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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP 23220569, filed on December 29, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the two-way phase measurements, including the identified first and second measurements, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is unclear to the Examiner as to whether said phase measurements are actually one-way or two-way as discussed in the 112-b rejection below. A drawing illustrating the direction to and/or from of the phase measurands could have mitigated this. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1 – 13 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.
The term “two-way” is typically associated with a round-trip meaning a signal is transmitted and reflected back. Applicant states in a similar application, “A two-way phase measurement involves a first device transmitting while a second device is receiving and a second device transmitting while a first device is receiving.” See Application 18/661,977 Remarks dated 5/06/2026. Applicant appears to be describing two one-way phase measurements wherein one of the two one-way phase measurements is transmitted by a first and received by a second device, and the second of the two one-way phase measurements transmitted by the second device and received by the first device. This contradiction makes the claims ambiguous. Also, the equations in claims 9 and 11 appear to be representative of a one-way trip not a two-way trip. Please see the proof in the rationale of the rejection of claims 9 and 11 in the prior art rejection. Here, the delay appears to be
τ
=
(
R
-
ν
t
)
c
, one-way, instead of
τ
=
2
(
R
-
ν
t
)
c
, two-way. Moreover, the language of the claims do not make clear whether the first and second measurements of said plurality of two-way phase measurements are done by the same device or separate devices. As such, the metes and bounds of the claims are not fully defined, thus the claims are indefinite.
Dependent claims 2 – 11 and 13 are rejected due to dependency on rejected base claim. Independent claim 12 has similar limitations of that of independent claim 1.
Prosecution history of Application 18/661,977
Application 18/661,977 has similar claims. The primary reference is Romme (US 20200395978 A1) and Romme uses different frequencies to find different phase biases. see Romme Fig. 6. The Examiner believes a relevant issue is whether it would be reasonable to modify Romme to use the same frequency when Romme specifically uses different frequencies to find the different phase biases. The Examiner would like to know Applicant’s response. Modification with a neural network would be obvious as evidenced below in the 103 rejection. As such, Applicant should consider a 103-rejection based on Romme as primary reference as used in application 18/661,977 and consider said relevant issue presented by the Examiner wherein said relevant issue is whether it would be reasonable to modify Romme to use the same frequency when Romme specifically uses different frequencies to find the different phase biases.
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.
Claims 1 – 3 and 7 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over McGiffin (US 20240163815 A1) filed March 23, 2022 in view of Nirula (US 20190353800 A1) and Official Notice.
As to claim 1 and 12 – 13, McGiffin discloses a method of phase-based ranging between a first device and a second device (Fig. 3), comprising:
receiving a plurality two-way phase-measurements between the first device and the second device performed at a plurality of frequencies (Not taught.);
identifying a first measurement and a second measurement of said plurality of two-way phase measurements having been performed at a same frequency (Fig. 2 steps 222 and 226 wherein it mathematically known that Doppler is proportional to the projected (relative) velocity onto the line-of-sight. See also Figs. 5 steps 552 – 556);
calculating a relative speed between said first device and said second device based at least on said first measurement and said second measurement (Para. 136 “the UE adjusts the time and frequency synchronization to compensate for a change in Doppler shift in signal transmission caused by velocity differences and corresponding geometry between the UE and the NTN node.”);
doppler compensating a plurality of measurements of said plurality of two-way phase measurements based on the calculated relative speed (Id.); and
calculating a distance between said first device and said second device based on the doppler compensated measurements (Fig. 5 step 564),
wherein said calculating comprises inputting the doppler compensated measurements to a neural network (Para. 211 “a UE may be required to continuously predict and pre-compensate for a Doppler shift, …”).
Assuming arguendo that the cited “predict and pre-compensate for a Doppler shift” is not a narrow enough of a teaching to meet the scope of neural network, the Examiner will supply a secondary reference in an effort to expedite prosecution.
In the same field of endeavor Nirula teaches Doppler predictive modeling including neural networks. See Nirula Paras. 17 and 57.
In view of the teachings of Nirula, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply neural networks as a tool because one of ordinary skill understands that neural networks improve efficiency, processing time, simplifying complexity and reduce errors.
The Examiner takes official notice of well-known (e.g., Wikipedia page, google search, etc.) technique of frequency division multiplexing FDMA wherein one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use FDMA, which is used across many disciplines (not esoteric), to mitigate interference thus improving signal quality.
As to claim 2, McGiffin in view of Nirula and Official Notice teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each two-way phase measurement of said plurality of two-way phase measurements is a pair of in-phase, I, and quadrature, Q, measurements, a phase-magnitude-pair, or any other pair of numbers representable as a complex number (The Examiner takes official notice of I & Q channels in order to track phase thus improving accuracy. Communication systems have long used I & Q channels and radar evolved from communication systems.).
As to claim 3, McGiffin in view of Nirula and Official Notice teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the frequencies of said plurality of two-way phase measurements are pseudo-randomly ordered in time (The Examiner takes official notice that pseudo-randomly numbered sequence and time multiplexing is common to reduce interference including interference from jamming. As of 9/01/2026 the search “(UE user satellite mobile 5g) same (interfer$4 spoof$3 jam$4) near15 (random$3 prn) near15 (tdm$1 otdm$1 time near2 multiplex$3)” provided 36 hits having a published date earlier than the filing date of this application.).
As to claim 7, McGiffin in view of Nirula and Official Notice teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the pseudo-random order in time of the frequencies of said plurality of two-way phase measurements is according to US FCC regulation 47 CFR §15.247 (A government regulation requirement would be per se obvious wherein the motivation is to follow the law, as such the Examiner takes official notice.).
As to claim 8, McGiffin in view of Nirula and Official Notice teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said relative speed is calculated based on a phase difference between said second measurement and said first measurement, said same frequency, and a time difference between said second measurement and said first measurement (McGiffin Fig. 3)
As to claim 9, McGiffin in view of Nirula and Official Notice teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said relative speed is calculable as: v^=c∆ϕ-4πfv∆T wherein v^is the estimated relative speed, c is the speed of light, fv is said same frequency, ∆T is a time difference between said second measurement and said first measurement, and ∆ϕ is a phase difference between said second measurement and said first measurement.
Proof: The transmitted signal is modeled as
y
T
t
=
a
cos
(
2
π
f
t
+
θ
)
. The compressed delay is
τ
=
(
R
-
ν
t
)
c
where
c
=
f
λ
and
(
R
-
ν
t
)
represents the compression of the range due to the target’s motion or velocity vector. Remember this velocity is not speed but rather a radial velocity vector projected onto the line-of-sight LOS where
v
=
v
cos
θ
. Substituting for time delay:
y
R
t
+
τ
=
a
cos
(
2
π
f
(
t
+
(
R
-
ν
t
)
f
λ
)
+
θ
)
.
Rearranging terms:
y
R
t
+
τ
=
a
cos
(
2
π
f
-
ν
λ
t
+
2
π
R
λ
+
θ
)
which now clearly shows both the Doppler shift
ν
λ
and a phase/time delay
2
π
R
λ
wherein radial or vector velocity v =
v
cos
θ
. Distribute the
2
π
and solve for v. And c =
f
λ
.
The Equations might be written slightly different but the Examiner’s equation from the Examiner’s proof is narrower and thus teaches Applicant’s equations having broader terms; e.g., ΔT.
Also, these equations are obvious as evidenced by Application 18/661,977 Final 5/28/2026 Paras. 16 – 17.
As to claim 10, McGiffin in view of Nirula and Official Notice teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a doppler compensation of said doppler compensating is calculated based on the frequency of the measurement, the estimated relative speed, the time of measurement at the first device and the time of measurement at the second device (McGiffin Fig. 3).
As to claim 11, McGiffin in view of Nirula and Official Notice teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a doppler compensation of said doppler compensating is calculable as: ϕ^doppler=-2πfv^c(tA+tB) wherein f is the frequency of the measurement, v^is the estimated relative speed, c is the speed of light, tA is a time of measurement at the first device and tB is a time of measurement at the second device (Inherent. See claim 9.).
Also, these equations are obvious as evidenced by Application 18/661,977 Final 5/28/2026 Paras. 16 – 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 – 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not specify reordering a subset of doppler compensated measurements before inputting into the neural network
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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 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.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights