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 on 04/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. No claims have been amended, cancelled, or are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/01/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. All prior art rejections are maintained for the same or similar reasoning as provided in the previous office action dated 02/02/2026.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that the reference Ramachandran does not teach, suggest, or disclose (1) "transmitting a ranging initiation message to a plurality of responder devices based on a first radio access technology (RAT)", (2) "transmitting a ranging final message to the plurality of responder devices based on the first RAT", (3) "determining a target relative clock offset between a target responder device of a first subset of the plurality of responder devices and the initiator device based on one or more reference responder devices of a second subset of the plurality of responder devices", and (4) "determining a time of flight between the initiator device and the target responder device based on one or more time of flight measurements and the target relative clock offset" as recited in independent claim 1. The Applicant further argues that the claims as presented describe two separate transmissions within a ranging process. However, the Examiner maintains the interpretation noted in the non-final office action which is the claimed initiating message and final message may be the same message, corresponding to the “request” of Ramachandran. Further, other than naming a transmitted signal an initiation message or final message, there is no clear distinction between the ranging initiation message and ranging final message. Therefore, in the case where there is only a single transmitted message, an initiation message is the same as a final message. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the prior art rejection for the same or similar reasoning as provided in the previous office action.
The Applicant similarly argues that a first and second subset are not the same subset, but does not support any proposed differences with claim language. Rather, Applicant merely argues that the existence of multiple devices requires the use of different subsets, however that is incorrect, as overlap may exist even between multiple subsets or groupings. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the prior art rejection for the same or similar reasoning as provided in the previous office action.
The Applicant further argues that Ramachandran does not describe the feature of "determining a time of flight between the initiator device and the target responder device based on one or more time of flight measurements and the target relative clock offset". The Applicant supports this argument by stating the presence of multiple responder devices perform different roles within the ranging procedure, however the Applicant’s interpretation is not found in the claims. All claim elements as presented may be performed by the singular device of Ramachandran because, as currently claimed, there are no distinctions between the role of individual or the sum of responder devices. As discussed above and in the previous rejection, no new and unexpected result is produced, the mere duplication of responder devices has no patentable significance. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the prior art rejection for the same or similar reasoning as provided in the previous office action.
The same or similar reasoning is applied to independent claims 10 and 20 and all dependent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/01/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandran (US 20250164598 A1), hereinafter Ramachandran.
Regarding claim 1, Ramachandran, as shown below, discloses a method of operating an initiator device comprising the following limitations:
transmitting a ranging initiation message to a (See at least Fig. 6, [0219] “one of the anchor UEs 14 may receive a request for location (e.g. geographical) coordinates from the device UE 10” UE 10 transmits a request (ranging initiation message) to constellation 50 containing a plurality of responder devices (UE 14s)) based on a first radio access technology (RAT) (See at least [0114] “UE 10 and the anchor UEs 14 may be a mobile phone […] capable of supporting multiple radio access technologies” See also [0050]);
transmitting a ranging final message to the (See at least Fig. 6, [0219] “one of the anchor UEs 14 may receive a request for location (e.g. geographical) coordinates from the device UE 10” UE 10 transmits a request to constellation 50 containing a plurality of responder devices (UE 14s). The Examiner interprets the initiating message and final message as claimed to be the same message, which is a ‘request’. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed ‘initiation’ and ‘final’ messages includes interpretation that they may be the same message.);
determining a target relative clock offset between a target responder device of a first subset of the (See at least [0244] “Depending on the application, either the device UE 10 or the anchor UE 14 may calculate the clock time offset after the device UE 10 becomes time-synchronized with the anchor UE 14 and/or the ranging constellation 50”), the first subset of the (See at least Fig. 6, [0219] “one of the anchor UEs 14 may receive a request for location (e.g. geographical) coordinates from the device UE 10”. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “first subset” and “second subset” includes interpretation that they may be the same subset. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed ‘target responder device’ and ‘reference responder device’ includes interpretation that they may be the same device.); and
determining a time of flight between the initiator device and the target responder device based on one or more time of flight measurements and the target relative clock offset (See at least [0237] “UEs 14 responded to the device UE 10 and/or if the ranging signal (e.g. the discovery message) includes location and the time of departure (TOD) information while the clocks of the device UE 10 and anchor UE 14 are synchronized, then the device UE 10 may calculate the distance based on the ranging signal (e.g. discovery message)”).
Ramachandran does not explicitly disclose plurality of responder devices.
plurality of responder devices (The Examiner notes that while a “plurality of responder devices” is not explicitly disclosed by Ramachandran, a single responder device is disclosed with at least [0219] “one of the anchor UEs 14 may receive a request for location (e.g. geographical) coordinates from the device UE 10”. Therefore, Ramachandran differs from the claimed invention because the claimed invention has a plurality of responder devices rather than a single responder device. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ramachandran so that a plurality of responder devices is used with a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that a mere duplication of parts is an obvious modification, see MPEP 2144.04. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Because no new and unexpected result is produced, the mere duplication of responder devices has no patentable significance)
One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve effectiveness by performing operations on multiple elements.
Regarding claim 2, Ramachandran, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Ramachandran additionally discloses
receiving a plurality of ranging response messages from the plurality of responder devices based on the first RAT (See at least [0237] “there are several ranging capable UEs, e.g., anchor UEs 14 that had responded to the device UE 10 with a ranging signal (e.g. a discovery message)”)
Regarding claim 3, Ramachandran, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Ramachandran additionally discloses
the one or more time of flight measurements comprise: a first reception time of the ranging initiation message received by the target responder device, or a second reception time of the ranging final message received by the target responder device; and a third reception time of the corresponding ranging response messages from the target responder device received by the initiator device (See at least [0241] “round-trip time (RTT) measurement that can be combined with any other embodiment, or implemented independently, discovery messages in ProSe restricted discovery can be enhanced to include ranging capabilities. […] The device UE 10 is configured to start a timer when the discovery message is first sent out. The device UEs 10 may then receive an answer from the anchor UE 14 which may include the position Pa of the anchor UE 14 that can be verified and decrypted using discovery keys received by the device UE 10 after registering to the core network and its services (e.g. DDNMF), or after subscription. The device UE 10 measures the timer upon reception of the answer from the anchor UE 14.”, [0242] “To eliminate this processing time and/or waiting time from the measured RTT” Ramachandran discloses a RTT TOF measurement where time is measured for segments of an initiation message reaching the target responder device from the initiator device, processing at the target responder (to be subtracted out), and a return time when received by the imitator device.)
Regarding claim 4, Ramachandran, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Ramachandran additionally discloses
wherein the determining the target relative clock offset comprises: receiving a measurement report message from one of the one or more reference responder devices based on a second RAT, the measurement report message indicating an inter-responder clock offset between the target responder device and the one of the one or more reference responder devices (See at least [0237] “the UEs transmitting ranging signals (e.g. discovery messages) (e.g., anchor UE 14) may transmit synchronization signals and/or timing information to the receiving device (e.g., device UE 10)” Additionally, the Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed ‘second RAT’ and ‘first RAT’ includes interpretation that they may be the same RAT.);
determining a reference clock offset associated with the one of the one or more reference responder devices (See at least [0248] “A device UE 10 gets tightly time-synchronized with the two or more anchor UEs 14” Ramachandran discloses a synchronization system between reference responders, target responder, and initiator device, thereby setting a clock offset to zero.);
determining an estimated clock offset associated with the target responder device based on the inter-responder clock offset and the reference clock offset (See at least [0248] “A device UE 10 gets tightly time-synchronized with the two or more anchor UEs 14” Ramachandran discloses a synchronization system between reference responders, target responder, and initiator device, thereby setting a clock offset to zero.); and
determining the target relative clock offset based on the estimated clock offset and an initiator clock offset associated with the initiator device (See at least [0248] “A device UE 10 gets tightly time-synchronized with the two or more anchor UEs 14” Ramachandran discloses a synchronization system between reference responders, target responder, and initiator device, thereby setting a clock offset to zero.)
Regarding claim 5, Ramachandran, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Ramachandran additionally discloses
receiving an indication from the one of the one or more reference responder devices based on the second RAT prior to the ranging initiation message being transmitted, the indication indicating that the one of the one or more reference responder devices is capable of providing the inter-responder clock offset (See at least Fig. 9, [0304] “In step S901, synchronization signals from an anchor UE (A-UE) are received at an approaching device UE” Ramachandran discloses synchronization of a UE to an anchor UE system, equivalent to a reference responder system, which indicates a zero clock offset for a system of devices.)
Regarding claim 7, Ramachandran, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Ramachandran additionally discloses
the determining the target relative clock offset comprises: determining a set of relative clock offsets between the initiator device and the second subset of the plurality of responder devices (See at least Fig. 9, [0304] “In step S901, synchronization signals from an anchor UE (A-UE) are received at an approaching device UE” Ramachandran discloses synchronization of a UE to an anchor UE system, equivalent to a reference responder system, which indicates a zero clock offset for a system of devices.);
determining an average clock offset of the set of relative clock offsets (See at least Fig. 9, [0304] “In step S901, synchronization signals from an anchor UE (A-UE) are received at an approaching device UE” Ramachandran discloses synchronization of a UE to an anchor UE system, equivalent to a reference responder system, which indicates a zero clock offset for a system of devices.); and
determining the target relative clock offset based on the average clock offset (See at least Fig. 9, [0304] “In step S901, synchronization signals from an anchor UE (A-UE) are received at an approaching device UE” Ramachandran discloses synchronization of a UE to an anchor UE system, equivalent to a reference responder system, which indicates a zero clock offset for a system of devices. Additionally, when Ramachandran identifies synchronization with a target device specific processing times are accounted for in determining TOF, see also [0237]-[0244])
Regarding claim 10, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above. Additionally, Ramachandran further discloses
one or more memories (See at least [0035] “It is noted that the above apparatuses may be implemented based […] on signal processing devices or chips controlled by software routines or programs stored in memories”);
one or more transceivers (See at least [0115] “Both the device UE 10 and the anchor UE 14 may have a receiver unit […] the device UE 10 and the anchor UE 14 may have a transmitter unit”); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers, the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to (See at least [0035] “It is noted that the above apparatuses may be implemented based […] on signal processing devices or chips controlled by software routines or programs stored in memories”)
Regarding claim 11, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2, shown above.
Regarding claim 12, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
Regarding claim 13, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4, shown above.
Regarding claim 14, Ramachandran, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 10 and 13. Ramachandran additionally discloses
the inter-responder clock offset is determined based on a ranging response message from the target responder device, and is determined by the one of the one or more reference responder devices or a processing device coupled to the one of the one or more reference responder devices (See at least [0157] “anchor UEs 14 may be optimized by synchronizing the sending and/or receiving of signals between a device UE and multiple anchor UEs involved in a ranging procedure, e.g. by one of the anchor UEs or a managing entity determining a schedule for sending ranging reference signals”)
Regarding claim 15, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5, shown above.
Regarding claim 17, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7, shown above.
Regarding claim 20, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandran, in view of Lee (US 20220369320 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 6, Ramachandran, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Ramachandran further discloses
the first RAT corresponds to an ultra-wideband radio access technology based on a first channel bandwidth (See at least [0128]-[0130] “Radio Access Technologies to use (e.g. 3GPP LTE, 3GPP 5G NR, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, UWB, . . . ), [0129] which bands to use (incl. whether unlicensed/licensed spectrum is to be used), [0130] which bandwidth to use” Ramachandran discloses the use of UWB in at least a first RAT), and
Ramachandran the second RAT corresponds to a short-range radio access technology based on a second channel bandwidth that is one-third or less of the first channel bandwidth. However, Lee, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the second RAT corresponds to a short-range radio access technology based on a second channel bandwidth that is one-third or less of the first channel bandwidth (See at least [0023] “the second RAT includes a Wi-Fi RAT”, [0096] “5G/NR communications may be performed in the n79 band (4.4 GHz-5.0 GHz), and 5 GHz Wi-Fi communications may be performed in the U-NII1 band (5.150 GHz-5.250 GHz)” Lee discloses a second RAT operating in short-range RAT (WIFI) with a maximum bandwidth of 100 MHz whereas the corresponding first RAT operates in a 600 MHz bandwidth (UWB).).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the initiator device system disclosed by Ramachandran with the RAT bandwidth system disclosed by Lee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve resource utilization (See at least [0091] “improve throughput at the UE 115 and improve resource utilization within the wireless communications system 100.”).
Regarding claim 16, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6, shown above.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Allowance of claims 8-9 and 18-19 is indicated because:
None of the prior art of record teach or suggest the subject matter of dependent claims 8 and 9. The prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach all of the additional limitations of the claimed invention, as best understood within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole, such as in claim 8 and similarly claim 18, receiving a plurality of indications from the plurality of responder devices based on a second RAT prior to the ranging initiation message being transmitted, the plurality of indications indicating that none of the plurality of responder devices are capable of providing an inter-responder clock offset between the target responder device and any one of the one or more reference responder devices.
Accordingly, claims 8 and 18 are deemed to have allowable subject matter. Claims 9 and 19 would also be considered allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependence on allowable claims.
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 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
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 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, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights