CTNF 18/609,658 CTNF 99376 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on March 19, 2024, May 7, 2024, June 17, 2025, August 12, 2025, September 15, 2025, October 17, 2025, January 23, 2026, February 26, 2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. All references are considered except were stricken. The non-patent literature reference disclosed on September 15, 2025 was not considered because of the quality and reproducibility of the reference. 07-30-03-h AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3-4, 12, 14-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a ) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2022/0082676 (hereinafter “Lee”) Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches: A method of supplemental Ultra-Wideband (UWB) ranging packet transmission ([0006-09]) , the method comprising: obtaining a UWB transmission schedule including at least two scheduled transmission durations and at least one available transmission duration ([0067], [0080]) ; transmitting, from a first UWB device, at least one first UWB ranging packet during one of the at least two scheduled transmission durations ([0095]) ; receiving, at the first UWB device from a second UWB device, a request for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission by the first UWB device ([0090]) ; and transmitting, from the first UWB device and in response to receiving the request for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission by the first UWB device, at least one second UWB ranging packet in one of the at least one available transmission duration ([0117-121]) . Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches: transmitting an indication of a revision to the UWB transmission schedule to increase a quantity of the at least one available transmission duration in a future ranging round ([0086] The interval-based mode according to an embodiment may use three intervals (e.g., a block interval, a round interval, and a ranging interval update (RIU) interval). The values of the intervals may be designated in the RIU IE. [0087] The RIU interval may be used to designate the duration from the start time of the current frame including the RIU IE to the start time of the next RIU message. [0091] An RIU frame including updated intervals may be transmitted in a slot of an RIU period.) . Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches: transmitting, from the first UWB device, a request for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission by the second UWB device ([0091] When the controller 100 functions as an initiator, it may receive a change request from all the controlees 200. When the controller 100 functions as a responder, it may receive a change request from the controlee 200 functioning as an initiator. Receiving a change request from other controlees 208 functioning as a responder may be outside the scope of the disclosure and thus will be omitted for conciseness. After receiving the change request, the controller 180 may determine whether to accept the request. An RIU frame including updated intervals may be transmitted in a slot of an RIU period. The updated interval may designate the start time of an RC frame together with the updated ranging parameters and the updated intervals. The RC frame including the updated ranging parameters and the updated intervals may be transmitted in an RC period.) . Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches: transmitting, from the first UWB device, at least one parameter for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission by at least one of the first UWB device or the second UWB device ([0090] The controller 100 may receive a change request from the controlee 200 together with the preference ranging parameters in the ranging control IE and the preference intervals in the ranging interval update IE.) . Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches: A first UWB device (Ultra-Wideband (UWB) device) comprising: at least one transceiver; at least one memory; and at least one processor, communicatively coupled to the at least one transceiver and the at least one memory ([0006-09]) , configured to: obtain a UWB transmission schedule including at least two scheduled transmission durations and at least one available transmission duration ([0067], [0080]) ; transmit, from a first UWB device, at least one first UWB ranging packet during one of the at least two scheduled transmission durations ([0095]) ; receive, at the first UWB device from a second UWB device, a request for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission by the first UWB device ([0090]) ; and transmit, from the first UWB device and in response to receiving the request for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission by the first UWB device, at least one second UWB ranging packet in one of the at least one available transmission duration ([0117-121]) . Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches: transmitting an indication of a revision to the UWB transmission schedule to increase a quantity of the at least one available transmission duration in a future ranging round ([0086] The interval-based mode according to an embodiment may use three intervals (e.g., a block interval, a round interval, and a ranging interval update (RIU) interval). The values of the intervals may be designated in the RIU IE. [0087] The RIU interval may be used to designate the duration from the start time of the current frame including the RIU IE to the start time of the next RIU message. [0091] An RIU frame including updated intervals may be transmitted in a slot of an RIU period.) . Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches: transmitting, from the first UWB device, a request for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission by the second UWB device ([0091] When the controller 100 functions as an initiator, it may receive a change request from all the controlees 200. When the controller 100 functions as a responder, it may receive a change request from the controlee 200 functioning as an initiator. Receiving a change request from other controlees 208 functioning as a responder may be outside the scope of the disclosure and thus will be omitted for conciseness. After receiving the change request, the controller 180 may determine whether to accept the request. An RIU frame including updated intervals may be transmitted in a slot of an RIU period. The updated interval may designate the start time of an RC frame together with the updated ranging parameters and the updated intervals. The RC frame including the updated ranging parameters and the updated intervals may be transmitted in an RC period.) . Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches: transmitting, from the first UWB device, at least one parameter for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission by at least one of the first UWB device or the second UWB device ([0090] The controller 100 may receive a change request from the controlee 200 together with the preference ranging parameters in the ranging control IE and the preference intervals in the ranging interval update IE.) . Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches: A first UWB device (Ultra-Wideband (UWB) device) ([0006-09]) comprising: means for obtaining a UWB transmission schedule including at least two scheduled transmission durations and at least one available transmission duration ([0067], [0080]) ; means for transmitting at least one first UWB ranging packet during one of the at least two scheduled transmission durations ([0095]) ; means for receiving, from a second UWB device, a request for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission by the first UWB device ([0090]) ; and means for transmitting, in response to receiving the request for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission by the first UWB device, at least one second UWB ranging packet in one of the at least one available transmission duration ([0117-121]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 5, 7-11, 13, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0100283 (hereinafter “Naguib”) Regarding claim 2, Lee does not teach: wherein the request for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission by the first UWB device comprises an indication of a confidence metric corresponding to a confidence in a measurement accuracy of the at least one first UWB ranging packet. However, in the same field of endeavor, Naguib teaches: wherein the request for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission by the first UWB device comprises an indication of a confidence metric corresponding to a confidence in a measurement accuracy of the at least one first UWB ranging packet ([0044] The evaluation of the communication channel at 602 can be considered an implicit clear channel assessment using previous communication results. In some embodiments, the central wireless device 102 monitors a number of responses received from peripheral wireless devices 202 and/or measures a level of signal strength and/or signal quality (e.g., an SINR) received by the central wireless device 102. The central wireless device 102 can use the monitored number of response and/or the measured SINR as inputs to one or more functions to derive a metric by which to assess the communication channel. The metric can be a combination of a function of the SINR and another function of the number of received responses. At 604, the central wireless device 102 determines whether to change to a different ranging time slot 502 in a subsequent ranging frame 504 (compared to the particular ranging time slot 502 used in the current ranging frame 504) or to remain in the same ranging time slot 502 for the subsequent ranging frame 504.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include the feature of indicating a confidence metric for the supplemental ranging packet and a combination of Lee with Naguib renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., indicating a confidence metric for the supplemental ranging packet). Regarding claim 5, Lee does not teach: determining whether to transmit the request for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission by the second UWB device based on at least one of a packet drop of at least one second UWB ranging packet transmitted by the second UWB device, or an indication of a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio corresponding to the at least one second UWB ranging packet transmitted by the second UWB device, or a time-of-arrival estimation quality corresponding to the at least one second UWB ranging packet transmitted by the second UWB device. However, in the same field of endeavor, Naguib teaches: determining whether to transmit the request for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission by the second UWB device based on at least one of a packet drop of at least one second UWB ranging packet transmitted by the second UWB device, or an indication of a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio corresponding to the at least one second UWB ranging packet transmitted by the second UWB device ([0044] In some embodiments, the central wireless device 102 monitors a number of responses received from peripheral wireless devices 202 and/or measures a level of signal strength and/or signal quality (e.g., an SINR) received by the central wireless device 102.) , or a time-of-arrival estimation quality corresponding to the at least one second UWB ranging packet transmitted by the second UWB device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include the feature of indicating an SINR and a combination of Lee with Naguib renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., indicating an SINR). Regarding claim 7, Lee does not teach: wherein the at least one parameter for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission, by at least one of the first UWB device or the second UWB device, indicates a methodology to use to determine an indication of a confidence metric corresponding to a confidence in a UWB ranging packet measurement accuracy. However, in the same field of endeavor, Naguib teaches: wherein the at least one parameter for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission, by at least one of the first UWB device or the second UWB device, indicates a methodology to use to determine an indication of a confidence metric corresponding to a confidence in a UWB ranging packet measurement accuracy ([0045] The decision of whether to remain in the same ranging time slot (no change), move to an adjacent ranging time slot (random walk), or move to a random ranging time slot (random hop) based on two exemplary metrics, e.g., SINR and number of received responses, is illustrated as the decision block diagram 620.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include the feature of determining a methodology and a combination of Lee with Naguib renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., determining a methodology). Regarding claim 8, Lee does not teach: wherein the at least one parameter for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission, by at least one of the first UWB device or the second UWB device, includes a confidence metric threshold against which to compare an indication of a confidence metric to determine whether to request supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission, the indication of the confidence metric corresponding to a confidence in a UWB ranging packet measurement accuracy. However, in the same field of endeavor, Naguib teaches: wherein the at least one parameter for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission, by at least one of the first UWB device or the second UWB device, includes a confidence metric threshold against which to compare an indication of a confidence metric to determine whether to request supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission, the indication of the confidence metric corresponding to a confidence in a UWB ranging packet measurement accuracy ([0044] Evaluation of whether to remain in the same ranging time slot 502 or to change ranging time slots 502 can be based on metrics derived from the implicit clear channel assessment of the communication channel. In some embodiments, when (i) the number of responses received from peripheral wireless devices 202 satisfies a first response threshold (which can be based on a maximum number of expected responses, such as a total number of peripheral wireless devices 202 in a given WPAN 104) and (ii) a measured SINR value satisfies a first SINR threshold, the central wireless device 102 can determine to continue to use the same ranging time slot 502 in the subsequent ranging frame 504. As indicated at 606, the index for the ranging time slot 502 (which can indicate which of a number of ranging time slots 502 in a ranging frame 504 to use) can be unchanged, i.e., the ranging time slot index in the (i+1)th ranging frame 504 can be the same as the ranging time slot index of the ith ranging frame 504. In some embodiments, when one or more thresholds for remaining in the same ranging time slot 502 is not met, e.g., when (i) the number of responses received from peripheral wireless devices 202 does not satisfy the first response threshold or (ii) the measured SINR does not satisfy the first SINR threshold, the central wireless device 102 can select a different ranging time slot 502 for the subsequent ranging frame 504.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include the feature of including a threshold and a combination of Lee with Naguib renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., including a threshold). Regarding claim 9, Lee does not teach: wherein the at least one parameter for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission, by at least one of the first UWB device or the second UWB device, includes a timing offset for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission. However, in the same field of endeavor, Naguib teaches: wherein the at least one parameter for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission, by at least one of the first UWB device or the second UWB device, includes a timing offset for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission ([0044] At 610, the central wireless device 102 determines whether to move to a ranging time slot 502 having a higher slot index value or to a ranging time slot 502 having a lower slot index value based on output from a pseudo-random number algorithm (prand), which can use an index of the current ranging frame 504 (i) and a seed value KeyPAN as inputs to generate a subsequent time slot index for the subsequent ranging frame 504 (ranging frame index i+1)) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include the feature of including a timing offset and a combination of Lee with Naguib renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., including a timing offset). Regarding claim 10, Lee does not teach: wherein the at least one parameter for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission, by at least one of the first UWB device or the second UWB device, includes an indication of whether supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission may be made after a random timing offset. However, in the same field of endeavor, Naguib teaches: wherein the at least one parameter for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission, by at least one of the first UWB device or the second UWB device, includes an indication of whether supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission may be made after a random timing offset ([0004] In some embodiments, the central wireless device uses a pseudo-random number generation algorithm to determine the random time slot for a ranging frame. A pseudo-random hopping pattern can be generated based at least in part on a seed number determined when establishing and/or by subsequent communication over the WPAN. The peripheral wireless devices can also determine which time slot of a ranging frame in which to listen for and respond to broadcast ranging measurement messages from the central wireless device based at least in part on an indication of which time slot provided by the central wireless device. The peripheral wireless devices can also use the same pseudo-random number generation algorithm as the central wireless device to determine a random time slot. In some embodiments, the central wireless device and the peripheral wireless devices communicate ranging measurement messages and responses using an ultra-wideband (UWB) wireless communication protocol.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include the feature of including a timing offset and a combination of Lee with Naguib renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., including a timing offset). Regarding claim 11, Lee does not teach: wherein transmitting the at least one second UWB ranging packet comprises transmitting the at least one second UWB ranging packet during a same ranging block, of the UWB transmission schedule, during which the at least one first UWB ranging packet was transmitted. However, in the same field of endeavor, Naguib teaches: wherein transmitting the at least one second UWB ranging packet comprises transmitting the at least one second UWB ranging packet during a same ranging block, of the UWB transmission schedule, during which the at least one first UWB ranging packet was transmitted. ([0005] During each sequential ranging frame, the central wireless device can choose to remain in a current time slot during the next ranging frame, move to an adjacent time slot in the next ranging frame, or jump to a random time slot in the next ranging frame.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include the feature of maintaining the same timing slot and a combination of Lee with Naguib renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., maintaining the same timing slot). Regarding claim 13, Lee does not teach: wherein the request for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission comprises an indication of a confidence metric corresponding to a confidence in a measurement accuracy of the at least one first UWB ranging packet. However, in the same field of endeavor, Naguib teaches: wherein the request for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission comprises an indication of a confidence metric corresponding to a confidence in a measurement accuracy of the at least one first UWB ranging packet ([0044] The evaluation of the communication channel at 602 can be considered an implicit clear channel assessment using previous communication results. In some embodiments, the central wireless device 102 monitors a number of responses received from peripheral wireless devices 202 and/or measures a level of signal strength and/or signal quality (e.g., an SINR) received by the central wireless device 102. The central wireless device 102 can use the monitored number of response and/or the measured SINR as inputs to one or more functions to derive a metric by which to assess the communication channel. The metric can be a combination of a function of the SINR and another function of the number of received responses. At 604, the central wireless device 102 determines whether to change to a different ranging time slot 502 in a subsequent ranging frame 504 (compared to the particular ranging time slot 502 used in the current ranging frame 504) or to remain in the same ranging time slot 502 for the subsequent ranging frame 504.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include the feature of indicating a confidence metric for the supplemental ranging packet and a combination of Lee with Naguib renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., indicating a confidence metric for the supplemental ranging packet). Regarding claim 16, Lee does not teach: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine whether to transmit the request for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission by the second UWB device based on at least one of a packet drop of at least one second UWB ranging packet transmitted by the second UWB device, or an indication of a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio corresponding to the at least one second UWB ranging packet transmitted by the second UWB device, or a time-of-arrival estimation quality corresponding to the at least one second UWB ranging packet transmitted by the second UWB device. However, in the same field of endeavor, Naguib teaches: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine whether to transmit the request for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission by the second UWB device based on at least one of a packet drop of at least one second UWB ranging packet transmitted by the second UWB device, or an indication of a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio corresponding to the at least one second UWB ranging packet transmitted by the second UWB device, or a time-of-arrival estimation quality corresponding to the at least one second UWB ranging packet transmitted by the second UWB device ([0044] In some embodiments, the central wireless device 102 monitors a number of responses received from peripheral wireless devices 202 and/or measures a level of signal strength and/or signal quality (e.g., an SINR) received by the central wireless device 102.) , or a time-of-arrival estimation quality corresponding to the at least one second UWB ranging packet transmitted by the second UWB device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include the feature of indicating an SINR and a combination of Lee with Naguib renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., indicating an SINR). Regarding claim 18, Lee does not teach: wherein the at least one parameter for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission, by at least one of the first UWB device or the second UWB device, indicates a methodology to use to determine an indication of a confidence metric corresponding to a confidence in a UWB ranging packet measurement accuracy. However, in the same field of endeavor, Naguib teaches: wherein the at least one parameter for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission, by at least one of the first UWB device or the second UWB device, indicates a methodology to use to determine an indication of a confidence metric corresponding to a confidence in a UWB ranging packet measurement accuracy ([0045] The decision of whether to remain in the same ranging time slot (no change), move to an adjacent ranging time slot (random walk), or move to a random ranging time slot (random hop) based on two exemplary metrics, e.g., SINR and number of received responses, is illustrated as the decision block diagram 620.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include the feature of determining a methodology and a combination of Lee with Naguib renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., determining a methodology). Regarding claim 19, Lee does not teach: wherein the at least one parameter for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission, by at least one of the first UWB device or the second UWB device, includes a confidence metric threshold against which to compare an indication of a confidence metric to determine whether to request supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission, the indication of the confidence metric corresponding to a confidence in a UWB ranging packet measurement accuracy. However, in the same field of endeavor, Naguib teaches: wherein the at least one parameter for supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission, by at least one of the first UWB device or the second UWB device, includes a confidence metric threshold against which to compare an indication of a confidence metric to determine whether to request supplemental UWB ranging packet transmission, the indication of the confidence metric corresponding to a confidence in a UWB ranging packet measurement accuracy ([0044] Evaluation of whether to remain in the same ranging time slot 502 or to change ranging time slots 502 can be based on metrics derived from the implicit clear channel assessment of the communication channel. In some embodiments, when (i) the number of responses received from peripheral wireless devices 202 satisfies a first response threshold (which can be based on a maximum number of expected responses, such as a total number of peripheral wireless devices 202 in a given WPAN 104) and (ii) a measured SINR value satisfies a first SINR threshold, the central wireless device 102 can determine to continue to use the same ranging time slot 502 in the subsequent ranging frame 504. As indicated at 606, the index for the ranging time slot 502 (which can indicate which of a number of ranging time slots 502 in a ranging frame 504 to use) can be unchanged, i.e., the ranging time slot index in the (i+1)th ranging frame 504 can be the same as the ranging time slot index of the ith ranging frame 504. In some embodiments, when one or more thresholds for remaining in the same ranging time slot 502 is not met, e.g., when (i) the number of responses received from peripheral wireless devices 202 does not satisfy the first response threshold or (ii) the measured SINR does not satisfy the first SINR threshold, the central wireless device 102 can select a different ranging time slot 502 for the subsequent ranging frame 504.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to include the feature of including a threshold and a combination of Lee with Naguib renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., including a threshold) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Publication No. 2024/0243833 (Wang) related to ranging rate switch control method and communication apparatus U.S. Publication No. 2015/0094081 (Gupta) related to determining coordinates of access points in an indoor position location system Non-patent Literature entitled “Amendment: Enhanced Ultra Wide-Band (UWB) Physical Layers (PHYs) and Associated Ranging Techniques” Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN BARRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0201. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am EST to 5:00pm 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, Jinsong HU can be reached at (571) 272-3965. 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. /JAB/ Examiner, Art Unit 2643 /JINSONG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 2 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 3 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 4 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 5 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 6 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 7 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 8 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 9 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 10 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 11 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 12 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 13 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 14 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 15 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 16 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 17 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 18 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 19 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 20 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 21 Art Unit: 2643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,658 Page 22 Art Unit: 2643
Prosecution Insights