DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the preliminary amendment filed on 11 January 2024, having claims 1-20 and drawing figures 1-4.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
3. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The reference numbers in parentheses cited in the abstract must be removed.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 16, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “adapted to” recited in line 1 of claim 1 must be replaced by the phrase “configured to” to render the claim affirmative.
The term “and/or” recited in line 5 of claim 1 must be replaced by the word “or” or the phrase “at least one of” to render the claim affirmative.
The term “and/or” recited in line 2 of claim 16 must be replaced by the word “or” or the phrase “at least one of” to render the claim affirmative. The word “comprise” recited in line 3 of claim 16 must be spelled as “comprises” to conform with English grammar rules.
The term “and/or” recited in line 2 of claim 20 must be replaced by the word “or” or the phrase “at least one of” to render the claim affirmative.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 9-11, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a combination of one or more” in lines 2-3. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite. The word “combination” implies that two or more elements will be merged together. Therefore, it cannot be a combination of “one or more.” An acceptable alternative is the phrase “at least one of” or the phase “a combination of two or more.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a combination of one or more” in lines 4-5. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite. The word “combination” implies that two or more elements will be merged together. Therefore, it cannot be a combination of “one or more.” An acceptable alternative is the phrase “at least one of” or the phase “a combination of two or more.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a combination of one or more” in lines 2-3. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite. The word “combination” implies that two or more elements will be merged together. Therefore, it cannot be a combination of “one or more.” An acceptable alternative is the phrase “at least one of” or the phase “a combination of two or more.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a combination of one or more” in lines 2-3. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite. The word “combination” implies that two or more elements will be merged together. Therefore, it cannot be a combination of “one or more.” An acceptable alternative is the phrase “at least one of” or the phase “a combination of two or more.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a combination of one or more” in lines 2-3. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite. The word “combination” implies that two or more elements will be merged together. Therefore, it cannot be a combination of “one or more.” An acceptable alternative is the phrase “at least one of” or the phase “a combination of two or more.”
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a combination of one or more” in lines 3-4. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite. The word “combination” implies that two or more elements will be merged together. Therefore, it cannot be a combination of “one or more.” An acceptable alternative is the phrase “at least one of” or the phase “a combination of two or more.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffl et al. (US 2022/0309308 A1) in view of Ledvina et al. (US 2020/0106877 A1).
For claim 1, Steffl discloses a proximity awareness device (Fig 1, device 100) adapted to establish proximity awareness on neighbouring devices (Fig 1, device 102) similar to said proximity awareness device, said proximity awareness device comprising:
a first transceiver (Fig 2, UWB controller) configured to implement a ranging protocol to determine a distance and/or angle between said proximity awareness device and at least one of said neighbouring devices ([0025] the UWB controller performs a ranging procedure to determine the exact distance of neighboring devices); and
a second transceiver (Fig 2, BLE connector) configured to implement a discovery protocol to discover presence of said neighbouring devices ([0021] the BLE connector uses a discovery protocol to discover presence of neighboring devices), said second transceiver consuming less power than said first transceiver ([0015] the BLE transceiver consumes less power than the UWB transceiver; the BLE is used for in-band discovery).
For claim 1, Steffl does not expressly disclose the first transceiver is controlled to operate according to a first duty cycle to switch between a full power state when ranging with a neighbouring device and a low power state wherein either its transmitter, its receiver or both are in a sleep state or are switched off when no ranging is performed; and said second transceiver is controlled to operate according to a second duty cycle to periodically switch between a full power state in order to perform said discovery protocol and a low power state wherein either its transmitter, its receiver or both are in a sleep state or are switched off.
Ledvina, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a first duty cycle ends (e.g., the other device exits sharing mode), a ranging session may stop and the UWB circuitry enters a sleep or low-power state [0152], and when a second duty cycle ends (e.g., the other device exits sharing mode), [0151-0152] Bluetooth or WiFi circuitry may enter a sleep or low-power state). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the UWB and BLE transceivers of Steffl may periodically switch from full power mode (when in ranging or discovery duty cycle) to lower power or sleep state (when not in duty cycle) based on the teachings of Ledvina at the time of the invention.
For claim 19, Steffl discloses the first transceiver is an Ultra-Wideband transceiver abbreviated UWB transceiver (Fig 2, UWB controller), and said second transceiver is a Bluetooth transceiver abbreviated BLE transceiver (Fig 2, BLE connector).
For claim 20, Steffl discloses the discovery protocol ([0024] FiRA BLE connector) and/or said ranging protocol ([0025] FiRA UWB controller) are compatible with Fine Ranging packet formatting, abbreviated FiRa packet formatting ([0024-0025] both the UWB and the BLE transceivers are FiRA compatible).
7. Claims 3, 12-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffl et al. (US 2022/0309308 A1) in view of Ledvina et al. (US 2020/0106877 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0136556 A1).
For claim 3, Lee discloses the second duty cycle is configured based on a combination of one or more of: the type of said proximity awareness device; - the application wherein said proximity awareness device is used; - the moving speed of said proximity awareness device ([0116] the discovery message is sent is based on movement of the device over a period of time); - an activity level of said proximity awareness device ([0116] the discovery message is sent is based on movement of the device over a period of time); - a previous determination of distance between said proximity awareness device and said neighbouring devices; - a relative distance increase or decrease between said proximity awareness device and one or more neighbouring devices;- duration since a previous determination of distance between said proximity awareness device and said neighbouring devices. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the configure the duty cycle (ranging or discovery period) based on moving speed of the device(s) in the modified system of Steffl and Ledvina based on the teachings of Lee at the time of the invention.
For claim 12, Lee discloses the first duty cycle is configured per neighbouring device ([00076] the ranging procedure is done between a pair of devices; thus, the process would repeat for each neighboring device discovered).
For claim 13, Lee discloses the first duty cycle is configured based on a combination of one or more of:- the type of said proximity awareness device;- the application wherein said proximity awareness device is used; - the moving speed of said proximity awareness device ([0116] the discovery message is sent is based on movement of the device over a period of time); - an activity level of said proximity awareness device ([0116] the discovery message is sent is based on movement of the device over a period of time); - a previous determination of distance between said proximity awareness device and said neighbouring devices; - a relative distance increase or decrease between said proximity awareness device and one or more neighbouring devices;- duration since a previous determination of distance between said proximity awareness device and said neighbouring devices.
For claim 14, Lee discloses in order to implement said ranging protocol, said first transceiver is configured to perform within a ranging window the following steps:- range as contention winning proximity awareness device with prioritized neighbouring devices in said respective timeslots assigned thereto, or - range as a prioritized neighbouring device with a contention winning proximity awareness device or with another prioritized neighbouring device in a respective timeslot assigned thereto by said contention winning proximity awareness device; and operate in a low power mode in other timeslots of said ranging window or - operate as a non-contention winning proximity device and non-prioritized neighbouring device in a low power mode throughout said ranging window ([0096] power may be reduced during transmission interval after transmission of the initial ranging message).
For claim 15, Lee discloses in order to implement said ranging protocol, said first transceiver is configured to perform within a timeslot of said ranging window (Fig 10 shows the ranging time period) the following steps:- transmit a first signal to a neighbouring device ([0092] RFRAME initiation message is the ranging initiation signal); - receive a second signal transmitted by said neighbouring device upon receipt of said first signal ([0092] the receiving device transmits an RFRAME response signal); - transmit a third signal to said neighbouring device upon receipt of said second signal ([0092] after receiving response signal, a RFRAME initiation message (third signal) is sent); and - determine a distance between said proximity awareness device and said neighbouring device from the round trip time between transmission of said first signal and receipt of said second signal ([0147-0149] based on the ranging round trip time, a time of flight is calculated to determine the distance between the two devices).
For claim 16, Lee discloses the first signal and/or said second signal and/or said third signal comprise radio configuration settings comprising the length of a preamble, the modulation type, and the transmit power which is configured per neighbouring device based on the required accuracy, the link quality, the available energy, and the required measurable range of said distance ([0141-0142] the ranging messages comprise ranging parameters including a marker for defining a reference time point and [0103] an index).
For claim 19, Lee discloses the first transceiver is an Ultra-Wideband transceiver abbreviated UWB transceiver (Fig 14, UWB transceiver 1510), and said second transceiver is a Bluetooth transceiver abbreviated BLE transceiver (Fig 14, BLE transceiver 1510).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 2, 4-8 and 18 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.
9. Claims 9-11 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM ET.
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471