DETAILED ACTION
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filled 06/08/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The following features are absent from the drawings:
Claim 1, “performing at least one phase measurement on at least one signal transmitted between a first object and a reference object […] performing at least one signal time-of-flight measurement or a second distance measurement is carried out on th e basis of at least one signal time-of-flight measurement to or via on the at least one signal transmitted between the first object at the reference object […] wherein the at least one further signal time-of-flight measurement or signal time-of-flight difference measurement is performed on at least one further signal transmitted (i) to the first object or (ii) between the first object and the reference object or an other object of a plurality of second objects.”
Claim 2, “one distance between the first object and the reference object or the other object.”
Claim 3, “wherein the plurality of second objects includes the reference object, wherein the offset is used for correctingon a plurality of further signals each transmitted between the first object and a respectively one of the plurality of second objects.”
Claim 11, “determining a signal time-of-flight for a path between the reference object and the first object or is used for determining a signal round-trip time-of-flight from the reference object to the first object and back or from the first object to the reference object and back.”
Claim 12, “a delay between transmission of the at least one signal for the at least one signal time-of-flight measurement and the at least one signal for the at least one phase measurement is less than 500 ms or wherein the at least one signal time-of-flight measurement and at least one phase measurement are performed on the same at least one signal or on signals with similar frequency.”
Claim 16, “a plurality of signals is transmitted between the first object and the reference object at difference frequencies and phase-measurements are performed on each signal of the plurality of signals.”
Claim 17, “at least one distance between the first object and the at least one second object of the plurality of second objects or a position of the first object is determined based on the plurality of further signal time-of-flight measurement or signal time-of-flight measurements.
Therefore, the above features as recited by claims 1-3, 11-12, and 16-17 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 12-13, “between the first object at the reference object” should be read “between the first object and the reference object.”
In claim 9, lines 3 and 4 (and similarly claim 16), “difference frequencies ” should be read “ different frequencies.”
In claim 16, line 1, “pluriaty” should be read “ plurality.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-12 and 14-20 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.
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)).
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recites a method for calibrating at least one system for carrying out one or both of a signal time-of-flight measurement measurements or signal time-of-flight difference measurement measurements. The claim therefore recites a process.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A 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.
Claim 1 recites,
deriving an offset or correction term by comparing the at least one first phase measurement on the basis of and the at least one signal time-of-flight measurement to each other
The claim recites a step of comparing values to make an identification, therefore performing a judgement, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
using the offset or correction term for correcting at least one further signal time-of-flight measurement or signal time-of-flight difference measurement
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of applying a offset or correction term. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 3 recites,
wherein the offset is used for correcting plurality of further signal time-of-flight difference measurements on a plurality of further signals each transmitted between the first object and a respectively one of the plurality of second objects
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of applying a offset or correction term. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 10 recites,
the difference between a first distance and a second distance is frequency-dependent or temperature-dependent
The claim recites a step of comparing values to make an identification, therefore performing a judgement, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
the offset or correction term is determined as a frequency-dependent or temperature-dependent, offset or correction term
The claim recites a step of comparing values to make an identification, therefore performing a judgement, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 11 recites,
they at least one signal time-of-flight measurement is used for determining a signal time-of-flight for a path between the reference object and the first object or is used for determining a signal round-trip time-of-flight from the reference object to the first object and back or from the first object to the reference object and back.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating a signal time-of-flight or a signal round-trip time-of-flight. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 16 recites,
a first distance is determined based on one or both of a phase shift and a change of a phase shift between the plurality of signals at difference frequencies.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating a distance. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 17 recites,
at least one distance between the first object and the at least one second object of the plurality of second objects or a position of the first object is determined based on the plurality of further signal time-of-flight measurement or signal time-of-flight measurements.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating a distance or position from time-of-flight measurement. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 19 recites,
wherein the first distance between the first object and the reference object is determined from the at least one phase measurement
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating a distance from phase measurement. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 20 recites,
a second distance between the first object and the reference object is determined from the at least one time-of-flight measurement
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating a distance from time-of-flight measurement. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
wherein the offset or correction term is determined as the difference between the first distance and the second distance
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating an offset or correction term. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
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.
Claim 1 also recites,
performing at least one phase measurement on at least one signal transmitted between a first object and a reference object;
This limitation merely describes gathering data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
performing at least one signal time-of-flight measurement on the at least one signal transmitted between the first object at the reference object
This limitation merely describes gathering data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
wherein the at least one further signal time-of-flight measurement or signal time-of-flight difference measurement is performed on at least one further signal transmitted (i) to the first object or (ii) between the first object and the reference object or an other object of a plurality of second objects.
This limitation merely describes where data is gathered, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 2 also recites,
at least one distance between the first object and the reference object or the other object or position of the first object is determined based on the at least one further signal time-of-flight measurement or signal time-of-flight difference measurement.
This limitation merely describes gathering data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 3 also recites,
the plurality of second objects includes the reference object,
This limitation merely describes gathering data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 9 also recites,
the at least one phase measurement comprises multiple phase measurements at difference frequencies or multiple measurements of changes in phase shifts between the difference frequencies for reducing or excluding ambiguities.
This limitation merely describes gathering data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 12 also recites,
a delay between transmission of the at least one signal for the at least one signal time-of-flight measurement and the at least one signal for the at least one phase measurement is less than 500 ms or wherein the at least one signal time-of-flight measurement and at least one phase measurement are performed on the same at least one signal or on signals with similar frequency.
This limitation merely describes the manner in which data is gathered, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 16 also recites,
a plurality of signals is transmitted between the first object and the reference object at difference frequencies and phase-measurements are performed on each signal of the plurality of signals
This limitation merely describes the manner in which data is gathered, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 18 also recites,
the offset or correction term is (i) frequency-dependent or (ii) temperature-dependent or (iii) frequency and temperature dependent.
This limitation merely describes data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
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.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
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.
Claim 1 also recites,
performing at least one phase measurement on at least one signal transmitted between a first object and a reference object;
This limitation merely describes gathering data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
performing at least one signal time-of-flight measurement on the at least one signal transmitted between the first object at the reference object
This limitation merely describes gathering data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
wherein the at least one further signal time-of-flight measurement or signal time-of-flight difference measurement is performed on at least one further signal transmitted (i) to the first object or (ii) between the first object and the reference object or an other object of a plurality of second objects.
This limitation merely describes where data is gathered, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 2 also recites,
at least one distance between the first object and the reference object or the other object or position of the first object is determined based on the at least one further signal time-of-flight measurement or signal time-of-flight difference measurement.
This limitation merely describes gathering data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 3 also recites,
the plurality of second objects includes the reference object,
This limitation merely describes gathering data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 9 also recites,
the at least one phase measurement comprises multiple phase measurements at difference frequencies or multiple measurements of changes in phase shifts between the difference frequencies for reducing or excluding ambiguities.
This limitation merely describes gathering data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 12 also recites,
a delay between transmission of the at least one signal for the at least one signal time-of-flight measurement and the at least one signal for the at least one phase measurement is less than 500 ms or wherein the at least one signal time-of-flight measurement and at least one phase measurement are performed on the same at least one signal or on signals with similar frequency.
This limitation merely describes the manner in which data is gathered, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 14 also recites,
An apparatus having a transmission and receiving arrangement as well as a unit for phase measurement, an oscillator, a time measurer which is configured for carrying out a signal time-of-flight measurement and a controller configured for carrying out the method according to claim 1 via the apparatus.
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Claim 15 also recites,
each having a transmission or receiving arrangement or both, a PLL or oscillator or both, and a time measurer, [[and]] wherein the system configured for carrying out a signal time-of-flight measurement between the two objects and a phase-based distance measurement between the two objects, wherein the system further comprises at least one controller configured for carrying out the method according to claim 1 via the at least two objects
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Claim 16 also recites,
a plurality of signals is transmitted between the first object and the reference object at difference frequencies and phase-measurements are performed on each signal of the plurality of signals
This limitation merely describes the manner in which data is gathered, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 18 also recites,
the offset or correction term is (i) frequency-dependent or (ii) temperature-dependent or (iii) frequency and temperature dependent.
This limitation merely describes data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for estimating, analyzing, and evaluating and requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well- understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-3, 9-12 and 14-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “performing at least one phase measurement on at least one signal transmitted between a first object and a reference object.” As claimed the limitation is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. It is unclear where the claimed signal is transmitted from or received at. Without further clarification the limitation may indicate that one of the two claimed objects reflects a signal transmitted and received by the other object, or that one of the objects receives while the other transmits. Without explicit clarification on the function of the first object and the reference object the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. The Specification filled 06/08/2026 discloses that an apparatus (Fig.5, Part.100) comprises both a transmitter and receiver; however, the Examiner does not find further clarification on the first object or reference object in the aforementioned specification or the original specification. For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted to mean that the first object transmits and receives a signal reflected off the reference object.
Regarding claim 1, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “one further signal transmitted (i) to the first object or (ii) between the first object and the reference object or an other object of a plurality of second objects.” As claimed the limitation is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. As explained in greater detail above, it is unclear where the claimed signal is transmitted from or received at. Without explicit clarification on the function of the first object, the reference object, and the plurality of second objects the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. Further regarding the claimed possibility (i), it is unclear what is meant by transmitting the signal to the first object without the signal being transmitted between the first object and the reference object or an other object of a plurality of second objects. The claimed option (i) suggests a fourth unclaimed object being separate from and capable of transmitting. The Specification filled 06/08/2026 discloses that an apparatus (Fig.5, Part.100) comprises both a transmitter and receiver; however, the Examiner does not find further clarification on the first object, reference object, the plurality of second objects, or the unclaimed fourth object in the aforementioned specification or the original specification. For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted to mean that the first object transmits and receives a signal reflected off the reference object.
Regarding claim 3, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “wherein the plurality of second objects includes the reference object.” As claimed the limitation is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. Claim 1 of which claim 3 depends from, discloses that the plurality of second objects are different from the first object and the reference object. It is unclear how the plurality of second objects may be different from the reference object while simultaneously including the reference object. The originally filled specification discloses on page 2 paragraph 3, “at least one reference object of the plurality of second objects” suggesting that the plurality of second objects may also include a reference object. For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted to mean that one object of the plurality of second objects may also function as a reference object.
Regarding claim 10 and similarly claim 16, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the term “a first distance and a second distance.” As claimed the term is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. Claim 10 is dependent upon claim 20, which is dependent on claim 19. Claims 19 and 20 disclose a first distance and a second distance. As claimed it is unclear if the “a first distance and a second distance” of claim 10 refers to the same distances established in claims 19 and 20. The originally filled Specification discloses on page 2 paragraph 2, “at least one first distance measurement to the first object is carried out by means of phase,” suggesting that multiple first and second distances measurements may be taken. For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted refer to the same first and second measurements disclosed in claims 19 and 20.
Regarding claim 17, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “a position of the first object is determined based on the plurality of further signal time-of-flight measurement or signal time-of-flight measurements.” As claimed the limitation is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. The scope of the claimed “further signal time-of-flight measurement” appears to be indistinguishable from the claimed “signal time-of-flight measurements.” It is unclear what is meant by listing the two claimed “signal time-of-flight measurements” as alternative methods of determining a position of the first object. The originally filled specification discloses on page 4 paragraph 2, “signal time-of-flight difference measurement-based distance measurement and/or position- finding of the first object;” however, the Examiner can not find further clarification regarding the difference between the claimed “signal time-of-flight measurements.” For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted to mean that a position of the first object is determined based on the plurality of further signal time-of-flight measurements.
Regarding claim 19, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the term “the first distance.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation of claim 19 will be read “a first distance.”
Claims 2-3, 9-12 and 14-20 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 9-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bevan (US 6489923 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Bevan discloses
A method for calibrating time-of-flight measurements or signal time-of-flight difference measurements (“ enable calibration of a radio-based direction finding system” [Col.1, ll.59-60]), the method comprising the steps of: performing at least one phase measurement on at least one signal transmitted between a first object and a reference object (“ Each element samples the arrival phase” [Col.3, ll.66]); performing at least one signal time-of-flight measurement on the at least one signal transmitted between the first object at the reference object (“evaluating either or both of the bearing of the ABM and the round trip delay (RTD) from the BTS to the ABM and back” [Col.16, ll.48-49]); deriving an offset or correction term by comparing the at least one phase measurement and the at least one signal time-of-flight measurement to each other and using the offset or correction term for correcting at least one further signal time-of-flight measurement or signal time-of-flight difference measurement (“evaluating either or both of the bearing of the ABM and the round trip delay (RTD) from the BTS to the ABM and back. Any difference between the estimated position and true position indicates errors in the DF receiving equipment, which can then be calibrated out using a suitable calibrator. For example, measured errors in relative phases across the array can be stored in a lookup table and used later to make calibration corrections” [Col.16, ll.48-55]), wherein the at least one further signal time-of-flight measurement or signal time-of-flight difference measurement is performed on at least one further signal transmitted (i) to the first object or (ii) between the first object and the reference object or an other object of a plurality of second objects (“we combine direction finding (DF) and round trip delay (RTD) techniques to evaluate the direction or bearing from a BTS to a MS and the distance from the BTS to the MS” [Col.3, ll.52-55]).
Regarding claim 2, Bevan discloses,
The method according to claim 1, at least one distance between the first object and the reference object or the other object or position of the first object is determined based on the at least one further signal time-of-flight measurement or signal time-of-flight difference measurement (“we combine direction finding (DF) and round trip delay (RTD) techniques to evaluate the direction or bearing from a BTS to a MS and the distance from the BTS to the MS” [Col.3, ll.52-55]).
Regarding claim 9, Bevan discloses wherein,
The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one phase measurement comprises multiple phase measurements at difference frequencies or multiple measurements of changes in phase shifts between the difference frequencies for reducing or excluding ambiguities (“Plot 52 shows the effect of applying the averaged Fourier Transform direction finding (AFDF) technique described above to the Doppler broadened spectrum” [Col.10, ll.32-34]).
Regarding claim 10, Bevan discloses wherein,
The method according to claim 20, wherein the difference between a first distance and a second distance is frequency-dependent or temperature-dependent (“Motion of the mobile station can introduce errors into the bearing estimate due to frequency offset and frequency spread as can carrier frequency offset in mobile station transmissions.” [Col.20, ll.42-45]) and the offset or correction term is determined as a frequency-dependent or temperature-dependent, offset or correction term (“correct for Doppler spread using a technique which is basically a generalization of the Doppler correction method “ [Col.10, ll.17-19]).
Regarding claim 11, Bevan discloses,
The method according to claim 1, the at least one signal time-of-flight measurement is used for determining a signal time-of-flight for a path between the reference object and the first object or is used for determining a signal round-trip time-of-flight from the reference object to the first object and back or from the first object to the reference object and back (“we combine direction finding (DF) and round trip delay (RTD) techniques to evaluate the direction or bearing from a BTS to a MS and the distance from the BTS to the MS” [Col.3, ll.52-55]).
Regarding claim 12, Bevan discloses,
The method according to claim 1, wherein a delay between transmission of the at least one signal for the at least one signal time-of-flight measurement and the at least one signal for the at least one phase measurement is less than 500 ms or wherein the at least one signal time-of-flight measurement and at least one phase measurement are performed on the same at least one signal or on signals with similar frequency (“a carrier frequency in the 1900 MHz band” [Col.4, ll.50-51] &“ Each element samples the arrival phase” [Col.3, ll.66])
Regarding claim 14, Bevan discloses,
An apparatus having a transmission and receiving arrangement (“ a base transceiver station (BTS) “ [Col.4, ll.46])as well as a unit for phase measurement (“where .phi..sub.o is a measure of the phase of the arriving signal” [Col.12, ll.5]), an oscillator (FIG.3, part.36), a time measurer which is configured for carrying out a signal time-of-flight measurement (“measuring the round-trip delay” [Col.1, ll.25]) and a controller configured for carrying out the method according to claim 1 via the apparatus (“The DFRE carries out all of the RF and digital signal processing 132 associated with this DF/RTD technique, including the Doppler and carrier offset correction and antenna calibration 134” [Col.19, ll.63-66])
Regarding claim 15, Bevan discloses,
A system comprising at least two objects, each having a transmission or receiving arrangement or both, a PLL or oscillator or both (“ measuring the round-trip delay of a signal sent from the BTS to the MS and back (i.e. the elapsed time between transmission of a signal from the BTS and reception of the MS's response)” [col.1, ll.25-28]), and a time measurer (“measuring the round-trip delay” [Col.1, ll.25]), wherein the system configured for carrying out a signal time-of-flight measurement between the two objects and a phase-based distance measurement between the two objects(“measuring the round-trip delay” [Col.1, ll.25] &“ Each element samples the arrival phase” [Col.3, ll.66]), wherein the system further comprises at least one controller configured for carrying out the method according to claim 1 the at least two objects (“The DFRE carries out all of the RF and digital signal processing 132 associated with this DF/RTD technique, including the Doppler and carrier offset correction and antenna calibration 134” [Col.19, ll.63-66]).
Regarding claim 16, Bevan discloses wherein,
The method according to claim 19, wherein a pluriaty of signals is transmitted between the first object and the reference object (“measuring the round-trip delay of a signal sent from the BTS to the MS and back”[Col.1, ll.25]) at difference frequencies (“at any time there may still be a residual carrier offset and/or a Doppler shift component in the actual MS signal received at the DF antenna, which will then vary slightly from the frequency of the replica reference signal.” [Col.8, ll.4-7]) and phase-measurements are performed on each signal of the plurality of signals (“ Each element samples the arrival phase” [Col.3, ll.66]), wherein a first distance is determined based on one or both of a phase shift and a change of a phase shift between the plurality of signals at difference frequencies (“measuring the round-trip delay of a signal sent from the BTS to the MS and back (i.e. the elapsed time between transmission of a signal from the BTS and reception of the MS's response) to evaluate the distance from the BTS to the MS” [Col.1, ll.25-28] & “measured errors in relative phases across the array can be stored in a lookup table and used later to make calibration corrections” [Col.16, ll.48-55])
Regarding claim 18, Bevan discloses,
The method according to claim 1, wherein the offset or correction term is (i) frequency-dependent or (ii) temperature-dependent or (iii) frequency and temperature dependent (“correct for Doppler spread using a technique which is basically a generalization of the Doppler correction method “ [Col.10, ll.17-19]).
Regarding claim 19, Bevan discloses,
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first distance between the first object and the reference object is determined from the at least one phase measurement (“measuring the round-trip delay of a signal sent from the BTS to the MS and back (i.e. the elapsed time between transmission of a signal from the BTS and reception of the MS's response) to evaluate the distance from the BTS to the MS” [Col.1, ll.25-28] & “measured errors in relative phases across the array can be stored in a lookup table and used later to make calibration corrections” [Col.16, ll.48-55])
Regarding claim 20, Bevan discloses,
The method according to claim 19, wherein a second distance between the first object and the reference object is determined from the at least one time-of-flight measurement (“measuring the round-trip delay of a signal sent from the BTS to the MS and back (i.e. the elapsed time between transmission of a signal from the BTS and reception of the MS's response) to evaluate the distance from the BTS to the MS” [Col.1, ll.25-28] ) and wherein the offset or correction term is determined as the difference between the first distance and the second distance (“we combine direction finding (DF) and round trip delay (RTD) techniques to evaluate the direction or bearing from a BTS to a MS and the distance from the BTS to the MS” [Col.3, ll.52-55]).
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 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bevan (US 6489923 B1) in view of Bhushan (US 20190190806 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Bevan discloses wherein
The method according to claim 1, […], wherein the offset is used for correcting a […] signal time-of-flight difference measurements on a plurality of further signals each transmitted between the first object and a […] second objects (“measuring the round-trip delay of a signal sent from the BTS to the MS and back (i.e. the elapsed time between transmission of a signal from the BTS and reception of the MS's response) to evaluate the distance from the BTS to the MS” [Col.1, ll.25-28] )
Although Bevan discloses an offset used for correcting time-of-flight difference measurements, Bevan does not explicitly disclose a plurality of second objects. Bhushan discloses,
wherein the plurality of second objects includes the reference object (“obtaining a transmission time of the RTT response signal, receiving, from the plurality of other nodes, information indicative of an RTT between the UE and each of the plurality of other nodes” [0007]) […] a plurality of further signal time-of-flight difference measurements on a plurality of further signals each transmitted between a the first object and a respectively one the plurality of second objects (“the transmission time of the RTT response signal, the information indicative of the RTT between the UE and each of the plurality of other nodes,” [0007])
Bhushan teaches in the same field of endeavor of methods measuring the time-of-flight of a signal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bevan with the teachings of Bhushan to incorporate the features of a plurality of second objects so as to gain the advantage of improving location estimation [0076, Bhushan]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 17, Bevan as modified by Bhushan discloses
The method according to claim 3, wherein at least one distance between the first object and the at least one second object […] or a position of the first object is determined based on the plurality of further signal time-of-flight measurement or signal time-of-flight measurements (“measuring the round-trip delay of a signal sent from the BTS to the MS and back (i.e. the elapsed time between transmission of a signal from the BTS and reception of the MS's response) to evaluate the distance from the BTS to the MS” [Col.1, ll.25-28] )
Although Bevan discloses identifying a distance between a first and second object, Bevan does not explicitly disclose a plurality of second objects. Bhushan discloses, a plurality of second objects(“the transmission time of the RTT response signal, the information indicative of the RTT between the UE and each of the plurality of other nodes,” [0007])
Bhushan teaches in the same field of endeavor of methods measuring the time-of-flight of a signal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bevan with the teachings of Bhushan to incorporate the features of a plurality of second objects so as to gain the advantage of improving location estimation [0076, Bhushan]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Hinderling(US20060119833A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0019] “the method according to the invention, the total signal information is evaluated for distance determination, and not just the phases as in the phase difference method or the transit times as in the time-of-flight method”
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 CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646 /JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights