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 Claims 1-14, 16 pending. Claim Interpretation Applicant may act as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning . Examiner notes that instant application specification pg. 17, lines 20-26 states redefines the terms “transceive” and “transceiver” by stating the following: “For the sake of brevity, the term transceive is used in here as replacement for the term transmit and/or receive so that everything needs to be explained only once for the transmission and the reception process. A message is transceived can thus mean that the message is received or the message is transmitted. The term transceiver shall mean receiver and/or transmitter. Thus, a transceiver could be a pure receiver, a pure transmitter or a combined transmitter and receiver.” 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 3, 9-14 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, the term “the transceived message” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether this refers to previously recited “first message,” “second message,” or neither of claim 1. Regarding claim 9, the phrase “one of the first message and the second message is transmitted with a message” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether “with a message” means, e.g., that one of the first message and the second message comprises “a message,” is transmitted in addition to “a message,” is transmitted simultaneously with “a message,” that “a message” comprises at least one of the first and second messages, etc. Claims 10-11 rejected as dependent. Regarding claim 10, “the verifier time difference” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding claim 12, the claim is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, there are multiple recitations of “configured to: transceiving” which should read “configured to… transceive.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim 13 rejected as dependent. Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “device according to the previous claim.” It is unclear which claim is “the previous claim.” For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret this claim as depending from claim 12. Appropriate correction is required. Further, the phrase “antenna… configured to a radio signal” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how an antenna can be configured to a radio signal. Further, line 1 of claim 13 should read “further comprising” rather than “comprising.” Regarding claim 14, the phrase “verifier and/or prover comprises a transceiver” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear, e.g., how the verifier and prover may comprise a single transceiver. Based on the specification, it appears that the verifier and prover do not share a transceiver . Further, the term “the message” in the last limitation of the claim renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether this refers to previously recited “first message,” “second message,” or neither. The claim is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, there are multiple recitations of “configured to: transceiving” which should read “configured to… transceive . ” There are similar errors with the words “sending,” “measuring,” etc. Appropriate correction is required. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 12, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20220141076 A1 to Hammerschmidt . Regarding claim 1 , Hammerschmidt teaches : Method for transceiving a message for UWB distance measurement, comprising the steps of: transceiving a first information portion via a narrowband channel, ( Fig. 11; [00 88 ] – “ the Sync/Acquisition portion (SHR) 1104 of the UWB packet is replaced by an NB Packet 1108 ”) transceiving after the first information portion a second information portion via a UWB channel, wherein the second information portion comprises a distance pulse sequence ([00 88 ] – “ UWB CIRTS 1106 is transmitted in a spectral band suitable for UWB operation. ”) being a pulse sequence to be used for distance measurement, ( [00 73 ] – “ Since the receiver has advanced knowledge of CIRTS1_TX, it can compare the incoming signal CIRTS1_RX with the known sequence CIRTS1_TX. Then, using mathematical algorithms such as correlations and others generally referred to as “Channel Estimation” in the state of the art, the receiver can extract the CIR between the transmitter at device A 202 and the receiver at device B 204. ” [0065] – “ Based in part on this CIR estimation, a time-of flight, range, position (localization), and/or angle-of arrival (AOA) estimation may be determined. ” ) characterized in that wherein the first information portion and the second information portion are transceived in a common message frame of the message ( Fig. 11; [00 88 ] – “ transmission of portions of a No-Data packet 1102 via hybrid signaling is illustrated. In this case, the Sync/Acquisition portion (SHR) 1104 of the UWB packet is replaced by an NB Packet 1108, while the CIRTS 1106 continues to use UWB signaling. ”) Regarding claim 2 , Hammerschmidt teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Hammerschmidt further teaches : Method according to claim 1, wherein the second information portion is transceived in a time period after the first information portion (Fig. 11 – UWB is transmitted after NB) defined by the common message frame. ( [0049] [00 92 ] – “extract synchronization data from the data payload field of the NB packet, for example, in the form of scheduling information that may be used to schedule subsequent reception of one or more UWB fragments.”) Regarding claim 3 , Hammerschmidt teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Hammerschmidt further teaches : Method according to claim 2, wherein, when the transceived message is a received message received at a receiver , the receiver switches on a circuitry for receiving the UWB based on the time period defined by the common message frame after the first information portion has been received. (Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “transceived message” in light of the specification includes a transmitted message. See Claim Interpretation section above and instant application specification pg. 17, lines 20-26. Examiner further notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations 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 phrase “ when the transceived message is a received message received at a receiver” corresponds to the condition precedent, upon which the remainder of the claim is contingent. Because the invention may be practiced without the condition precedent being met (e.g., when the transceived message is a transmitted message and has not yet been received), these steps are not required. MPEP 2111.04 II.) Regarding claim 4 , Hammerschmidt teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Hammerschmidt further teaches : Method according to claim 1, wherein, when the transceived message is a received message received at a receiver of the message , the receiver determines a clock offset based on the first information portion, wherein the clock-offset defines the offset of the system clock of the receiver from a system clock of a transmitter of the message, wherein the clock-offset between the system clock of the receiver and the system clock of the transmitter leads to different length and/or different carrier phase of a symbol of the message transmitted at the transmitter and expected at the receiver, wherein the receiver detects the second information portion of the message using the system clock of the receiver and the clock-offset determined based on the first information portion . (Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “transceived message” in light of the specification includes a transmitted message. See Claim Interpretation section above and instant application specification pg. 17, lines 20-26. Examiner further notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations 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 phrase “when the transceived message is a received message received at a receiver” corresponds to the condition precedent, upon which the remainder of the claim is contingent. Because the invention may be practiced without the condition precedent being met (e.g., when the transceived message is a transmitted message and has not yet been received), these steps are not required. MPEP 2111.04 II.) Regarding claim 5 , Hammerschmidt teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Hammerschmidt further teaches : Method according to claim 1, wherein the second information portion is transceived in the UWB channel without a message portion comprising a preamble, a start of frame delimiter and packet header. ( Fig. 4, 11, [0074] – “ A Sync Header (SHR) 402 at the beginning of the packet consists of a Synchronization (SYNC) preamble 404 and a start of frame delimiter (SFD) 406 ” [0088] – “ the Sync/Acquisition portion (SHR) 1104 of the UWB packet is replaced by an NB Packet 1108, while the CIRTS 1106 continues to use UWB signaling. ” ) Regarding claim 7 , Hammerschmidt teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Hammerschmidt further teaches : Method according to claim 1, wherein the first information portion is transceived by the same chip, by the same antenna and/or by the same transceiving circuit as the second information portion. ( Fig. 15; [00 94-95 ] – “hybrid wireless transceiver 1502 of a device that is configured to communicate with another device utilizing a hybrid of UWB signaling and NB signaling, according to some embodiments”) Regarding claim(s) 12 Claim(s) 12 is /are device claims corresponding to claim(s) 1, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 12 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim (s) 1. Regarding claim 16 , Hammerschmidt teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Hammerschmidt further teaches: Method according to claim 1, wherein the steps of transceiving the first information portion via the narrowband channel and transceiving after the first information portion the second information portion via the UWB channel means: either a transmitter is transmitting the first information portion via the narrowband channel and the transmitter is transmitting after the first information portion the second information portion via the UWB channel, ( Fig. 11) or a receiver is receiving the first information portion via the narrowband channel and the receiver is receiving after the first information portion the second information portion via the UWB channel. (Figs. 11, 14) 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. Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220141076 A1 to Hammerschmidt . Regarding claim 6 , Hammerschmidt teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Hammerschmidt further teaches : Method according to claim 1, wherein the first information portion comprises an information about the length of the second information portion allowing to determine the end timing of the transceived message in the UWB channel. ([00 65 ] – “ the CIRTS/STS portion of the UWB packet may be fragmented according to a UWB fragmenting protocol. The receiver of the fragmented packet may utilize the synchronization data communicated via the NB signaling so that the receiver may accurately schedule reception (e.g., arrival time) of subsequently received UWB fragments. ”) ([00 49 ] – “The synchronization data may be used by the second device to schedule and assist in the reception of a plurality of data fragments to be subsequently transmitted by the first device to the second device via UWB signals in short bursts and distributed over multiple intervals.”) ([00 74 ] – “The SFD 406 terminates the SHR 402 and is also involved in coordinating the packet timing (e.g., frame timing estimation).”) A modification of Hammerschmidt would have been obvious to try as one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. S uch a finding is proper because (1) at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized prob lem or need in the art, in this case a specific way to express expected frame timing in sync transmissions for scheduling ; (2) there are a finite nu mber of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem, e.g., transmitting estimated frame transmission start time, frame transmission end time, frame reception start time, frame reception end time, and/or frame length in the sync transmission ; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could h ave pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) no a dditional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of t he case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143). Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220141076 A1 to Hammerschmidt in view of US 20200198580 A1 to Saleh . Regarding claim 8 , Hammerschmidt teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Hammerschmidt further teaches: at least two messages each comprising a first information portion transceived in the NB channel and a second information portion, ( Fig. 32) Saleh teaches: Method according to claim 1, wherein the UWB channel has at least two different UWB sub-channels wherein the distance pulse sequence is divided in at least two distance pulse sub-sequences, wherein the at least two distance pulse sub-sequences are transceived in either at least two second information sub-portions of the second information portion transceived at the at least two different UWB sub-channels ([00 42 ] – “ In one example of measuring at multiple frequencies, a first half of the UWB ranging session utilizes a first center frequency, and a second half of the ranging session utilizes a second center frequency. ”) or the second information portions of the at least two messages comprising each one of the at least two distance pulse sub-sequences are transceived at the at least two different UWB sub-channels . ([00 42 ] – “one or more of the multiple UWB messaging sessions are performed at different frequencies from each other.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Saleh ’s known technique to Hammerschmidt’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) H ammerschmidt t eaches a base technique of hybrid UWB and NB signal transmission as shown in Figs. 11 and 12. Hammerschmidt further teaches pulse sequencing for UWB transmissions as shown in Figs. 2, 32 ; (2) Saleh teaches a specific technique of performing UWB ranging at multiple different frequencies ; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a more efficient system by combining the transmissions 80 and 84 into a common frame; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143). Claim (s) 9-11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200198580 A1 to Saleh in view of US 20220141076 A1 to Hammerschmidt . Regarding claim 9, Saleh teaches: Method for distance measurement between a verifier (Fig. 2 – vehicle 12 comprising RFHM 14 and UWB anchors 18) and prover (Fig. 2 – key fob comprising UWB transceiver, UHF transceiver, LF receiver) comprising the following steps: sending a first message with a first pulse sequence signal (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference from the verifier to the prover ; (Figs. 2, 3; [0031] – “At step 114, the UWB anchor 18 then generates and sends a second UWB signal 84 to the fob at time T2. The second UWB signal 84 includes a second UWB challenge C2 along with an associated timestamp T3,”) sending a second message with a second pulse sequence signal (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) from the prover to the verifier ; (Figs. 2, 3; [0033] – “At step 122, the fob 16 then generates and sends a third UWB signal 86 to the UWB anchor 18 at a time T5. The third UWB signal 86 includes a response R2 to the second challenge C2 along with the associated timestamp T5, as well as the timestamp T4 of when the associated challenge C2 was received.”) measuring the distance between the verifier and the prover based on the verifier time difference between sending the first message from the verifier and receiving the second message at the verifier; ([0034] – “At step 128, the UWB anchor 18 determines its own second UWB distance measurement D2 between the fob 16 and the UWB anchor 18.”) (Fig. 2; [0034] – “D2 is determined using the equation D2 = ([T6 – T3 – (T5 – T4)]/2)*c”) wherein at least one of the first message (Figs. 2, 3; [0031] – “At step 114, the UWB anchor 18 then generates and sends a second UWB signal 84 to the fob at time T2. The second UWB signal 84 includes a second UWB challenge C2 along with an associated timestamp T3,”) and the second message is transmitted with a message (Figs. 2, 3; [0027] – “At step 104, RFHM 14 generates a LF signal 80 (FIG. 2) and transmits the LF signal 80 from the LF antennas 32 to the fob 16.”) (Figs. 2, 3; [0031] – “At step 114, the UWB anchor 18 then generates and sends a second UWB signal 84 to the fob at time T2. The second UWB signal 84 includes a second UWB challenge C2 along with an associated timestamp T3,” “a message” corresponds to LF signal 80 and UWB signal 84. See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). ) comprising a first information portion (Figs. 2, 3; [0027] – “At step 104, RFHM 14 generates a LF signal 80 (FIG. 2) and transmits the LF signal 80 from the LF antennas 32 to the fob 16.”) including synchronization information and a second information portion (Figs. 2, 3 – UWB signals, e.g., 84; [0031] – “At step 114, the UWB anchor 18 then generates and sends a second UWB signal 84 to the fob at time T2.”) comprising the first or second pulse pulse sequence signal (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) (Figs. 2, 3; [0031] – “At step 114, the UWB anchor 18 then generates and sends a second UWB signal 84 to the fob at time T[3]. The second UWB signal 84 includes a second UWB challenge C2 along with an associated timestamp T3,”) , wherein the second information portion is transmitted after the first information portion, (Figs. 2, 3 – UWB signals, e.g., 84 may correspond to second portion following first portion 80 ; [0031] – “At step 114, the UWB anchor 18 then generates and sends a second UWB signal 84 to the fob at time T2.”) wherein the first information portion is transmitted via a narrowband channel ([0026] – “LF operating frequency range between 30 KHz and 300 kHz, a UWB operating frequency range between 3.1 GHz and 10.6 GHz”) and the second information portion is transmitted via a UWB channel. (Figs. 2, 3 – UWB signals, e.g., 84 may correspond to second portion following first portion 80 ; [0031] – “At step 114, the UWB anchor 18 then generates and sends a second UWB signal 84 to the fob at time T2.”) US 20220141076 A1 to Hammerschmidt teaches: sending a first message with a first pulse sequence from the verifier to the prover, ( Fig. 32 – transmissions from initiator to responder ) ([00 64 ] – “ UWB signaling layer may perform short impulse radio bursts distributed over a time interval (e.g., a multitude of milliseconds (MMS)). The bursts may represent a fragmented UWB transmission (e.g., of a Channel Impulse Response Training Sequence (CIRTS)/Scrambled Time Sequence (STS). ” [0069] – “ In the case of Impulse Radio (IR) UWB, the waveform exchanged between devices contains UWB pulses, shown as p1, p2, p3, . . . in FIG. 2. ”) sending a second message with a second pulse sequence from the prover to the verifier, ( Fig. 32 – transmissions from responder to initiator ) ([00 64 ] – “ UWB signaling layer may perform short impulse radio bursts distributed over a time interval (e.g., a multitude of milliseconds (MMS)). The bursts may represent a fragmented UWB transmission (e.g., of a Channel Impulse Response Training Sequence (CIRTS)/Scrambled Time Sequence (STS). ” ) [0069] – “ In the case of Impulse Radio (IR) UWB, the waveform exchanged between devices contains UWB pulses, shown as p1, p2, p3, . . . in FIG. 2. ”) first information portion including synchronization information ( Fig. 11; [00 88 ] – “ the Sync/Acquisition portion (SHR) 1104 of the UWB packet is replaced by an NB Packet 1108 ”) ( [0049] [00 92 ] – “extract synchronization data from the data payload field of the NB packet, for example, in the form of scheduling information that may be used to schedule subsequent reception of one or more UWB fragments.”) the second information portion ( Fig. 32 – e.g., transmissions from initiator to responder ) comprises the first or second pulse sequence ( Figs. 2, 32, 11-12; [0073] – “ CIRTS may be waveforms known to both the transmitter (e.g., device A 202) and the receiver (e.g., device B 204) … CIRTS1” ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Hammerschmidt’s known technique to Saleh’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Saleh teaches a base technique of a verifier sequentially transmitting first information in NB signal 80 and then transmitting second information / first message in UWB signal 84 to a prover. Saleh then teaches prover transmission of a second message in UWB signal 86 back to the verifier in response. Saleh then teaches determination, by the verifier, of distance between verifier and prover. See Saleh Fig. 2 ; (2) Hammerschmidt t eaches a specific technique of hybrid UWB and NB signal transmission as shown in Figs. 11 and 12. Hammerschmidt further teaches pulse sequencing for UWB transmissions as shown in Figs. 2, 32 ; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a more efficient system by combining the transmissions 80 and 84 into a common frame; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143). Regarding claim 10 , Saleh in view of Hammerschmidt teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Saleh further teaches: Method according to claim 9, wherein the first information portion of the second message comprises a prover time information , wherein the prover time information indicates the time between the receiving of the first message at the prover and the sending of the second message from the prover , ( Examiner notes that claim 9 merely requires that at least one of the first message and the second message is transmitted with a message comprising a first information portion, i.e., a first information portion of the second message (and any additional limitations further describing the first information portion of the second message) is not required if a first information portion of the first message exists (see mapping teaching a first information portion of the first message in rejection of claim 9). In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner further notes Fig. 2 – signal 86; [00 33 ] – “The third UWB signal 86 includes a response R2 to the second challenge C2 along with the associated timestamp T5, as well as the timestamp T4 of when the associated challenge C2 was received. As shown, the fob 16 sends the second challenge response R2 at time T5. In the example embodiment, the second processing time P2 of challenge C2 at fob 16 is the difference between timestamp T5 and timestamp T4.”) wherein the distance between the verifier and the prover is determined based on the verifier time difference and the prover time difference . ([0034] – “At step 128, the UWB anchor 18 determines its own second UWB distance measurement D2 between the fob 16 and the UWB anchor 18.”) (Fig. 2; [0034] – “D2 is determined using the equation D2 = ([T6 – T3 – (T5 – T4)]/2)*c”) Regarding claim 11 , Saleh in view of Hammerschmidt teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Saleh further teaches: Method according to claim 9, wherein the steps of sending the first message from the verifier to the prover, of sending the second message from the prover to the verifier and measuring the distance between the verifier and the prover are repeated in two or more iterations, (Repeating sending first message, second message, and measuring distance in two or more iterations corresponds to mere duplication of parts. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960) (noting that merely duplicating parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced). Examiner further notes [0041] – “To further increase accuracy, the measurements may be performed multiple times (e.g., 5-10 UWB messaging sessions ) .” ) wherein in at least two of the iterations, a different UWB sub-channel of the UWB channel is used to transmit the second information portion of the first and/or second message ([00 42 ] – “one or more of the multiple UWB messaging sessions are performed at different frequencies from each other.”) wherein the final distance between the verifier and the prover is determined based on the distances between the verifier and the prover measured in the two or more iterations. ([00 41 ] – “To further increase accuracy, the measurements may be performed multiple times (e.g., 5-10 UWB messaging sessions), and an average is taken of the determined distances D1, D2 from all sessions determine the final distance.”) Regarding claim 1 4 , US 20200198580 A1 to Saleh teaches : System for distance measurement between a verifier and prover comprising the verifier (Fig. 2 – vehicle 12 comprising RFHM 14 and UWB anchors 18) and the prover, (Fig. 2 – key fob comprising UWB transceiver, UHF transceiver, LF receiver) wherein the verifier is configured to sending a first message with a first pulse sequence signal (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) to the prover, (Figs. 2, 3; [0031] – “At step 114, the UWB anchor 18 then generates and sends a second UWB signal 84 to the fob at time T2. The second UWB signal 84 includes a second UWB challenge C2 along with an associated timestamp T3,”) wherein the prover is configured, after having received the first message, to sending a second message with a second pulse sequence signal (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) to the verifier, (Figs. 2, 3; [0033] – “At step 122, the fob 16 then generates and sends a third UWB signal 86 to the UWB anchor 18 at a time T5. The third UWB signal 86 includes a response R2 to the second challenge C2 along with the associated timestamp T5, as well as the timestamp T4 of when the associated challenge C2 was received.”) wherein the verifier is configured to measuring the distance between the verifier and the prover based on the verifier time difference, ([0034] – “At step 128, the UWB anchor 18 determines its own second UWB distance measurement D2 between the fob 16 and the UWB anchor 18.”) wherein the verifier time difference is the time difference between sending the first message from the verifier and receiving the second message at the verifier; (Fig. 2; [0034] – “D2 is determined using the equation D2 = ([T6 – T3 – (T5 – T4)]/2)*c”) wherein the verifier (Fig. 2 – vehicle 12 comprising RFHM 14 and UWB anchors 18) and/or prover (Fig. 2 – key fob comprising UWB transceiver, UHF transceiver, LF receiver) comprises a transceiver (Examiner notes instant application specification pg. 17, lines 20-26 “The term transceiver shall mean receiver and/or transmitter”) configured to: transceiving (Examiner notes instant application specification pg. 17, lines 20-26 “A message is transceived can thus mean that the message is received or the message is transmitted”) a first information portion (Figs. 2, 3; [0027] – “At step 104, RFHM 14 generates a LF signal 80 (FIG. 2) and transmits the LF signal 80 from the LF antennas 32 to the fob 16.”) via a narrowband channel, ([0026] – “LF operating frequency range between 30 KHz and 300 kHz, a UWB operating frequency range between 3.1 GHz and 10.6 GHz”) and transceiving after the first information portion a second information portion via a UWB channel, (Figs. 2, 3 – UWB signals , e.g., 8 4 may correspond to second portion following first portion 80 ; [0031] – “At step 114, the UWB anchor 18 then generates and sends a second UWB signal 84 to the fob at time T2.”) wherein the second information portion comprises the first or second pulse sequence signal (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) (Figs. 2, 3; [0031] – “At step 114, the UWB anchor 18 then generates and sends a second UWB signal 84 to the fob at time T [3] . The second UWB signal 84 includes a second UWB challenge C2 along with an associated timestamp T3,”) for distance measurement, ( [0032] – “ At step 120, the fob 16 determines a first UWB distance measurement D1 between the fob 16 and the UWB anchor 18. ” D1 is determined using information from signal 84; [0034] – “At step 128, the UWB anchor 18 determines its own second UWB distance measurement D2 between the fob 16 and the UWB anchor 18.”) (Fig. 2; [0034] – “D2 is determined using the equation D2 = ([T6 – T3 – (T5 – T4)]/2)*c” D1 is determined using information from signal 84 ) wherein the transceiver is configured to transceive the first information portion and the second information portion in a common message frame of the message US 20220141076 A1 to Hammerschmidt teaches: verifier is configured to sending a first message with a first pulse sequence to the prover, ( Fig. 32 – transmissions from initiator to responder ) ([00 64 ] – “ UWB signaling layer may perform short impulse radio bursts distributed over a time interval (e.g., a multitude of milliseconds (MMS)). The bursts may represent a fragmented UWB transmission (e.g., of a Channel Impulse Response Training Sequence (CIRTS)/Scrambled Time Sequence (STS). ” [0069] – “ In the case of Impulse Radio (IR) UWB, the waveform exchanged between devices contains UWB pulses, shown as p1, p2, p3, . . . in FIG. 2. ”) the prover is configured, after having received the first message, to sending a second message with a second pulse sequence to the verifier, ( Fig. 32 – transmissions from responder to initiator ) ([00 64 ] – “ UWB signaling layer may perform short impulse radio bursts distributed over a time interval (e.g., a multitude of milliseconds (MMS)). The bursts may represent a fragmented UWB transmission (e.g., of a Channel Impulse Response Training Sequence (CIRTS)/Scrambled Time Sequence (STS). ” ) [0069] – “ In the case of Impulse Radio (IR) UWB, the waveform exchanged between devices contains UWB pulses, shown as p1, p2, p3, . . . in FIG. 2. ”) the second information portion ( Fig. 32 – e.g., transmissions from initiator to responder ) comprises the first or second pulse sequence ( Figs. 2, 32, 11-12; [0073] – “ CIRTS may be waveforms known to both the transmitter (e.g., device A 202) and the receiver (e.g., device B 204) … CIRTS1” ) for distance measurement, ( [00 73 ] – “ Since the receiver has advanced knowledge of CIRTS1_TX, it can compare the incoming signal CIRTS1_RX with the known sequence CIRTS1_TX. Then, using mathematical algorithms such as correlations and others generally referred to as “Channel Estimation” in the state of the art, the receiver can extract the CIR between the transmitter at device A 202 and the receiver at device B 204. ” [0065] – “ Based in part on this CIR estimation, a time-of flight, range, position (localization), and/or angle-of arrival (AOA) estimation may be determined. ” ) wherein the transceiver is configured to transceive the first information portion and the second information portion in a common message frame of the message ( Fig. 11-12; [00 88 ] – “ hybrid of UWB signaling and NB signaling … a transmission of portions of a No-Data packet 1102 via hybrid signaling is illustrated. In this case, the Sync/Acquisition portion (SHR) 1104 of the UWB packet is replaced by an NB Packet 1108, while the CIRTS 1106 continues to use UWB signaling. ”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Hammerschmidt’s known technique to Saleh’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Saleh teaches a base technique of a verifier sequentially transmitting first information in NB signal 80 and then transmitting second information / first message in UWB signal 84 to a prover. Saleh then teaches prover transmission of a second message in UWB signal 86 back to the verifier in response. Saleh then teaches determination, by the verifier, of distance between verifier and prover. See Saleh Fig. 2 ; (2) Hammerschmidt t eaches a specific technique of hybrid UWB and NB signal transmission as shown in Figs. 11 and 12. Hammerschmidt further teaches pulse sequencing for UWB transmissions as shown in Figs. 2, 32 ; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a more efficient system by combining the transmissions 80 and 84 into a common frame; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 13 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 and to overcome rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record (US 20220141076 A1 to Hammerschmidt; US 20200198580 A1 to Saleh) neither teaches nor fairly renders obvious the combinations set forth in claims 13. See analysis regarding claim 13 below. Regarding claim 1 3 , Hammerschmidt teaches: an antenna configured to transmit the amplified modulated radio signal ( Fig. 14, 15; [00 93 ] – “ a single shared antenna covering both NB and UWB operations may be a suitable implementation ”) T he prior art of record does not teach, in combination with the remaining elements of the claim: Device according to the previous claim comprising a transceiving circuit configured to be operated in a narrowband mode and in a UWB mode, comprising: an oscillator configured to generate in the narrowband mode a first carrier signal for the narrowband channel as a carrier signal of the oscillator and in the UWB mode a second carrier signal for the UWB channel as the carrier signal of the oscillator, a signal generator configured to modulate the carrier signal from the oscillator to generate a modulated radio signal, wherein the signal generator is configured in the narrowband mode to modulate the first information portion on the carrier signal received from the oscillator and in the UWB mode to modulate the second information portion on the carrier signal received from the oscillator, a transmission amplifier configured to amplify the modulated radio signal, a receiving amplifier configured to amplify the radio signal received at the antenn a , a mixer configured to downmix the amplified radio signal with the carrier signal obtained from the oscillator, a filter c onfigured to generate a filtered signal by in the narrowband mode filtering out from the downmixed amplified radio signal the frequencies outside of the narrowband channel and in the UWB mode filtering out from the downmixed amplified radio signal the frequencies outside of the UWB channel, a analogue to digital converter configured to convert filtered signal into a digital signal, wherein analogue to digital converter uses in the narrowband mode a first sampling frequency and in the UWB mode a second sampling frequency, wherein the first sampling frequency is lower than the second sampling frequency, and a digital processor configured to process the digital signal. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT JULIANA CROSS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8721 . The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Pacific time. 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 on (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 inf o rmation 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. /JULIANA CROSS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648 /William Kelleher/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648