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 Amendment
The amendment filed 06/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-18 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the objections for claims 8-12 from the previously filed Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejections of independent claims 1, 7, and 13 in view of Huang et al. (US 20250351139 A1) are moot based on a new grounds of rejection.
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.
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 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 20250351139 A1) in view of Senna et al. (US 20180045807 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses [Note: what Huang fails to disclose is strike-through]
A method of initiating a UWB (Ultra-Wideband) ranging session (see pg. 1, paragraph 0005, “Embodiments of this application provide an information processing method and an apparatus, to further improve and optimize a UWB in-band discovery and association mechanism.”), the method comprising:
obtaining, at a first UWB device, first wireless signal transmission information indicating at least one time gap between first wireless signal transmissions by a wireless signaling device distinct from the first UWB; (see Fig. 2d, first action of controlee receiving control IE [information element] and scheduling IE from controller, then obtaining an empty slot); and
transmitting, from the first UWB device (see Fig. 2d, second signal of controlee sending an association request frame in the empty slot).
Senna discloses
transmitting, from the first UWB device to a second UWB device distinct from the wireless signaling device (see Fig. 3; UPN 1 transmits signal TX1 308 to UPN 2, then UPN 2 transmits signal TX2 317 to UPN element 3; paragraph 0079, “In FIG. 3, UPN 1 305 transmits Tx.sub.1 308 that is received by both movably positioned object M 330 and UPN 2 315. Upon receipt of Tx.sub.1 308 and in accordance with a slot map schedule, UPN 2 315 transmits Tx.sub.2 317. Tx.sub.2 317 is received by M 330 and UPN 3 320.”; claim 7, “the first subset of UPNs includes a schedule for Time Difference of Arrival transmissions and wherein the schedule is based on the constellation common reference time and the first degree of accuracy.”; paragraph 0066, “In such a manner, each node in the constellation adopts the same reference time that is aligned with the GPS radio signal time. By doing so, a schedule of TDOA transmissions can be generated and aligned. Consider that a movably positioned object may be within an UWB effective transmission range of a plurality of UPNs. UPN transmissions must be discreet. These transmissions are scheduled creating what is commonly referred to as a slot map. Using the slot map each UPN can issue a TDOA transmission as well as respond to any TWR [two-way ranging] requests.”),
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Senna into the invention of Huang. Both Huang and Senna are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose UWB ranging methods with transmission of timing information. Huang discloses a UWB ranging method comprising obtaining signal transmission timing information indicating an empty slot and transmitting a ranging initiating message that indicates an available transmission time based on the empty slot information; however, Huang fails to disclose at least three devices involved in the obtaining and transmission of the timing signals, where the second UWB device is distinct from the wireless signaling device. This feature is disclosed by Senna where at least three UWB devices can transmit signals to each other according to a timing slot map schedule. Senna discloses the UWB devices transmitting signals according to a slot map schedule but fails to disclose specific time gap indications (see Senna paragraph 0066 and claim 7). It is reasonable to believe that the system of Senna, where UWBs can transmit information between at least three UWBs, could be combined with the transmit timing information signals of Huang, specifically the time gap indications, to transmit timing information between at least three UWBs. In Fig. 2d of Huang, the “controlee” can be considered “the first UWB” and the “controller” can be considered the “wireless signaling device distinct from the first UWB”. It is reasonable to believe that the “controlee” of Huang could send “an association request frame in the empty slot” to a third UWB device, such as the multi-UWB communications of Senna. The combination of Huang and Senna would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve energy efficiency by transmitting signals when the scheduling indicates availability (see Huang paragraph 0008) and to improve ranging and positioning accuracy by sharing timing information between devices, where even if a UWB node can’t receive information directly, the information can be passed on through another UWB device (see Senna paragraph 0071, “Systems which are experiencing a high amount of error due to poor or no signal can request timing information from their local neighbors. These neighbors can then be synchronized to a second degree of accuracy using UWB signals. This affect can be dynamic and can be propagated through the UWB network through as many nodes as necessary.”; paragraph 0013; Senna paragraph 0010, “The synchronized UWB geographic positioning system of the present invention provides precise positional determination combined with the ability to share locational information and similar related traffic and safety data throughout the constellation.”).
Regarding claim 2, Huang further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the first wireless signal transmission information comprises sensing, by the first UWB device, a first wireless signal channel for first wireless signal transmissions and time gaps between pairs of consecutive first wireless signal transmissions (see Fig. 2a; pg. 5, paragraph 0089, channel access for application management period within beacon interval).
Regarding claim 4, Huang further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the first wireless signal transmission information comprises wirelessly receiving first wireless signal transmission information at the first UWB device from another UWB device (see pg. 6, paragraph 0093, “Currently, a UWB in-band discovery and association mechanism (UWB in-band discovery and association mechanism) is proposed. The mechanism may be understood as a process in which a controller sends control information, and a controlee sends an association request frame and receives an association response frame”).
Regarding claim 7, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 1 are applied. Huang further discloses
A first UWB device (Ultra-Wideband device) comprising:
at least one transmitter;
at least one memory; and
at least one processor, communicatively coupled to the at least one transmitter and the at least one memory, with at least one of the at least one memory or the at least one processor comprising instructions to cause the at least one processor to (see Fig. 9):
Regarding claims 8-12, the same cited sections and rationale for claims 2-6 are applied. The only difference between claims 2-6 and claims 8-12 is that claims 2-6 refer to a method while claims 8-12 refer to an apparatus. The examiner considers Huang pg. 1, paragraph 0005, (“Embodiments of this application provide an information processing method and an apparatus, to further improve and optimize a UWB in-band discovery and association mechanism.”), to show that the UWB apparatus performs the UWB ranging method of claims 2-6.
Regarding claim 8, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 2 are applied.
Regarding claim 10, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 4 are applied.
Regarding claims 13-18, the same cited sections and rationale for claims 7-12 are applied. Both sets of claims are directed towards a first UWB device, where claims 7-12 have specific structural components and claims 13-18 have “means for” components. The examiner applies the same cited sections and rationale to both sets of claims.
Regarding claims 13-14, the same cited sections and rationale from claims 1-2 are applied.
Regarding claim 16, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 4 are applied.
Claims 3, 5-6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 20250351139 A1) in view of Koo et al. (US 20250189649 A1) and further in view of Koo et al. (US 20250189649 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Koo discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the first wireless signal transmission information comprises comparing timing of the at least one time gap to a plurality of wireless signal transmission schedules stored in the first UWB device (see pg. 14, paragraph 0274, “The memory 1820 may store programs and data necessary for the operation of the UWB device. The memory 1820 may store control information or data that is included in the signal obtained by the UWB device.”; Fig. 8, operation of starting a session with contention ranging; pg. 11, paragraphs 0201-0205, ranging scheme information; Fig. 9, operation of starting a session with updating phase configurations based on progress).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Koo into the inventions of Huang and Senna. Huang, Senna, and Koo are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose UWB ranging methods and devices for signal initiation and scheduling. Huang and Senna disclose the limitations of claim 1; however, Huang and Senna fail to disclose comparing timing of a time gap to transmission schedules stored in the first UWB device. This feature is disclosed by Koo where received signals can be stored in the device’s memory, and ranging transit sessions can be updated with a plurality of data transfer phases as well as correspond to various identifiers. The combination of Huang, Senna, and Koo would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to access previous transmission schedules to confirm an open ranging slot.
Regarding claim 5, Koo discloses
The method of claim 4, wherein wirelessly receiving the first wireless signal transmission information comprises wirelessly receiving the first wireless signal transmission information via an out-of-band communication link (see Fig. 4, OOB step S401; pg. 4, paragraph 0060, ““OOB Connector” may be a software component for establishing an out-of-band (OOB) connection (e.g., BLE connection) between Ranging Devices.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Koo into the inventions of Huang and Senna. Huang discloses the limitations of claim 4; however, Huang and Senna fail to disclose an out-of-band communication link. This feature is disclosed by Koo where ranging devices can communicate with an OOB connection. The combination of Huang, Senna, and Koo would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to discover UWB devices through a Bluetooth channel and establish a secure channel to secure messages and data (see Koo pg. 8, paragraphs 0152-0156).
Regarding claim 6, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 3 are applied.
Regarding claims 8-12, the same cited sections and rationale for claims 2-6 are applied. The only difference between claims 2-6 and claims 8-12 is that claims 2-6 refer to a method while claims 8-12 refer to an apparatus. The examiner considers Huang pg. 1, paragraph 0005, (“Embodiments of this application provide an information processing method and an apparatus, to further improve and optimize a UWB in-band discovery and association mechanism.”), to show that the UWB apparatus performs the UWB ranging method of claims 2-6.
Regarding claim 9, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 3 are applied.
Regarding claims 11-12, the same cited sections and rationale from claims 5-6 are applied.
Regarding claims 13-18, the same cited sections and rationale for claims 7-12 are applied. Both sets of claims are directed towards a first UWB device, where claims 7-12 have specific structural components and claims 13-18 have “means for” components. The examiner applies the same cited sections and rationale to both sets of claims.
Regarding claim 15, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 3 are applied.
Regarding claims 17-18, the same cited sections and rationale from claims 5-6 are applied.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ISABELLA A EDRADA whose telephone number is (571)272-4859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm 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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/ISABELLA A EDRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
