Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/663,755

DISTANCE MEASUREMENT APPARATUS AND SETTING METHOD OF TRANSMISSION CONDITION

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
May 14, 2024
Examiner
GREGORY, BERNARR E
Art Unit
3648
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Alps Alpine Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
1301 granted / 1438 resolved
+38.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+6.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
1464
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.5%
-33.5% vs TC avg
§103
21.3%
-18.7% vs TC avg
§102
4.7%
-35.3% vs TC avg
§112
60.4%
+20.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1438 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 . Comments The drawings of May 14, 2024 are hereby accepted as FORMAL. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The information disclosure statements (IDS) of May 14, 2024, and, of November 6, 2024 have been considered during examination. Please note that any mention of a line number in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW), not to any claim as it may be reproduced below. Claim Interpretation 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. Claims 1-7 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. On lines 6-7 of independent claim 1, “another device” is indefinite and unclear in context in that there is no earlier-recited “device.” Substantially the same remarks apply to “another device” on line 4 of independent claim 7. Lines 4-9 of independent claim 1, the claim language is indefinite and unclear in context in that a “processor” per se cannot perform the recited “transmitting” or the recited “receiving.” These can only be performed by a transmitter, a receiver, or a transceiver,” any one or more of which could be controlled by the “processor.” Throughout independent claim 1, each mention of “the other device” lacks antecedent basis. The uses of “the other device” cannot take “another device” (claim 1, lines 6-7) as antecedent. On line 28 of independent claim 1, the phrase, “setting randomly a transmission order” is indefinite and unclear in context as to whether it is meant that the action of “setting” is done “randomly” (i.e., the action of “setting” is not always done, but is done at random times), or, whether it is meant that the “transmission order” is random. Substantially the same remarks apply to the phrase, “setting randomly a transmission order” on line 24 of independent claim 7. Similarly, “randomly set” in claim 2, “randomly set” in claim 3, randomly set” in claim 4, “randomly set” in claim 5, and, “setting randomly” are indefinite and unclear in context. In dependent claims 2 and 4, and, independent claim 7, each mention of “the other device” lacks antecedent basis. In dependent claim 6, each mention of “the other devices” lacks antecedent basis. Each of dependent claims 2-6 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 1. Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Regarding independent claim 1, none of the prior art discloses in combination the claimed features, “measuring a third phase … by the distance measurement apparatus” as recited on lines 17-37, nor would this claimed combination of features have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art. As for independent claim 7, none of the prior art discloses in combination the claimed features, “measuring a third phase … by the distance measurement apparatus” as recited on lines 13-33, nor would this claimed combination of features have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art. Claims 2-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Each of dependent claims 2-6 is potentially-allowable, at least, in that it depends from potentially-allowable, independent claim 1. Prior Art of General Interest The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carrender (‘073) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the use of two devices determining distance by phase difference. Carrender et al (‘953) is of general interest for paragraph [36] and the related disclosure. Smid et al (‘710) is of general interest for the disclosed use of two stations in distance measuring. Waheed et al (‘019) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the use of “different carrier frequencies.” Berliner et al (‘786) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the use of frequency hopping with phase offset. Each of Ootaka et al (‘121) and Ootaka et al (‘315) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the use of a plurality of carrier signals which may differ in frequency. Yokev et al (‘330) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the use of two carriers of different frequency. Each of Bensky et al (‘761) and Berliner et al (‘415) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the use of different frequencies in the exchanges between the two stations. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice. /BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 14, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 05, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601831
RADAR AND CAMERA FUSION FOR VEHICLE APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597352
VEHICLE LANE DETERMINATION METHOD, COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT, AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591037
QUANTUM RYDBERG RADARS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585005
HYBRID METHOD FOR TIME-OF-ARRIVAL-BASED RANGING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585012
INVERSE RADAR SENSOR MODEL AND EVIDENTIAL GRID MAPPING PROCESSORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+6.7%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1438 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month