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 .
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
In claim 1 lines 8-10 “at such a location in the signal responses that is still situated in the signal responses prior to a particular midpoint of a first signal path” is understood in view of Fig. 2, which shows at point M a midpoint of a first signal path, and at t_PDoA a location that is situated prior to the midpoint M.
Throughout the claims, “taken into account” is understood to have the same meaning as “based on”.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of method claim 5 requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The steps recited in claim 5 lines 3-4 are not required to be performed unless the threshold value is determined as a function of an absolute value of a real part and as a function of an absolute value of an imaginary part of a signal response The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 5 therefore does not require these steps. See MPEP 2111.04 II and Ex parte Schulhauser.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of method claim 8 requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The steps recited in claim 8 lines 2-4 are not required to be performed unless the receiving antennas recognize and/or output a different first signal path in the signal response. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 8 therefore does not require these steps. See MPEP 2111.04 II and Ex parte Schulhauser.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: receiving unit in claims 1-14. Claims 15-16 have not been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they recite sufficient structure for the receiving unit (“UWB receiver”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Corresponding structure is found at least in para. [0003] “UWB receiver”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3, 5-9, and 11-15 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.
Regarding claim 3 lines 2-4, it is unclear how to ascertain the scope of “as early as possible in the signal response” and “already above a noise level”. It is unclear what is meant by “as early as possible” and “already”.
Regarding claim 5 line 3, it is unclear what is meant by “the respective earlier point in time” as there is no antecedent basis for this term in the claim. It is further unclear, in line 4, what falls within the scope of “relevant” in “a relevant location for ascertaining the phase difference of arrival.
Regarding claim 6, the scope of the claim cannot be clearly determined. There are three instances of “and/or” linking four different threshold value determinations:
wherein the threshold value is determined as a function of two threshold values;
wherein the threshold value is determined as a maximum value of two threshold values;
wherein a first threshold value is determined as a function of a noise level and a first factor that is greater than one; and
wherein a second threshold value is determined as a function of the first signal path in the signal responses and a second factor that is less than one.
When “and/or” is used in a claim, the claim must be clear if “and/or” is interpreted as “and”, and also clear if “and/or” is interpreted as “or”. In claim 6, it does not appear to be possible to implement all of the embodiments encompassed by the different possible combinations of “and” and “or”. Further, the “first threshold value” and “second threshold value” do not appear to be used at all in the claim. Are they meant to refer to the “two threshold values” recited in lines 2-3? It is unclear how to interpret the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 7 lines 2-3, the scope of “a possible phase offset” cannot be clearly determined. It is unclear what makes a phase offset “possible”.
Regarding claim 8 lines 1-4, it is unclear what it means for the receiving antennas to “recognize and/or output a different first signal path in the signal responses”. What does it meant to “recognize” a “first signal path”? How can a “different first signal path” be “output”? How can the receiving antennas perform such recognition and output? What is the “different first signal path” different from? Further, “the earlier first signal path”, “the threshold value”, and “the first signal path of a predefined receiving antenna” lack antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 9 line 2-3, the scope of “using a fraction, in particular one-tenth, of a sampling increment” cannot be clearly determined. It is unclear whether or not the fraction is limited to one-tenth, or if one-tenth is merely suggested.
Regarding claim 9 line 3, it is unclear if “via a filter” refers to the filter recited in line 2 or to a different filter.
Regarding claim 9 lines 8-9, “for example as an average value” is exemplary language that renders the scope of the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether or not the “average value” is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear what the “results” in “selected results” comprise. Are they angles or directions of arrival, or phase differences of arrival, as recited in claim 1, or something else?
Regarding claim 12 line 6, the term “high” in “high confidence level” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 12 line 9, “the vehicle” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 13, a computer program product is recited, the computer program product prompting a computer to carry out the method according to claim 1. However claim 1 comprises a step of “providing the receiving unit with at least two receiving antenna” that does not appear to be capable of being performed by a computer. It is therefore unclear how the computer can carry out the method.
Regarding claim 14, a control unit comprising a processing unit and a memory unit storing code is recited, wherein when the code is executed by the processing unit, the method according to claim 1 is carried out. However claim 1 comprises a step of “providing the receiving unit with at least two receiving antenna” that does not appear to be capable of being performed by the claimed control unit. It is therefore unclear how the control unit can carry out the method.
Regarding claim 15 “A receiving unit, in particular a UWB receiver”, it is unclear if the UWB receiver is required, or merely suggested.
The remaining claims are dependent.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 13 recites “A computer program product that comprises commands which, when the computer program product is executed by a computer, prompt the computer to carry out the method according to claim 1”. A computer program product has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tertinek (US 20210373112 A1, cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Tertinek teaches a method for determining an angle of arrival and/or a direction of arrival of an electromagnetic wave from a mobile device (transmitter 108, Fig. 1) to a receiving unit (102, Fig. 1), the method comprising:
providing the receiving unit with at least two receiving antennas (104, 106, Fig. 1);
determining the angle of arrival and/or the direction of arrival (AoA Generator 118, Fig 102, determines angle of arrival) by ascertaining a phase difference of arrival between signal responses at the at least two receiving antennas (phase difference is determined at PDoA MEASURER 112, Fig. 1); and
ascertaining the phase difference of arrival at such a location in the signal responses that is still situated in the signal responses prior to a particular midpoint of a first signal path (Fig. 3A in view of para. [0038] “The index indicates an arrival timestamp of a pulse of the one or more pulses and index 847, for example, may indicate receipt of a first pulse of the pulse sequence and any earlier indices being associated with noise”, where index 847 is prior to a midpoint of a first signal path at index 850).
Regarding claim 2, Tertinek teaches wherein the phase difference of arrival is ascertained at the location of signal responses that exceed a certain threshold value in the signal responses (para. [0025] “The phase extractor 126 may then determine a measured phase associated at a time of arrival of the electromagnetic wave incident on antenna 104 which is output by the phase extractor 126. The time of arrival may be when a value of one or more of the I and Q samples exceeds a threshold amount from a noise floor”).
Regarding claim 3, Tertinek as best understood teaches wherein the threshold value is determined such that the location at which the phase difference of arrival is ascertained occurs as early as possible in the signal responses and prior to the midpoint and is already above a noise level (Fig. 3A, para. [0025] “The time of arrival may be when a value of one or more of the I and Q samples exceeds a threshold amount from a noise floor”).
Regarding claim 4, Tertinek’s threshold value is determined as a function of an absolute value of a signal response (para. [0025] “a threshold amount from a noise floor” in view of Fig. 3A, which “shows a magnitude of the CIR” as per para. [0038], where magnitude is an absolute value), and/or wherein the threshold value is determined as a function of an absolute value of a real part and/or as a function of an absolute value of an imaginary part of a signal response.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above with respect to Claim Interpretation, the step “the respective earlier point in time is selected as a relevant location for ascertaining the phase difference of arrival” is performed only “when the threshold value is determined as a function of an absolute value of a real part and as a function of an absolute value of an imaginary part of a signal response”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 5 therefore does not require this step.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Tertinek teaches wherein the threshold value is determined as a function of two threshold values (para. [0025] “a threshold amount from a noise floor”, where the first of the two threshold values is met by the “noise floor”, the second threshold value is met by the “threshold amount”, and the threshold value itself is determined as their sum), and/or wherein
the threshold value is determined as a maximum value of two threshold values, and/or wherein
a first threshold value is determined as a function of a noise level and a first factor that is greater than one, and/or wherein
a second threshold value is determined as a function of the first signal path in the signal responses and a second factor that is less than one.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Tertinek teaches wherein during a determination of a phase position for a first receiving antenna and a phase position for a second receiving antenna, a possible phase offset, which is based on the antenna design is taken into account (para. [0022] “crosstalk factors may represent one or more of a gain K or crosstalk phase Φ added to the antenna signals”).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood and as discussed above with respect to Claim Interpretation, the step “the earlier first signal path is then used for determining the threshold value or the first signal path of a predefined receiving antenna is used” is performed only “when the receiving antennas recognize and/or output a different first signal path in the signal responses”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 8 therefore does not require this step.
Regarding claim 10, Tertinek teaches wherein a signal strength at the first signal path and/or at the location in the signal responses that is used for ascertaining the phase difference of arrival is taken into account in order to refine the determination of the angle of arrival and/or the direction of arrival (the direction of arrival is refined according the correction of PDOA performed in equations (5) and (6) in paras. [0023]-[0024], where the correction is a function of a gain K that is “added to the antenna signals resulting from the crosstalk of the receive antennas 104, 106 and/or PCB traces 110” as per para. [0022], and through the gain correction the signal strength is “taken into account” as claimed), and/or it is taken into account that the signal strength of the signal response for the receiving antenna is greater the closer it is to the mobile device.
Regarding claim 11, Tertinek, as best understood, teaches [NOTE: limitations not taught are lined through] does not teach wherein, for determining the angle of arrival and/or the direction of arrival, selected results (para. [0038] “The index indicates an arrival timestamp of a pulse of the one or more pulses and index 847, for example, may indicate receipt of a first pulse of the pulse sequence and any earlier indices being associated with noise”, where the index is a “selected result” as claimed that is taken into account as claimed), which are selected using a machine learning method and/or which originate from different receiving units (different receiving units are located at 604, 606, Fig. 6 and determine respective AoAs as per para. [0044] “The receiver 102 at the position 604 may determine an AoA of an electromagnetic wave at a receive antenna. The receiver 102 at the position 606 may determine an AoA of an electromagnetic wave at a receive antenna.”) are taken into account in ascertaining the phase difference of arrival.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Tertinek teaches wherein during determination of the angle of arrival and/or the direction of arrival, a confidence level is output, which is a function of a signal strength and/or of the determined angle of arrival and/or of the determined direction of arrival (Figs. 5A-B show an error in the PDOA, where the error provides a confidence level as a function of the determined angle of arrival – see para. [0042] “FIG. 5A shows on axis 502 the ideal PDoA (degrees) if there is no crosstalk and on axis 504 the measured PDoA (degrees)”, and para. [0043] “FIG. 5B shows on axis 552 an error (degrees) in the measured PDoA and on axis 554 the ideal PDoA (degrees)”, where “degrees” indicates an angle), and/or wherein results from different receiving units are taken into account for determining the angle of arrival and/or the direction of arrival (604, 606, Fig. 6; para. [0044] “The receiver 102 at the position 604 may determine an AoA of an electromagnetic wave at a receive antenna. The receiver 102 at the position 606 may determine an AoA of an electromagnetic wave at a receive antenna.”), and/or wherein results from such a receiving unit, which have a high confidence level that is selected using a machine learning method, are taken into account for determining the angle of arrival and/or the direction of arrival, and/or wherein positions of the receiving units at the vehicle are taken into account in determining the angle of arrival and/or the direction of arrival (positions 604 and 606, Fig. 6, as per para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 13, Tertinek teaches a computer program product that comprises commands which, when the computer program product is executed by a computer, prompt the computer to carry out the method according to claim 1 (para. [0048] “software modules”).
Regarding claim 14, Tertinek teaches a control unit comprising:
a processing unit (702, Fig. 7 “Processing circuity”); and
a memory unit in which a code is stored, which, when at least partially executed by the processing unit, carries out the method according to claim 1 (704, Fig. 7 “Memory”).
Regarding claim 15, Tertinek teaches a receiving unit, in particular a UWB receiver (para. [0044] “ultrawide band (UWB) receiver chip”), for a vehicle that comprises the control unit (602, 610, Fig. 6) according to claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, Tertinek teaches wherein the receiving unit is a UWB receiver (para. [0044] “ultrawide band (UWB) receiver chip”).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tertinek (US 20210373112 A1, cited on IDS) in view of Englund (US 20220221544 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Tertinek does not teach wherein the signal responses are interpolated to form a continuous curve by use of a filter using a fraction, in particular one-tenth, of a sampling increment of signal responses, via a filter having a property that the location in the signal responses for ascertaining the phase difference of arrival remains unchanged, and/or a location history of the mobile device is taken into account when determining the angle of arrival and/or the direction of arrival, and/or the phase difference of arrival is ascertained multiple times over a time window, and a result is determined based on the ascertained values, for example as an average value.
However, at least ascertaining a phase difference multiple times over a time window and determining an average value is known. For example, See Englund para. [0058] “the phase difference is calculated several times and averaged to improve reliability of phase difference determination.” It would have been obvious to modify Tertinek by determining an average value of phase differences over a time window as taught by Englund in order to improve reliability of the phase difference determination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, RESHA DESAI can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights