DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to reply dated June 24, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application, specifically those in claims 19 and 20, that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
With respect to claims 19 and 20, their corresponding structure is interpreted in view of Applicant’s specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do (US 2016/0097850 A1) in view of Soma (US 2021/0037498 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Do discloses a method for determining consistency type information (see at least Figure 1), the method comprising:
estimating a range value based on a time-of-flight measurement (see at least [0087] note a range value (between a node and a neighboring node) may be determined based on an RTT value);
determining an expected received signal strength value based on the range value (see at least [0087] note the range value may be converted to an expected RSSI value);
obtaining a received signal strength measurement value (see at least [0087] note the measured RSSI value);
determining a received signal strength difference value based on the expected received signal strength value and the received signal strength measurement value (see at least [0087] note the (RSSI) difference between the expected RSSI value and the measured RSSI value); and
determining the consistency type information based on a comparison of the received signal strength difference value and at least one threshold value (see at least [0087] note if the RSSI difference between the expected RSSI value and the measured RSSI value is higher than a threshold, then a failure may be declared with the associated consistency check | [0032-0033] | [0091-0092]).
However, Do does not specifically disclose barrier type information.
It is known to use RSSI and RTT/TOF data in various ways. For example, Soma teaches a system that determines barrier type information (see at least [0036] note a reduction in RSSI relative to the time of flight (TOF) data may indicate the presence of a barrier or object such as a wall | Figure 4, item 405 | [0059] note expected RSSI value degradation is predictable based on distance/range values RTT/TOF| [0061] note a reduction in RSSI value 405 indicates an object is present | [0067] note a determination of what type or class of object can be determined | [0062] | [0046]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Soma into Do. This provides the ability to detect and determine the type of object(s) between Do’s communicating nodes, such that Do can associate consistency with the types of walls the nodes communicate through (see [0032] of Do | [0015] of Soma, note the systems and methods allow for the discovery of walls, floors, and/or ceilings to be conducted based on the RSSI and TOF values).
Regarding claim 2, Do in view of Soma teach further comprising controlling whether a function of an apparatus is enabled based on the barrier type information (see at least Figure 9, steps 920 or 935 | [0087] of Do, note a PCC process 355 can be enabled | [0089] of Do, note an RSSI/RTT positioning process can be enabled | [0091-0092] of Do).
Regarding claim 3, Do in view of Soma teach wherein the function of the apparatus is disabled based on the barrier type information corresponding to the received signal strength difference value exceeding a first threshold value of the at least one threshold value (see at least Figure 9, step 935 | [0087] of Do, note the PCC process 355 is enabled | [0089] of Do, note the RSSI/RTT positioning process is disabled).
Regarding claim 4, Do in view of Soma teach wherein the function of the apparatus is enabled based on the barrier type information corresponding to the received signal strength difference value being below a first threshold value of the at least one threshold value (see at least Figure 9, step 920 | [0087] of Do, note the PCC process 355 is disabled | [0089] of Do, note the RSSI/RTT positioning process is enabled).
Regarding claim 5, Do in view of Soma teach wherein determining the barrier type information comprises determining the barrier type information corresponding to multiple locations, the method further comprising producing a map based on the multiple locations and the barrier type information determined for each of the multiple locations (see at least [0032] of Do, note the consistency of the walls between N1-N2, N1-N5 and N1-N4 are determined | [0087] of Do | [0015] of Soma, note the system allows for the architectural layout of a building to be determined without data of an architectural plan being provided, and the discovery of walls, floors, and/or ceilings to be conducted based on the RSSI and TOF values | [0067] of Soma, note the type/class or material of an object can be determined | [0062] of Soma).
Regarding claim 7, Do in view of Soma teach further comprising categorizing a wireless signaling device, from which a wireless signal is received, based on the barrier type information (see at least [0087] of Do, note the node or wireless signaling device can be considered a consistent or non-consistent).
Regarding claim 8, Do in view of Soma teach further comprising determining a state of an environment based on the barrier type information (see at least [0046] of Soma, note dynamic or non-permanent structures can be accounted for and continuously updated in the architectural plan of the building | [0062] of Soma, note indication of movable objects).
Regarding claim 9, Do in view of Soma teach wherein determining the barrier type information comprises determining the barrier type information corresponding to different times, the method further comprising determining a change in state of an environment based on the barrier type information at different times (see at least [0046] of Soma, note dynamic or non-permanent structures can be accounted for and continuously updated in the architectural plan of the building | [0062] of Soma, note indication of movable objects).
Regarding claim 10, Do discloses an apparatus (see at least Figure 1 | [0092-0093]) comprising:
a memory (see at least [0092-0093] note memory);
at least one transceiver (see at least [0029] | [0048] | [0065] note transceiver);
at least one processor (see at least [0092-0093] note processor) communicatively coupled to the memory and the at least one transceiver (see at least Figure 5, items 506, 510 and 514), and configured to:
estimate a range value based on a time-of-flight measurement (see at least [0087] note a range value (between a node and a neighboring node) may be determined based on an RTT value);
determine an expected received signal strength value based on the range value (see at least [0087] note the range value may be converted to an expected RSSI value);
obtain a received signal strength measurement value (see at least [0087] note the measured RSSI value);
determine a received signal strength difference value based on the expected received signal strength value and the received signal strength measurement value (see at least [0087] note the (RSSI) difference between the expected RSSI value and the measured RSSI value); and
determine consistency type information based on a comparison of the received signal strength difference value and at least one threshold value (see at least [0087] note if the RSSI difference between the expected RSSI value and the measured RSSI value is higher than a threshold, then a failure may be declared with the associated consistency check | [0032-0033] | [0091-0092]).
However, Do does not specifically disclose barrier type information.
It is known to use RSSI and RTT/TOF data in various ways. For example, Soma teaches a system that determines barrier type information (see at least [0036] note a reduction in RSSI relative to the time of flight (TOF) data may indicate the presence of a barrier or object such as a wall | Figure 4, item 405 | [0059] note expected RSSI value degradation is predictable based on distance/range values RTT/TOF| [0061] note a reduction in RSSI value 405 indicates an object is present | [0067] note a determination of what type or class of object can be determined | [0062] | [0046]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Soma into Do. This provides the ability to detect and determine the type of object(s) between Do’s communicating nodes, such that Do can associate consistency with the types of walls the nodes communicate through (see [0032] of Do | [0015] of Soma, note the systems and methods allow for the discovery of walls, floors, and/or ceilings to be conducted based on the RSSI and TOF values).
Regarding claim 11, Do in view of Soma teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control whether a function of the apparatus is enabled based on the barrier type information (see at least Figure 9, steps 920 or 935 | [0087] of Do, note a PCC process 355 can be enabled | [0089] of Do, note an RSSI/RTT positioning process can be enabled | [0091-0092] of Do).
Regarding claim 12, Do in view of Soma teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to disable the function of the apparatus based on the barrier type information corresponding to the received signal strength difference value exceeding a first threshold value of the at least one threshold value (see at least Figure 9, step 935 | [0087] of Do, note the PCC process 355 is enabled | [0089] of Do, note the RSSI/RTT positioning process is disabled).
Regarding claim 13, Do in view of Soma teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to enable the function of the apparatus based on the barrier type information corresponding to the received signal strength difference value being below a first threshold value of the at least one threshold value (see at least Figure 9, step 920 | [0087] of Do, note the PCC process 355 is disabled | [0089] of Do, note the RSSI/RTT positioning process is enabled).
Regarding claim 14, Do in view of Soma teach 14. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein to determine the barrier type information the at least one processor is configured to determine the barrier type information corresponding to multiple locations, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to produce a map based on the multiple locations and the barrier type information determined for each of the multiple locations (see at least [0032] of Do, note the consistency of the walls between N1-N2, N1-N5 and N1-N4 are determined | [0087] of Do | [0015] of Soma, note the system allows for the architectural layout of a building to be determined without data of an architectural plan being provided, and the discovery of walls, floors, and/or ceilings to be conducted based on the RSSI and TOF values | [0067] of Soma, note the type/class or material of an object can be determined | [0062] of Soma).
Regarding claim 16, Do in view of Soma teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to categorize a wireless signaling device, from which a wireless signal is received via the at least one transceiver, based on the barrier type information (see at least [0087] of Do, note the node or wireless signaling device can be considered a consistent or non-consistent).
Regarding claim 17, Do in view of Soma teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine a state of an environment based on the barrier type information (see at least [0046] of Soma, note dynamic or non-permanent structures can be accounted for and continuously updated in the architectural plan of the building | [0062] of Soma, note indication of movable objects).
Regarding claim 18, Do in view of Soma teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the barrier type information corresponding to different times and to determine a change in state of an environment based on the barrier type information at different times (see at least [0046] of Soma, note dynamic or non-permanent structures can be accounted for and continuously updated in the architectural plan of the building | [0062] of Soma, note indication of movable objects).
Regarding claim 19, Do discloses an apparatus for determining consistency type information (see at least Figure 1), the apparatus comprising:
means for estimating a range value based on a time-of-flight measurement (see at least [0087] note a range value (between a node and a neighboring node) may be determined based on an RTT value | [0091-0092]);
means for determining an expected received signal strength value based on the range value (see at least [0087] note the range value may be converted to an expected RSSI value | [0091-0092]);
means for obtaining a received signal strength measurement value (see at least [0087] note the measured RSSI value | [0091-0092]);
means for determining a received signal strength difference value based on the expected received signal strength value and the received signal strength measurement value (see at least [0087] note the (RSSI) difference between the expected RSSI value and the measured RSSI value | [0091-0092]); and
means for determining the consistency type information based on a comparison of the received signal strength difference value and at least one threshold value (see at least [0087] note if the RSSI difference between the expected RSSI value and the measured RSSI value is higher than a threshold, then a failure may be declared with the associated consistency check | [0032-0033] | [0091-0092]).
However, Do does not specifically disclose barrier type information.
It is known to use RSSI and RTT/TOF data in various ways. For example, Soma teaches a system that determines barrier type information (see at least [0036] note a reduction in RSSI relative to the time of flight (TOF) data may indicate the presence of a barrier or object such as a wall | Figure 4, item 405 | [0059] note expected RSSI value degradation is predictable based on distance/range values RTT/TOF| [0061] note a reduction in RSSI value 405 indicates an object is present | [0067] note a determination of what type or class of object can be determined | [0062] | [0046]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Soma into Do. This provides the ability to detect and determine the type of object(s) between Do’s communicating nodes, such that Do can associate consistency with the types of walls the nodes communicate through (see [0032] of Do | [0015] of Soma, note the systems and methods allow for the discovery of walls, floors, and/or ceilings to be conducted based on the RSSI and TOF values).
Regarding claim 20, Do in view of Soma teach further comprising means for controlling whether a function of the apparatus is enabled based on the barrier type information (see at least Figure 9, steps 920 or 935 | [0087] of Do, note a PCC process 355 can be enabled | [0089] of Do, note an RSSI/RTT positioning process can be enabled | [0091-0092] of Do).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do (US 2016/0097850 A1) in view of Soma (US 2021/0037498 A1) as applied to claims 5 and 14 above, and in further view of Garin (US 2013/0257657 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Do in view of Soma do not specifically teach further comprising determining wireless signal coverage at different portions of the map.
It is known to use RSSI and RTT/TOF data in various ways. For example, Garin teaches a system that determines wireless signal coverage at different portions of a map (see at least Figures 1-3 and 10 | [0010] | [0015] | [0045] | [0049]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Garin into Do in view of Soma. This provides the ability to use Do in view of Soma’s map with Garin’s location connectivity information for indoor positioning (see [0060] of Do).
Regarding claim 15, Do in view of Soma and Garin teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine wireless signal coverage at different portions of the map (see at least Figures 1-3 and 10 of Garin | [0010] of Garin | [0015] of Garin | [0045] of Garin | [0049] of Garin).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states “However, the Office Action has not shown that ‘a failure [being] declared’ as described in Do is the same thing as ‘determining barrier type information’ as recited in independent claim 1. Thus, the Office Action has not shown that Do teaches or suggests ‘determining the barrier type information based on a comparison of the received signal strength difference value and at least one threshold value’ as recited in independent claim 1.”
In response, paragraph [0087] of Do states “…Here, the ranges between the node and a neighboring node may be determined based on the RTT values. This range may be converted to an expected RSSI value using known models. If the difference between the expected RSSI and the measured RSSI is higher than a threshold (e.g., referred to herein as an “RSSI-range threshold”), then a failure may be declared…”.
Figure 1 and paragraphs [0032-0033] of Do illustrate that there is a lack of consistency in signals exchanged between node n(1) and node n(4). Signals exchanged between node n(1) and node n(4) may not undergo the same degradations in both directions, as wireless channel 114 is not “as symmetric” as wireless channels 112, 113 and 115, due to the relative location of an object 120 and wall 122. For example, signals received at node n(4) over wireless channel 114, which are transmitted by node n(1), may only experience attenuation by object 120. That is, Do’s system can clearly identify that there is lack of consistency, that is, an obstruction between node n(1) and node n(4) exists based on a comparison of the received signal strength difference value and at least one threshold value.
In addition, Do’s system also clearly identifies that there is consistency, that is, none or a different less obstructive obstruction exists between node n(1) and node n(3), or n(1) and node n(2), based on a comparison of the received signal strength difference value and at least one threshold value. While Do does not specifically disclose determining the barrier type information, Do clearly identifies that there no barrier, a less obstructive barrier and a more obstructive barrier between nodes.
Soma is used to show that a reduction in power of a signal, or the RSSI difference value, can be used to indicate that a barrier or object is present between access points (see [0036]), and that this RSSI degradation is predictable (see [0059]). With respect to Applicant’s remarks concerning over time, it is noted that Figure 5 of Soma shows how a transmitted signal’s RSSI degrades over time in nanoseconds. Soma illustrates that a reduction in RSSI, or the RSSI difference value, indicates that an object is present between the signal source and signal destination (see [0061]), and that this RSSI difference value can indicate the type of object, or barrier type information, between Do’s nodes (see [0062]). Soma’s RSSI difference value is compared various threshold maintained in a look-up table to determine what type of object is being detected (see [0067]). For at least these reasons, Soma clearly determines barrier type information based on a comparison of a received signal strength difference value and at least one threshold value. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further asserts “Further, the indication of type or class based on a measured amount of reduction of an RSSI power over time as described in Soma is not the same thing as ‘determining the barrier type information based on a comparison of the received signal strength difference value and at least one threshold value,’ as recited in independent claim 1.”
In response, Do clearly describes determining the difference between an expected RSSI and a measured RSSI (see [0087]). Soma clearly describes that RSSI signal degradation is predictable (see at least [0059]). That is, a barrier exists when an expected RSSI is not the same as the measured RSSI. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 BRIAN WILSON whose telephone number is 571-270-5884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, DAVETTA GOINS can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/BRIAN WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights