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 .
Claims 29-59 is/are pending. Claims 49-59 are withdrawn from consideration per Applicant’s election response of 07/09/2026. Claims 29-48 are presented for examination.
Drawings is/are accepted.
IDS is/are considered.
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.
Claim(s) 30, 33-38, 40, 43-48 is/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.
Claim 30 recites “resolving changes in the TOF estimate over time by integrating consecutive TOF deltas, wherein each TOF delta is calculated using the measured first path angle and the relative carrier frequency offset”. Claim 40 is directed to similar limitation.
Claim(s) 30 and 40 is/are deemed indefinite for a variety of reasons:
The recited action of “resolving changes in the TOF estimate” and “integrating consecutive TOF deltas” fail to point out and distinctly define what specific acts or process/algorithm/mathematical operation involve in “resolving” and “integrating”. While the claims are generally allowed to be broad, however they must be also reasonably clear and specific. These terms are essentially “black box” terminologies, rendering POSITA simply cannot immediately think of a specific known process of “resolving” or “integrating” or any mathematical operation to carry out “integrating” and “resolving” without further information that is apparently absent. The claim language merely recite vague conceptual goals while lacking specific instruction to achieve such intended result of resolving/integrating, thus leaving the scope of the claims unclear.
The claim language also fails to define a specific time window to track TOF changes, i.e. indefinite range of time, leaving the audience guessing as to how reasonably far the process will be monitoring for each TOF over time.
The claim also fails to define TOF delta, i.e. whether it is offset between the original TOF vs. a specific TOF at t+i or whether it is an offset between two consecutive TOF. Dependent claim 34 or 35 appears to show a mathematical formula but it is inconsequential because claim 34 or 35 does not explain any of the variables and where they came about.
Dependent claims 33-35, 43-45 fail to remedy all of the issues raised above and thus fall together with the base claims.
Dependent claims 33-38 , 43-48 are also indefinite for the following reasons:
The claims show a plethora of mathematical formulas without any explanation pertaining the constants and variables and how/where such variables come from or otherwise obtain, leaving the audience without any reasonable basis to solve these equations. Furthermore, each of these equations in each of claims 33-38 involves one or more types of Delta value. A Delta means difference or offset/change. None of these claims themselves state : difference between measurements taken at which time, between which entities/devices, difference relative to what reference value etc. Therefore PHOSITA has no reasonable way to ascertain these values/variables and thus unable to solve these equations. As the meanings/scopes of these equations/formulas are either unknown or unverifiable for claim interpretation, the examiner is unable to perform meaningful claim interpretation as well as formulate search strategy at this time, determination of novelty is waived until further clarification.
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) 29 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romme et al. (US 2020/0326403) in view of Fontana (US 6,054,950) and in further view of Dotlic et al. (Ranging Methods Utilizing Carrier Frequency Offset Estimation) – 2018.
As to claim 29:
Romme discloses:
A method for estimating time-of-flight (TOF) by an initiator device comprising:
transmitting a poll packet to a responder device; (¶0068, step 204, transmitting a poll carrier signal a responder node 104.)
receiving a response packet from the responder device; (¶0069, receiving a response from the responder node)
determining a first path angle of the received response packet; (¶0069-0079, performing a phase measurement of the responder’s response signal. See also Fig. 5C)
estimating a relative carrier frequency offset between the initiator device and the responder device; (See ¶0097-0100, calculate frequency offset between initiator and responder device)
Regarding:
determining a response delay of the responder device; and calculating a TOF estimate based on the measured first path angle and the relative carrier frequency offset between the initiator device and the responder device.
Romme in at least ¶0072 discloses the distance of flight estimation between the initiator device and responder device, however does not explicitly disclose calculation of TOF.
However, it is well established in the art that depriving TOF from such distance of flight is a simple matter of mathematical relationship with speed of light.
Indeed, Fontana, in a related field of endeavor, discloses in at least Col. 4, lines 50 through lines 4 of col. 5, determines the exact time of transmission of the pulse emitted by transceiver #1 based on knowledge of the time of arrival of the pulse (as measured by a precision UWB detector) and the transit time for the pulse to reach the detector, which is given by R12/c. Here, Rij is the distance between UWB transceiver units #i and #j
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that determining a ToF from distance information deprived by Romme can be easily deprived in a simple mathematical problem solving. With known distance, ToF derivation can be advantageously perform in simple manner with expected accuracy.
Neither Romme/Fontana disclose: determining a response delay of the responder device.
Dotlic, in a related field of endeavor discloses in at least Section II – Single-sided Two-way Ranging, II.A, that each devices has an inherent error represented by dT, i.e. small delay it takes to act, therefore calculation of time travel of signals can be refined by taking into account such delay.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the system of Fontana and Romme to determine the response delay of a responder device. As mention in Dotlic – Abstract and throughout disclosure, by taking into account this error element, the determination of ToF/TDoA can be improved in accuracy.
As to claim 39:
Romme discloses:
A wireless communication device comprising: receive circuitry configured to receive packets encoded on radio frequency (RF) signals; transmit circuitry configured to modulate a carrier signal with packets and transmit the packets; and a baseband processor (¶0061, 0062, baseband processor with transmitter and receiving for transmitting and receiving/processing signals) configured to: control the transmit circuitry to transmit a first poll packet to a responder device ; (¶0068, step 204, transmitting a poll carrier signal a responder node 104.)
and receive via the receive circuitry a first response packet from the responder device in response to the first poll packet; ; (¶0069, receiving a response from the responder node)
determine a first path angle of the received response packet; (¶0069-0079, performing a phase measurement of the responder’s response signal. See also Fig. 5C) estimate a relative carrier frequency offset between the transmit circuitry and the responder device; (See ¶0097-0100, calculate frequency offset between initiator and responder device)
Regarding:
determine, by the wireless communication device, a response delay of the responder device; and calculate a TOF estimate based on the measured first path angle and a relative carrier frequency offset between the transmit circuitry and the responder device.
Romme in at least ¶0072 discloses the distance of flight estimation between the initiator device and responder device, however does not explicitly disclose calculation of TOF.
However, it is well established in the art that depriving TOF from such distance of flight is a simple matter of mathematical relationship with speed of light.
Indeed, Fontana, in a related field of endeavor, discloses in at least Col. 4, lines 50 through lines 4 of col. 5, determines the exact time of transmission of the pulse emitted by transceiver #1 based on knowledge of the time of arrival of the pulse (as measured by a precision UWB detector) and the transit time for the pulse to reach the detector, which is given by R12/c. Here, Rij is the distance between UWB transceiver units #i and #j
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that determining a ToF from distance information deprived by Romme can be easily deprived in a simple mathematical problem solving. With known distance, ToF derivation can be advantageously perform in simple manner with expected accuracy.
Neither Romme/Fontana disclose: determining a response delay of the responder device.
Dotlic, in a related field of endeavor discloses in at least Section II – Single-sided Two-way Ranging, II.A, that each devices has an inherent error represented by dT, i.e. small delay it takes to act, therefore calculation of time travel of signals can be refined by taking into account such delay.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the system of Fontana and Romme to determine the response delay of a responder device. As mention in Dotlic – Abstract and throughout disclosure, by taking into account this error element, the determination of ToF/TDoA can be improved in accuracy.
Claim(s) 30 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romme et al. (US 2020/0326403) in view of Fontana (US 6,054,950) and in further view of Dotlic et al. (Ranging Methods Utilizing Carrier Frequency Offset Estimation) – 2018 and in further view of Ferguson et al. (US 2006/0022833).
As to claims 30 and 40:
Romme in view of Fontana and Dotlic discloses all imitations of claim 29/39, however is silent on resolving changes in the TOF estimate over time by integrating consecutive TOF deltas, wherein each TOF delta is calculated using the measured first path angle and the relative carrier frequency offset.
This concept of fitting multiple consecutive TOF deltas is well known in the art as shown in Ferguson in at least ¶0137, “consecutive TOF acquisitions to effectively improve the timing resolution that proportionally affects position accuracy and precision. The digital filter discussed above introduces quantization errors because of its discrete operation. And minor fluctuations in the acoustical coupling produces timing jitter or uncertainty in the triggered zero-crossings of the acoustic sinusoidal. (…). The averaging algorithm automatically adjusts to this condition by only including TOFs whose delta changes fall within the expected range of the nominal intra-pulse interval defined by the transmission properties of the acoustic source”. Assuming TOF delta is relative to the original/first TOF value, each delta thus must use the first path angle and first relative carrier offset to be able to be calculated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the system of Romme, Fontana and Dotlic to incorporate resolving changes in the TOF estimate over time by integrating consecutive TOF deltas. This implementation advantageously improve accuracy/precision via filtering (Ferguson, ¶0137).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument per election with traverse of 07/09/20226 has been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Species A and B are not patentably distinct because they sought to solve similar problems (page 9 of remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The tests for distinction do not include whether two inventions seek to solve the same problem, but rather difference in design, mode of operation, or technical effect. With Applicant’s logic, wouldn’t all patents addressed a given same issue should be nullified except the original one? As an related example, both hard handover and soft handover seeks to address same issue connection continuity in mobile environment, but they are entirely different technical approaches with distinct modes of operation/designs.
Applicant arguments of burden of search based on alleged shared class/subclasses is not persuasive. As the examiners would know better than Applicant, classes/subclasses are categories of subject matter of similar field, but they are not the sole arbiter to decide if two inventions sharing similar design or operation without considering the difference among specific design elements and how each embodiment operates in each case. Continuing from the example above, both hard handover and soft handover are of same classification of handover, but the one simply cannot argue there wouldn’t be a burden of search to distinct the two.
The decision of restriction is thus final.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-31, 40-41 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
References of record disclose the independent claims as applied above, however do not disclose, in context of the independent claims:
“measuring a plurality of measured carrier frequency offsets (CFOs); estimating a CFO using a filter to filter the measured CFOs to generate an estimated CFO; and adjusting a timing measurement based on the estimated CFO to improve range estimation accuracy”
Claims 31 and 41 inherit the limitations in view of dependency and thus are addressed by the same reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2018/0249437 - This disclosure provides systems, methods and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for performing ranging operations. In one aspect, an apparatus negotiates a passive ranging schedule between an initiator device and a number of responder devices. The passive ranging schedule indicates a time prior to a selected target beacon transmission time (TBTT) at which the ranging operation is to commence. The apparatus announces the passive ranging schedule to at least one or more passive listening devices, commences the ranging operation at the indicated time by exchanging a number of frames between the initiator device and the number of responder devices, and completes the exchange of frames prior to the selected TBTT.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN M HUA whose telephone number is (571)270-7232. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/QUAN M HUA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights