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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
This office acknowledges receipt of the following item(s) from the applicant:
Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 12 June 2024. The references have been considered.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite(s) limitations that are considered to be data processing and mathematical calculations. Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). The 101 guidance instructs us to look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. As best understood, the claims contain limitations are directed to mathematical concepts and data processing, as is similar to Electric Power Group, Benson and Flook.
Specifically, the claims obtain data and process the data using various algorithms and mathematical concepts to make a determination based on the processed data; mathematical formulas, equations or calculations to provide the output, these will all fall under the category of Mathematical Concepts and along with mental processes they are considered to be abstract. See the updated 101 guidance issued in October 2019, sections A and C.
Analysis of the claims
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 1 (which is being used for the main analysis) recites: - sequentially transmitting, from the first radio transceiver device to the second radio transceiver device, radio frequency signals on a plurality of radio channels, each channel being non- uniformly spaced and representing a distinct continuous tone, - sequentially transmitting, from the second radio transceiver device to the first radio transceiver device, radio frequency signals with distinct continuous tones on same channels as those received from the first radio transceiver device, as well as measured phase difference of the radio frequency signals on each radio channel received from the first radio transceiver device, - on the first radio transceiver device,- creating a first set of estimate candidates, - repeatedly for the plurality radio channels, determining an optimal phase unwrapping vector candidate based on the first set of estimate candidates and the measured phase differences of signals received on the first and the second transceiver devices to determine a second set of candidates, and - calculating the distance between the first radio transceiver device and the second radio transceiver device using the optimal phase unwrapping vector candidate and the second set of candidates.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any limitation that links the process to anything other than the processing of data and making a determination based on the result of the data processing which encompass the use of mathematical operations or can be performed as a mental process which are recognized abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites a first additional element of “transmitting, from the first radio transceiver device” and a second additional element, “transmitting, from the second radio transceiver device”. This step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data processing. It is necessary to transmit and receive/acquire the data and process it to use the recited judicial exception to perform the calculations. The transceivers behave is a routine and conventional manner and are just a tool to perform the abstract idea. The step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Here, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any limitation that links the process to anything other than the processing of data and output (determination) of a result.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no elements in Claims 1 or 7 that appear to clearly have any actionable steps other than transmitting and receiving a signal, there is nothing claimed as to what is done with the data once the calculations made and the distance is determined.
As is best understood Claims 1 and 7 are directed to gathering data using common transceivers for processing by a processor or processor based elements (although not claimed) and there are no explicit structural elements claimed in these claims that would be considered enough to make the claims non-abstract as the heart of the claim is directed to abstract processing steps. The use of generic/well known elements and general processors/computers for the mere implementation of an abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as significantly more. It is not claimed what happens after the final selection/determination step. How is the is the data used, is it transmitted or output in some manner for use, does the system perform another task based on the determination or is the operation merely used for determining most likely position. As currently claimed the limitations are just an operation of determining distance without anything that would be considered significantly more, the operation of processing data to determine a distance has been found to be an abstract idea.
Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer and does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B:
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the re-evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here, the assumed processor is equal to a machine being merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Receiving data is basic data gathering and would not provide significantly more and is insignificant extra-solution activity as the use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05 (b), III). The processor also does` not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a “computer system.” See MPEP § 2106.05(a). There is no indication that the assumed CPU being used needs to be more than a generic device.
Therefore, these limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
There are no limitations in the independent or the dependent claims that would make the processor/computer change in operation in a manner that would make it work in a way that is new and not capable of being done on a generic processor/computer. The processor in these claims performs merely as a tool and does not appear to provide an improvement to the functionality of a computer. Absent evidence to the contrary, claims 1-14 merely rely on the processing of data. Making a determination as a result of processed data is well known and conventional.
Claims 2-6 and 8-14 expand on the processing/mathematical concepts limitations by claim limitations directed to defining steps of the processing, setting values and use of the processed data and do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1-14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and thus, the additional elements do not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Taken alone or as an ordered combination, the limitations of claims do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the judicial exception. Using obtained values from the computational operations is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims 1-14 merely rely on generic components as a tool to apply the abstract idea. The application of the abstract idea to generic components does not transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. While the newly provided guidance of December 2025 states that “When evaluating a claim as a whole, examiners should not dismiss additional elements as mere “generic computer components” without considering whether such elements confer a technological improvement to a technical problem, especially as to improvements to computer components or the computer system.” There are no limitations stating that the any assumed structural elements behave in a non-conventional manner or that the assumed processor is using collected and stored data for anything more than evaluation. All other dependent claims build upon the abstract idea and do not result in significantly more or a practical application and merely just expand on how the software and algorithms operate to process the data. There is no claim to how the processed data is used besides simply making a determination or what tangible step is taken once the processing is done that would link the processing of data to practical application or an actual actionable step. While the algorithms and calculation processing may be novel, novelty does not change the claim from being an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-14 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.
Referring to Claims 1 and 7, it is not clear what “…creating a first set of estimate candidates…” refers to or how it they are created. It is not clear what these estimate candidates come from or how they are produced as neither the method or device claim contains limitations defining what the candidates are. This appears to be partially alleviated with the limitation described in claim 3. As the claim is written, the repeatedly and calculating steps are also indefinite as they are based on the first set of estimate candidates. Clarification is also required with regard to “a second set of candidates” are these also estimate candidates or are these a different set of candidates all together. It is suggested that the claim be amended to better define the first set of estimate candidates to alleviate any clarity issues.
Claims 2-6 and 8-14 are dependent on Claims 1 and 7 and are subject to the same rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al. (Tong, US PGPub 2020/0166631) in view of Cattle (US PGPub 2019/0324134).
Referring to Claim 1, Tong teaches - sequentially transmitting, from the first radio transceiver device to the second radio transceiver device, radio frequency signals on a plurality of radio channels, each channel being non- uniformly spaced and representing a distinct continuous tone (Fig. 2-3B #S21; [0038-0039], [0050] and [0142]), - sequentially transmitting, from the second radio transceiver device to the first radio transceiver device, radio frequency signals with distinct continuous tones on same channels as those received from the first radio transceiver device, as well as measured phase difference of the radio frequency signals on each radio channel received from the first radio transceiver device (Fig. 2 #S22 and S26; [0096], [0116] [0118] and [0122] as well as Fig. 14), - on the first radio transceiver device,- creating a first set of estimate candidates (See S26 and S251 and 261 and associated text as well as 112 rejection above), - repeatedly for the plurality radio channels, determining an optimal vector candidate based on the first set of estimate candidates and the measured phase differences of signals received on the first and the second transceiver devices to determine a second set of candidates (S26 or S271 as well as [0040-0041]), and - calculating the distance between the first radio transceiver device and the second radio transceiver device using the optimal vector candidate and the second set of candidates (S27 or S281 and [0047-0048] and [0140-0141], but does not explicitly disclose nor limit the optimal vector candidate being an optimal phase unwrapping vector candidate.
However, Cattle teaches the use of phase unwrapping; [0089].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tong with the phase unwrapping as taught by Cattle to predictably identify phase in noisy signal allowing for accurate phase measurements.
Referring to Claims 2 and 8, Tong as modified by Cattle teaches wherein the plurality of radio channels is a subset of a frequency band comprising of uniformly spaced radio channels; [0039].
Referring to Claims 3 and 9, Tong as modified by Cattle teaches wherein the first set of estimate candidates and the second set of candidates comprises candidates of the distance between the first radio transceiver device and the second transceiver device; see Fig, 3A and 3B and associated text.
Referring to Claims 4 and 10, Tong as modified by Cattle teaches wherein the first set of estimate candidates and the second set of candidates comprises candidates of a time offset between the first radio transceiver device and the second transceiver device, the step of calculating the distance between the first radio transceiver device and the second radio transceiver device further comprising: calculating the time offset between the first radio transceiver device and the second transceiver device using the optimal phase unwrapping vector candidate and the second set of time offset candidates, and on the second radio transceiver device, determining the distance between the first radio transceiver device and the second transceiver device by measuring the phase difference of the radio frequency signals on each radio channel received from the second radio transceiver device on a superset of the plurality of radio channels used to calculate the time offset; [0040-0056].
Referring to Claims 5, 11, 13 and 14, Tong as modified by Cattle teaches wherein the superset of the plurality of radio channels used to calculate the time offset comprises the frequency band comprising of uniformly spaced radio channels; See citations above of Tong with respect to Claims 1 and 2.
Referring to Claims 6 and 12, Tong as modified by Cattle teaches wherein the frequency band comprises 75 radio frequencies uniformly spaced at 1 MHz or 37 radio frequencies spaced at 2 MHz; [0038-0039] of Tong, the total number of bands would have been an obvious design choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WHITNEY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-3338. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 7am-4pm.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/WHITNEY MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646