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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krebs et al. (US 20240163006 A1 priority to provisional-application US 63383568 2022/11/14) further in view of Wu et al. (US 20250247842 A1 priority to foreign application CN 202211275258.3 field 2022/10/18).
Regarding Claim 1, Krebs et al. discloses;
A method (Fig. 8), comprising:
generating, by a first ultra-wideband (UWB) device (Fig. 8, 16: UWB wireless device 1602), a header information element (IE) for a data communication (Fig. 12, Claim 7, Para. [0068]; “encoding [generating] a header information element (IE)”, e.g. a header IE 1200), the header IE having a header type selected from a condensed header IE (Fig. 12, Para. [0068]-[0069]: header IE 1200 is a condensed header IE when it includes “an optimized format header IE 1202”)…; and
transmitting, by the first UWB device, the header IE to a second UWB device (Fig. 8, 12, 16, Claim 7: “transmitting the header IE”; that is, UWB wireless device 1602 transmits optimized header IE to UWB wireless device 1618).
Although Krebs et al. discloses (Fig. 12, Para. [0068]) a header IE 1200 that includes “an optimized format header IE 1202” and “legacy signaling 1204 for Header IEs 0-127” constituting an condensed header IE, they do not explicitly teach:
“a full header IE.”
However, Krebs et al. teaches (Para. [0069]) that the “optimized format header IE 1202” is generated “when security and IE Header length field may not be needed”. That is, Krebs et al. fairly teaches/suggest that a header IE 1200 can include “security and IE Header length field,” when there are needed, constituting a full header IE.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the header IE 1200 in Krebs et al.’s invention can be generated for data communication as a full header IE when encoded with “security and IE Header length field” as taught by Krebs et al. where doing so would (Krebs et al., Para. [0065]) provide “additional information…for the discover broadcasts” when needed.
Krebs et al. does not teach that the condensed header IE comprises:
“a scheduling list length field and a scheduling list type field.”
On the other hand, WU et al. teaches (Para. [0028], [0030], [0153]) scheduling IE IE “includes a short address” constituting a condensed scheduling IE/header IE and further comprises:
“a scheduling list length field (Para. [0032], [0147]: “the scheduling information includes a control field and a scheduling list field. The control field includes…the field indicating the quantity of list elements in the scheduling list field [i.e. scheduling list length field]”; “Scheduling list length indicates a quantity of list elements in the scheduling list field”) and a scheduling list type field (Para. [0032]: “the scheduling information includes a control field and a scheduling list field. The control field includes the field indicating the address type of the UWB device [i.e. scheduling list type field]”).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the condensed header IE in Krebs et al.’s invention can further include a scheduling list length field/ Scheduling list length and a scheduling list type/address type field as taught by Wu et al. where doing so would (Wu et al., Para. [0005]) “reduce the signaling overheads of the scheduling [header] information element for the UWB application.”
Regarding Claim 10, Krebs et al. discloses;
A first device (Fig. 16: wireless device1602), comprising:
an ultra-wideband (UWB) transceiver (Fig. 16: transceiver 1610); and one or more processors (Fig. 16: processor(s) 1604) configured to:
generate a header information element (IE) for a data communication, (Fig. 12, Claim 7, Para. [0068]; “encoding [generating] a header information element (IE)”, e.g. a header IE 1200), the header IE having a header type selected from a condensed header IE (Fig. 12, Para. [0068]-[0069]: header IE 1200 is a condensed header IE when it includes “an optimized format header IE 1202”)…; and
transmit, via the UWB transceiver, the header IE to a second device (Fig. 8, 12, 16, Claim 7: “transmitting the header IE”; that is, UWB wireless device 1602 transmits optimized header IE to UWB wireless device 1618 using the transceiver 1610).
Although Krebs et al. discloses (Fig. 12, Para. [0068]) a header IE 1200 that includes “an optimized format header IE 1202” and “legacy signaling 1204 for Header IEs 0-127” constituting an condensed header IE, they do not explicitly teach:
“a full header IE.”
However, Krebs et al. teaches (Para. [0069]) that the “optimized format header IE 1202” is generated “when security and IE Header length field may not be needed”. That is, Krebs et al. fairly teaches/suggest that a header IE 1200 can include “security and IE Header length field,” when there are needed, constituting a full header IE.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the header IE 1200 in Krebs et al.’s invention can be generated for data communication as a full header IE when encoded with “security and IE Header length field” as taught by Krebs et al. where doing so would (Krebs et al., Para. [0065]) provide “additional information…for the discover broadcasts” when needed.
Krebs et al. does not teach that the condensed header IE comprises:
“a scheduling list length field and a scheduling list type field.”
On the other hand, WU et al. teaches (Para. [0028], [0030], [0153]) scheduling IE IE “includes a short address” constituting a condensed scheduling IE/header IE and further comprises:
“a scheduling list length field (Para. [0032], [0147]: “the scheduling information includes a control field and a scheduling list field. The control field includes…the field indicating the quantity of list elements in the scheduling list field [i.e. scheduling list length field]”; “Scheduling list length indicates a quantity of list elements in the scheduling list field”) and a scheduling list type field (Para. [0032]: “the scheduling information includes a control field and a scheduling list field. The control field includes the field indicating the address type of the UWB device [i.e. scheduling list type field]”).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the condensed header IE in Krebs et al.’s invention can further include a scheduling list length field/ Scheduling list length and a scheduling list type/address type field as taught by Wu et al. where doing so would (Wu et al., Para. [0005]) “reduce the signaling overheads of the scheduling [header] information element for the UWB application.”
Regarding Claim 2 and 11, Krebs et al. in view of Wu et al. discloses all as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, where Krebs et al. further teaches;
wherein the condensed header IE has fewer bits than the full header IE (Fig. 12, Para. [0069]: condensed header IE 1202 does not include bits corresponding to the “security and IE Header length field”).
Regarding Claim 4 and 13, Krebs et al. in view of Wu et al. discloses all as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, where Krebs et al. further teaches;
wherein transmitting the header IE to the second UWB device comprises transmitting, by the first UWB device, at a start of a ranging block, the header IE to the second wireless communication device (Fig. 3-7, 11, Para. [0037]: header IE 1200 is transmitted at a start of a ranging block 508).
Regarding Claim 19, Krebs et al. discloses;
A wireless communication device(Fig. 16: wireless device1602), comprising:
an ultra-wideband (UWB) transceiver (Fig. 16: transceiver 1610) configured to:
generate a header information element (IE) for a data communication, (Fig. 12, Claim 7, Para. [0068]; “encoding [generating] a header information element (IE)”, e.g. a header IE 1200), the header IE having a header type selected from a condensed header IE (Fig. 12, Para. [0068]-[0069]: header IE 1200 is a condensed header IE when it includes “an optimized format header IE 1202”)…; and
transmit, via the UWB transceiver, the header IE to a second device (Fig. 8, 12, 16, Claim 7: “transmitting the header IE”; that is, UWB wireless device 1602 transmits optimized header IE to UWB wireless device 1618 using the transceiver 1610).
Although Krebs et al. discloses (Fig. 12, Para. [0068]) a header IE 1200 that includes “an optimized format header IE 1202” and “legacy signaling 1204 for Header IEs 0-127” constituting an condensed header IE, they do not explicitly teach:
“a full header IE.”
However, Krebs et al. teaches (Para. [0069]) that the “optimized format header IE 1202” is generated “when security and IE Header length field may not be needed”. That is, Krebs et al. fairly teaches/suggests that a header IE 1200 can include “security and IE Header length field,” when there are needed, constituting a full header IE.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the header IE 1200 in Krebs et al.’s invention can be generated for data communication as a full header IE when encoded with “security and IE Header length field” as taught by Krebs et al. where doing so would (Krebs et al., Para. [0065]) provide “additional information…for the discover broadcasts” when needed.
Krebs et al. does not teach that the condensed header IE comprises:
“a scheduling list length field and a scheduling list type field.”
On the other hand, WU et al. teaches (Para. [0028], [0030], [0153]) scheduling IE IE “includes a short address” constituting a condensed scheduling IE/header IE and further comprises:
“a scheduling list length field (Para. [0032], [0147]: “the scheduling information includes a control field and a scheduling list field. The control field includes…the field indicating the quantity of list elements in the scheduling list field [i.e. scheduling list length field]”; “Scheduling list length indicates a quantity of list elements in the scheduling list field”) and a scheduling list type field (Para. [0032]: “the scheduling information includes a control field and a scheduling list field. The control field includes the field indicating the address type of the UWB device [i.e. scheduling list type field]”).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the condensed header IE in Krebs et al.’s invention can further include a scheduling list length field/ Scheduling list length and a scheduling list type/address type field as taught by Wu et al. where doing so would (Wu et al., Para. [0005]) “reduce the signaling overheads of the scheduling [header] information element for the UWB application.”
Claims 7-9, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krebs et al. (US 20240163006 A1 priority to provisional-application US 63383568 2022/11/14) in view of Wu et al. (US 20250247842 A1 priority to foreign application CN 202211275258.3 field 2022/10/18) further in view of WEI et al. (US 20240121328 A1) .
Regarding Claim 7 and 16, Krebs et al. in view of Wu et al. discloses all as applied to claim 1 and 10 as addressed above, however, they do not teach;
determining, by the first UWB device, a data size of the data communication; and
selecting, by the first UWB device, the type of header IE for the data communication according to the data size.
On the other hand, WEI et al. teaches:
determining, by the first UWB device, a data size of the data communication (Fig. 3-5, 8, Para. [0125], [0126], [0201]: Step S802; a first “transmitting entity”, e.g. infrastructure equipment 101, “determining a total number of transmitted bits per successfully transmitted bit of user data” as “the quantity of data” “identified for transmission”); and
selecting, by the first UWB device, the type of header IE for the data communication according to the data size (Fig. 3-5, 8, Para. [0202]: Step S806; the first “transmitting entity”, e.g. infrastructure equipment 101, “determining the preferred header formats comprises selecting the header formats for which the loss function is minimized.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the method in Krebs et al. in view of Wu et al.’s invention can further include determining data size and selecting header type according to the data size as taught by WEI et al. where doing so would (WEI et al., Para. [0058]) allow for the “amount of control information associated with one or more protocol layers can be dynamically adapted, to more efficiently make use of the available capacity of a wireless communications link.”
Regarding Claim 8 and 17, Krebs et al. in view of Wu et al. further in view of WEI et al. discloses all as applied to claim 7 and 16 as addressed above, where WEI et al. further teaches;
wherein selecting the type of header IE for the data communication comprises:
selecting, by the first UWB device, the header type according to a comparison of the data size of the data communication to a threshold (Fig. 7, 8, Para. [0122], [0201]: the preferred header format is selected based on a loss function E/threshold corresponding the data identified for transmission/ data size).
Regarding Claim 9 and 18, Krebs et al. in view of Wu et al. further in view of WEI et al. discloses all as applied to claim 8 and 17 as addressed above, where WEI et al. further teaches;
wherein the first UWB device selects the condensed header IE responsive to the data size being less than the threshold (Fig. 7, 8, Para. [0122], [0201]: Step S804,--S806; “determining the preferred header formats comprises selecting the header formats for which the loss function is minimized [i.e. being less than the threshold]).
Regarding 20, Krebs et al. in view of Wu et al. discloses all as applied to claim 19 as addressed above, however, they do not teach;
determine a data size of the data communication;
compare the data size to a threshold; and
select the type of header IE for the data communication according to the comparison, wherein the UWB transceiver selects the condensed header IE responsive to the data size being less than the threshold.
On the other hand, WEI et al. teaches:
determine a data size of the data communication (Fig. 3-5, 8, Para. [0125], [0126], [0201]: Step S802; a first “transmitting entity”, e.g. infrastructure equipment 101, “determining a total number of transmitted bits per successfully transmitted bit of user data” as “the quantity of data” “identified for transmission”);
compare the data size to a threshold (Fig. 7, 8, Para. [0122], [0201]: the preferred header format is selected based on a loss function E/threshold corresponding the data identified for transmission/ data size); and
select the type of header IE for the data communication according to the data size (Fig. 3-5, 8, Para. [0202]: Step S806; the first “transmitting entity”, e.g. infrastructure equipment 101, “determining the preferred header formats comprises selecting the header formats for which the loss function is minimized.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the method in Krebs et al. in view of Wu et al.’s invention can further include determining data size and selecting header type according to the data size according a comparison against a threshold as taught by WEI et al. where doing so would (WEI et al., Para. [0058]) allow for the “amount of control information associated with one or more protocol layers can be dynamically adapted, to more efficiently make use of the available capacity of a wireless communications link.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 12, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMNEET SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-2414. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
/AMNEET SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2633
/SAM K AHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2633