DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 05/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the claim objections from the previously filed Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the previously filed Office Action.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections from the previously filed Office Action are found to be unpersuasive. The Applicant argues on page 7 of the Remarks filed on 05/13/2026:
“Specifically, amended claim 1 recites inter alia, "wherein the method is performed by a device with limited power consumption for processing the subset of measurement samples." As noted in Applicant's specification, "An objective of the present description is to provide an accurate determination of a time duration for signal propagation between a first and a second radio signal transceiver. A particular objective of the present description is to provide the accurate determination using a limited power consumption."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that this amended feature imparts meaningful limitations to the claimed invention to deem it significantly more than the abstract idea. The term “limited power consumption” is an very broad limitation and encompasses any device that does not have access to limitless power. Essentially every processing device has indeed “limited power consumption” depending on what is considered “limited power”. Therefore, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, the feature of the device being a smartphone (see citations for claim 1 in the prior art rejection below), gives support for the method to be implemented “with limited power consumption”. Therefore such a limitation does not provide any limits on the claimed invention which deem the claimed invention as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the Applicant argues on page 7 of the Remarks filed on 05/13/2026:
“Also, the Examiner argues that the method of claim 1 can be performed in human mind. The Applicant respectfully disagrees with this assessment. Specifically, the Applicant submits that the method cannot practically be performed in the human mind due to computational complexity and because of the real-time nature of the measurements being determined. As noted in Applicant's specification it is mentioned that the method may be implemented in a portable device (page 3 of application as filed) and that ranging may be provided for localization of the device (background). Thus, as a practical matter, those of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that to be effective for the intended purpose, the claimed method must be performed at speeds that cannot reasonably be performed by a human mind.”.
Again, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nothing in the claim nor specification indicates that the method is implemented in “real-time”. Furthermore, the use of a processor to simplify calculations which can be practically performed in the human mind does not provide any meaningful technological improvement to the technology. Furthermore, the method being implemented on a device with “limited power consumption” is again an extremely broad limitation where any processor that does not have limit-less power is indeed a device with “limited power consumption”. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments that the abstract idea can not be practically performed in the human mind.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections for the independent claims are found to be unpersuasive. The Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks filed on 05/13/2026:
“Alawieh does not discuss reducing unknown phase offset. The Examiner refers to paragraphs [0144] and [0168] for showing the above-noted feature of claim 1. However, the cited paragraphs mainly discuss that a coarse estimation is performed and that a fine estimation may be performed by correcting the coarse estimation. The Applicant submits that the cited paragraphs fail to disclose an unknown phase offset being reduced. Thus, because Alawieh does not disclose at least "the subset of the set of measurement samples are processed to reduce unknown phase offset from the subset of the set of measurement samples," as recited in claim 1, the Applicant submits that Alawieh cannot anticipate claim 1.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Alawieh discloses in paragraph 0144 as provided in the citations of the previously filed Non-Final Office Action, the feature of correcting the deviation of the time of arrival (TOA) measurements. The correction of the deviation of the TOA measurements is indeed an “unknown phase offset”. A phase offset is the difference between a starting position between two periodic waves compared to a reference point in time. When a deviation of the TOA estimations is corrected, the unknown phase offset is reduced. Therefore, the correction of this value fulfills the broadest reasonable interpretation of reducing unknown phase offset from the subset of the set of measurement samples. Furthermore, Alawieh clearly discloses in paragraph 0218 that the implementation of the localization method of Alawieh may be performed for a mobile device, a smartphone, etc. A smartphone is indeed a portable device which has “limited power consumption for processing the subset of measurement samples”. This feature is supported by paragraphs 0219, “FIG. 8B shows a positioning system 822 which may be a TOA positioning system. A receiver 822 (which may be, for example, a mobile phone, a mobile terminal, a smartphone, a localization device, or a similar apparatus) is to be localized.”, and further in paragraph 0221, “FIG. 9 shows a device 900 (which may implement at least one of the devices 130, 160, 170, 430, 802-808, 822-828, 842, 844) comprising a processor 902 which may execute instructions.”, where 822 is the smartphone device (device 900 for Fig. 9 which includes processor 902 to implement the method).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections for the independent claims are found to be unpersuasive. The Applicant argues on page 10 of the Remarks filed on 05/13/2026:
“Even if, assuming arguendo, that Chrabieh discloses a maximum likelihood method, the Applicant submit that Chrabieh does not at all disclose the particular maximum likelihood estimation as recited in claim 13. According to the description of embodiments consistent with the claimed invention, the maximum likelihood estimation should maximize a probability density function between samples of the subset of measurement samples and the shape of the pulse peak. Chrabieh does not teach or suggest that the maximum likelihood estimation relates to comparing a subset of measurement samples and a shape of a pulse peak for fine peak estimation. Thus, at least for the foregoing additional reasons, the Applicant submits that claim 13 is not obvious over the cited art.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Chrabieh discloses in paragraph 0150 the use of a “a Maximum Likelihood (ML) criterion with Weighted Least Squares solution”. It is important to note that a “Weighted Least Squares solution” does indeed maximize a probability density function. Therefore “a Maximum Likelihood (ML) criterion with Weighted Least Squares solution” is indeed a “maximum likelihood estimation by maximizing a probability density function” and this feature is performed to increase resolution of the oversampled samples and therefore it would indeed be obvious to implement such a feature into the invention of ALAWIEH to increase data resolution.
Therefore, the Examiner asserts that Alawieh discloses all of the feature of the independent claims and the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections from the previously filed Office Action are maintained.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a system for determining the position of an aerial vehicle and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Claim 1:
A method for determining a time duration for signal propagation between a first and a second radio signal transceiver in relation to determining a distance between the first and the second radio signal transceiver, said method comprising:
receiving a set of measurement samples defining a time sequence, wherein the set of measurement samples is acquired by signal reception by the first radio signal transceiver, said set of measurement samples representing a time duration related to propagation of a signal between the second radio signal transceiver and the first radio signal transceiver;
determining a rough estimate of a time instance of a pulse peak value in the set of measurement samples;
identifying a subset of the set of measurement samples around the rough estimate of the time instance;
inputting the subset of the set of measurement samples of the set to a fine peak estimation algorithm, wherein the subset of the set of measurement samples are processed to reduce unknown phase offset from the subset of the set of measurement samples; and
performing fine peak estimation by the fine peak estimation algorithm, wherein the fine peak estimation algorithm uses an estimation of a shape of a pulse peak for determining a fine estimate of the time instance of the pulse peak value based on a statistical relation between samples of the subset of the set of measurement samples,
wherein the method is performed by a device with limited power consumption for processing the subset of measurement samples.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method and therefore, is eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of:
“determining a rough estimate of a time instance of a pulse peak value in the set of measurement samples;”
“identifying a subset of the set of measurement samples around the rough estimate of the time instance;”
“inputting the subset of the set of measurement samples of the set to a fine peak estimation algorithm, wherein the subset of the set of measurement samples are processed to reduce unknown phase offset from the subset of the set of measurement samples;” and
“performing fine peak estimation by the fine peak estimation algorithm, wherein the fine peak estimation algorithm uses an estimation of a shape of a pulse peak for determining a fine estimate of the time instance of the pulse peak value based on a statistical relation between samples of the subset of the set of measurement samples.”
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind and are simply mathematical manipulation of data. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The recitation of the limitation of:
“receiving a set of measurement samples defining a time sequence, wherein the set of measurement samples is acquired by signal reception by the first radio signal transceiver, said set of measurement samples representing a time duration related to propagation of a signal between the second radio signal transceiver and the first radio signal transceiver;” amounts to mere data gathering and is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The recitation of “ wherein the method is performed by a device with limited power consumption for processing the subset of measurement samples” does not impact any meaningful limits on the claimed invention to deem it significantly more than the abstract idea. Any processor that does not have limit-less power is indeed a device with “limited power consumption” (i.e. a smartphone). Therefore, incorporating such a feature does not provide a technical improvement to the claimed invention.
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Independent claim(s) 15 is a system claim reflecting the limitations of claim 1 and is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 due to the same analysis and rationale as independent claim 1 above.
Dependent claim(s) 2-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the dependent claims only recite limitations further defining the mental process and the mathematical manipulation of the gathered data. These limitations are considered mental process steps and additional steps that amount to data processing and data output. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1-17 are not patent eligible.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites a computer program product comprising computer-readable instructions and does not specify that the computer program product is a non-transitory computer program product. According to the MPEP 2106.03, section II, "For example, the BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate.".
Referring back to the specification disclosed by the applicant, the specification recites, "The computer program product may comprise a non-transient computer-readable medium for carrying the computer-readable instructions. Alternatively, the computer program product may comprise a signal carrying the computer-readable instructions, e.g., for communicating the computer program product to the processing unit through wired or wireless communication.".
As the specification recites that the computer program product “may” be non-transitory, the claim is rejected for failing to fall under at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Applicant can re-write claim 14 to recite "non-transitory computer program product" to overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1,2,5-7,11,12, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ALAWIEH (US 20190250241 A1).
Regarding claim 1, ALAWIEH discloses
A method for determining a time duration for signal propagation between a first and a second radio signal transceiver in relation to determining a distance between the first and the second radio signal transceiver (see method of Fig. 1A where in step 126 a Time of Arrival (i.e. time delay of a transmission) is determined based on a signal propagation between a transmitter and a receiver, further see paragraph 0134, “At step 124, a peak sample may be retrieved in the correlation function. The peak sample may directly associate the measurement received signal to a distance (e.g., between the antenna of the transmitter and the antenna of the receiver). In particular, it is possible to estimate a TOA by determining the peak sample, which is the sample (in the succession of samples of the correlation profile) which has the maximum value (e.g., the maximum absolute value).”), said method comprising:
receiving a set of measurement samples defining a time sequence, wherein the set of measurement samples is acquired by signal reception by the first radio signal transceiver, said set of measurement samples representing a time duration related to propagation of a signal between the second radio signal transceiver and the first radio signal transceiver (see Fig. 1A, further see paragraph 0129, “The method 120 may be performed on a measurement signal which has (when received) a sampling rate (measurement sampling rate). For example, a transmission received from a transmitter may be sampled at the sampling rate. The sampling rate may be such that a measurement received signal is processed as a succession of discrete samples (each sample associated to a particular time instant). Therefore, a received signal may be represented as a succession of samples (e.g., 0, 1, 2, . . . , i−1, i, i+1, I), each of which is associated to a value (which may be connected, for example, to electromagnetic or ultrasound magnitudes), which received by the receiver by sampling (the received signal may be physically obtained by an antenna).”);
determining a rough estimate of a time instance of a pulse peak value in the set of measurement samples (see paragraph 0140, “Therefore, a peak sample determination, as such, estimates a TOF whose resolution is limited by the sampling rate (coarse estimation). Therefore, at least at step 124, additional data, other than the position of the peak in the correlation profile, are collected from the correlation profile to correct the estimation that may be computed using the peak sample determination.”, where an initial “coarse estimation” using the sampling rate is used to determine the TOF of a pulse peak, further see paragraph 0144, “At step 126, a TOA and/or a distance may be calculated on the basis of the peak sample and correction data derived by the at least one additional sample. For example, a coarse estimation of the TOA or distance may be performed from the peak sample in the correlation profile (e.g., the sample with the maximum absolute value). This estimation may be corrected using a correction data derived at least by the correlation data of at least one additional sample preceding and/or following the peak sample. For example, the quotient discussed above (corrindex) may be used to correct the estimation obtained from the peak sample.”);
identifying a subset of the set of measurement samples around the rough estimate of the time instance (see paragraphs 0157-0158, “A correction data determination unit 148 may be provided. The correction data determination unit 148 may make use of the correlation data (e.g., value) 142 of the sample(s) close to (e.g., immediately before and after) the peak sample 140 in the measurement correlation function 136 and/or the estimated TOA or distance 146. From the data of the close samples it is possible to derive information of the position of a transmitter which is even more accurate than the information inferred by the position of the peak sample…The correction data determination unit 148 may be input with data associated to the measurement correlation function 136 (e.g., peak sample 140 and/or correlation data 142 associated to the samples close to the peak sample 140, the estimated TOA or distance 146).”, where determining the measurements samples before and after the peak sample 140 are the “subset of the set of measurement samples”, further see Fig. 2C and paragraph 0169, “However, the positions of the samples immediately before and after the peak sample in the second correlation profile 212 are different from the samples 242′ of the first correlation profile 210. Therefore, even if, from the position of the peaks 240 the distance of the transmitter would not be measured with a great precision, it is notwithstanding possible to use samples close to the peak sample (e.g., samples 242″) to reconstruct a more exact location of the transmitter at a subsample resolution. Using the correction data 152 obtained by the data carried by the samples 242″ (e.g., values 142), it is possible to correct the results of the estimation.”);
inputting the subset of the set of measurement samples of the set to a fine peak estimation algorithm, wherein the subset of the set of measurement samples are processed to reduce unknown phase offset from the subset of the set of measurement samples (see Fig. 1B where the data from samples before and after the peak sample are input for fine peak estimation (i.e. correction data), further see paragraph 0144, “At step 126, a TOA and/or a distance may be calculated on the basis of the peak sample and correction data derived by the at least one additional sample. For example, a coarse estimation of the TOA or distance may be performed from the peak sample in the correlation profile (e.g., the sample with the maximum absolute value). This estimation may be corrected using a correction data derived at least by the correlation data of at least one additional sample preceding and/or following the peak sample. For example, the quotient discussed above (corrindex) may be used to correct the estimation obtained from the peak sample.”, further see paragraph 0168, “Notwithstanding, it is possible to correct the deviation of the TOA measurements, e.g., by implementing the method 120 and/or using the device 130 or 160. FIG. 2C shows a first correlation profile (function) 210 (which may represent a measurement correlation function 136) of a first received signal received in a measurement session from a distance which is exactly detectable by retrieving the peak sample when correlating a received function (i.e., the transmitter is placed at a distance which is multiple to approximately 3 m for a 10 ns sample time). A peak 240 may be identified (e.g., by the sample determination unit 138 or step 124). Accordingly, the peak sample may be identified (in FIG. 2C the peak sample is in the 17.sup.th sample), and the TOA and/or distance may be coarsely estimated (e.g., by unit 144). Two other samples, associated to the correlation values 242′, may be identified as the samples immediately before and after the sample with the peak 240.”); and
performing fine peak estimation by the fine peak estimation algorithm, wherein the fine peak estimation algorithm uses an estimation of a shape of a pulse peak for determining a fine estimate of the time instance of the pulse peak value based on a statistical relation between samples of the subset of the set of measurement samples (see paragraph 0140, “For example, when a receiver estimates the distance of a transmitter which moves towards the receiver, at a first instant the peak value in the correlation profile may be retrieved at an i.sup.th sample (associated to a particular TOA and/or a particular distance), while at a second instant the peak value may be retrieved at an (i+1).sup.th sample (associated to another TOA and/or another distance), but the determination of the peak values, as such, does not give information on the signal time of flight (TOF) at an instant intermediate between the sample and the (i+1).sup.th sample (and, therefore, does not give information on the distance of receiver form the transmitter). Therefore, a peak sample determination, as such, estimates a TOF whose resolution is limited by the sampling rate (coarse estimation). Therefore, at least at step 124, additional data, other than the position of the peak in the correlation profile, are collected from the correlation profile to correct the estimation that may be computed using the peak sample determination”, further see paragraph 0144, “At step 126, a TOA and/or a distance may be calculated on the basis of the peak sample and correction data derived by the at least one additional sample. For example, a coarse estimation of the TOA or distance may be performed from the peak sample in the correlation profile (e.g., the sample with the maximum absolute value). This estimation may be corrected using a correction data derived at least by the correlation data of at least one additional sample preceding and/or following the peak sample. For example, the quotient discussed above (corrindex) may be used to correct the estimation obtained from the peak sample.”, where sampling process is indeed “an estimation of a shape of a pulse peak” (see Fig. 2C) and used to determine the fine (i.e. corrected) peak sample determination using correlation (i.e. a statistical relation)),
wherein the method is performed by a device with limited power consumption for processing the subset of measurement samples (see paragraph 0219, “FIG. 8B shows a positioning system 822 which may be a TOA positioning system. A receiver 822 (which may be, for example, a mobile phone, a mobile terminal, a smartphone, a localization device, or a similar apparatus) is to be localized.”, where a smartphone is indeed a portable device which has “limited power consumption for processing the subset of measurement samples”; further see paragraph 0221, “FIG. 9 shows a device 900 (which may implement at least one of the devices 130, 160, 170, 430, 802-808, 822-828, 842, 844) comprising a processor 902 which may execute instructions. The device 900 may comprise a memory 904 which may comprise processor readable instructions 906 which, when performed by the processor 902, cause the processor 902 to perform one of the methods above (e.g., 100, 110, 120, 300, 500).”, where 822 is the smartphone device (device 900 for Fig. 9 which includes processor 902 to implement the method).
Regarding claim 2, ALAWIEH further discloses
The method according to claim 1, further comprising after identifying the subset of the set of measurement samples, oversampling the subset of the set of measurement samples to generate an increased number of measurement samples in the subset of the set of measurement samples (see paragraph 0141 and 0144, “At step 126, a TOA and/or a distance may be calculated on the basis of the peak sample and correction data derived by the at least one additional sample. For example, a coarse estimation of the TOA or distance may be performed from the peak sample in the correlation profile (e.g., the sample with the maximum absolute value). This estimation may be corrected using a correction data derived at least by the correlation data of at least one additional sample preceding and/or following the peak sample. For example, the quotient discussed above (corrindex) may be used to correct the estimation obtained from the peak sample.”).
Regarding claim 5, ALAWIEH further discloses
The method according to claim 1, wherein the set of measurement samples are formed based on a cross correlation between a received signal and a reference signal (see Fig. 1B, samples are determined at 138 based on a cross correlation at 134 between reference signal 133 and received measurement signal 132), wherein the set of measurement samples are processed based on an absolute value of the cross correlation for reducing the unknown phase offset (see paragraph 0134, “At step 124, a peak sample may be retrieved in the correlation function. The peak sample may directly associate the measurement received signal to a distance (e.g., between the antenna of the transmitter and the antenna of the receiver). In particular, it is possible to estimate a TOA by determining the peak sample, which is the sample (in the succession of samples of the correlation profile) which has the maximum value (e.g., the maximum absolute value).”, where using the maximum absolute value reduces unknown phase offset).
Regarding claim 6, ALAWIEH further discloses
The method according to claim 5, wherein the set of measurement samples are processed based on the absolute value after identifying the subset of the set of measurement samples and before performing fine peak estimation (see the steps of Fig. 1B, where the processing of the measurement samples to determine TOA at 144 is done after the identifying subset of the set of measurement samples (i.e. data from samples immediately preceding and following the peak sample) and before the fine peak estimation (i.e. corrected TOA at 156): NOTE: under the BRI of the claim the samples are “processed” at multiple points in Fig. 1B and performed at both times before and after the identification of the subset of the set of measurement sample (i.e. the identification of data from samples immediately preceding and following the peak samples)).
Regarding claim 7, ALAWIEH further discloses
The method according to claim 5, wherein the set of measurement samples are processed based on the absolute value before identifying the subset of the set of measurement samples (see the steps of Fig. 1B, where the processing of the measurement samples to determine the measurements correlation function at 136 is done before the identifying subset of the set of measurement samples (i.e. data from samples immediately preceding and following the peak sample): NOTE: under the BRI of the claim the samples are “processed” at multiple points in Fig. 1B and performed at both times before and after the identification of the subset of the set of measurement sample (i.e. the identification of data from samples immediately preceding and following the peak samples)).
Regarding claim 11, ALAWIEH further discloses
The method according to claim 1, wherein the rough estimate of the time instance of the pulse peak value is determined based on identifying a pulse peak in the set of measurement samples (see Fig. 1A, where the rough TOA estimation is determined based on identifying a pulse peak in the set of measurement samples, further see paragraph 0144, “At step 126, a TOA and/or a distance may be calculated on the basis of the peak sample and correction data derived by the at least one additional sample. For example, a coarse estimation of the TOA or distance may be performed from the peak sample in the correlation profile (e.g., the sample with the maximum absolute value). This estimation may be corrected using a correction data derived at least by the correlation data of at least one additional sample preceding and/or following the peak sample. For example, the quotient discussed above (corrindex) may be used to correct the estimation obtained from the peak sample.”).
Regarding claim 12, ALAWIEH further discloses
The method according to claim 1, wherein measurement samples of the set of measurement samples correspond to combining measurement samples based on multiple receiver chains between the first radio signal transceiver and the second radio signal transceiver (see paragraph 0046, “According to an example, it is possible to perform real configuration measurements in the configuration session using a hardware chain for the transceiver. Cables of different length may be used for this configuration session to get a correlation profile at each length. The cable may directly connect the transmitter to the receiver output. The exact signal propagation time for each cable may be controlled with a measurement instrument set at the defined carrier frequency. The transmitter and the receiver may be synchronized. The number of cables used may be related to the number of subsamples (K). Accordingly, pre-assigned configuration data may be calculated for each measurement with a different cable length. Knowing the exact signal propagation time for each cable”).
Regarding claim 14, ALAWIEH further discloses
A computer program product comprising computer-readable instructions such that when executed on a processing unit the computer program product will cause the processing unit to perform the method according to claim 1 (see paragraph 0009, “According to another embodiment, a non-transitory digital storage medium may have a computer program stored thereon to perform the inventive method when said computer program is run by a computer.”, further see paragraph 0087, “In some examples, there is provided a device comprising non-transitory storage means which contain processor readable instructions which, when performed by a processor, cause the processor to perform any of the methods below or above.”).
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, ALAWIEH further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the device is a portable device (see paragraph 0219, “FIG. 8B shows a positioning system 822 which may be a TOA positioning system. A receiver 822 (which may be, for example, a mobile phone, a mobile terminal, a smartphone, a localization device, or a similar apparatus) is to be localized.”, further see paragraph 0221, “FIG. 9 shows a device 900 (which may implement at least one of the devices 130, 160, 170, 430, 802-808, 822-828, 842, 844) comprising a processor 902 which may execute instructions. The device 900 may comprise a memory 904 which may comprise processor readable instructions 906 which, when performed by the processor 902, cause the processor 902 to perform one of the methods above (e.g., 100, 110, 120, 300, 500).”, where a smartphone is “a portable device”).
Regarding claim 17, the same cited section and rationale as claim 16 is applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3,4,9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALAWIEH (US 20190250241 A1) in view of Hedley et al. (US 20110286505 A1), hereinafter Hedley.
Regarding claim 3, ALAWIEH discloses [Note: what ALAWIEH fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method according to claim 2,
Hedley discloses,
wherein said oversampling comprises performing a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) on the subset of the set of measurement samples to generate an FFT representation of the subset, zero padding of the FFT representation, and performing an inverse FFT to output an increased number of measurement samples of the subset of the set of measurement samples (see paragraph 0078, “To obtain the channel impulse response h[n] (step 750), the wideband frequency response H'(.omega.) is extended to 512 samples by padding with zeros, a Blackman window is applied, then an inverse FFT converts the data to the time domain, yielding the impulse response h[n]. The temporal spacing between the output samples is 5 ns”, where data is first transformed by performing an FFT on the samples and then an inverse FFT, see paragraph 0049 for support, “At the receiver 110-n, the received signal portions y.sub.b[n] are combined in the frequency domain to form an estimate of the channel frequency response H(.omega.), compensating for the effects of the transmitter and receiver frequency response (T(.omega.) and R(.omega.) respectively). This compensation may occur before or after the estimation of the channel frequency response. The wideband channel impulse response h[n] is then obtained by applying the inverse Fourier transform to the estimate of the channel frequency response H(.omega.).”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hedley into the invention of ALAWIEH. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the estimation of a time of arrival of a signal between a transmitter and a receiver and both further disclose methods to accurately estimate pulse peak information. The combination above would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve resolution of the data and reduce data loss.
Regarding claim 4, ALAWIEH discloses [Note: what ALAWIEH fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method according to claim 3,
Hedley discloses,
wherein an oversampling factor used in the zero padding is smaller than 10 (see paragraph 0078, “To obtain the channel impulse response h[n] (step 750), the wideband frequency response H'(.omega.) is extended to 512 samples by padding with zeros, a Blackman window is applied, then an inverse FFT converts the data to the time domain, yielding the impulse response h[n]”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hedley into the invention of ALAWIEH. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the estimation of a time of arrival of a signal between a transmitter and a receiver and both further disclose methods to accurately estimate pulse peak information. Hedley discloses the feature of zero-padding the sampled data. Although Hedley fails to clearly disclose the oversampling factor used in the zero padding, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an oversampling factor used in the zero padding to be smaller than 10. MPEP § 2141 provides that an invention may render a claimed limitation obvious when it would be “obvious to try” to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. In such an instance it would be obvious to try to an integer factor between 0 and 10. The combination above would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve resolution of the data and reduce data loss.
Regarding claim 9, ALAWIEH discloses [Note: what ALAWIEH fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method according to claim 1,
Hedley discloses,
wherein a size of the subset of the set of measurement samples is based on tradeoff between accurate finding of peak and processing complexity (see paragraph 0068, “The method 800 can also be applied to signal portions with different numbers of samples and to different block sizes. The reduction in the number of samples reduces the process gain, while the number of samples within a block determines the maximum delay spread which will not result in aliasing. In the preferred embodiment maximum possible delay spread for the received signal that will not result in aliasing is 1024 (samples).times.40 ns (sample period)/16 (sample reduction factor)=2560 ns (corresponding to a range differential between the shortest path and the longest path of 768 m assuming propagation at the speed of light).”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hedley into the invention of ALAWIEH. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the estimation of a time of arrival of a signal between a transmitter and a receiver and both further disclose methods to accurately estimate pulse peak information. The combination above would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to accurately determine data while conserving processing resources.
Regarding claim 10, ALAWIEH discloses [Note: what ALAWIEH fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method according to claim 1,
Hedley discloses,
wherein the rough estimate of the time instance of a first pulse peak value is determined using a leading-edge algorithm based on detection of a non-first peak (see paragraph 0088, “The step 1330 seeks the first peak that is not eliminated as being due to noise or being a side lobe. The leading edge is a set of multiple samples prior to and including the first peak.”, where “the samples being prior to the first peak” is indeed “based on detection of a non-first peak”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hedley into the invention of ALAWIEH. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the estimation of a time of arrival of a signal between a transmitter and a receiver and both further disclose methods to accurately estimate pulse peak information. The combination above would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the accuracy of the data.
Claim(s) 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALAWIEH (US 20190250241 A1) in view of Chrabieh (US 20210091820 A1).
Regarding claim 8, ALAWIEH discloses [Note: what ALAWIEH fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method according to claim 5,
Chrabieh discloses,
wherein a covariance of noise in the cross correlation between the received signal and the reference signal is approximated such that covariance of colored noise is independent on a transmitter pulse shape (see paragraph 0074, “If M−1 nuisance path components are to be jointly estimated with the first path component, then the margin region following the first path component can increase in length to cover the region of nuisance multipath since the nuisance multipath in this margin region are excluded from the colored noise covariance matrix; and consequently, they may be excluded from the weight matrix W.”, further see paragraph 0096, further see paragraph 0146, “Step 322 projects (or truncate or shorten) onto the operating region the necessary vectors or matrices: a) the reference sequences matrix representing the first path component and nuisance multipath with various hypothetical delays (G′.sub.tT, post filtering), b) the colored noise covariance matrix representing noise and the remaining multipath (C′.sub.T, post filtering).”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Chrabieh into the invention of ALAWIEH. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the estimation of a time of arrival of a signal between a transmitter and a receiver and both further disclose methods to accurately estimate pulse peak information. The combination above would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the accuracy of the data by determining and filtering noise data.
Regarding claim 13, ALAWIEH discloses [Note: what ALAWIEH fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method according to claim 1,
Chrabieh discloses,
wherein the performing of the fine peak estimation uses a maximum likelihood estimation by maximizing a probability density function between the samples of the subset of the set of measurement samples and the shape of the pulse peak (see paragraph 0150, “The reader should note that the above algorithm using a Maximum Likelihood (ML) criterion with Weighted Least Squares solution for Gaussian type of noise and interference, and with a projection onto a short subspace of oversampled samples is only one embodiment of the solution.”, further see paragraph 0129 for support, “A first solution is to truncate the MAP or ML correlator sequences x.sub.t to the region of high SINR (operating region with some number of samples and where the sequences are not weak). However, more optimal MAP or ML correlator sequences can be designed by truncating the space to the subspace of interest and then computing short MAP or ML correlator sequences within the subspace of interest.”, where subspace of interest is chosen based on samples where the sequences are not weak and higher density of strong samples (NOTE: this is a Maximum Likelihood (ML) criterion)).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Chrabieh into the invention of ALAWIEH. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the estimation of a time of arrival of a signal between a transmitter and a receiver and both further disclose methods to accurately estimate pulse peak information. The combination above would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the accuracy of the data.
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 NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights