or more signal characteristics, such as signal strength and angle of arrival, may be analyzed to determine location information about the remote device 20 relative to the object 10, an aspect of the object 10, or the object device 50, or a combination thereof. For instance, time difference of arrival or the angle of arrival, or both, among the sensors 40 and the object device 50 may be processed to determine a relative position of the remote device 20.”; [0159]-[0163]: ““As shown in the illustrated embodiment, although the differences in distance calculation are more significant at further distances, the differences near the vehicle are sufficient to impact the user experience…The system 100 may define an unlock zone, not as a computed distance, but as an RSSI threshold (or set of thresholds).”).
Regarding claim 5, this claim recites a method performed by the device of claim 1. Smith also discloses a method performed by the device of claim 1, as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, this claim recites a medium embodying the device of claim 1. Smith also discloses a medium embodying the device of claim 1 (Smith [0053]), as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Avakjan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0198852 A1 (hereinafter Avakjan).
Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses all elements of the information processing device according to claim 1 as explained above. Smith fails to expressly disclose setting a number of distance measurement attempts to zero at a time of initiation. However, Avakjan teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
set a number of distance measurement attempts by the ultra-wideband communication to zero at a time of initiation of control (see at least Avakjan [0168]: “Then, in order for the control unit 110 to be able to let the connected mobile device 120 to make the determination as to whether or not to allow a future re-connection when it has been released from the connection, such that re-connections attempts are not made when such attempts shouldn't be made, the control unit 110 may keep track of the number of generated events. The track-keeping may be implemented by a counter of events. The counter of events may be given an initial value at some point in time, e.g. zero.”; );
and corrects the operation allowable threshold value in accordance with the difference in a case in which the number of distance measurement attempts does not exceed one, and the signal strength of the electrical power-saving communication is equal to or greater than an electrical power-saving communication establishment threshold value, the electrical power-saving communication establishment threshold value being lower than the operation allowable threshold value (This limitation is taught through the combination of Smith and Avakjan. Smith discloses “corrects the operation allowable threshold value in accordance with the difference…and the signal strength of the electrical power-saving communication is equal to or greater than an electrical power-saving communication establishment threshold value, the electrical power-saving communication establishment threshold value being lower than the operation allowable threshold value” because Smith discloses correcting zone thresholds based on signal strengths and distance measurements for a device, and determining what action should be performed based on a connection in a specific zone (Smith [0159]-[0163], [0062]). Smith fails to expressly disclose “a case in which the number of distance measurement attempts does not exceed one.” However, Avakjan teaches “a case in which the number of distance measurement attempts does not exceed one” because Avakjan teaches adjusting a counter to a first counter value for a first event of connecting to a mobile device within range (Avakjan [0174]-[0177]). Therefore, the combination of Smith and Avakjan teaches all elements of this limitation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device disclosed by Smith with Avakjan with reasonable expectation of success. Avakjan is directed towards the related field of access control using short-range wireless communications. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Smith with Avakjan to keep track of connection attempts (see at least Avakjan [0168]: “Then, in order for the control unit 110 to be able to let the connected mobile device 120 to make the determination as to whether or not to allow a future re-connection when it has been released from the connection, such that re-connections attempts are not made when such attempts shouldn't be made, the control unit 110 may keep track of the number of generated events.”).
Regarding claim 4, Smith discloses all elements of the information processing device according to claim 1 as explained above. Smith fails to expressly disclose correcting a threshold value each time a connection is performed and canceling the correction when the connection is broken. However, Avakjan teaches wherein the processor is configured to
correct the operation allowable threshold value each time a connection of the electrical power-saving communication is performed between the vehicle and the portable information terminal, and cancels the correction of the operation allowable threshold value when the connection of the electrical power-saving communication is broken (see at least Avakjan [0046]: “Distance measuring may also be achieved by analysis of characteristics of the radio communication e.g., via Time of Flight, or some other method combining such analysis with phase difference. Such distance measuring could for example be implemented with UWB. Motion sensor data of a mobile device may also be used to determine when the respective mobile device connects automatically to the control unit 110. For example, if a first mobile device 120 is still, or its motion sensor data is below a threshold, or if it is moving away from the control unit 110 etc., then it does not automatically connect to the control unit 110 according to some embodiments.”; [0108]-[0109]: “The corrected estimated value, based on the received signal strength and motion sensor data, may be calculated in any other suitable method, for instance as a motion compensated distance or as a motion compensated quality indicator…As mentioned above. the corrected estimated value may be calculated by each of the one or more connected mobile devices 120-122.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device disclosed by Smith with Avakjan with reasonable expectation of success. Avakjan is directed towards the related field of access control using short-range wireless communications. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Smith with Avakjan to improve security and response time of connections (see at least Avakjan [0009]: “Considering the above it is an object of embodiments herein to provide an improved method and system for access control with regarding to multiple users, security and response time.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yin, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0388781 A1, directed towards setting a UWB coverage range and distance measurement function.
Smith et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0213355 A1, directed towards establishing location zones by defining virtual boundaries using transmitters and receivers.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/CHRISTOPHER GEORGE FEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights