DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9 JUL 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 9 JUL 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 9-11, 13 and 18 have been amended. Claims 4-8 and 19-24 have been cancelled. Claims 25-32 have been added. Claims 1-3, 9-18 and 25-32 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 13 and 18 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 7-8, filed 9 JUL 2026, with respect to amended claims 1, 13 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
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, 9-18 and 25-32 are 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 according to the subject matter eligibility analysis described below:
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claim 1, 13 and 18 is directed to a method (i.e., process).
Therefore, claims 1, 13 and 18 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in MPEP 2106.04(a), the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas:
mathematical concepts,
certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or
mental processes.
Independent claims 1, 13 and 18 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized in bold below).
1. A method of calculating a distance between two wireless devices and a quality indicator associated with the distance, comprising:
performing a plurality of round trip time (RTT) procedures, each using one of a plurality of data channels, to generate a plurality of distance measurements;
calculating the distance based on the plurality of distance measurements; and
calculating the quality indicator based on the distance and the plurality of distance measurements, wherein the quality indicator is expressed as a value between 0 and 1 and is defined as 1 minus a product of a scaling factor multiplied by a distance deviation.
13. A method of determining a spatial position of a wireless device, comprising:
utilizing a plurality of initiator devices, wherein each initiator device:
performs a plurality of round trip time (RTT) procedures with the wireless device, each procedure using one of a plurality of data channels, to generate a plurality of distance measurements;
calculates a distance to the wireless device based on the plurality of distance measurements; and
calculates a quality indicator based on the distance and the plurality of distance measurements, wherein the quality indicator is expressed as a value between 0 and 1 and is defined as 1 minus a product of a scaling factor multiplied by a distance deviation; and
using a computational device to receive the distance and quality indicator from the plurality of initiator devices, wherein the computational device uses at least three of the distance and quality indicators to determine the spatial position of the wireless device.
18. A method of calculating a distance between two wireless devices and a quality indicator associated with the distance, comprising:
performing a plurality of round trip time (RTT) procedures, each using one of a plurality of data channels, to generate a plurality of distance measurements;
calculating the distance based on the plurality of distance measurements; and
calculating the quality indicator based on a receive signal strength indicator (RSSI) values of the plurality of distance measurements, wherein the quality indicator is expressed as a value between 0 and 1 and is defined as 1 minus a product of a scaling factor multiplied by a standard deviation of a plurality of RSSI values.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mathematical concept” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation mathematical calculations. For example, “calculating the distance…,” “determining a spatial position…,” and “calculating the quality indicator…” in the context of this claims encompasses a using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number. Accordingly the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in MPEP 2106.04(a), the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(a), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea(s) are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. A method of calculating a distance between two wireless devices and a quality indicator associated with the distance, comprising:
performing a plurality of round trip time (RTT) procedures, each using one of a plurality of data channels, to generate a plurality of distance measurements;
calculating the distance based on the plurality of distance measurements; and
calculating the quality indicator based on the distance and the plurality of distance measurements, wherein the quality indicator is expressed as a value between 0 and 1 and is defined as 1 minus a product of a scaling factor multiplied by a distance deviation.
13. A method of determining a spatial position of a wireless device, comprising:
utilizing a plurality of initiator devices, wherein each initiator device:
performs a plurality of round trip time (RTT) procedures with the wireless device, each procedure using one of a plurality of data channels, to generate a plurality of distance measurements;
calculates a distance to the wireless device based on the plurality of distance measurements; and
calculates a quality indicator based on the distance and the plurality of distance measurements, wherein the quality indicator is expressed as a value between 0 and 1 and is defined as 1 minus a product of a scaling factor multiplied by a distance deviation; and
using a computational device to receive the distance and quality indicator from the plurality of initiator devices, wherein the computational device uses at least three of the distance and quality indicators to determine the spatial position of the wireless device.
18. A method of calculating a distance between two wireless devices and a quality indicator associated with the distance, comprising:
performing a plurality of round trip time (RTT) procedures, each using one of a plurality of data channels, to generate a plurality of distance measurements;
calculating the distance based on the plurality of distance measurements; and
calculating the quality indicator based on a receive signal strength indicator (RSSI) values of the plurality of distance measurements, wherein the quality indicator is expressed as a value between 0 and 1 and is defined as 1 minus a product of a scaling factor multiplied by a standard deviation of a plurality of RSSI values.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “performing a plurality of round trip time (RTT) procedures, each using one of a plurality of data channels, to generate a plurality of distance measurements,” the examiner submits that this limitation is recited at a high level of granularity, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding the additional limitation of “utilizing a plurality of initiator devices,” the examiner submits that his limitation is recited at a high level of granularity, and amounts to using a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step), which the courts have held does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “using a computational device to receive the distance and quality indicator from the plurality of initiator devices, wherein the computational device uses at least three of the distance and quality indicators to determine the spatial position of the wireless device,” the examiner submits that this limitation amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which the courts have held does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP 2106.05(d), independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “performing a plurality of round trip time (RTT) procedures, each using one of a plurality of data channels, to generate a plurality of distance measurements” amounts to nothing more than mere data gathering; “utilizing a plurality of initiator devices,” amounts to using a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step); and “using a computational device to receive the distance and quality indicator from the plurality of initiator devices, wherein the computational device uses at least three of the distance and quality indicators to determine the spatial position of the wireless device,” amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the examiner submits that the additional limitations constitute insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-3, 9-12, 14-17, and 25-21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Dependent claims recite additional steps of mathematical calculations. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3, 9-12, 14-17, and 25-21 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-3, 9-18, and 25-32 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 13-18 and 25-32 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or render obvious, either alone or in combination, the quality indicator is defined as 1 minus a product of a scaling factor multiplied by a distance deviation.
Regarding independent claim 13, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or render obvious, either alone or in combination, the quality indicator is defined as 1 minus a product of a scaling factor multiplied by a distance deviation.
Regarding independent claim 18, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or render obvious, either alone or in combination, the quality indicator is defined as 1 minus a product of a scaling factor multiplied by a distance deviation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
NAOMI M. WOLFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/N.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3648
25 SEP 2027
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
