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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 3/25/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
All references listed in the IDS dated 3/25/2025 have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 8, 12-13, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 3-4 and 12-13, regarding the variations on the term “control message (CM) type three message”/“the CM type 3 message,” Applicant should choose one formatting of “type three” or “type 3” and use it consistently.
In Claims 8 and 17, “the UWB enabled device” should read “the UWB enabled mobile device.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-9 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 17 contain the limitation “determining the UWB enabled mobile device passed through a selected transit gate of the three of the transit gates based on the determined distances” and Claims 8, 17, and 19 contain the limitation “automatically performing a fare transaction between the UWB enabled mobile device and the selected transit gate in response to determining the UWB enabled device passes through the selected transit gate without contact between the UWB enabled mobile device and the selected transit gate.” These limitations fail to satisfy the requirements of the written description standard of 112(a) in two ways. Firstly, the original disclosure lacks written description support for determining that the mobile device has passed through a selected transit gate/performing a fare transaction based on the mobile device having passed through a selected transit gate, reciting no algorithm for doing so and seemingly no description of this functionality at all. Rather, Paragraphs 0028 and 0057 set forth that the fare transaction is held until “as late as possible” to allow a user to move around between the gates before committing to one, and Paragraph 0034 discloses that “[i]f the UWB enabled mobile device has approached sufficiently to the transit gate, the UWB enabled mobile device is invited to answer; however, approaching a gate “sufficiently” and determining that a mobile device has passed through a gate are not the same thing. Secondly, the original disclosure lacks written description support for performing a fare transaction between the mobile device and the selected transit gate “without contact between the UWB enabled mobile device and the selected transit gate” (see also the 112(b) rejection of this language below). While Paragraph 0032 does disclose that “the UWB enabled mobile device can be NFC-enabled and can thus automatically perform a fare transaction with the transit gate G1 without a need to bring the UWB enabled mobile device in contact with the transit gate G1,” it does not explain how it is possible for this transaction between the mobile device and the transit gate to occur without contact between these recited participants to the transaction. NFC-based communication between these elements constitutes “contact” between them, rendering this quoted passage of Paragraph 0032 paradoxical. Further, the remainder of the specification appears to refute that this is actually what is happening here/indicate that this passage of Paragraph 0032 does not mean what it appears to say, as this fare transaction is discussed throughout the original disclosure as occurring via direct communication/data transfer between the mobile device and the gate (see, e.g., Paragraphs 0016, 0031, 0034, 0043, 0048, 0049, and 0057; Fig. 1). Examiner notes for clarity that two of these paragraphs disclose this transaction as occurring “without user involvement,” which is significantly different from what is claimed here. As such, based upon the content of the original disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could not reasonably conclude that Applicant had possession of these limitations as presently claimed. Claims 9, 18, and 20 are rejected due to their respective dependence upon Claims 8, 17, and 19.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 discloses the following limitation: “determining the UWB enabled mobile device passed through a selected transit gate of the three of the transit gates based on the determined distances.” In this limitation, the term “the three of the transit gates” lacks antecedent basis, as nothing in the claim string specifies three transit gates at any point. Examiner notes that this differs from similar language in Claim 17, as Claim 10 (upon which Claim 17 depends) does previously specify three of the transit gates. For the purposes of this examination, and solely in relation to Claim 8 (and Claim 9, which depends upon Claim 8), the “localizing…” step of Claim 1 is interpreted in line with draftings of the same step in Claims 10 and 19 (ie: as reciting three of the transit gates). Claim 9 is rejected due to its dependency upon Claim 8.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-11, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (PGPub 20230325807) (hereafter, “Suzuki”) in view of Raymann (PGPub 20180144563) (hereafter, “Reymann”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Suzuki discloses:
A non-transitory storage medium storing processor-readable instructions executable by a processor (¶ 0180-0186; the series of processes (information processing method) described above can be performed by hardware or can be performed by software; in a case where the series of processes is performed by software, a program constituting the software is installed in a general-purpose computer or the like; the program can be pre-recorded on a hard disk or ROM as a recording medium incorporated in the computer; alternatively, the program can be stored (recorded) in a removable recording, medium driven by a drive);
a method of locating an ultra-wideband (UWB) enabled mobile device in a UWB based transit deployment (Abstract; ¶ 0006, 0008, 0038; Figs. 1, 5; in a fare payment system using UWB, BLE, or the like, it is assumed that a plurality of ticket gates is installed at a station, and a large number of users pass through the ticket gates); and
functionally arranging transit gates (G1...Gn) of the UWB based transit deployment in at least two groups (Gr1...Grn) (¶ 0006, 0039-0040, 0075-0076, 0097-0100; Figs. 1, 5, 15-17; it is assumed that a plurality of ticket gates is installed at a station; the ranging gate network includes a ranging server and a plurality of UWB gate units, and includes three UWB gate units in the example illustrated in FIG. 1)
Suzuki additionally discloses performing wireless communication between the receivers of the at least two groups (Gr1...Grn) and the UWB enabled mobile device, wherein the wireless communication of the receivers of the at least two groups is performed in a time domain including specified time offsets in communication messages between the receivers and the UWB enabled mobile device; wherein a first group (Gr1) of transit gates (G1...Gn) communicates with the UWB enabled mobile device in a first time domain; wherein a second group (Gr2) of transit gates (G1...Gn) communicates with the UWB enabled mobile device in a second time domain (¶ 0076-0082, 0097-0100, 0106; Figs. 1, 5, 11, 15-17; the ranging server performs serial processing in the time domain, and forms a time grid for multi-ranging by shifting the blocks by 1 round time; that is, transmission for each session of a block thread in which a plurality of blocks is continuous is repeatedly performed by time distribution in which the time of one round among a plurality of rounds constituting each block is shifted; consequently, while the blocks are overlapped, since the sessions are synchronized, the head round can be used in a fixed manner without interference or hopping; then, when supplementing the mobile terminal, the ranging server allocates the mobile terminal to any thread and executes the UNB ranging processing; the mobile terminal operates as the initiator, transmits a ranging control message (RCM) in slot 0, and then transmits polling (POLL1) at time T0 in slot 1; the ranging server operates as the responder, the UWB responder device 42-1 transmits a response (RSP1) to polling at time t1 in slot 2, and the UWB responder device 42-2 transmits a response (RSP2) to polling at time t2 in slot 3; the response transmitted from the UWB responder device 42-1 is received at the mobile terminal at time T1, and the response transmitted from the UWB responder device 42-2 is received at the mobile terminal at time 12; thereafter, the mobile terminal 16 transmits polling (POLL2) at time 13 in slot 4, and transmits a measurement result (MR) in slot 5. Consequently, the ranging server 21 can acquire the time stamps of time T0, time T1, time T2, and time T3 and calculate ToF). Suzuki does not explicitly disclose but Reymann does disclose wherein the receivers are associated with the transit gates (G1...Gn) (¶ 0023-0029; Figs. 1-3; each gate may include arrays of short and long range wireless beacons; an RFID fare collection system may comprise RFID receivers on one side or both sides of a passageway).
Suzuki additionally discloses wherein the first group (Gr1) of the receivers operates in assignment slots (S1... Sn) with a first offset of the message and wherein the second group operates in a time slot with a second offset of message (¶ 0042, 0044, 0046, 0067, 0091, 0106, 0138-0139; Figs. 5, 7, 11; the mobile terminal supports the function of UWB, and operates as an initiator in UWB ranging processing in which distance measurement and positioning are performed with the ranging server using UWB; when performing the UWB ranging processing with the mobile terminal 16, the ranging server can perform positioning by angle of arrival (AoA) simultaneously with distance measurement by time of flight (ToF); in the UWB ranging processing, at least a distance from the mobile terminal to the UWB gate unit is measured; the ranging server has a connection function of connecting to a network, and exchanges device information, ranging setting information, and the like of the mobile terminal with the link management server; then, the ranging server performs the UWB ranging processing to specify which UWB gate unit the individual mobile terminal passes through the ticket gate, and notifies the specified UWB gate unit of this; the touchless fare payment system uses the BLE beacon for detection of the mobile terminal, and uses the UWB for distance measurement and positioning of the mobile terminal; a configuration in which each of the plurality of UWB responder devices includes a large number of antennas, the position of the mobile terminal in a geometrically three-dimensional space can be uniquely specified; by configuring each of the UWB responder devices to include a plurality of antennas, two pieces of distance measurement data by ToF can be obtained, and two pieces of three-dimensional angle information by AoA can be obtained). Suzuki does not explicitly disclose but Reymann does disclose wherein the receivers are associated with the transit gates (G1...Gn) (¶ 0023-0029; Figs. 1-3; each gate may include arrays of short and long range wireless beacons; an RFID fare collection system may comprise RFID receivers on one side or both sides of a passageway).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the transit-based mobile device tracking and payment processing structural setup and techniques of Reymann with the transit-based mobile device tracking system of Suzuki because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Reymann are applicable to the base device (Suzuki), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Suzuki in view of Reymann discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 10. Suzuki additionally discloses wherein the first group (Gr1) of the receivers operates in assignment slots (S1... Sn) with a first offset of the message and wherein the second group operates in a time slot with a second offset of message (¶ 0076-0082, 0097-0100, 0106; Figs. 1, 5, 11, 15-17; the ranging server performs serial processing in the time domain, and forms a time grid for multi-ranging by shifting the blocks by 1 round time; that is, transmission for each session of a block thread in which a plurality of blocks is continuous is repeatedly performed by time distribution in which the time of one round among a plurality of rounds constituting each block is shifted; consequently, while the blocks are overlapped, since the sessions are synchronized, the head round can be used in a fixed manner without interference or hopping; then, when supplementing the mobile terminal, the ranging server allocates the mobile terminal to any thread and executes the UNB ranging processing; the mobile terminal operates as the initiator, transmits a ranging control message (RCM) in slot 0, and then transmits polling (POLL1) at time T0 in slot 1; the ranging server operates as the responder, the UWB responder device 42-1 transmits a response (RSP1) to polling at time t1 in slot 2, and the UWB responder device 42-2 transmits a response (RSP2) to polling at time t2 in slot 3; the response transmitted from the UWB responder device 42-1 is received at the mobile terminal at time T1, and the response transmitted from the UWB responder device 42-2 is received at the mobile terminal at time 12; thereafter, the mobile terminal 16 transmits polling (POLL2) at time 13 in slot 4, and transmits a measurement result (MR) in slot 5. Consequently, the ranging server 21 can acquire the time stamps of time T0, time T1, time T2, and time T3 and calculate ToF). Suzuki does not explicitly disclose but Reymann does disclose wherein the receivers are associated with the transit gates (G1...Gn) (¶ 0023-0029; Figs. 1-3; each gate may include arrays of short and long range wireless beacons; an RFID fare collection system may comprise RFID receivers on one side or both sides of a passageway).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Suzuki in view of Reymann discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 10. Suzuki additionally discloses wherein a scheduling scheme of the communication messages is scalable to more than the at least two groups (Gr1, Gr2) of transit gates (¶ 0039-0040, 0076-0082, 0097-0100, 0106; Figs. 1, 4-5, 7, 10-11; the ranging gate network includes a ranging server and a plurality of UWB gate units, and includes three UWB gate units in the example illustrated in FIG. 1; the ranging server performs serial processing in the time domain, and forms a time grid for multi-ranging by shifting the blocks by 1 round time; that is, transmission for each session of a block thread in which a plurality of blocks is continuous is repeatedly performed by time distribution in which the time of one round among a plurality of rounds constituting each block is shifted; consequently, while the blocks are overlapped, since the sessions are synchronized, the head round can be used in a fixed manner without interference or hopping; then, when supplementing the mobile terminal, the ranging server allocates the mobile terminal to any thread and executes the UNB ranging processing; the mobile terminal operates as the initiator, transmits a ranging control message (RCM) in slot 0, and then transmits polling (POLL1) at time T0 in slot 1; the ranging server operates as the responder, the UWB responder device 42-1 transmits a response (RSP1) to polling at time t1 in slot 2, and the UWB responder device 42-2 transmits a response (RSP2) to polling at time t2 in slot 3; the response transmitted from the UWB responder device 42-1 is received at the mobile terminal at time T1, and the response transmitted from the UWB responder device 42-2 is received at the mobile terminal at time 12; thereafter, the mobile terminal 16 transmits polling (POLL2) at time 13 in slot 4, and transmits a measurement result (MR) in slot 5. Consequently, the ranging server 21 can acquire the time stamps of time T0, time T1, time T2, and time T3 and calculate ToF).
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Suzuki in view of Reymann discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 10. Suzuki does not explicitly disclose but Reymann does disclose determining the mobile device passed through a selected transit gate of the three of the transit gates based on the determined distances (¶ 0023, 0029, 0033, 0035, 0043, 0047; Figs. 3-5; a gate array may include one or more gates, such as at least three and four gates as respectively illustrated in Figs. 2-3; short range beacons, such as RFID receivers, may be placed on one or both sides of a gate (as in Fig. 3) which may be used to detect mobile devices carried by users as they approach and pass through the gates; the mobile device may be tracked until it is determined that the user and mobile device have actually passed through the gate). Suzuki additionally discloses wherein the mobile device is the UWB enabled mobile device (Abstract; ¶ 0038; Ultra Wide Band (UWB) is used to perform ranging processing of measuring at least a distance from the mobile terminal detected using the beacon to a UWB gate unit).
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose but Reymann does disclose automatically performing a fare transaction between the mobile device and the selected transit gate in response to determining the mobile device passes through the selected transit gate without contact between the mobile device and the selected transit gate (¶ 0023, 0029, 0033, 0035, 0043, 0047; Figs. 3-5; a gate array may include one or more gates, such as at least three and four gates as respectively illustrated in Figs. 2-3; short range beacons, such as RFID receivers, may be placed on one or both sides of a gate (as in Fig. 3) which may be used to detect mobile devices carried by users as they approach and pass through the gates; the mobile device may be tracked until it is determined that the user and mobile device have actually passed through the gate; RFID readers connected to the fare gate server may be used to collect fares; in embodiments where RFID readers are placed on one side of the gate/passageway, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this leaves only two options: before the gate and after the gate (as in Fig. 3); in embodiments where an RFID reader on one side of the gate is after the gate, the detection of the mobile device and collection of fare occurs when it is determined that the mobile device is in the access area; pre-validation occurs prior to access through the gate being granted). Suzuki additionally discloses wherein the mobile device is the UWB enabled mobile device (Abstract; ¶ 0038; Ultra Wide Band (UWB) is used to perform ranging processing of measuring at least a distance from the mobile terminal detected using the beacon to a UWB gate unit).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, Suzuki in view of Reymann discloses the limitations of Claims 8 and 17. Suzuki does not explicitly disclose but Reymann does disclose each transit gate of the transit gates (G1 ... Gn) includes an entry space between two gate pillars, and each of the pillars includes a gate anchor (A1...An+1) with a unidirectional antenna configured to communicate with the mobile device (¶ 0023-0029; Figs. 1-3; each gate may include arrays of short and long range wireless beacons; an RFID fare collection system may comprise RFID receivers on one side or both sides of a passageway; an RFID transmitter may be a narrow beam antenna or an omnidirectional antenna, which, in some embodiments may cover a 180 degree hemisphere (see, e.g., Fig. 1)). Suzuki additionally discloses wherein the mobile device is the UWB enabled mobile device; wherein the gate anchor is a UWB gate anchor (Abstract; ¶ 0038; Fig. 1; Ultra Wide Band (UWB) is used to perform ranging processing of measuring at least a distance from the mobile terminal detected using the beacon to a UWB gate unit).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19, this claim is obvious over Suzuki in view of Reymann for the same reasons set forth above regarding Claims 1, 8, 10, and 17.
Regarding Claim 20, Suzuki in view of Reymann discloses the limitations of Claim 19. The additional limitation of Claim 20 is obvious over Suzuki in view of Reymann for the same reasons as set forth above regarding Claims 9 and 18.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Reymann and Subraveti et al (PGPub 20210159938) (hereafter, “Subraveti”).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, Suzuki in view of Reymann discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 10. Suzuki does not explicitly disclose but Subraveti does disclose wherein the transit gates schedule a contention free period (CFP) for secure Double-Sided Two-Way Ranging (DS TWR) and data transfer to perform a proximity in bound fare transaction (¶ 0013, 0039-0040, 0050-0052; TDoA is a method to determine the position of an object (e.g. a mobile device) using the time difference of received signals; a method is described to synchronise slave anchor devices with a master anchor device using in-band UWB signalling and thereby allowing the anchor devices to localise the mobile device tag using a (periodic) broadcast message sent from the mobile device to the anchor devices (or vice versa); the method can be used to determine a secure position using a scrambled training sequence (e.g. according to standard 802.15.4z) sent by the mobile device based on a shared secure key which allows for secure transactions triggered by the mobile device; such secure transactions include for example opening of a gate or door, or payment for a transit ticket; as part of the set-up procedure, a wireless synchronization is performed to ensure that the anchor devices are time synchronized; for this purpose, a multi-node secure double-side two way ranging (DS-TWR) procedure is performed between the master anchor device and the (slave) anchor devices, whereby the ToF is calculated;).
The rationale to combine Subaru and Reymann remains the same as for Claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would further have been motivated to include the transit-based mobile device localizing/ranging scheduling techniques of Subraveti with the transit-based mobile device tracking system of Suzuki and Reymann to improve the security of the communications and transactions thereof (see at least Paragraphs 0039 and 0050 of Subraveti).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Reymann and Reddy et al (PGPub 20250039860) (hereafter, “Reddy”).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, Suzuki in view of Reymann discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 10. Suzuki additionally discloses wherein the UWB enabled mobile device participates in a specified amount of ranging phases, based on a position of the UWB enabled mobile device in a ranging management list (RML) within a ranging round management list (RRML) (¶ 0045, 0077-0081, 0217; Figs. 6-7, 10; transmits a BLE beacon, which is a signal for detecting mobile terminals 16 that are within the communication range of BLE from the ranging gate network; a session is configured by a series of a plurality of blocks; the block includes s rounds, and the round includes m slots; transmission for each session of a block thread in which a plurality of blocks is continuous is repeatedly performed by time distribution in which the time of one round among a plurality of rounds constituting each block is shifted; consequently, while the blocks are overlapped, since the sessions are synchronized, the head round can be used in a fixed manner without interference or hopping; then, when supplementing the mobile terminal, the ranging server allocates the mobile terminal to any thread and executes the UNB ranging processing; when the ranging processing is performed with a plurality of the mobile terminals, the ranging processing unit repeatedly performs transmission of a block thread for each session in which a plurality of blocks is consecutive by time distribution in which time of one round among a plurality of rounds constituting each block is shifted). Suzuki does not explicitly disclose but Reddy does disclose wherein the specified amount of ranging phases is a specified amount of contention-based ranging phases (CBR-phases); wherein participation in the CBR-phases is based on a position of the UWB enabled mobile device in a ranging management list (RML) within a ranging round management list (RRML) (¶ 0057-0059, 0066; Figs. 4-6; timing diagrams illustrating how contention-based ranging using a Contention Access Period (CAP) may be implemented; the CAP may be preceded by a ranging initiation message (RIM) (e.g., sent by the initiator); to allow multiple controlee/responders to participate in the UWB session, the controller may advertise a CAP, which comprises a portion of slots within the ranging round (contents of the message advertising the CAP may include parameters that may be chosen by the controller/initiator); essentially, the CAP indicates slots within the round in which a controlee/responder may communicate to participate in the UWB session; in FIG. 6 the interval represents a round in which a blink message transmission is transmitted; to reduce the likelihood of collisions, UL-TDoA devices may randomly select a slot (e.g., select a random offset, which may be unique to each round) to transmit a blink message; this is equivalent to all the devices transmitting during a CAP).
The rationale to combine Subaru and Reymann remains the same as for Claim 1. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the mobile device position determination techniques of Reddy with the transit-based mobile device tracking system of Suzuki and Reymann because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Reddy are applicable to the base device (Suzuki and Reymann), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 12-13 contain novel and non-obvious subject matter. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of novel and non-obvious subject matter: None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach or suggest the specific series of logical operations of Claims 3 and 12. In particular, the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the following limitation within the context of the claims as a whole: wherein a control message (CM) type three message is used to specify which gate anchors are functionally arranged in the first and second groups (Gn1, Gr2), wherein the CM type 3 message is sent to the transit gates of all groups with the first offset. This limitation, in the context of Claims 3 and 12 as a whole (ie: incorporating the limitations of Claims 1 and 10 respectively), is found to be novel and non-obvious particularly based on the understanding one of ordinary skill in the art would have regarding CM type 3 messages, including their usage and purpose as an industry standard.
Claims 4 and 13 contain novel and non-obvious subject matter due to their dependence upon Claims 3 and 12 respectively.
Discussion of Prior Art Cited but Not Applied
For additional information on the state of the art regarding the claims of the present application, please see the following documents not applied in this Office Action (all of which are prior art to the present application):
PGPub 20240144763 – “Method for Validating Access, by a User, to an Access Zone and Associated Electronic Validation System,” Dancygier et al, disclosing systems and methods for using UWB-based communications to determine mobile device locations and process payments within a gate-based transportation station configuration
PGPub 20200229126 – “Round-Trip-Time (RTT)-Based Positioning with Listening Nodes,” Soriaga et al, disclosing systems and methods for wideband-based communications to determine mobile device locations
PGPub 20170123045 – “Mobile Apparatus for Measuring Relative Location Based on UWB and Method Thereof,” Shin et al, disclosing systems and methods for using UWB-based communications to determine and track device locations
Choi et al, A New Paradigm for Automated Gate Systems: From Localization to Transactions Utilizing UWB, IEEE Access Vol. 12, pgs. 190362-190374, disclosing techniques and setups for localizing mobile devices within a multi-gated area
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C CLARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-2:30pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/MARK C CLARE/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights