DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Request of Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicially recognized exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-16 and 19-22 is/are directed to calculating a distance by forming and manipulating matrices. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claim elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the mathematical manipulation of data by calculating a distance by forming and manipulating matrices and do not result in an improvement in the functioning of the computer or to another technology. The remaining claim limitations, transmitting and receiving signals, including for synchronization, are mere data-gathering. These additional steps are all extraneous pre-solution activity and are very well known in the art. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
ANALYSIS
Patent Ineligible Subject Matter (Claims 1-16 and 19-22)
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267—68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”’ Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Step 1 — Statutory Category
Claim(s) 1-14, 16, and 19-22 recite(s) a series of steps, and, therefore, is a process. Claim 15 is directed to a machine performing the process.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2 A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
It is determined that claim(s) 1-16 and 19-22 is/are directed to an abstract idea. Particularly, in claim 1, a “method for determining a distance between at least two objections ... the distance between the first object and the second object is determined therefrom, the method comprising the steps of: forming a first autocorrelation matrix of measurements on the signals emitted by the first object and received at the second object by forming aggregated values for respective individual frequencies of the multiple frequencies, the aggregated values are formed by aggregated measurements on the respective individual frequencies of signals emitted by the first object and received at the second object via different antenna paths; forming a second autocorrelation matrix of measurements on the signals emitted by the second object and received at the first object by forming aggregated values for respective individual frequencies of the multiple frequencies, the aggregated values are formed by aggregated measurements of signals emitted by the second object and received at the first object on the respective individual frequencies via different antenna paths; aggregating the first autocorrelation matrix and the second autocorrelation matrix into an aggregated autocorrelation matrix; and calculating the distance between the first object and the second object on the basis of the aggregated autocorrelation matrix.”. In claim 21, a "method for determining a distance between at least two objects ... the method comprising the steps of: creating at least one first complex vector of reception from measurements of (i) phase and amplitude or (ii) phase and power of signals emitted by the first object and received by the second object; forming a first autocorrelation matrix from the at least one first complex vector; creating at least one second complex vector of reception from measurements of (i) phase and amplitude or (ii) phase and power of signals emitted by the second object and received by the first object; forming a second autocorrelation matrix from the at least one second complex vector; aggregating the first autocorrelation matrix and the second autocorrelation matrix into an aggregate autocorrelation matrix; and calculating the distance between the first object and the second object on the basis of the aggregated autocorrelation matrix. Dependent claims 2, 4-5, 9, 11-14, 16, 19-20, and 22 simply add more calculations, or more detail to the calculation in claim 1/21. With regard to claim 14, a position determination is another mathematical calculation.
Under the 2019 Guidance mathematical formulas and computational operations fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping. Accordingly, the subject matter of claim(s) 1-16 and 19-22 falls within this grouping.
Therefore claim(s) 1-16 and 19-22 recite(s) an abstract idea, we proceed to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
Here, apart from the abstract idea/mathematical concept quoted above, the only additional elements that are recited in claim(s) 1 are "the at least two objects are or will be time- or clock-cycle-synchronized, and wherein a first object and a second object of the at least two objects emit signals at multiple frequencies, and the second object and the first object of the at least two objects receive the signals of the respectively other of the first object and the second object". Apart from the abstract idea/mathematical concept quoted above, the only additional elements that are recited in claim(s) 21 are "the at least two objects are or will be time- or clock-cycle-synchronized, and wherein a first object and a second object of the at least two objects emit signals at multiple frequencies, and the second object and the first object of the at least two objects receive the signals of the respectively other of the first object and the second object, wherein the first object or the second object, or both, change(s) between at least two of the multiple frequencies phase-coherently or change(s) such that a phase jump is known or determined upon change of the at least two of the multiple frequencies during transmitting". These additional limitations, merely recites information or data being gathered that can be analyzed. As such, the additional limitation is/are insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these element(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Dependent claims 3, 6-8, 10, and 15 merely add more extrasolution activity/data gathering.
It has been determined that all claim elements “are directed to the mathematical manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and do not result in an improvement in the functioning of the computer or to another technology.” But even if the recited process could be used in a particular field of technology, claim(s) 1-16 and 19-22 do not recite any limitation that even generally links the use of the judicial exception to the field of technology here.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 19-22 recite(s) no particular technological field or field of use. Accordingly, the language itself of claim(s) 1-16 and 19-22 does not reflect an improvement in any particular technical field or technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Since the additional element(s) in claim(s) claim(s) 1-16 and 19-22 fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B to determine whether the claim recites an “inventive concept.”
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
As noted, for Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. See Memorandum.
As set forth above it has been concluded that claim(s) 1-16 and 19-22 do/does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and thus, the additional elements do not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim(s) 1-16 and 19-22 (i.e., the claim element in addition to the claim elements that recite an abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Apart from the abstract idea/mathematical concept quoted above, the only additional elements that are recited in claim(s) 1 are "the at least two objects are or will be time- or clock-cycle-synchronized, and wherein a first object and a second object of the at least two objects emit signals at multiple frequencies, and the second object and the first object of the at least two objects receive the signals of the respectively other of the first object and the second object". Apart from the abstract idea/mathematical concept quoted above, the only additional elements that are recited in claim(s) 21 are "the at least two objects are or will be time- or clock-cycle-synchronized, and wherein a first object and a second object of the at least two objects emit signals at multiple frequencies, and the second object and the first object of the at least two objects receive the signals of the respectively other of the first object and the second object, wherein the first object or the second object, or both, change(s) between at least two of the multiple frequencies phase-coherently or change(s) such that a phase jump is known or determined upon change of the at least two of the multiple frequencies during transmitting". These additional limitations, merely recites information or data being gathered that can be analyzed. As such, the additional limitation is/are insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these element(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Dependent claims 3, 6-8, 10, and 15 merely add more extrasolution activity/data gathering.
Accordingly, claim(s) 1-16 and 19-22 fails to recite an inventive concept that transforms the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.
The result of the mathematics is a number (the distance). The claimed invention does not integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application, since no application using the resulting number is required to be performed. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication in the claim that the combination of elements is used to improve any technology.
The claims take some measurements, do some mathematics, and do not use the result(s) in any way. Taking the measurements is extra-solution activity. There is no application of the mathematical values that are calculated to solve any particular problem or for any particular purpose, e.g. to provide a more accurate route to a user. Thus, the claimed invention does not integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application. The invention is not performed by a particular machine.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-13, 15-16, 19, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reimann '377 (US 2019/0339377 A1) in view of Groh (US 2016/0183287 A1). It is noted that Reimann '377 is prior art because the instant application is not entitled to the priority date of 11-4-2020 from application PCT/EP2020/081016, which does not support the claimed subject matter of the instant application.
In regard to claim 1, Reimann '377 discloses a method comprising:
determining a distance between at least two objects (¶5),
wherein the at least two objects are or will be time- or clock-cycle-synchronized (¶86) [where the at least two objects will be synchronized], and
wherein a first object and a second object of the at least two objects emit signals at multiple frequencies, and the second object and the first object of the at least two objects receive the signals of the respectively other of the first object and the second object (¶5), and
the distance between the first object and the second object is determined therefrom (¶5),
forming aggregated values for respective individual frequencies of the multiple frequencies (¶5; ¶38), the aggregated values are formed by aggregating measurements on the respective individual frequencies of signals emitted by the first object and received at the second object via different antenna paths (abstract; ¶3; ¶63) [Reimann '377 explicitly discloses a multipath environment (abstract; ¶3; ¶63), and where the effects of the multipath environment may only be reduced (¶63, lines 1-4). Thus, in that embodiment, the measurements are still affected by multiple antenna paths.];
forming aggregated values for respective individual frequencies of the multiple frequencies (¶5; ¶38), the aggregated values are formed by aggregating measurements on the respective individual frequencies of signals emitted by the second object and received at the first object via different antenna paths (abstract; ¶3; ¶63), and where the effects of the multipath environment may only be reduced (¶63, lines 1-4). Thus, in that embodiment, the measurements are still affected by multiple antenna paths.];
forming an aggregated autocorrelation matrix (¶37-38); and
calculating the distance between the first object and the second object on the basis of the overall/aggregated autocorrelation matrix (¶46; ¶50).
Reimann '377 fails to disclose the method comprises forming a first autocorrelation matrix of measurements on the signals of the first object received at the second object, forming a second autocorrelation matrix of measurements on the signals of the second object received at the first object, aggregating the first autocorrelation matrix and the second autocorrelation matrix into the aggregated autocorrelation matrix.
Groh teaches forming an overall/aggregated autocorrelation matrix representing a channel by aggregating a first autocorrelation matrix of a portion of the channel and a second autocorrelation matrix of another portion of the channel (¶105; ¶112).
Replacing the method of determining the aggregated autocorrelation matrix of Reimann '377 with the method of determining the aggregated autocorrelation matrix of Groh is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to perform the same function and obtain predictable results. Because both elements are known ways of determining the overall autocorrelation matrix of a communication channel, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other to achieve the predictable result of determining the overall autocorrelation matrix of the communication channel.
In regard to claim 2, Reimann '377 further discloses a complex vector of reception of the emitted signals is created from measurements of phase and amplitude, or phase and power (¶24-26; ¶37).
In the combination, each of the at least two autocorrelation matrices represents a one-way portion of the two-way overall communication channel, where each of the first autocorrelation matrix and the second autocorrelation matrix are a function of a respective complex vector of each object of the two objects (Reimann '377: ¶24-26).
In regard to claim 3, Reimann '377 further discloses the first object or the second object, or both,
(a) change(s) between at least two of the multiple frequencies phase coherently or
(b) change(s) such that a phase jump is known or determined upon change of the at least two of the multiple frequencies during transmitting (¶5; ¶19; ¶59; ¶62) [where ¶5 discloses the use of multiple frequencies in transmission in each direction (first object to second object, and second object to first object): "multiple execution of the following steps a to d at different first and different second frequencies"; ¶19 explains that a "first notional timepoint" is for "each first signal", where the different first signals are different frequency first signals based on ¶5; ¶59 describes frequency error, "the time deviation between first notional timepoint and second notional timepoint multiplied by the frequency difference"; and ¶62 describes eliminating a frequency jump, where the Office interprets the frequency jump as corresponding to the frequency error; where ¶59 describes how to determine the value of the frequency error/jump and ¶62 describes that in some embodiments the value has been determined such that the frequency error/jump is eliminated].
In regard to claim 4, the Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention to eliminate outlying measurements in calculations in order to increase the accuracy of the determined value.
In regard to claim 6, Reimann '377 further discloses the first object or the second object of the at least two objects, or both, emits the signals at the multiple frequencies successively or consecutively (¶5; ¶8-10; ¶15), or wherein at no time does the bandwidth of the signals exceed 100 MHz (¶12). That is, Reimann '377 discloses a range of 0-100 MHz. The claim recites a range of 0-50 MHz. Where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90; In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934. See also MPEP 2144.05. Here, the claimed range of 0-50 MHz lies inside the range of 0-100 MHz disclosed by Reimann '377.
In regard to claim 7, Reimann '377 further discloses at least one time- or clock-cycle synchronization or correction is carried out between the at least two objects before, after or while the method is carried out (¶86) [where the synchronization occurs after].
In regard to claim 8, Reimann '377 further discloses a frequency spacing between two consecutive frequencies of the multiple frequencies is at least 0.1 MHz or a maximum of 10 MHz, and additionally or alternatively the multiple frequencies are at least five frequencies or a maximum of two hundred frequencies (¶12) [where at least five frequencies is disclosed].
In regard to claim 10, Reimann '377 further discloses the distance determination is based on ascertaining a signal time-of-flight from the first object to the second object, or from the second object to the first object (¶106), or wherein the distance determination is based on ascertaining a phase shift of the signals from the first object to the second object, or from the second object to the first object (¶5), or is based on both ascertaining the signal time-of-flight and ascertaining the phase shift (¶5; ¶106).
In regard to claim 11, Reimann '377 further discloses a time drift of at least one of the at least two objects is determined or corrected or is considered in the calculation of the distance (¶59).
In regard to claim 12, the Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention to average/take a mean of multiple distance measurements to achieve a more accurate measurement of the position by averaging out random measurement errors.
In regard to claim 13, the Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention to eliminate outlying measurements in calculations in order to increase the accuracy of the determined value.
In regard to claim 15, Reimann '377 further discloses an object or an object pair, configured for carrying out the method according to claim 1 (¶5).
In regard to claim 16, Reimann '377 further discloses the phases measured upon reception are corrected by the phase jump before formation of the first or second autocorrelation matrix or the aggregated autocorrelation matrix (¶32-37; ¶62-63) [wherein the first and second theoretical phase relationships are determined and used before the overall/aggregated autocorrelation matrix is determined].
In regard to claim 19, the Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention to eliminate outlying measurements in calculations in order to increase the accuracy of the determined value.
In regard to claim 21, Reimann '377 discloses a method comprising:
determining a distance between at least two objects (¶5),
wherein the at least two objects are or will be time- or clock-cycle-synchronized (¶86) [where the at least two objects will be synchronized], and
wherein a first object and a second object of the at least two objects emit signals at multiple frequencies, and the second object and the first object of the at least two objects receive the signals of the respectively other of the first object and the second object (¶5),
wherein the first object or the second object, or both,
(a) change(s) between at least two of the multiple frequencies phase-coherently or
(b) change(s) such that a phase jump is known or determined upon change of the at least two of the multiple frequencies during transmitting (¶5; ¶19; ¶59; ¶62) [where ¶5 discloses the use of multiple frequencies in transmission in each direction (first object to second object, and second object to first object): "multiple execution of the following steps a to d at different first and different second frequencies"; ¶19 explains that a "first notional timepoint" is for "each first signal", where the different first signals are different frequency first signals based on ¶5; ¶59 describes frequency error, "the time deviation between first notional timepoint and second notional timepoint multiplied by the frequency difference"; and ¶62 describes eliminating a frequency jump, where the Office interprets the frequency jump as corresponding to the frequency error; where ¶59 describes how to determine the value of the frequency error/jump and ¶62 describes that in some embodiments the value has been determined such that the frequency error/jump is eliminated],
creating at least one complex vector of reception from measurements of (i) phase and amplitude or (ii) phase and power of signals emitted by the first object and received by the second object (¶24-26; ¶37);
forming an aggregated autocorrelation matrix (¶37-38); and
calculating the distance between the first object and the second object on the basis of the overall/aggregated autocorrelation matrix (¶46; ¶50).
Reimann '377 fails to disclose the method comprises forming a first autocorrelation matrix from the at least one first complex vector; forming a second autocorrelation matrix from the at least one second complex vector; and aggregating the first autocorrelation matrix and the second autocorrelation matrix into an aggregate autocorrelation matrix.
Groh teaches forming an overall/aggregated autocorrelation matrix representing a channel by aggregating a first autocorrelation matrix of a portion of the channel and a second autocorrelation matrix of another portion of the channel (¶105; ¶112).
Replacing the method of determining the aggregated autocorrelation matrix of Reimann '377 with the method of determining the aggregated autocorrelation matrix of Groh is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to perform the same function and obtain predictable results. Because both elements are known ways of determining the overall autocorrelation matrix of a communication channel, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other to achieve the predictable result of determining the overall autocorrelation matrix of the communication channel.
In the combination, each of the at least two autocorrelation matrices represents a one-way portion of the two-way overall communication channel, where each of the first autocorrelation matrix and the second autocorrelation matrix are a function of a respective complex vector of each object of the two objects (Reimann '377: ¶24-26).
In regard to claim 22, Reimann '377 further discloses:
(a) wherein the at least one first complex vector is created for different antenna paths used during transmitting the signals and the at least one second complex vector is created for different antenna paths used during transmitting the signals (abstract; ¶3; ¶63) [Reimann '377 explicitly discloses a multipath environment (abstract; ¶3; ¶63), and where the effects of the multipath environment may only be reduced (¶63, lines 1-4). Thus, in that embodiment, the measurements are still affected by multiple antenna paths.];
(b) wherein (i) each individual first complex vector of the at least one first complex vector are aggregated to form an aggregating first complex vector and the first autocorrelation matrix is formed from the aggregated first complex vector or (ii) the first autocorrelation matrix is aggregated from autocorrelation matrices formed from each individual first complex vector of the at least one first complex vector; or
(c) wherein (i) each individual second complex vector of the at least one second complex vector are aggregated to form an aggregated second complex vector and the second autocorrelation matrix is formed from the aggregated second complex vector or (ii) the second autocorrelation matrix is aggregated from autocorrelation matrices formed from each individual second complex vector of the at least one second complex vector.
Claim(s) 5, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reimann '377 and Groh (US 2016/0183287 A1), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Drane (Positioning GSM Telephones).
In regard to claim 5, the combination has taught the autocorrelation matrices of the signal exchange of a pair of objects is formed, and therefrom the distance in the pair of objects is calculated (see the rejection of claim 1, above).
Reimann '377 further discloses using the distance between the first object and the second object along with a direction/orientation between the first object and the second object to determine the position of one of the first object and the second object (¶76).
Reimann '377 and Groh fail to teach a plurality of objects execute the method jointly (¶5), and in each case the autocorrelation matrices of the signal exchange of a pair of objects is formed, and therefrom the distance in the pair of objects is calculated, wherein the autocorrelation matrices of a reception are used in more than one pair of objects.
Drane teaches positioning using a first object and distances to multiple second objects is a known alternative to positioning using a distance and a direction to one objection (Fig. 1a and Fig. 1d). Thus, these two elements were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute positioning using multiple distance measurements with multiple second objects for the positioning using one distance and a direction to one second object of Reimann '377. Additionally, this is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to perform the same function and obtain predictable results. Because both elements are known methods of determining the position of an object, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other to achieve the predictable result of determining the position of the object.
In the combination, there are a plurality of objects that execute the method jointly (i.e. work together, by each transmitting and receiving), determine distances using the method disclosed by Reimann '377 in view of Groh in claim 1, where there would be aggregated autocorrelation matrices for each pair of objects used in the positioning method.
In regard to claim 14, Reimann '377 further discloses using the distance between the first object and the second object along with a direction/orientation between the first object and the second object to determine the position of one of the first object and the second object (¶76).
Reimann '377 and Groh fail to teach carrying out the method according to claim 1 between a plurality of pairs of objects, and wherein ascertained distances of pairs of objects of the plurality of pairs of objects are used to carry out a mapping or position determination.
Drane teaches positioning using a first object and distances to multiple second objects is a known alternative to positioning using a distance and a direction to one objection (Fig. 1a and Fig. 1d). Thus, these two elements were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute positioning using multiple distance measurements with multiple second objects for the positioning using one distance and a direction to one second object of Reimann '377. Additionally, this is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to perform the same function and obtain predictable results. Because both elements are known methods of determining the position of an object, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other to achieve the predictable result of determining the position of the object.
In the combination, the distance determining method according to claim 1 is carried out between a plurality of pairs of objects, and ascertained distances of pairs of objects of the plurality of pairs of objects are used to carry out a position determination.
In regard to claim 20, Drane further teaches one object of each pair is an object that is involved in all pairs (the object being positioned in Fig. 1a).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reimann '377 and Groh (US 2016/0183287 A1), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Seok (US 2023/0029233 A1).
Reimann '377 further discloses high accuracy distance determination (¶3) using a round trip exchange of signals (¶5).
Reimann '377 fails to disclose the accuracy of the distance determination lies in a range from 0.3 m to 3 m.
Seok teaches that it is known for a distance determination using a round trip exchange of signals (¶30) to lie in a range from 0.3 m to 3 m (¶34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the method of Reimann '377 as a high accuracy distance determination by matching accuracies known before the effective filing date of the invention.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that high accuracy distance determination is achieved.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
Banister (US 7,224,758 B1), which teaches forming an overall autocorrection matrix from autocorrelation matrices of signals traveling in opposite directions (col. 16, lines 42-65) and forming an autocorrelation matrix where signals via different antenna paths are aggregated (col. 13, line 56 to col. 14, line 13).
Squires (Practical Physics), which teaches taking the mean of multiple measurements in order to average out random errors (p. 12).
Rochester (US 2005/0239410 A1), which teaches eliminating outlying measurements (¶33).
Schuchman (US 5,701,328 A), which teaches eliminating outlying measurements (col. 5, ¶ under Table 3).
Patil (US 2016/0242056 A1), which teaches the accuracy of a round trip exchange distance determination lies in a range from 0.3 m to 3 m (¶72).
Kishigami (US 2009/0016263 A1), which teaches determining phase differences using a MUSIC method or a Capon method (¶342).
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on p. 7, with respect to the objection(s), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on p. 8-14, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Firstly, it is noted that the term "measurements objects" used in the arguments is interpreted by the Office mean measurements (the term is not used in the specification, Reimann '377, or Groh). The term "both" on p. 11, line 2 is interpreted by the Office as referring to both directions (i.e. object 1 to object 2, and object 2 to object 1).
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
638
1038
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, it is unclear how the quotations from ¶33 and ¶39 lead to the conclusion that different antenna paths are not used. Reimann '377 explicitly discloses a multipath environment (abstract; ¶3; ¶63), where the effects of the multipath environment may only be reduced [rather than eliminated] (¶63, lines 1-4). Thus, in that embodiment, the measurements are still affected by multiple antenna paths.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
442
1028
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Here, applicant is arguing that phase jump compensation cannot be done in the combination. However, the combination does not remove anything from Reimann '377. Groh just adds intermediate steps to the combination, but the aggregate autocorrelation matrix of the combination is the same as the aggregation autocorrelation matrix of Reimann '377. This can be illustrated by an analogy. A position can be calculated in a first way:
x
=
x
0
+
v
o
Δ
t
+
1
2
a
o
Δ
t
2
or in a second way:
x
1
=
v
o
Δ
t
x
2
=
1
2
a
o
Δ
t
2
x
=
x
0
+
x
1
+
x
2
In both cases, the value of x is the same. The first way is analogous to Reimann '377. The second way is analogous to the combination of Reimann '377 and Groh, where intermediate steps are specified, but the same final value is determined. The aggregate autocorrelation matrix of the combination is the same as the aggregation autocorrelation matrix of Reimann '377. No information in Reimann '377 is missing in the combination. The phase jump compensation can be determined in the same way in the combination. There would be no reason to modify the phase jump compensation, because it can be calculated in the same way since no information has been removed in the combination.
With respect to claim 3, applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
88
1012
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, "preferably" means there is an embodiment that it is not true, and thus an embodiment where the first and second frequencies are different. In particular, the phase error/jump is described in ¶59 as being based on a difference in frequencies.
Applicant further argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
792
1024
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, the equation in ¶25 does not refer to a square root. In other words, there isn't some value to the 0.5 power (with an exponent of only 0.5). The exponent in the equation in ¶25 includes the imaginary number i multiplied by a phase difference multiplied by 0.5. [The equation in ¶25 is rendered in patent family member EP 3564706 A1 as
PNG
media_image5.png
40
690
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and patent family member CN 110440849 A as
PNG
media_image6.png
32
304
media_image6.png
Greyscale
]. If the phase difference is equal to 2 radians, the phase difference multiplied by 0.5 = 1, and there is no square root. Even in the special case where the phase difference is equal to 1 radian, the exponent would be i/2, not 1/2. None of ¶25, ¶62-63, nor ¶66 refer to a square root ambiguity. Additionally, inverting a phase/reversing a phase by 180° is not a solution to square root ambiguity. If you don't know whether the phase is wrong or right, you don't know whether the inverted phase is wrong or right.
Since applicant has not traversed the Official Notice taken by the Office, the well-known in the art statements outlined in the Official Notice are taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03(C), ¶2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai, can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648