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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II in the reply filed on 7/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Examiner Note
Examiner contacted Applicant representative discussing the content of the claims for speedy prosecution but no agreement has been reached.
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.
Claim 1, 12, 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32 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(s) 1, 12, 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32 is/are directed to Abstract Idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper for example using measurement received from a mobile device, transmitting from the source relay node to a donor access node.
The apparatus and the method claim 1, 12 and 18 recites limitation, “determining, by the first device, a schedule comprising a transmission schedule and a reception schedule; transmitting, by the first device and to one or more other devices, a first packet based at least in part on the transmission schedule, the first packet comprising a first ranging signal and first audio data; and receiving, by the first device and from a second device of the one or more other devices, a second packet based at least in part on the reception schedule, the second packet comprising a second ranging signal and second audio data”. Since the claim is directed to a process and a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites transmitting, by the first device and to one or more other devices, a first packet based at least in part on the transmission schedule, the first packet comprising a first ranging signal and first audio data; and receiving, by the first device and from a second device of the one or more other devices, a second packet based at least in part on the reception schedule, the second packet comprising a second ranging signal and second audio data. The transmitting step i.e., collecting information based on transmission schedule i.e., analyzing it and then receiving a second packet based in part on reception schedule i.e., outputting certain results of the collection and analysis recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea=Yes).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea=Yes).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim requires the additional limitation of a computer with the central processing unit, memory, a printer, an input and output terminal and a program. These generic computer components are claimed to perform the basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the program that enables. In the current scenario, there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: No). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, dependent claims 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32 do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
However, if applicant add limitation from claim 5, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 29 and 30 it will 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.
Claim(s) 1, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Werner et al Patent No. US 10735900 B1.
Regarding Claim 1, Werner teaches a method for implementing transmission of ranging signals and data by a first device (Fig. 4 and Col 7, L18-25, mobile device using ranging to facilitate sharing a data item with another device. The data item could be various things, e.g., a contact, an audio file, an image, a video file, a deep link to a location in an application installed on both devices i.e., ranging signal and audio data, the method comprising:
determining, by the first device (Fig. 1 and Co 3 L 12-15, Mobile device 110 (e.g., a smartphone) can initiate a ranging measurement (operation) by transmitting a ranging request 101 to a mobile device 120. Ranging request 101 can include a first set of one or more pulses. The ranging measurement can be performed using a ranging wireless protocol (e.g., UWB) i.e., determining), a schedule comprising a transmission schedule and a reception schedule (Fig. 1 and Col 3 L 21-30, At T1, mobile device 110 transmits ranging request 101. At T2, mobile device 120 receives ranging request 101. T2 can be an average received time when multiple pulses are in the first set. Mobile device 120 can be expecting ranging request 101 within a time window based on previous communications, e.g., using another wireless protocol. The ranging wireless protocol and the another wireless protocol can be synchronized so that mobile device 120 can turn on the ranging antenna(s) and associated circuitry for a specified time window, as opposed to leaving them on for an entire ranging session i.e., a schedule comprising a transmission schedule and a reception schedule);
transmitting, by the first device and to one or more other devices (Fig. 1 and Fig. 9 Col 17 L 15-24, At block 910, a ranging request message may be transmitted by a first (i.e., transmitting) mobile device. The transmitting mobile device may transmit a ranging request message to a second (i.e., target) mobile device using a first wireless protocol i.e., transmitting, by the first device and to one or more other devices), a first packet based at least in part on the transmission schedule (Fig. 1 and Col 3 L 21-30, At T1, mobile device 110 transmits ranging request 101. At T2, mobile device 120 receives ranging request 101. T2 can be an average received time when multiple pulses are in the first set. Mobile device 120 can be expecting ranging request 101 within a time window based on previous communications, e.g., using another wireless protocol. The ranging wireless protocol and the another wireless protocol can be synchronized so that mobile device 120 can turn on the ranging antenna(s) and associated circuitry for a specified time window, as opposed to leaving them on for an entire ranging session i.e., first packet based at least in part on the transmission schedule) , the first packet comprising a first ranging signal and first audio data (Col 7 L18-25 and also see Col 7 L 26-40, mobile device using ranging to facilitate sharing a data item with another device. The data item could be various things, e.g., a contact, an audio file, an image, a video file, a deep link to a location in an application installed on both devices i.e., the first packet comprising a first ranging signal and first audio data); and
receiving, by the first device and from a second device of the one or more other devices (Fig. 9 Step 920 and Col 17 L 25-30, the transmitting mobile device may receive a ranging response message i.e., receiving, by the first device and from a second device of the one or more other devices), a second packet based at least in part on the reception schedule(Fig. 1 and Col 3 L 21-30, At T1, mobile device 110 transmits ranging request 101. At T2, mobile device 120 receives ranging request 101. T2 can be an average received time when multiple pulses are in the first set. Mobile device 120 can be expecting ranging request 101 within a time window based on previous communications, e.g., using another wireless protocol. The ranging wireless protocol and the another wireless protocol can be synchronized so that mobile device 120 can turn on the ranging antenna(s) and associated circuitry for a specified time window, as opposed to leaving them on for an entire ranging session i.e., second packet based at least in part on the reception schedule i.e., at T2, the second packet comprising a second ranging signal and second audio data (Col 7 L18-25 and also see Col 7 L 26-40, mobile device using ranging to facilitate sharing a data item with another device. The data item could be various things, e.g., a contact, an audio file, an image, a video file, a deep link to a location in an application installed on both devices i.e., the first packet comprising a first ranging signal and first audio data).
Regarding Claim 12, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 and further Werner teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer- executable instructions that (Fig. 10 Unit 1002 and Col 18 L 30-35 and also see Col 18 L 60 – Col 19 L 2 one or more application programs 1034 stored on medium 1002), when executed by one or more processors (Fig. 10 Unit 1018) of a first device (Fig. 10 Unit 1000 and Fig. 1 Unit 110).
Regarding Claim 18, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 and further Werner teaches a first device comprising (Fig. 1 and 10 Unit 110 and 1000 respectively: a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions (Fig. 10 Unit 1002 and Col 18 L 30-35 and also see Col 18 L 60 – Col 19 L 2 one or more application programs 1034 stored on medium 1002); and one or more processors (Fig. 10 Unit 1018) configured to access the memory and execute computer- executable instructions to cause the first device to (Col 18 L 65-Col 19 L 2, One or more processors 1018 are configurable to process various data formats for one or more application programs 1034 stored on medium 1002)
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) 23, 27 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner et al Patent No. US 10735900 B1 in view of Schoenberg et al. Pub. No. US 20210072373 A1
Regarding Claim 23, Werner does not specifically teach that wherein at least one of the transmission schedule or the reception schedule is determined based at least in part on a round-robin schedule.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Schoenberg teaches from The ranging setup handshake can include a negotiation about how to carry out the ranging, such as how often to range or how to schedule the ranging (e.g., when there are multiple receiving devices—round robin, one at a time, or other options). A sending device may know it is connected to three different devices, and thus the mobile device may want a lower rate of range measurements to each device (e.g., 25 milliseconds (ms)) or schedule a particular time/frequency to perform ranging with each device. A duty cycle for when the UWB radios are on can be specified, e.g., 1 kilohertz (KHz) or 10 KHz. For instance, when a start message is received, the devices can agree to start ranging 100 milliseconds (or 90 milliseconds for extra margin) from advertisement at 505 and then every 1 KHz after that (Para 85).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Werner with the method of Schoenberg so as to improve functionality and avoid collisions thus providing efficient ranging techniques (See Schoenberg Para 3 and 4).
Regarding Claim 27, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 23.
Regarding Claim 31, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 23.
Claim(s) 24, 28 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner et al Patent No. US 10735900 B1 in view of Schoenberg et al. Pub. No. US 20210072373 A1 and further in view of Reddy et al. Pub. No. US 20250039827 A1
Regarding Claim 24, Werner and Schoenberg does not specifically teach wherein the transmission schedule indicates a sub-slot for the first device to multicast the first packet.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Reddy teaches the TRP may send the DL PRS intermittently, e.g., periodically at a consistent interval from an initial transmission. The TRP may be configured to send one or more PRS resource sets. A resource set is a collection of PRS resources across one TRP, with the resources having the same periodicity, a common muting pattern configuration (if any), and the same repetition factor across slots. Each of the PRS resource sets comprises multiple PRS resources, with each PRS resource comprising multiple OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing) Resource Elements (REs) that may be in multiple Resource Blocks (RBs) within N (one or more) consecutive symbol(s) within a slot i.e., transmission schedule indicates a sub-slot for the first device to multicast the first packet (Para 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Werner with the method of Schoenberg and further in view of Reddy so as to enhance signaling efficiencies and reduce latency compared to current standard (see Reddy Para 3).
Regarding Claim 28, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 24.
Regarding Claim 32, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 24.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 16, 17, 20-22, 25, 26, 29, 30 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art reference fail to teach the limitation of “generating, by the first device, the first audio data comprising first device audio data; determining, by the first device and based at least in part on the transmission schedule, a third device of the one or more other devices and a fourth device of the one or more other devices; determining, by the first device, a first channel condition associated with the third device of the one or more other devices; determining, by the first device, a second channel condition associated with the fourth device of the one or more other devices; and determining, by the first device, a transmission configuration based at least in part on the first channel condition associated with the third device of the one or more other devices and the second channel condition associated with the fourth device of the one or more other devices”. These limitation in combination of other elements are neither found nor disclosed in prior art as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Verso Pub. No. US 20240385309 A1 - METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ULTRA-WIDEBAND TWO-WAY RANGING
Hammerschmidt et al. Pub. No. US 20220137177 A1 - ANNOUNCING UWB / NBA-UWB-MMS RANGING ROUNDS VIA NARROWBAND-BASED ADVERTISEMENTS
Brumley et al. Pub. No. US 20220078578 A1 - TECHNIQUES FOR CHANGING FREQUENCY OF RANGING BASED ON LOCATION OF MOBILE DEVICE
Schoenberg et al. Pub. No. US 20210072373 A1 - ONE TO MANY RANGING TECHNIQUES
Ledvina et al. Pub. No. US 20190135229 A1 - MOBILE DEVICE FOR COMMUNICATING AND RANGING WITH ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATIC FUNCTIONALITY
Kotian et al. Patent No. US 10091539 B1 - Customized over-the-air television channel mapping for geographical area using crowdsourcing of over-the-air television channels
Tian et al. Pub. No. US 20140329536 A1 - SYNTHETIC WIDEBAND RANGING DESIGN
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAR N SIVJI whose telephone number is (571)270-7462. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
NIZAR N. SIVJI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/NIZAR N SIVJI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights