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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 09/09/2025, have been entered into the record. Claims 2-5 and 11 have been cancelled by the applicant. Claims 12-18 have been added by the applicant. Claims 1, 6-10 and 12-18 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claims 1 and 6-10 correct the antecedent basis and improper dependency issues noted in the previous Office Action. Said amendments overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set out in the previous Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, filed 09/09/2025, have been carefully considered are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Jarvis et al. fails to teach,
… and that calculates a corrected phase relationship by subtracting ∆ω∆t from the phase relationship, wherein ∆ω is the frequency offset and ∆t is a transmission start time difference between the communication apparatus and the other communication apparatus
However, the examiner disagrees. Equation (6) of Jarvis, reproduced below, teaches the limitation above.
PNG
media_image1.png
359
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above, the correction term ∆ω∆t is subtracted from the term 2
k
-
D. Given the term definitions, above, 2
k
-
D is one way of expressing round trip phase, since round trip phase is
2
*
2
π
λ
D
, and k =
2
π
λ
.
This relationship is shown in the attached document from Silicon Labs, particularly eq. 4. The examiner notes that λ
=
c
f
. This document is included only as background information to show that the interpretation above is reasonable, not as prior art of record.
Correction term ∆ω∆t is equivalent to the correction term of the limitation above, because angular frequency difference is a frequency difference and time interval between measurements is the time interval between transmissions from communication devices A and B. Since ∆ω∆t is subtracted from 2
k
-
D to give a corrected phase Φ, equation (6) can reasonably be understood to teach the limitation quoted above.
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 1, 6, 9-10, 12-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0077589) in view of Stitt et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0217947 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jarvis et al. discloses (note: what Jarvis et al. does not disclose is struck through),
A communication apparatus (abs, “Disclosed are systems, devices and methods for determining a range between devices”) comprising: a frequency offset acquisition unit that acquires a frequency offset between frequencies used for transmission/reception by respective communication apparatuses (fig. 3, box 302. See also p. 5, para. 0058); a time acquisition unit that acquires transmission/reception time between the communication apparatus and an other communication apparatus (p. 5, para. 0059); a phase acquisition unit that acquires a phase relationship between the frequencies used for the transmission/reception (fig. 3, box 302), wherein the phase acquisition unit acquires the phase relationship on a basis of the frequency offset and the transmission/reception time (p. 5, eq. 6. The examiner notes that ∆t is defined in para. 0059 as the time offset and ∆ω is defined in para. 0058 as the frequency offset.), and that calculates a corrected phase relationship by subtracting ∆ω∆t from the phase relationship, wherein ∆ω is the frequency offset and ∆t is a transmission start time difference between the communication apparatus and the other communication apparatus (eq. 6. 2kD, i.e., 2 x average wavenumber x distance, gives round trip phase, while ∆ω is defined as the angular frequency difference between devices A and B in para. 0058 and ∆t is defined as the time difference between measurements by device A and device B, which is a reasonable interpretation of “transmission start time difference”), and a distance generation unit that generates the distance information on a basis of(fig. 3, box 304).
Stitt et al. discloses (note: what Stitt et al. does not teach is struck through),
…and a distance generation unit that generates the distance information on a basis of group delay information generated from the (para. 0147, “In other features, the method further includes: for each of the tones, changing a corresponding frequency during transmission of that tone; generating curves respectively for the tones relating changes in phases of each of the tones to changes in frequencies; determining slopes of the curves; and determining the distance based on the slopes of the curves.” The examiner notes that the group delay information is defined as the derivative (i.e. slope) of the curve of phase vs. frequency in para. 0074)
Jarvis et al. and Stitt et al. are both analogous to the claimed invention because they both disclose communication devices used to measure distance. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the generation of distance based on group delay information of Stitt et al. to the distance generation unit of Jarvis et al. because they system of Jarvis et al. already involves the measurement of the phase behavior of different frequencies, thus making it trivial to additionally measure the group delay behavior. The additional calculation of group delay information is beneficial in preventing range extending type attacks (see Stitt et al., para. 0401). Although Stitt et al. does not use a corrected phase relationship to generate the group delay information, because the invention of Jarvis et al. includes correcting the phase relationship it would be obvious to use the corrected phase relationship of Jarvis et al. when calculating group delay information generation as Stitt et al. does, because the corrected phase relationship is a more precise calculation than the general phase relationship of Stitt et al.
Regarding claim 6, Jarvis et al. in view of Stitt et al. teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1. Jarvis et al. further discloses,
…wherein the frequency offset acquisition unit measures the frequency offset in first communication (p. 6, eq. 10.)., and the time acquisition unit measures the transmission/reception time in second communication that is performed after the first communication (p. 6, para. 0074, “...the bulk of the time delay between two phase measurements obtained at different devices may be modeled as a measurable gap between a time of an initial measurement at a first receiving device and time of transmission back to a second receiving device.”).
Regarding claim 9, Jarvis et al. in view of Stitt et al. teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1. Jarvis et al. further discloses,
…wherein the time acquisition unit acquires the transmission/reception time by measuring a period from a transmission timing of a signal to reception of a known pattern in response to the signal between the communication apparatus and the other communication apparatus (p. 5, eqs. 3-6. The examiner notes that the ability to pair signal A and signal B requires that the received signal B be a known pattern.).
Regarding claim 10, Jarvis et al. in view of Stitt et al. teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1. Jarvis et al. further discloses,
…further comprising a frequency generation unit that generates a frequency used for transmission/reception between the communication apparatus and the other communication apparatus (p. 4, para. 0035, “According to an embodiment, transmission and acquisition of short tone signal 204 and AoA packet 206 at a first carrier frequency may be used to compute a first RTP measurement, and transmission and acquisition of short tone signal 210 and AoA packet 212 at a second carrier frequency (different from the first carrier frequency) may be used to compute a second RTP measurement.”), wherein the frequency offset acquisition unit measures the frequency offset between the frequencies used by the communication apparatus and the other communication apparatus (p. 6, eq. 10.).
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 1. The examiner notes that Jarvis et al. teaches a distance generation method (abs., “Disclosed are systems, devices and methods for determining a range between devices”).
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 1. The examiner notes that Jarvis et al. teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for generating distance information for a communication apparatus (para. 0005, “Another particular implementation is directed to a non-transitory storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions stored thereon which are executable by a processing unit of a first device”).
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 6.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 9.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 10.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis et al. in view of Stitt et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Broad et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9702960 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Jarvis et al. in view of Stitt et al. teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1. Jarvis et al. further discloses (note: what Jarvis et al. does not disclose is struck through),
…wherein the frequency offset acquisition unit measures the frequency offset (fig. 3, box 302. See also p. 5, para. 0058) (p. 3, para. 0032, “According to an embodiment, master device 220 and slave device 222 may mutually agree beforehand to a pseudorandom frequency hopping scheme”).
Broad et al. discloses,
…wherein the frequency offset acquisition unit measures the frequency offset on a basis of change (col. 1, lines 35-37, “methods and systems for determining a frequency difference of a arrival (FODA) with respect to a pulsed waveform”), in a certain period, of amplitudes of projections of a signal on an I axis and a Q axis (col. 1, lines 56-60, “The method also includes determining for each pulse of the plurality of pulses, a respective rate of change of cross-correlation phase (Δφ) and approximating a straight line fit to the rates of change of cross-correlation phase (dΔφ/dt) determined for the plurality of pulses, the slope of the straight line representative of the FDOA.” See also fig. 6b), the signal having been transmitted/received between the communication apparatus and the other communication apparatus and IQ modulated (col. 4, lines 53-55, “The remote emitter 140 can pulse modulate the electromagnetic radiation 150 to form a pulse waveform.”).
Broad et al. and Jarvis et al. are both analogous to the claimed invention because both disclose methods of using signals exchanged between communication devices to measure frequency differences between two or more signals. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the distance-determining device of Jarvis et al. with the FDOA-finding approach of Broad et al. because using a least-squares fit to determine phase change based on waveform cross-correlation yields a more accurate determination of FDOA (Broad et al., col. 3, lines 30-34).
Claim 15 is rejected using the same reasoning and citations as claim 7.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis et al. in view of Stitt et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0239784 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Jarvis et al. in view of Stitt et al. teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1. Jarvis et al. further discloses (note: what Jarvis et al. does not disclose is struck through)
…wherein the frequency offset acquisition unit measures the frequency offset apparatuses (fig. 3, box 302. See also p. 5, para. 0058)
Lee et al. discloses,
…wherein the frequency offset acquisition unit measures the frequency offset on a basis of a signal obtained by performing fast Fourier transform on a signal received between the communication apparatus and the other communication apparatus (p. 2, eq. A. The examiner notes that para. 0013 indicates the meaning of each term within the equation).
Lee et al. and Jarvis et al. are both analogous to the claimed invention because both disclose methods of using signals exchanged between communication devices to measure the distance between the devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the distance-finding approach of Jarvis with the fast Fourier transform technique of Lee et al. because the technique of Lee results in accurate and efficient measurement of distance between devices based on phase differences between reference signals transmitted and received by the devices (Lee et al., para 0007).
Claim 16 is rejected using the same reasoning and citations as claim 8.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights