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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 8-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 8-12 are dependent on claim 1 and all read “The first UWB device of claim 1”. Claim 1 is an independent method claim, while claim 7 is an independent UWB device claim. Examiner believes that Applicant intended to make claims 8-12 dependent on claim 7, not claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are found in claims 13-18:
“means for obtaining first wireless signal transmission information” and “means for transmitting…a UWB ranging session initiation message” in claim 13
“means for sensing a first wireless signal channel” in claim 14
“means for comparing timing” in claim 15
“means for wirelessly receiving first wireless signal transmission information” in claim 16
“means for wirelessly receiving the first wireless signal transmission information via an out-of-band communication link” in claim 17
“means for retrieving the first wireless signal transmission information” in claim 18
Structure for these limitations may be found in the specification as originally filed: Fig. 2 example of UE, Fig. 5 example of UE, as well as claims 7-12, provide detailed example user equipment structure components such as a processor, memory, and transceiver that can carry out the various actions of claims 13-18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 13-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 20250351139 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses
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 (see Fig. 2d, first action of controlee receiving control IE [information element] and scheduling IE, then obtaining an empty slot); and
transmitting, from the first UWB device to a second UWB device, a UWB ranging session initiation message indicating at least one available time for at least one future UWB signal transmission, corresponding to at least one future time gap, the at least one available time being based on the first wireless signal transmission information (see Fig. 2d, second signal of controlee sending an association request frame in the empty slot).
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.
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 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).
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 invention of Huang. Both Huang and Koo are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose UWB ranging methods and devices for signal initiation and scheduling. Huang discloses the limitations of claim 1; however, Huang fails 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 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 invention of Huang. Huang discloses the limitations of claim 4; however, Huang fails to disclose an out-of-band communication link. This feature is disclosed by Koo where ranging devices can communication with an OOB connection. The combination of Huang 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
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 EST.
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 at (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 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 AMEYALI EDRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648