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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: The abbreviation ‘PPI’ is undefined. Examiner recommends defining the abbreviation before its usage. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 20210405145 hereinafter Yao) in view of Cleveland et al. (US PAT 8279796 hereinafter Cleveland).
Regarding claim 1, Yao teaches A method for phase-based ranging measurement between a first radio frequency transceiver and a second radio frequency transceiver, comprising (Abstract “A method of ranging between a first and a second radio signal transceiver”): -
transmitting a radio frequency signal from the first radio frequency transceiver to the second radio frequency transceiver (0012 “the first set of measurement results is acquired by the first radio signal transceiver using a first set of antennas based on signals transmitted from the second radio signal transceiver using a second set of antennas”);
- receiving, on the first radio frequency transceiver, a radio frequency signal transmitted from the second radio frequency transceiver (0025 “The method may be performed in one of the transceivers, which may be receiving measurement results from the other transceiver in order to be able to use both the first set and the second set of measurement results in calculating the distance”),
the frequency being the same as the frequency transmitted from the first radio frequency transceiver (0096 “The measurements may be performed in the following steps: [0097] 1. Device A and Device B setting their respective local oscillators (LOs) to a predetermined frequency and setting a loop counter k=0.”; 0095 “Acquiring of measurement results may start with the two devices A and B agreeing on the ranging parameters, aligning their frequencies (e.g., using carrier frequency offset (CFO) estimation and calibration), and realizing coarse time synchronization, i.e., both A and B start a (digital) counter, i.e., clock at, e.g., the transmission/reception of a start frame delimiter (SFD), which both devices A and B use to control a local state machine.”),
-
- measuring the frequency response between the transmitted and reflected radio frequency signals from the resulting digital signals (0083 “a ranging calculation may be based on reconstructing a one-way frequency-domain channel response between the first device A and the second device B based on such measurements”).
Yao does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Cleveland teaches
shifting the frequencies of the transmitted and the received radio signals of a transceiver to a same frequency, different from the transmitted and received frequencies (3:55-60 “(Front end modules [not shown] perform low-noise amplification and down-convert signals received on the HBRX and the UHFRX bands into the 39-90 MHz IF bands at the inputs to BPFs 201b and 201c).”; 4:1-8 “In the illustrated embodiment, LPF 206 has a corner frequency of approximately 90 MHz and passes signals in the 39-90 MHz IF band to an RF switch matrix 207. RF switch matrix 207 switches the IF signals to corresponding transmit modules (not shown), which generate the ultimate RF signals within the appropriate RF transmit band”),
prior to being input to processing modules in the transmitter and receiver signal paths of the transceiver, where the modules in these signal paths are synchronized by sharing same clock domain (“voltage controlled temperature compensated crystal oscillator (VCTCXO) 217 establishes the time base for the circuitry of SDR 200. In the illustrated embodiment, VCTXO 217 generates a 19.2 MHz clock signal, which is level shifted and buffered within FPGA 208 and then provided to DSP 214 as the master clock (MCLK) signal. This clock signal is also provided as a reference signal to clock generation circuitry 218.” . . . Clock generation circuitry 218 provides a set of clock signals, and in particular, a 57.6 MHz clock signal for driving ADCs 203a-203c, as well as the clock signals needed by DDS 205 and DDCs 210a-210d.)
- after an analogue to digital conversion module, converting the analogue transmitted and received radio frequency signals to digital signals (fig 2a)
shifting the frequencies of the digital signals to the same frequency as the frequency of the transducer's transmitted and the received radio frequency signals (5:20-25 “FIG. 2B is a more detailed block diagram of a selected one of DDCs 210a-210d of FPGA 208. As shown in FIG. 2B, digital mixers 219a and 219b, which are driven by numerically controlled digital oscillator (NCO) 220, generate in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) signals from the input data received from crossbar switch 209. NCO oscillator is controlled by frequency control data loaded into frequency register 221”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Cleveland with the teachings of Yao. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve efficiency of the overall system (Cleveland 2:1-5). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Cleveland merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular circuitry features. Since both Cleveland and Yao disclose similar radio systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teaches The method according to claim 1, by letting a timing engine synchronize a phase reference of a Phase Locked Loop, PLL (Yao 0117 “Device A and device B may have respective phase-locked loops (PLLs) to generate their respective LO signals.”; 0118 “the respective LOs of the first device A and the second device B may be kept running, and further, frequency stepping at each of the first device A and the second device B may be timed, so that phase measurements will be coherent between each different antenna combination.”), and a phase reference of a Numerically Controlled Oscillator, NCO, generating an intermediate frequency (Cleveland 5:20-26 “FIG. 2B is a more detailed block diagram of a selected one of DDCs 210a-210d of FPGA 208. As shown in FIG. 2B, digital mixers 219a and 219b, which are driven by numerically controlled digital oscillator (NCO) 220, generate in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) signals from the input data received from crossbar switch 209. NCO oscillator is controlled by frequency control data loaded into frequency register 221.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Cleveland with the teachings of Yao. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve efficiency of the overall system (Cleveland 2:1-5). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Cleveland merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular circuitry features. Since both Cleveland and Yao disclose similar radio systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the radio frequency signal comprises a plurality of frequencies (Yao 0094 “Measurements may thus be performed for a plurality of frequencies and for a plurality of antenna combinations, as will be detailed in the following”).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teaches The method according to claim 5, wherein the radio frequency signal comprises a sequence of radio frequency signals having different carrier frequencies (Yao 0095 “Acquiring of measurement results may start with the two devices A and B agreeing on the ranging parameters, aligning their frequencies (e.g., using carrier frequency offset (CFO) estimation and calibration), and realizing coarse time synchronization, i.e., both A and B start a (digital) counter, i.e., clock at, e.g., the transmission/reception of a start frame delimiter (SFD), which both devices A and B use to control a local state machine.”).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2 and is therefore similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 3, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 20210405145 hereinafter Yao) in view of Cleveland et al. (US PAT 8279796 hereinafter Cleveland) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Elahi et al. (US 20160267038 hereinafter Elahi).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teaches The method according to claim 2, wherein
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Elahi teaches
a timing IP triggered by software using PPI and timers is used as the timing engine (0066 “In one example system, the peripheral is a timer which is able to receive a start task and respond by starting counting from zero, and which is also able to signal an overflow event when its counter overflows. The processor may be instructed to configure the system so that the timer automatically restarts counting from zero when its counter overflows, rather than simply stopping counting. To do this, it may instruct the programmable peripheral interconnect to create a channel between the timer's overflow event and its start task.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Elahi with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reduce system complexity (Elahi 01059). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hyman merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular circuitry features. Since both Hyman and the cited prior art disclose similar radio systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3 and is therefore similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 4, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 20210405145 hereinafter Yao) in view of Cleveland et al. (US PAT 8279796 hereinafter Cleveland) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hyman et al. (US PAT 11552644 hereinafter Hyman).
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The method according to claim 2,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Hyman teaches
wherein a dedicated Hardware, HW, timing engine that is programmed with correct timing values and frequency shifts is used as the timing engine (4:40-44 “The timing resource 102 generates at least three timing signals, an MCU timing signal 101, a PLLWG timing signal 111, and a QM timing signal 151, which are received by the MCU 100, the PLLWG 110, and the QM DAC 150, respectively.”; 11:34-38 “It is recognized that this time period for frequency lock appears rapid, but the frequency shift is less than 0.1% (2.000 MHz out of 2404.000 MHz) and rapid shifts of small frequency changes are possible with the PLLWG 110”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Hyman with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reduce system complexity (Hyman 18:12-26). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hyman merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular circuitry features. Since both Hyman and the cited prior art disclose similar radio systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4 and is therefore similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Brosche et al. (US 20120200453) discloses “The disclosure relates to a method and a device for supplying a reflection signal. According to the disclosure, an intermediate frequency signal having a high intermediate frequency can be demodulated in a numerical manner into I/Q components without intermediate frequency by means of a two channel sampling, thus enabling a complex reflection factor to be obtained. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648