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 .
This action is in response to the filing of 2/27/2024. Claims 1-10 are pending and have been considered below.
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 3, 4, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 3: is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: a machine/apparatus claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, “determine presence or absence of an obstacle between the communication apparatus and the distance measurement target device on the basis of the distance measured by the second distance measurement and the distance measured by the first distance measurement” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element, “communication apparatus comprising at least one memory and at least one processor” is applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (communication apparatus, processor) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional elements, “transmit, to the distance measurement target device, an inquiry wave for performing second distance measurement using a time of arrival of radio waves” is/are merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity).
The additional elements “measure a distance to the distance measurement target device by the second distance measurement on the basis of a response wave received from the distance measurement target device; measure a distance to the distance measurement target device by the first distance measurement on the basis of the advertisement packet received from the distance measurement target device together with the response wave” is/are merely insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity), (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional element, “signal strength of radio waves” and “time of arrival of radio waves” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to determine the presence or absence of obstacle.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the limitations, “transmit, to the distance measurement target device, an inquiry wave for performing second distance measurement using a time of arrival of radio waves” is just receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over radio waves), and “measure a distance to the distance measurement target device by the second distance measurement on the basis of a response wave received from the distance measurement target device; measure a distance to the distance measurement target device by the first distance measurement on the basis of the advertisement packet received from the distance measurement target device together with the response wave” is just obtaining information (measurement), which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention still fails to amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a field of use (radio communication) using a generic computer.
Dependent claims 4 and 8 fail to recite additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10: is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: a machine/system claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, “determine presence or absence of an obstacle between the distance measurement device and the distance measurement target device based on the distance measured by the second distance measurement and the distance measured by the first distance measurement” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element, “distance measurement device to a distance measurement target device” and “at least one memory and at least one processor” is applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (system, processor) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional elements, “transmit an inquiry wave for performing second distance measurement using a time of arrival of radio waves; cause the distance measurement target device to stop outputting the advertisement packet in accordance with reception of the inquiry wave by the distance measurement target device; when a predetermined time has elapsed since the distance measurement target device received the inquiry wave, cause the distance measurement target device to output a response wave to be used for the second distance measurement and to resume outputting of the advertisement packet” is/are merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution/post-solution activity).
The additional elements, “measure a distance from the distance measurement device to the distance measurement target device by the second distance measurement on the basis of the response wave; measure a distance from the distance measurement device to the distance measurement target device by the first distance measurement on the basis of the advertisement packet” is/are merely insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity), (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional element, “signal strength of radio waves” and “time of arrival of radio waves” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to measure the distance.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the limitations, “transmit an inquiry wave for performing second distance measurement using a time of arrival of radio waves; cause the distance measurement target device to stop outputting the advertisement packet … cause the distance measurement target device to output a response wave to be used for the second distance measurement and to resume outputting of the advertisement packet” is just receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over radio waves), which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
The additional elements, “measure a distance from the distance measurement device to the distance measurement target device by the second distance measurement on the basis of the response wave; measure a distance from the distance measurement device to the distance measurement target device by the first distance measurement on the basis of the advertisement packet” is just obtaining information (measurement), which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)
When considered a whole, the claimed invention still fails to amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a field of use (radio communication) using a generic computer.
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)(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 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kakuya et al. (US 2025/0298140).
Regarding claim 1:
Kakuya discloses a communication apparatus that communicates with a distance measurement device (abstract; figures), the communication apparatus comprising:
at least one memory (figure 2 [block 902,903]) that stores a set of instructions; and at least one processor that executes the instructions (fig 2 [block 901]; see figs 1, 3-5), the instructions, when being executed, causing the communication apparatus to:
output, at a constant interval, an advertisement packet including information to be used for first distance measurement using a signal strength of radio waves (para 55, partially reproduced herein with emphasis {BLE module 93 to transmit the advertisement signal at predetermined transmission intervals…}; figure 9,16; para 177-178; para 36 {periodically monitor a received signal strength of the modulation signal; in response to receiving a start request of a first distance measurement process…}; para 92 {received signal strength of the received signal. The strength detection unit E1 outputs data indicating the detected received signal strength to the BLE});
receive, from the distance measurement device, an inquiry wave for performing second distance measurement using a time of arrival of radio waves (para 31,99 [arrival time, RTT]; para 76 {… UWB module 2 performs the UWB distance measurement process based on an instruction from the DK-ECU ..});
stop output of the advertisement packet in accordance with reception of the inquiry wave (para 58 {…an advertisement signal is not being transmitted are repeated}; figure 9; para 141 {BLE controller 123 stops the execution of the periodic CS distance measurement process based on the activation of the main controller…}; para 150 {.. stopping the execution of the periodic CS distance measurement by the BLE module 12 after the main controller 11 is activated}); and
when a predetermined time has elapsed since the reception of the inquiry wave, output a response wave to be used for the second distance measurement to the distance measurement device and resume output of the advertisement packet (fig 9 [S206, activate UWB module is equivalent to response for second distance measurement]; para 151 {Step S303 … After the main controller 11 is activated, the BLE module 12 may be configured to execute the CS distance measurement process based on an instruction from the main controller 11. Step S303 may be performed at predetermined intervals…}[here BLE distance measurement, after the UWB triggering starts performing after predetermined interval or time]; see figure; and throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 9:
Kakuya discloses all of the subject matter as described above for claim 1, method claim 9 recites similar language and thus is rejected for same rationale as above for claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuya et al. (US 2025/0298140) in view of Ueno et al. (US 2018/0060005).
Regarding claim 2:
Kakuya discloses all of the subject matter as described above, except for specifically teaching that wherein the communication apparatus is an image forming apparatus configured to execute print processing based on print data received from the distance measurement device.
However, Ueno in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for information processing wherein the communication apparatus is an image forming apparatus configured to execute print processing based on print data received from the distance measurement device (figures 1-2 [see 20 and 30]; para 3-5 [distance calculation]; and see throughout the disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Ueno in Kakuya in order to determine printing apparatus taking into account the respective distances [3,4] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fang (CN 112601281) discloses positioning method, terminal and computer storage medium.
Yoshihara (US 2024/0151839) discloses a system and method for distance measuring by BLE and UWB.
Ebrahimi Afrouzi (US 2024/0142994) discloses stationary service appliance for a poly functional roaming device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIRDEPAL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1688. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Hannah S Wang can be reached on (571) 272-9018. 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.
/HIRDEPAL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631