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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first action on the merits, in response to application filed January 22, 2025. Claims 1-20, are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 7/21/2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuchler et al (hereinafter Kuchler) (US 2019/0074930).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, Kuchler discloses a signal transmission method (a processing module for a transmitter, a processing module for a receiver, comprising a synchronization-symbol-portion, a security-sequence-portion, and a data-payload-portion …… for ranging applications), comprising:
sending, by a first node, a first preamble on a first channel, wherein the first preamble indicates to send ranging frames (frame 200 may be used for ranging or transmitting data between a tag and an anchor) (para. 0066, fig. 2); and
performing, by the first node, at least one ranging exchange with a second node on the first channel (synchronization header 211 and subsequent secure training sequence (STS) may be considered to provide a secure preamble 212 that can be used to identify the frame and perform ranging. The processing modules 106, 107 of transmitter 101 and receiver 102 are configured to exchange data packets, or frames, ………the interactions can exchange data using channel to (i) enable ranging and (ii) transfer other information) (paras. 0067, 0063). Kuchler further discloses at least one processor utilize non-transient machine or computer usable media or mediums that may be capable of receiving and processing information from signals and/or other transient mediums, processing module 106, 107 that may be implemented by computer logic to perform digital signal processing (paras. 0108, 0109).
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, Kuchler discloses wherein each of the at least one ranging exchange comprises: sending, by the first node, one or more first ranging frames and receiving one or more second ranging frames from the second node (a processing module for a receiver device, the processing module may be configured to perform ranging on the subsequent frame, each frame comprising a synchronization-symbol-portion, etc., ) (paras. 0002, 0010, 0019).
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17, Kuchler discloses sending, by the first node, information on a second channel, wherein the first channel and the second channel correspond to different frequencies (implicitly implied since carrier recovery and symbol synchronization is performed on a received signal .
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, Kuchler discloses wherein the first preamble comprises a first part and a second part (see, fig. 2); the first part is a first group of synchronization sequences (frame 200 may be used for ranging or transmitting data between a tag and an anchor); and the second part indicates the ranging information in the at least one ranging exchange, and a length of the second part is predefined (the synchronization-symbol-portion 202 may contain a plurality of repeating, predetermined (predefined) synchronization symbols. The synchronization-symbol-portion 202 and subsequent start-frame-delimiter 204 provide a synchronization header (SHR) 211 in a conventional manner. The synchronization header 211 and subsequent secure training sequence (STS) may be considered to provide a secure preamble 212 that can be used to identify the frame and perform ranging) (paras. 0064, 0066, 0067, fig. 1, 2, 8).
Regarding claims 7, 14, Kuchler discloses wherein the first preamble further comprises a third part, the third part is a second group of synchronization sequences, and the first group of synchronization sequences is the same as the second group of synchronization sequences (processing module …. configured to generate a signal comprising one or more frames. Each frame (frame 200, fig. 2) may comprise a plurality of synchronization-symbol-portions (synchronization symbol-portion (202), synchronization-symbol-portion (202) may contain a plurality of repeating, predetermined synchronization symbols), a security-sequence-portion, and a data-payload-portion (208)) (paras. 0019, 0067).
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 therefore, 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 (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. To be patent eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way. Claim(s) 1, 8, 15, are directed to a method (apparatus) sending information in form of preamble perform indicating ranging in a secure way. The claims appear to indicate they meet the statutory category of invention, and pass the step I analysis.
With reference to analysis under step 2A, (Mayo test) meeting the judicially recognized exceptions, the claims are analyzed to see if directed to a Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon, or an Abstract Idea. It appears the application describes signal transmission method (apparatus) that uses a preamble to tell receiving devices kind of signal frame to expect and also perform ranging signal exchange between entities. Examples of Judicial exceptions include among others, abstract ideas of collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in memory; or organizing information through mathematical correlations.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 15 is/are directed to sending (requesting or asking) for information, performing ranging exchange via a channel between nodes (entities). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because sending (requesting or asking) information via a signal and performing ranging exchange with nodes, amounts to collecting information (message, data), recognizing certain information (message, data), are found to be abstract. It has been recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation, is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis, for instance, (Content Extraction, 776 F. 3d at 1347; Ultamercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F. 3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir 2014). Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information – to provide a “humanly comprehensible” amount of information useful for users, e.g. buySAFE and Google (limitations regarding using a telephone (sensor) to sense (receive) call at a location, were simply attempting to limit the abstract idea to a telephone (sensor) environment), Electric Power Group and Alstom (requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing and display in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology and did not state an arguably inventive concept in the realm of application of the information based abstract idea). Considering step 2B, the analysis show that preamble and ranging information exchange is merely a general link to particular technology or field of use or/and adding the works “apply it” (or an equivalent) with judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea with elements generally recognized as performing given function, is not significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii), performing repetitive measurement or calculations on received data at multiple points. When considered as an ordered combination of elements as a whole each step does no more than require process manipulation, as perform functions. The claims in the instant case do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because simply the steps of sending and performing ranging exchange, etc., are basic functional elements and each step does no more than require process manipulation. The given functions do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. Additionally, the physical elements such as a processor, computer to execute (output) it is just general link to particular technological or field of use or/and adding the words (apply it or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer is not significantly more. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 similarly do not add significantly more than the basic steps treated above. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 merely comprises application/use of various known elements sensors to route the range exchange information, amounts to not significantly more. Further the claims recite functional language lacking any requirements for how the desired result is achieved. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUTBUDDIN GHULAMALI whose telephone number is (571) 272-3014. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 4:00pm.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571 272 3042. 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.
/QUTBUDDIN GHULAMALI/
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2632.
Prosecution Insights