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
Applicant’s amendment filed on 07/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 have been amended. No Claim has been canceled in this amendment. No New Claim has been added in this amendment. Claims 1-9 are pending in this application, with claims 1 and 9 being independent. Claims 1-9 are pending in this application, with claims 1 and 9 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of Claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, There is no L0 defined. What is f1 and f2?
In claim 3, It is not clear how “ a third distance” and “ a fourth distance” are determined or obtained
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MA et al. (US 2021/0243716 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Ma”)-IDS in view of Campagna (US 2011/0066740 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Campagna”).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Ma discloses a positioning device for determining a position of a mobile communication system (Ma Fig.1,3 Para[0014] A distance estimation system), the positioning system comprising: a first wireless communication device (Ma Fig.1,3 Para[0014] A device 104A); a second wireless communication device disposed at a known first distance from the first wireless communication device (Ma Fig.1,3 Para[0014] A device 104B at a given distance); a processor (Ma Fig.2 Para[0014] A processor) configured to determine a second distance between the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device based on (i) a first phase of a first signal that is transmitted at a first frequency from the first wireless communication device and is received by the second wireless communication device, and (ii) a second phase of a second signal that is transmitted at a second frequency from the first wireless communication device and is received by the second wireless communication device (Ma Fig.3 Para[0028-50] The signals transmitted between devices at different frequencies. The phase phases of received signals are used to determine a distance between devices. Ma teaches the method to determine a second distance using phases of signals).
Ma does not explicitly disclose correct, based on a first differential distance between the first distance and the second distance, a phase of a clock of at least one of the first wireless communication device or the second wireless communication device, such that the phases of the clocks of the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device are synchronized.
However, Campagna from the same field of invention discloses correct, based on a first differential distance between the first distance and the second distance, a phase of a clock of at least one of the first wireless communication device or the second wireless communication device, such that the phases of the clocks of the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device are synchronized (Campagna Fig.8 Para[0064-70] based on the known difference in length (i.e. distance), the phase of the clock is adjusted (i.e. corrected) for other devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ma to have the feature of “correct, based on a first differential distance between the first distance and the second distance, a phase of a clock of at least one of the first wireless communication device or the second wireless communication device, such that the phases of the clocks of the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device are synchronized” as taught by Campagna. The motivation would have been to measure extremely small distance with precision (Campagna Para[0002]).
Regarding claim 2, Ma in view of Campagna discloses the method and the device as explained above for Claim 1. Ma further discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine the second distance according to the following equations L=(n + Pl)xLambda1 (1) L=(n + P2)xLambda2 (2) n=L/Lambda1-P1 (3) n=L/Lambda2- P2 (4) L = cx(P1 - P2)/(fl - f2) (5), wherein: L0 is the known first distance, L is the second distance, λ1 is a wavelength of the first signal having the first frequency, λ2 is a wavelength of the second signal having the second frequency, n indicates each of a wavenumber of the first signal having the first frequency in a communication between the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device and a wavenumber of the second signal having the second frequency in the communication between the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device, P1 is the first phase, P2 is the second phase, and c is a speed of light, and wherein the first differential distance is a difference between L and L0, and Equation (5) is obtained from Equations (3) and (4) (Ma Para[0063] Ma provides a formula to find distance between the devices).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Campagna and in further in view of Bietz et al. (US 2018/0231634 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Bietz”).
Regarding claim 3, Ma in view of Campagna discloses the method and the device as explained above for Claim 1. Ma in view of Campagna does not explicitly disclose wherein after correcting the clock, the processor is configured to determine a second differential distance between a third distance, which is from the mobile communication device to the first wireless communication device and a fourth distance from the mobile communication device to the second wireless communication device, based on (i) a third phase of a third signal that is transmitted at the first frequency from the mobile communication device and is received by the first wireless communication device, (ii) a fourth phase of a fourth signal that is transmitted at the second frequency from the mobile communication device and is received by the first wireless communication device, (iii) a fifth phase of a fifth signal that is transmitted at the first frequency from the mobile communication device and is received by the second wireless communication device, (iv) a sixth phase of a sixth signal that is transmitted at the second frequency from the mobile communication device and is received by the second wireless communication device, and determine the position of the mobile communication device with respect to the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device, based on the second differential distance.
However, Bietz from a similar field of invention discloses wherein after correcting the clock, the processor is configured to determine a second differential distance between a third distance, which is from the mobile communication device to the first wireless communication device and a fourth distance from the mobile communication device to the second wireless communication device, based on (i) a third phase of a third signal that is transmitted at the first frequency from the mobile communication device and is received by the first wireless communication device, (ii) a fourth phase of a fourth signal that is transmitted at the second frequency from the mobile communication device and is received by the first wireless communication device, (iii) a fifth phase of a fifth signal that is transmitted at the first frequency from the mobile communication device and is received by the second wireless communication device, (iv) a sixth phase of a sixth signal that is transmitted at the second frequency from the mobile communication device and is received by the second wireless communication device, and determine the position of the mobile communication device with respect to the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device, based on the second differential distance (Bietz Fig.17-18 Para[0152-156] After synchronization, a distance between the devices is determined).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ma and Campagna to have the feature of “wherein after correcting the clock, the processor is configured to determine a second differential distance between a third distance, which is from the mobile communication device to the first wireless communication device and a fourth distance from the mobile communication device to the second wireless communication device, based on (i) a third phase of a third signal that is transmitted at the first frequency from the mobile communication device and is received by the first wireless communication device, (ii) a fourth phase of a fourth signal that is transmitted at the second frequency from the mobile communication device and is received by the first wireless communication device, (iii) a fifth phase of a fifth signal that is transmitted at the first frequency from the mobile communication device and is received by the second wireless communication device, (iv) a sixth phase of a sixth signal that is transmitted at the second frequency from the mobile communication device and is received by the second wireless communication device, and determine the position of the mobile communication device with respect to the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device, based on the second differential distance” as taught by Bietz. The motivation would have been to provide a localization system at a low cost (Bietz Para[]).
Claims 4-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Campagna, Bietz and in further in view of Ledvina et al. (US 2022/0191644 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Ledvina”).
Regarding claim 4, Ma in view of Campagna discloses the method and the device as explained above for Claim 1. Ma in view of Campagna does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device includes multiple antennas, wherein the processor is configured to determine a first arrival direction in which at least one signal from the mobile communication device arrives at the first wireless communication device, based on a first phase difference of the at least one signal that is received by the multiple antennas of the first wireless communication device, or determine a second arrival direction in which at least one signal from the mobile communication device arrives at the second wireless communication device, based on a second phase difference of the at least one signal that is received by the multiple antennas of the second wireless communication device, and wherein the processor is configured to determine the position of the mobile communication device with respect to the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device, based on the first differential distance and either the first arrival direction or the second arrival direction.
However, Ledvina from a similar field of invention discloses wherein each of the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device includes multiple antennas, wherein the processor is configured to determine a first arrival direction in which at least one signal from the mobile communication device arrives at the first wireless communication device, based on a first phase difference of the at least one signal that is received by the multiple antennas of the first wireless communication device, or determine a second arrival direction in which at least one signal from the mobile communication device arrives at the second wireless communication device, based on a second phase difference of the at least one signal that is received by the multiple antennas of the second wireless communication device, and wherein the processor is configured to determine the position of the mobile communication device with respect to the first communication device and the second communication device, based on the first differential distance and either the first arrival direction or the second arrival direction (Ledvina Fig.5-7 Para[0049-68] Different antennas are used to find distance, direction and signal strengths to determine a mobile device position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ma and Campagna to have the feature of “wherein each of the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device includes multiple antennas, wherein the processor is configured to determine a first arrival direction in which at least one signal from the mobile communication device arrives at the first wireless communication device, based on a first phase difference of the at least one signal that is received by the multiple antennas of the first wireless communication device, or determine a second arrival direction in which at least one signal from the mobile communication device arrives at the second wireless communication device, based on a second phase difference of the at least one signal that is received by the multiple antennas of the second wireless communication device, and wherein the processor is configured to determine the position of the mobile communication device with respect to the first communication device and the second communication device, based on the first differential distance and either the first arrival direction or the second arrival direction” as taught by Ledvina. The motivation would have been to determine a location of a device (Ledvina Para[0005]).
Regarding claim 5, Ma in view of Campagna discloses the method and the device as explained above for Claim 1. Ma in view of Campagna does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one signal received by the multiple antennas of the first wireless communication device includes at least one of the third signal or the fourth signal, and wherein the at least one signal received by the multiple antennas of the second wireless communication device includes at least one of the fifth signal or the sixth signal.
However, Ledvina from a similar field of invention discloses wherein the at least one signal received by the multiple antennas of the first wireless communication device includes at least one of the third signal or the fourth signal, and wherein the at least one signal received by the multiple antennas of the second wireless communication device includes at least one of the fifth signal or the sixth signal (Ledvina Fig.5-7 Para[0049-68] Different antennas are used to find distance, direction and signal strengths to determine a mobile device position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ma and Campagna to have the feature of “wherein the at least one signal received by the multiple antennas of the first wireless communication device includes at least one of the third signal or the fourth signal, and wherein the at least one signal received by the multiple antennas of the second wireless communication device includes at least one of the fifth signal or the sixth signal” as taught by Ledvina. The motivation would have been to determine a location of a device (Ledvina Para[0005]).
Regarding claim 8, Ma in view of Campagna discloses the method and the device as explained above for Claim 1. Ma in view of Campagna does not explicitly disclose evaluate a quality of the second differential distance based on (i) a difference between a first timing and a second timing at which the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device receive any respective signals, among the third signal, the fourth signal, the fifth signal, and the sixth signal and (ii) the second differential distance.
However, Ledvina from a similar field of invention discloses evaluate a quality of the second differential distance based on (i) a difference between a first timing and a second timing at which the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device receive any respective signals, among the third signal, the fourth signal, the fifth signal, and the sixth signal and (ii) the second differential distance (Ledvina Fig.5-7 Para[0062-64] A time of flight is used for distance information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ma and Campagna to have the feature of “evaluate a quality of the second differential distance based on (i) a difference between a first timing and a second timing at which the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device receive any respective signals, among the third signal, the fourth signal, the fifth signal, and the sixth signal and (ii) the second differential distance” as taught by Ledvina. The motivation would have been to determine a location of a device (Ledvina Para[0005]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
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 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 Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights