DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The response filed May 6, 2026 has been entered.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 1-11 are pending this application.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romme (US 2020/0395978 A1) in view of Kluge et al (US 2010/0167662 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Romme teaches a method of phase-based ranging between a first device and a second device, comprising [0007, 0010 for phase-based ranging with a first measuring device]:
receiving a plurality of two-way phase-measurements between the first device and the second device performed at a plurality of frequencies [0007 for a first and second frequency];
identifying a first measurement and a second measurement of said plurality of two-way phase measurements [0010-0011 and 0057];
calculating a relative speed between said first device and said second device based at least on said first measurement and said second measurement [0008, 0019-0020];
doppler compensating a plurality of measurements of said plurality of two-way phase measurements based on the calculated relative speed [0019-0020, and 0060];
and calculating a distance between said first device and said second device based on the doppler compensated measurements [0008, and 0060].
Romme fails to explicitly teach identifying a first measurement and a second measurement of said plurality of two-way phase measurements having been performed at a same frequency.
Kluge has a method for distance measurement between two nodes of a radio network (abstract) and teaches identifying a first measurement and a second measurement of said plurality of two-way phase measurements having been performed at a same frequency [0084-0085].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the phase ranging techniques, as disclosed by Romme, further including the frequency calculations as taught by Kluge for the purpose to allow the two-phase errors can be subtracted from one another (Kluge, 0084).
Regarding Claim 2, Romme teaches each two-way phase measurement of said plurality of two-way phase measurements is a pair of in-phase, I, and quadrature, Q, measurements, a phase-magnitude-pair, or any other pair of numbers representable as a complex number [0015, 0071].
Regarding Claim 3, Romme teaches the frequencies of said plurality of two-way phase measurements are pseudo-randomly ordered in time [0024].
Regarding Claim 4, Romme fails to explicitly teach the pseudo-random order in time of the frequencies of said plurality of two-way phase measurements is according to US FCC regulation 47 CFR §15.247 [0023 for using standards].
Regarding Claim 5, Romme teaches said calculating of said distance is performed using a fast Fourier transform, FFT, ranging algorithm or a super-resolution ranging algorithm [0057 for using super-resolution].
Regarding Claim 6, Romme fails to explicitly teach said relative speed is calculated based on a phase difference between said second measurement and said first measurement, said same frequency, and a time difference between said second measurement and said first measurement.
Kluge has a method for distance measurement between two nodes of a radio network (abstract) and teaches said relative speed is calculated based on a phase difference between said second measurement and said first measurement, said same frequency, and a time difference between said second measurement and said first measurement [0008, and 0091-0094].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the phase ranging techniques, as disclosed by Romme, further including the frequency calculations as taught by Kluge for the purpose to synchronize the crystal oscillator to the frequency (Kluge, 0008).
Regarding Claim 8, Romme fails to explicitly teach a doppler compensation of said doppler compensating is calculated based on the frequency of the measurement, the estimated relative speed, the time of measurement at the first device and the time of measurement at the second device [0057-0059 and 0086-0089].
Regarding Claim 10, Romme teaches device configured to perform the method 0007, 0010].
Regarding Claim 11, Romme teaches non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer or processor, causes the computer or processor to carry out the method [0007, 0010].
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romme (US 2020/0395978 A1) in view of Kluge et al (US 2010/0167662 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Richards et al (SciTech, 2010).
Regarding Claim 7, Romme fails to explicitly teach said relative speed is calculable as: n =c∆ϕ/-4πf n ∆T wherein n is the estimated relative speed, c is the speed of light, f n is said same frequency, ∆T is a time difference between said second measurement and said first measurement, and ∆ϕ is a phase difference between said second measurement and said first measurement.
Richards has a method for to target detection and target range determination (page 3, Section 1.1 first paragraph) and teaches said relative speed is calculable as: n =c∆ϕ/-4πf n ∆T wherein n is the estimated relative speed, c is the speed of light, f n is said same frequency, ∆T is a time difference between said second measurement and said first measurement, and ∆ϕ is a phase difference between said second measurement and said first measurement [page 696, Section 18.7].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the phase ranging techniques, as disclosed by Romme, further including the velocity calculations as taught by Richards for the purpose to determine range estimations (Richards, page 696, Section 18.7 first paragraph).
Regarding Claim 9, Romme fails to explicitly teach a doppler compensation of said doppler compensating is calculable as: ϕdoppler=-2πf n /c(tA+tB) wherein f is the frequency of the measurement, n is the estimated relative speed, c is the speed of light, tA is a time of measurement at the first device and tB is a time of measurement at the second device.
Richards has a method for to target detection and target range determination (page 3, Section 1.1 first paragraph) and teaches a doppler compensation of said doppler compensating is calculable as: ϕdoppler=-2πf n /c(tA+tB) wherein f is the frequency of the measurement, n is the estimated relative speed, c is the speed of light, tA is a time of measurement at the first device and tB is a time of measurement at the second device [page 695, first two paragraphs].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the phase ranging techniques, as disclosed by Romme, further including the velocity calculations as taught by Richards for the purpose to determine range estimations (Richards, page 696, Section 18.7 first paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a
general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In applicant’s arguments page 2, second paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Kluge does not disclose a first and second two-way phase measurement performed at the same frequency. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Kluge teaches a first bidirectional exchange and phase measurement at frequency f1 followed by a second separate bidirectional exchange and phase measurement at f2 [Kluge, 0085-0091 for carrier frequency is then increased by the same frequency amount Δf]
In applicant’s arguments page 2, third paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Kluge does not disclose a first and second two-way phase measurement performed at the same frequency. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Kluge teaches both same frequency because both nodes perform paired phase measurements on the identical carrier frequency before stepping to f2, and Kluge also teaches that both phase measurements M(f2) are then repeated at times t3 and t4 for the frequency f2, whereby the second phase value φA2 of the first phase is determined in the first node A and the fourth phase value φB2 of the second phase in the second node [Kluge, 0085-0091].
The examiner acknowledges that this is a broader interpretation than Applicant’s.
However, examiners are not only allowed to apply broad interpretations, but are required to do so, as it reduces the possibility that the claims, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. MPEP §2111. Patentability is determined by the “broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification” (MPEP §2111), not the narrowest reasonable interpretation. And Applicant does not have an explicit lexicographical statement in line with MPEP §2111.01
subsection IV requiring a specific interpretation of the relevant phrases which forces the examiner to interpret them only one way.
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
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 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights