DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the double patenting rejections of claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 17, and 19, Applicant’s comment on page 1 of the remarks is note by the examiner that the Applicant requested such double patenting rejections be held in abeyance until the claims are in condition for allowance.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 14, 15, 18, and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103, Applicant’s arguments on pages 2 and 3 of the remarks have been fully considered by the examiner.
Applicant argued that the effective filing date of the primary reference U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0146355 Al to Pakrooh et al. (“Pakrooh”) was October 26, 2022 which didn’t meet the claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/399,975, filed on August 22, 2022.
The examiner awards the instant application is a U.S. provisional application of 63399975 filed on August 22, 2022. However, according to the invention discussed in the instant specification and shown in the disclosure of the drawings, claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20 are directly related to the embodiments shown in Figures 7-10 and discussed from page 20, line 13 to page 33, line 13, but not the embodiments shown in Figures 1-6 and discussed on page 3, line 8 to page 20, line 12. In other words, the subject matter of the claims (as supported by Figs. 7-10) was not disclosed in the provisional application (Figs. 1-6). Pursuant to MPEP § 2136.03, for a prior art reference to be disqualified based on a provisional, the provisional must support the claims. Applicant must show the provisional application supports the specific subject matter being relied upon from the prior art, not just the entire disclosure, and the technical concepts in Figures 7-10 are a direct extension of or supported by the subject matter in the provisional.
Therefore, the effective filing date of the primary reference U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0146355 Al to Pakrooh et al. (“Pakrooh”) on October 26, 2022 meets the claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/399,975, filed on August 22, 2022, and the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 14, 15, 18, and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 are remain rejected.
Double Patenting
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 17, and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-11, and 18-20 of copending Application No. 18/238,245 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations of the generating and transmitting steps recited in method claim 1 of the instant application are broader than the similar claimed limitations recited in the generating and transmitting steps of method claim 1 of Application No. 18/238,245, and the claim subject matter recited in the amendment of claim 1 is not new in the art because packets that include parity bits selected according to an 8-bit Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) are well-known and widely used in data communications. CRC is a common error-detecting code, and various lengths, including 8-bit, are used depending on the application. Further, a CRC algorithm generates a fixed-size checksum value from a block of data. At the sender’s end, this checksum is appended to the packet before transmission. The receiver then performs the same CRC calculation on the received data. If the newly calculated checksum matches the one sent with the packet, the data is assumed to be free of accidental errors. The claimed limitations recited in the dependent claims 3, 6, and 8 of the instant application are either identical or similar to the claimed limitations recited in claims 8-10, respectively, of Application No. 18/238,245. The claimed limitations of the apparatus claim 10 of the instant application are broader than the similar claimed limitations recited in the apparatus claim 11 of Application No. 18/238,245, and the claim subject matter recited in the amendment of claim 10 is not new in the art for the similar reasons described in claim 1 above. The claimed limitations recited in the dependent claims 12 and 17 of the instant application are either identical or similar to the claimed limitations recited in claims 18 and 19, respectively, of Application No. 18/238,245. The claimed limitations of the apparatus claim 19 of the instant application are broader than the similar claimed limitations recited in the apparatus claim 20 of Application No. 18/238,245, and the claim subject matter recited in the amendment of claim 10 is not new in the art for the similar reasons described in claim 1 above. Although the conflicting claims (1/1, 10/11, and 19/20) are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the broader claims of the instant application would have been obvious in view of the narrower issued claims of the U.S. Application No. 18/238,245 (see In re Emert, 124 F.3d 1458, 44USPQ2d 1149).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-11, 13-15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAKROOH et al. (US 2024/0146355 A1), hereinafter “Pakrooh” in view of JAIN et al. (US 2020/0348406 A1), hereinafter “Jain”.
Applicant note the effective filing date of the instant application is 08/21/2023, not the filing date of 08/22/2022 of the provision application 63399975. The invention recited in the claims are directly related to Figures 7-10 of the instant application only, not Figures 1-6 included in the provisional application.
Pakrooh illustrates a block diagram of a UWB device (900) in Figure 9 comprising: at least an UWB transceiver (935); a memory (960); and one or more processors (910).
Figure 2 illustrates a diagram of tables showing different physical layer (PHY) headers that can be utilized in accordance with different ultra-wideband (UWB) modes in relevant UWB standards (e.g., the IEEE 802.15.4 standard amendment). PHY headers can indicate PHY information in a data packet communicated via UWB, such as the UWB device (900) shown in Figure 9.
As illustrated in Figure 2, different modes have differently designed PHY headers to communicate PHY information in different ways. The BPRF (legacy) PHY header (210), for example, has bits designated for data rate, frame length, ranging, preamble duration, and single error correction and double error detection (SECDED). The HPRF PHY header (220) has a different arrangement of bits designated for functionality bits (A1 and A0), PHY payload length, ranging, and SECDED.
Regarding the apparatus claims 10 and 19, Pakrooh illustrates an UWB device (900) in Figure 9 comprising: an ultra-wideband (UWB) transceiver (935) and/or one or more processors (910) configured to: generate a packet including a header (210 or 220 of Figure 2) comprising information of data rate and a payload including PHY payload length included in the packet; and transmit the packet to a second device (not shown).
Although Pakrooh does not explicitly show or teach that the packet includes a number of parity bits selected according to an 8-bit cyclic redundancy check as recited in claims 10 and 19, the claim subject matter recited in the claims is not new in the art. The examiner takes the Official Notice that packets include parity bits selected according to an 8-bit Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) are well-known and widely used in data communications. CRC is a common error-detecting code, and various lengths, including 8-bit, are used depending on the application. Further, a CRC algorithm generates a fixed-size checksum value from a block of data. At the sender’s end, this checksum is appended to the packet before transmission. The receiver then performs the same CRC calculation on the received data. If the newly calculated checksum matches the one sent with the packet, the data is assumed to be free of accidental errors.
Further, although Pakrooh does not explicitly teach that the information indicating a data rate of a payload included in the packet as recited in the claims, it is also not new in the art since the header (210 or 220) is applied to the IEEE 802.15.4 standard.
For example, Jain illustrates an UWB packet (message 300) in Figure 3 as described in paragraph [0032] that the UWB packet may be transmitted by nodes (transceiver 110-136 of Figure 1). The UWB packet comprises a preamble may include a synchronization header that may be of a 64, 1024 or 4096 symbol-length known preamble sequence followed by an 8 or 64 symbol-length start of frame delimiter (SFD). Jain further teaches that a 19-bit physical header (PHR) may follow the SFD and include information for successful packet decoding such as the length and the data rate of the following data payload.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art as taught by Jain that the information used in Pakrooh’s packet header is capable of indicating the data rate of the payload included in the packet in order to maximize the data rate through payload, and to modify Pakrooh’s packet to include a number of parity bits selected according to an 8-bit cyclic redundancy check in order to detect a wide range of common data transmission errors.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 is a method claim and the claim features recited in the method steps of claim 1 are similar to the claim limitations recited in the apparatus claim 10 or claim 19 for the similar reasons described in the claims above.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, wherein the data rate is selected from a plurality of data rates (codeword length selections described in paragraph [0026] and paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claims 4, and 13, Although Pakrooh does not explicitly show or teach that the UWB transceiver is further configured to select a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) value according to the selected data rate, wherein the information indicating the data rate comprises the MCS value. The claim subject matter recited in claims 4 and 13 is not new in the art. The examiner takes the Official Notice that the modulation and coding (MCS) values used for different data rates in ultra-wideband (UWB) communications are well-known and defined by industry standards. These predetermined values allow for adaptive data rate selection based on channel conditions and application requirements.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, wherein the header (210 or 220 of Figure 2) further comprises information indicating whether low density parity check (LDPC) is enabled (paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, wherein the header (210 or 220 of Figure 2) further comprises one or more bits (9 or 12 bits) indicating whether the packet is to be used for sensing or ranging.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, wherein the header (210 of Figure 2) further comprises information indicating a version (reversed).
Claims 3, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pakrooh in view of Jain, as applied to claims 1-2, 10-11, and 19 above, and further in view of Wang et al. “A Crystal-Less Self-Synchronized Bit-Level Duty-Cycled IR-UWB transceiver System”, hereinafter “Wang”.
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 20, as applied to claims 1-2, 10-11, and 19 above, both Pakrooh and Jain fail to show or teach that the plurality of data rates is between 1.95 megabits per second (Mb/s) and 124.8 Mb/s recited in claims 3, 12, and 20, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to: select a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) value according to the selected data rate, wherein the information indicating the data rate comprises the MCS value recited in claim 20.
Wang illustrate an UWB transceiver in Figure 6 and teaches in at least column 1 of the introduction that data rate and range requirements for these transceivers applied to the IEEE 802.15.4 standard is between 100kbps and 10mbps which is within the range of 1.95 megabits per second (Mb/s) and 124.8 Mb/s. And as described in claims 4 and 13, the examiner takes the Official Notice that the modulation and coding (MCS) values used for different data rates in ultra-wideband (UWB) communications are well-known and defined by industry standards. These predetermined values allow for adaptive data rate selection based on channel conditions and application requirements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art as taught by Wang to apply the data rate of Pakrooh’s packet within the rage of 1.95 megabits per second (Mb/s) and 124.8 Mb/s in order to meet the IEEE 802.15.4 standard of Pakrooh’s UWB transceiver circuit and with more data transmitted per symbol, fewer symbols are required to send a given amount of data. This reduces airtime consumption, minimizes latency for data-intensive applications, and maximizes the raw data rate, allowing for the fastest possible downloads and an optimal user experience.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pakrooh in view of Jain, as applied to claims 1 and 6 and claims 10 and 15 above, and further in view of BEG et al. (US 2025/0184957 A1) which is a provisional application No. 63/336,478, filed on April 29, 2022, hereinafter “Beg”.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, as applied to claims 1 and 6 and claims 10 and 15 above, respectively, both Pakrooh and Jain fail to show or teach wherein the header comprises a first bit indicating whether the packet is to be used for sensing and a second bit indicating whether the packet is to be used for ranging.
Beg illustrates a frame in Figure 15 and teaches in at least paragraph [0183] that the Reserved bit (B39) of the User Info field is modified to be used as a Sensing Indication bit. The Sensing Indication bit of the User Info field of the enhanced ranging trigger frame (poll) may be used by sensing initiator (502) to indicate to the STA identified by the AID/RSID if the ranging trigger frame (poll) is for a ranging procedure or for a sensing procedure. For example, STAs the support Wi-Fi sensing using ranging (i.e., sensing responders) addressed by the enhanced ranging trigger frame (poll) with a User Info field (based on their AID/RSID) check the Sensing Indication bit of the User Info field. In an example, if the sensing indication bit is set to zero (0), then this indicates to the identified sensing responder that sensing initiator (502) is requesting for the sensing responder to participate in a normal ranging procedure, and the optional subfields of the User Info field of the enhanced ranging trigger frame (poll) (Transmission Configuration and Steering Matrix Configuration) will not be present (the trigger frame will be a standard trigger frame of the Ranging Trigger type). In some examples, if the sensing indication bit is set to one (1), then this indicates to the identified sensing responder that sensing initiator (502) is requesting for the sensing responder to participate in a sensing procedure using the enhanced ranging trigger frame (poll). In this case, the sensing responder will check for the optional subfields (Transmission Configuration and Steering Matrix Configuration) in case they are present and have been sent to the sensing responder to request a specific transmission configuration. In examples, the sensing responder terminates the sensing procedure after the modified poll response is sent.
It is also not new in the art that a ranging trigger frame (poll) includes many specific bits in its technical structure, as defined by the IEEE 802.11 standard (particularly 802.11ax/Wi-Fi 6 and later). The frame is a complex message composed of several fields. Each field made up of specific bits that serve a purpose in the ranging and multi-user communication process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art as taught by Beg to modify Pakrooh’s packet to include a bit(s) indicating whether the packet is to be used for sensing and a bit(s) indicating whether the packet is to be used for ranging in order to improve network (such as UWB) efficiency, enable optimized processing, and provide robust system flexibility by preventing a single frame type from being co-opted for incompatible functions, wherein labeling frames as “sensing” or “ranging” allows the network to dedicate specific resources for each function, significantly improving performance.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Young T. Tse whose telephone number is (571)272-3051. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:30am-7pm.
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 M Fan can be reached on 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.
/Young T. Tse/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632