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 .
Examiner’s Note
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.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7-9, 16-18, and 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “wherein this number amounts toa power” which contains a typographical error. It is suggested to be amended to “wherein this number amounts [[toa]] to a power”. Additionally, it is suggested that the claim is amended to “power of [[2]]two”.
Claim 8 recites “IQ values” and “RSSI measurements” which are suggested to be amended to “[[IQ]]in-phase and quadrature (IQ) values” and “[[RSSI]]received signal strength indicator (RSSI) measurements”.
Claim 9 recites “the RSSI measurements” which is suggested to be amended to “the amplitude of the RSSI measurements”, because it appears that it is the feature previously recited.
Claim 16 recites “wherein this number amounts toa power” which contains a typographical error. It is suggested to be amended to “wherein this number amounts [[toa]] to a power”. Additionally, it is suggested that the claim is amended to “power of [[2]]two”.
Claim 17 recites “IQ values” and “RSSI measurements” which are suggested to be amended to “[[IQ]]in-phase and quadrature (IQ) values” and “[[RSSI]]received signal strength indicator (RSSI) measurements”.
Claim 18 recites “the RSSI measurements” which is suggested to be amended to “the amplitude of the RSSI measurements”, because it appears that it is the feature previously recited.
Claim 20 recites “a reflector device” which appears to already have been recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a system and a method and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claim(s) 1, 10, and 19:
Claim 1:
A method for phase based range measurement comprising: determining a plurality of phase differences, wherein each of the plurality of phase difference is based on a pair of phase measurements; determining a total phase difference based on the plurality of phase differences, wherein each of the plurality of phase difference is weighted; and determining a range based on the total phase difference.
Claim 10:
An apparatus, comprising: a receiver configured to receive radio frequency (RF) signals associated with a plurality of phase values; a processing system configured to: determine a plurality of phase differences, wherein each phase difference is based on a pair of phase measurements; determine a total phase difference based on the plurality of phase differences, wherein each of the phase differences is weighted; and determine a range of a source of at least a portion of the RF signals, based on the total phase difference.
Claim 19:
A system comprising: an initiating device comprising a transceiver; and a reflector device, wherein the initiating device is configured to receive wireless signals from the reflector device, and based on the wireless signals: determine several phase differences, wherein each phase difference is based on a pair of phase measurements, determine a total phase difference based on the several phase differences, wherein each of the phase difference is weighted, determine a range based on the total phase difference, and initiate an action based on the determined range.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 10 recites an apparatus and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. Claim 19 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Independent claim(s) 10 and 19 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain sufficiently the same limitations as those noted for claim 1 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. Claim 1 recites “A method for phase based range measurement comprising: determining a plurality of phase differences, wherein each of the plurality of phase difference is based on a pair of phase measurements; determining a total phase difference based on the plurality of phase differences, wherein each of the plurality of phase difference is weighted; and determining a range based on the total phase difference.”
The focus of the claim is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are simply mathematical concepts (e.g., algorithms, spatial relationships, geometry). When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, “determining a total phase difference based on the plurality of phase differences, wherein each of the plurality of phase difference is weighted; and determining a range based on the total phase difference” are simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitation(s) of “determining a plurality of phase differences, wherein each of the plurality of phase difference is based on a pair of phase measurements” are recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further limitation(s) are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1.
The limitation(s) of “determining a plurality of phase differences, wherein each of the plurality of phase difference is based on a pair of phase measurements; determining a total phase difference based on the plurality of phase differences, wherein each of the plurality of phase difference is weighted; and determining a range based on the total phase difference” and “a receiver”; “a processing system” [claim 10] and “an initiating device comprising a transceiver”; “a reflector device” [claim 19] are recited in a manner that is well understood, generic and conventional. The additional recitation(s) do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation(s) are at a high level of generality and are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation(s) are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1 and does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 1 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 are ineligible.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 2-9 recite a series of steps and therefore, fall under a process. Claims 11-18, and 20 recite a device, and therefore, fall under a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 3-9, 11-18, and 20 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same or sufficiently similar defects as those noted for claim 2 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from the abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are ineligible.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-12, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chowdhury et al. (US 2022/0128677 A1 “CHOWDHURY”), in view of Sabesan et al. (US 2013/0201003 A1 “SABESAN”).
Regarding claim 1, CHOWDHURY discloses (Examiner’s note: What CHOWDHURY does not disclose is ) a method for phase based range measurement comprising: determining a plurality of phase differences, wherein each of the plurality of phase difference is based on a pair of phase measurements (for each sub-signal pair in the set of sub-signal pairs characterized by a frequency difference less than the maximum frequency difference: extracting a phase difference of the sub-signal pair in Block S132 [0011]); determining a total phase difference based on the plurality of phase differences, calculating a hybrid time-of-arrival estimate as a weighted combination of the time-based time-of-arrival estimate, the phase-based time-of-arrival estimate, based on the time-based uncertainty and the phase-based uncertainty [0012]); and determining a range based on the total phase difference (by executing the method S100 in order to obtain accurate time-of-flight measurements between transceivers on a pairwise basis, the system can calculate distances for pairwise ranging of a transceivers pair and [0021]).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SABESAN teaches determining a difference between transmit signal and return signal phase [0028]. Additionally, SABESAN teaches weighting the phase measurements based upon received signal strength [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of CHOWDHURY to include the teachings of SABESAN, because doing so would improve robustness of a range measurement, as recognized by SABESAN. In addition, both of the prior art references, CHOWDHURY and SABESAN, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, range determination using RF wireless signals.
Regarding claim 2, CHOWDHURY, as modified, discloses the method according to claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SABESAN teaches that a prediction-correction filter such as a Kalman filter or particle filter is employed to predict variation of phase difference with frequency change, correcting this using the phase measurement data. In such an approach the RSSI of a signal or signals from which the phase measurements are derived (that is, of a return signal from the tag) is used as a measure of the variance of the phase measurements, in effect a phase variance weighting for the, for example, Kalman filter [0031]. By selective use of information from the system, in particular neglecting low RSSI signals and using weighting techniques/Kalman filtering one can minimize the causes of errors [0186]. The weighting by K (the blending factor) is such that as the measurement error covariance approaches zero, the actual measurement is “trusted” more and more, while the predicted measurement is trusted less and less [0198]. Examiner’s note: The limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of CHOWDHURY to include the teachings of SABESAN, because doing so would improve robustness of a range measurement, as recognized by SABESAN.
Regarding claim 3, CHOWDHURY/ SABESAN discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein determining the total phase difference further comprises reducing or minimizing the deviation by selecting pairs of phase measurements and/or by adjusting the weights for the plurality of phase differences (a prediction-correction filter such as a Kalman filter or particle filter is employed to predict variation of phase difference with frequency change, correcting this using the phase measurement data. In such an approach the RSSI of a signal or signals from which the phase measurements are derived (that is, of a return signal from the tag) is used as a measure of the variance of the phase measurements, in effect a phase variance weighting for the, for example, Kalman filter [SABESAN 0031], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2. By selective use of information from the system, in particular neglecting low RSSI signals and using weighting techniques/Kalman filtering one can minimize the causes of errors [SABESAN 0186], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2. The weighting by K (the blending factor) is such that as the measurement error covariance approaches zero, the actual measurement is “trusted” more and more, while the predicted measurement is trusted less and less [SABESAN 0198], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2). Examiner’s note: The limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 8, CHOWDHURY/ SABESAN discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the plurality of phase differences comprises selecting pairs of phase measurements based on an amplitude of IQ values and/or based on an amplitude of RSSI measurements (weighting the phase measurements based upon received signal strength [CHOWDHURY 0031], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). Examiner’s note: The limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 9, CHOWDHURY/ SABESAN discloses the method according to claim 8, wherein determining the weight of each of the plurality of phase differences is based on the amplitude of the IQ values and/or the RSSI measurements (weighting the phase measurements based upon received signal strength [CHOWDHURY 0031], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). Examiner’s note: The limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 10, CHOWDHURY discloses an apparatus, comprising: a receiver configured to receive radio frequency (RF) signals (the receiver can include RF receiving components [0024]) associated with a plurality of phase values (for each sub-signal pair in the set of sub-signal pairs characterized by a frequency difference less than the maximum frequency difference: extracting a phase difference of the sub-signal pair in Block S132 [0011]); a processing system (a digital signal processor [0024]) configured to: determine a plurality of phase differences, wherein each phase difference is based on a pair of phase measurements; determine a total phase difference based on the plurality of phase differences, calculating a hybrid time-of-arrival estimate as a weighted combination of the time-based time-of-arrival estimate, the phase-based time-of-arrival estimate, based on the time-based uncertainty and the phase-based uncertainty [0012]); and determine a range of a source of at least a portion of the RF signals, based on the total phase difference (by executing the method S100 in order to obtain accurate time-of-flight measurements between transceivers on a pairwise basis, the system can calculate distances for pairwise ranging of a transceivers pair and [0021]).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SABESAN teaches determining a difference between transmit signal and return signal phase [0028]. Additionally, SABESAN teaches weighting the phase measurements based upon received signal strength [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of CHOWDHURY to include the teachings of SABESAN, because doing so would improve robustness of a range measurement, as recognized by SABESAN.
Regarding claim 11, CHOWDHURY, as modified, discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein to determine the total phase difference, the processing system is configured to reduce or minimize a deviation for each of the phase differences or for a selection of the phase differences.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SABESAN teaches that a prediction-correction filter such as a Kalman filter or particle filter is employed to predict variation of phase difference with frequency change, correcting this using the phase measurement data. In such an approach the RSSI of a signal or signals from which the phase measurements are derived (that is, of a return signal from the tag) is used as a measure of the variance of the phase measurements, in effect a phase variance weighting for the, for example, Kalman filter [0031]. By selective use of information from the system, in particular neglecting low RSSI signals and using weighting techniques/Kalman filtering one can minimize the causes of errors [0186]. The weighting by K (the blending factor) is such that as the measurement error covariance approaches zero, the actual measurement is “trusted” more and more, while the predicted measurement is trusted less and less [0198]. Examiner’s note: The limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of CHOWDHURY to include the teachings of SABESAN, because doing so would improve robustness of a range measurement, as recognized by SABESAN.
Regarding claim 12, CHOWDHURY/ SABESAN discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein to determine the total phase difference, the processing system is configured to reduce or minimize the deviation by selecting pairs of phase measurements and/or by adjusting the weights for the phase differences (a prediction-correction filter such as a Kalman filter or particle filter is employed to predict variation of phase difference with frequency change, correcting this using the phase measurement data. In such an approach the RSSI of a signal or signals from which the phase measurements are derived (that is, of a return signal from the tag) is used as a measure of the variance of the phase measurements, in effect a phase variance weighting for the, for example, Kalman filter [SABESAN 0031], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 11. By selective use of information from the system, in particular neglecting low RSSI signals and using weighting techniques/Kalman filtering one can minimize the causes of errors [SABESAN 0186], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 11. The weighting by K (the blending factor) is such that as the measurement error covariance approaches zero, the actual measurement is “trusted” more and more, while the predicted measurement is trusted less and less [SABESAN 0198], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 11). Examiner’s note: The limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 17, CHOWDHURY/ SABESAN discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein to determine the plurality of phase differences, the processing system is configured to: select pairs of phase measurements based on an amplitude of IQ values and/or based on an amplitude of RSSI measurements (weighting the phase measurements based upon received signal strength [CHOWDHURY 0031], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10). Examiner’s note: The limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 18, CHOWDHURY/ SABESAN discloses the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the processing system is configured to: determine the weight of each phase difference based on the amplitude of the IQ values and/or the RSSI measurements (weighting the phase measurements based upon received signal strength [CHOWDHURY 0031], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10). Examiner’s note: The limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 19, CHOWDHURY discloses a system comprising: an initiating device comprising a transceiver (the method S100 is executed by a system including a receiver (or transceiver) [0015]); and a reflector device (the transceiver can be any device (including another receiver within the network) capable of transmitting the ranging signal. In one implementation, the transmitter can be a user device within a network such as a smartphone, smartwatch, tablet computer, laptop computer, or any other network-capable computing device [0026]), wherein the initiating device is configured to receive wireless signals from the reflector device (the receiver can include RF receiving components [0024]), and based on the wireless signals: determine several phase differences, wherein each phase difference is based on a pair of phase measurements (for each sub-signal pair in the set of sub-signal pairs characterized by a frequency difference less than the maximum frequency difference: extracting a phase difference of the sub-signal pair in Block S132 [0011]), determine a total phase difference based on the several phase differences, calculating a hybrid time-of-arrival estimate as a weighted combination of the time-based time-of-arrival estimate, the phase-based time-of-arrival estimate, based on the time-based uncertainty and the phase-based uncertainty [0012]), determine a range based on the total phase difference, and initiate an action based on the determined range (by executing the method S100 in order to obtain accurate time-of-flight measurements between transceivers on a pairwise basis, the system can calculate distances for pairwise ranging of a transceivers pair and [0021]).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SABESAN teaches determining a difference between transmit signal and return signal phase [0028]. Additionally, SABESAN teaches weighting the phase measurements based upon received signal strength [0031]. Furthermore, SABESAN teaches to measure the signal phase at the tag [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of CHOWDHURY to include the teachings of SABESAN, because doing so would improve robustness of a range measurement, as recognized by SABESAN.
Regarding claim 20, CHOWDHURY/ SABESAN discloses the system according to claim 19, wherein the reflector device is one of the following: a reflector device comprising a transceiver that transmits the wireless signals (the transceiver can be any device (including another receiver within the network) capable of transmitting the ranging signal. In one implementation, the transmitter can be a user device within a network such as a smartphone, smartwatch, tablet computer, laptop computer, or any other network-capable computing device [CHOWHURY 0026], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 19); or an object that provides the wireless signals via one or more physical reflections of radio waves. Examiner’s note: The limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOWDHURY, in view of SABESAN, and further in view of Arage (US 2016/0084943 A1 “ARAGE”).
Regarding claim 4, CHOWDHURY/ SABESAN discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the plurality of phase differences further comprises selecting pairs of phase measurements (for each sub-signal pair in the set of sub-signal pairs characterized by a frequency difference less than the maximum frequency difference: extracting a phase difference of the sub-signal pair in Block S132 [CHOWDHURY 0011], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ARAGE teaches that a phase difference is calculated between the first symmetrical frequency bins to the superposed signal detection frequency bin. By the first symmetrical frequency bins means the frequency bins those are one frequency bin away from the superposed signal detection frequency bin to the plus and minus direction (i.e. +/−1 bin away) [0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of CHOWDHURY to include the teachings of ARAGE, because doing so would improve range precision and system robustness, as recognized by ARAGE. In addition, both of the prior art references, CHOWDHURY and ARAGE, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, system utilizing RF wireless signals.
Regarding claim 13, CHOWDHURY/ SABESAN discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein to determine the plurality of phase differences, the processing system is configured to select pairs of phase measurements (for each sub-signal pair in the set of sub-signal pairs characterized by a frequency difference less than the maximum frequency difference: extracting a phase difference of the sub-signal pair in Block S132 [CHOWDHURY 0011], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ARAGE teaches that a phase difference is calculated between the first symmetrical frequency bins to the superposed signal detection frequency bin. By the first symmetrical frequency bins means the frequency bins those are one frequency bin away from the superposed signal detection frequency bin to the plus and minus direction (i.e. +/−1 bin away) [0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of CHOWDHURY to include the teachings of ARAGE, because doing so would improve range precision and system robustness, as recognized by ARAGE.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOWDHURY, in view of SABESAN, and further in view of Kazaz et al. (US 2022/0095262 A1 “KAZAZ”).
Regarding claim 5, CHOWDHURY/ SABESAN discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of phase differences are determined by pairs of phase measurements (for each sub-signal pair in the set of sub-signal pairs characterized by a frequency difference less than the maximum frequency difference: extracting a phase difference of the sub-signal pair in Block S132 [CHOWDHURY 0011], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, KAZAZ teaches that phase difference measurements over a 2D set of time instances (time epochs) and carrier frequencies are determined and processed. Preferably, both the carrier frequencies and the time epochs are equidistant [0095].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of CHOWDHURY to include the teachings of KAZAZ, because doing so would accurately determine a distance, as recognized by KAZAZ. In addition, both of the prior art references, CHOWDHURY and KAZAZ, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, methods and systems for phase-based determination of a distance.
Regarding claim 14, CHOWDHURY/ SABESAN discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the processing system is configured to determine the plurality of phase differences by pairs of phase measurements (for each sub-signal pair in the set of sub-signal pairs characterized by a frequency difference less than the maximum frequency difference: extracting a phase difference of the sub-signal pair in Block S132 [CHOWDHURY 0011], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, KAZAZ teaches that phase difference measurements over a 2D set of time instances (time epochs) and carrier frequencies are determined and processed. Preferably, both the carrier frequencies and the time epochs are equidistant [0095].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of CHOWDHURY to include the teachings of KAZAZ, because doing so would accurately determine a distance, as recognized by KAZAZ.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOWDHURY, in view of SABESAN, and KAZAZ, and further in view of Lindoff et al. (US 2010/0135423 A1 “LINDOFF”).
Regarding claim 7, CHOWDHURY/ SABESAN/ KAZAZ discloses the method according to claim 5,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LINDOFF teaches that determining, from said determined phase differences, for each of at least two selected pairs of said at least three pilot cells a change of phase difference between the two pilot cells of the pair [0015]. Additionally, LINDOFF teaches a distance of six sub-carriers [0096].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of CHOWDHURY to include the teachings of LINDOFF, because doing so would improve system robustness and processing system accuracy. In addition, both of the prior art references, CHOWDHURY and LINDOFF, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, wireless RF system.
Regarding claim 16, CHOWDHURY/ SABESAN discloses the apparatus of claim 10,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LINDOFF teaches that determining, from said determined phase differences, for each of at least two selected pairs of said at least three pilot cells a change of phase difference between the two pilot cells of the pair [0015]. Additionally, LINDOFF teaches a distance of six sub-carriers [0096].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of CHOWDHURY to include the teachings of LINDOFF, because doing so would improve system robustness and processing system accuracy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. However, the Examiner notes that there is a possibility the scope of the claims would be significantly changed after the claims are rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action; thus, further search and consideration will be made after official amendment is filed on record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
CHOWDHURY discloses a method includes: receiving a ranging signal from the transmitter comprising a set of multiplexed sub-signals, each multiplexed sub-signal characterized by a frequency in a set of frequencies; calculating a time-based time-of-arrival estimate based on the series of time-domain samples of the ranging signal; calculating a time-based uncertainty of the time-based time-of-arrival; for each sub-signal pair in a subset of multiplexed sub-signals of the set of multiplexed sub-signals, extracting a phase difference of the sub-signal pair; calculating a phase-based time-of-arrival estimate based on the phase difference of each sub-signal pair in the subset of multiplexed sub-signals; calculating a phase-based uncertainty of the phase-based time-of-arrival estimate; and calculating a hybrid time-of-arrival estimate as a weighted combination of the time-based time-of-arrival estimate, the phase-based time-of-arrival estimate, based on the time-based uncertainty and the phase-based uncertainty.
Furthermore, SABESAN discloses methods of locating an RFID tag. One method transmits tag location signals at a plurality of different frequencies from a plurality of different antennas spaced apart by more than a near field limit distance. The processing determines a phase difference at the plurality of different frequencies by determining a phase difference between either i) two or more of the transmit signals resulting in a maxima in the returned signal RSSI or ii) a first transmit signal and its corresponding return signal. The range determining uses return signals weighted by signal strength. Further data which may be used for averaging may be generated by using the above techniques along with changes in the polarisation state of the transmit and receive antennas and/or physical reconfiguration of the antennas (e.g. switch the transmit and receive elements).
Further still, ARAGE discloses a radar system suitable for an automated vehicle includes a plurality of antennas configured to detect a reflected radar signal reflected by an object in a field-of-view of the system. Each antenna of the plurality of antennas is configured to output detected signals indicative of the reflected radar signal detected by each of the plurality of antennas. The system also includes a controller configured to receive the detected signals from the plurality of antennas, determine if the object is present in the field-of-view based on the detected signals, and determine a phase-difference between symmetrical-frequency-bins for each antenna. The symmetrical-frequency-bins are symmetrically offset from a maximum-amplitude non-coherent-integration detection-frequency-bin (max-NCI-bin). The controller is further configured to determine a classification of the object based on a time-domain-analysis of the phase differences across the plurality of antennas.
However, Applicant' s claim also encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. Neither CHOWDHURY, SABESAN, nor ARAGE anticipates or renders fairly obvious, alone, or in combination, to teach all the additional limitations as cited in claim 6, within the context of Applicant' s claimed invention as a whole, that is, “wherein the plurality of phase differences are determined by pairs of phase measurements, wherein the pairs are arranged equidistant across the frequency channels, wherein at least two groups of pairs with different distances are provided, wherein at least one group comprises at least two pairs” as recited in claim 6 and as similarly recited in claim(s) 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Farsaei et al. (US 2024/0377527 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of determining weighted average phase difference values between sequential frequency values; and determining a fine estimate of the relative time offset and relative clock skew based on the weighted average phase difference values.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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 J KELLEHER can be reached at (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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 May 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights