DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2022-0102530, filed on 08/17/2022 and KR 10-2022-0137565, filed on 10/24/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/29/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
4. 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.
Please note: Examiner has cited particular pages, columns, line numbers, and figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teaching of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well.
Applicants are reminded that MPEP 2141.02 states:
A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EUICHANG et al. (KR1020210075741) (hereinafter EUICHANG) in view of MCCRADY et al. (KR1020020026562) (hereinafter MCCRADY) (EUICHANG and MCCRADY are disclosed in the IDS filed on 01/29/2025).
Note: For convenience, herewith, the examiner provideS the machine English translation of EUICHANG and MCCRADY.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 19:
As shown in figures 1-17, EUICHANG discloses an electronic device (101 in figure 1) comprising:
a wireless communication circuit (190 in figure 1 and 595 in figure 5, pages 2 and 9);
memory (130 in figure 1); and
at least one processor (120 in figure 1), comprising processing circuitry (120 in figure 1), operatively connected to the wireless communication circuit and the memory (130 in figure 1) (see the machine English translation, pages 2-3, 5 and 9),
wherein the memory (130 in figure 1) storing instructions for generating management information for managing a plurality of anchors (see the machine English translation, pages 2-3, 5 and 9), and
wherein the instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor (120 in figure 1) individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device (101 in figure 1) to:
identify a control scheduling for the plurality of anchors (in claim 1 EUICHANG teaches “An electronic device comprising: a wireless communication circuit for transmitting and receiving a wireless signal; a plurality of antenna modules electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit; a processor electrically connected to the wireless communication circuit and the plurality of antenna modules; and receive control information from at least one transmission node using an activated first antenna module among the plurality of antenna modules, identify a transmission beam of each transmission node when receiving data from a plurality of transmission nodes based on the control information, identify a link quality of a transmission beam of each transmission node with respect to a reception beam of the first antenna module, and receive data from the plurality of transmission nodes through a reception beam of the first antenna module when the identified link quality of the transmission beam satisfies a specified condition.” Also see claim 2).
EUICHANG discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching control a ranging signal transmission by the plurality of anchors to be sequentially performed through the wireless communication circuit based on the control scheduling; receive, from the plurality of anchors, a feedback signal according to the ranging signal transmission; and update a topology for the plurality of anchors based on the feedback signal.
However, MCCRADY in the same field of endeavor teaches control a ranging signal transmission by the plurality of anchors to be sequentially performed through the wireless communication circuit based on the control scheduling; receive, from the plurality of anchors, a feedback signal according to the ranging signal transmission; and update a topology for the plurality of anchors based on the feedback signal (in claim 1, MCCRADY teaches “A mobile communication device capable of determining a distance to a reference communication device by exchanging a ranging signal with a reference communication device, the mobile communication device comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit an external ranging signal to the reference communication device; a receiver configured to receive a response ranging signal from the reference communication device in response to the external ranging signal; and a processor configured to sample the response ranging signal and identify a leading edge sample of the response ranging signal, the processor configured to curve-match the leading edge sample to a stored criterion to determine an arrival time of the response ranging signal, and to determine a distance to the reference communication device by a round-trip signal propagation time of the response ranging signal and the external ranging signal”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use system and method as taught by MCCRADY to modify the system and method of EUICHANG in order to determine a position of a mobile communication device (see page 1) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claims 2 and 17:
EUICHANG discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching receive each of the feedback signals according to the ranging signal transmission by each of the plurality of anchors.
However, MCCRADY in the same field of endeavor teaches receive each of the feedback signals according to the ranging signal transmission by each of the plurality of anchors (see MCCRADY claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use system and method as taught by MCCRADY to modify the system and method of EUICHANG in order to determine a position of a mobile communication device (see page 1) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claims 3 and 18:
EUICHANG discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching transmit the feedback request signal to the plurality of anchors based on the ranging signal transmission by the plurality of anchors being terminated; and receive the feedback signals of the plurality of anchors in response to the feedback request signal.
However, MCCRADY in the same field of endeavor teaches transmit the feedback request signal to the plurality of anchors based on the ranging signal transmission by the plurality of anchors being terminated; and receive the feedback signals of the plurality of anchors in response to the feedback request signal (see MCCRADY claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use system and method as taught by MCCRADY to modify the system and method of EUICHANG in order to determine a position of a mobile communication device (see page 1) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claims 6 and 14:
EUICHANG discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching update the topology for the plurality of anchors based on measurement information included in the feedback signal.
However, MCCRADY in the same field of endeavor teaches update the topology for the plurality of anchors based on measurement information included in the feedback signal (see MCCRADY claims 1 and 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use system and method as taught by MCCRADY to modify the system and method of EUICHANG in order to determine a position of a mobile communication device (see page 1) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claims 7 and 15:
EUICHANG further discloses wherein the measurement information includes at least one of the received signal strength indicator (RSSI), signal to noise ratio (SNR) (see EUICHANG, page 12), line-of-sight (LoS) measurement, or actual distance between the plurality of anchors.
Regarding claim 8:
EUICHANG discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching to generate a proximity graph between the plurality of anchors based on the measurement information.
However, MCCRADY in the same field of endeavor teaches to generate a proximity graph between the plurality of anchors based on the measurement information (see MCCRADY figure 2 and page 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use system and method as taught by MCCRADY to modify the system and method of EUICHANG in order to determine a position of a mobile communication device (see page 1) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claims 9 and 17:
EUICHANG discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching to generate the proximity graph by combining a matrix having a line-of-sight (LoS) measurement between the plurality of anchors as an element and a matrix having at least one of the received signal strength indicator (RSSI), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), or actual distance between the plurality of anchors as an element.
However, MCCRADY in the same field of endeavor teaches to generate the proximity graph by combining a matrix having a line-of-sight (LoS) measurement between the plurality of anchors as an element and a matrix having at least one of the received signal strength indicator (RSSI), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), or actual distance between the plurality of anchors as an element (see MCCRADY figure 2 and page 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use system and method as taught by MCCRADY to modify the system and method of EUICHANG in order to determine a position of a mobile communication device (see page 1) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claim 10:
EUICHANG discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching to update the topology by connecting each vertex corresponding to the plurality of anchors with an edge based on an element of the proximity graph.
However, MCCRADY in the same field of endeavor teaches to update the topology by connecting each vertex corresponding to the plurality of anchors with an edge based on an element of the proximity graph (see MCCRADY figure 2 and page 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use system and method as taught by MCCRADY to modify the system and method of EUICHANG in order to determine a position of a mobile communication device (see page 1) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 4-5, 12-13 and 20 are 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.
9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, EUICHANG does not teach or suggest trigger a management period for controlling the plurality of anchors according to the control scheduling; and control the ranging signal transmission by the plurality of anchors by transmitting a control signal to each of the plurality of anchors based on the control scheduling during the management period.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McCrady et al. (US 6453168) disclose a method and a position location system for determining the position of a mobile communication device, and, more particularly, to a system employing two-way transmission of spread spectrum ranging signals between the mobile communication device and reference communication devices having relatively low accuracy clocks, to rapidly and accurately determine the position of the mobile communication device in the presence of severe multipath interference.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KABIR A TIMORY whose telephone number is (571)270-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00 AM-3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/KABIR A TIMORY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights