DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
1. Claims 1-2, 4, and 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammerschmidt et al (2022/0137177) in view of Hammerschmidt et al (2020/0014526) or Hong et al (2023/0024636).
Regarding claim 1. Hammerschmidt ‘177 teaches a method for channel impulse response (CIR) validation for two-way ranging (TWR) in an ultra-wide band (UWB) communication system (abstract- UWB ranging between devices), the method comprising:
receiving, by a second UWB device and from a first UWB device, a first cipher code (figures 4 and 5, 0057, 0064, 0073, 0083-0084, 0118-0119, 0131 – first UE sends a plurality of UWB fragments to a second UE wherein the UWB signal includes a particular type of sequence STS (e.g. Scrambled Time Sequence(s) = cipher code(s) known only to the first and second UEs to ensure secure channel estimates));
generating, by the second UWB device, a first CIR corresponding to characteristics of a UWB channel from an accumulation of the first cipher code (figures 4 and 5, 0057, 0118-0119, 0131 – the second device uses the STS (e.g., cipher code(s) to determine a Channel Impulse Response (CIR) and transmits the aggregated UWB information (e.g, STS, CIR and/or other data) back to the first UE which enables the first UE to also compute CIR to compute ToF which is used for UWB ranging);
transmitting, by the second UWB device and to the first UWB device, a second cipher code in response to receiving the first cipher code (figures 4 and 5, 0057, 0118-0119, 0131 – the second device uses the STS (e.g., cipher code(s) to determine a Channel Impulse Response (CIR) and transmits the aggregated UWB information (e.g, STS, CIR and/or other data) back to the first UE which enables the first UE to also compute CIR to compute ToF which is used for UWB ranging);
receiving, by the second UWB device and from the first UWB device, a second CIR computed from an accumulation of the second cipher code (figures 4 and 5, 0057, 0118-0119 – the second device uses the STS (e.g., cipher code(s) to determine a Channel Impulse Response (CIR) and transmits the aggregated UWB information (e.g, STS, CIR and/or other data used to compute CIR) back to the first UE which enables the first UE to also compute CIR to compute ToF which is used for UWB ranging); and
Hammerschmidt ‘177 does not teach comparing the second CIR with the first CIR.
Hammerschmidt ‘526 also teaches making the UWB ranging packet difficult to fake (or “spoof”) by an attacker … by including a cryptographically secure random sequency (e.g., cipher code) (0007). Hammerschmidt teaches comparing first and second CIRs (0097) and in response to determining that there is a sufficiently close match, then the ToF can then be computed.
Hong teaches the first and second UE devices may each have a CIR comparator (0058) wherein the UEs may compare a first CIR to a second CIR to identify correlation (0059, 0069, 0079) and accuracy of the calculated distance may be improved (0060), as well as, ensuring the UWB signal is secure (0061).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hammerschmidt ‘177 to compare a first and second CIR as taught by Hammerschmidt ‘526 or Hong thereby providing for more accurate ranging information as taught by Hammerschmidt ‘526 (0007) or Hong (0060-0061).
Regarding claim 14. Hammerschmidt ‘177 teaches a method for channel impulse response (CIR) validation for two-way ranging (TWR) in an ultra-wide band (UWB) communication system (abstract- UWB ranging between devices), the method comprising:
transmitting a first cipher code to a UWB device (figures 4 and 5, 0057, 0064, 0073, 0083-0084, 0118-0119, 0131 – first UE sends a plurality of UWB fragments to a second UE wherein the UWB signal includes a particular type of sequence STS (e.g. Scrambled Time Sequence(s) = cipher code(s) known only to the first and second UEs to ensure secure channel estimates));
receiving a second cipher code from the UWB device(figures 4 and 5, 0057, 0118-0119, 0131 – the second device uses the STS (e.g., cipher code(s) to determine a Channel Impulse Response (CIR) and transmits the aggregated UWB information (e.g, STS (e.g., second cipher code), CIR and/or other data) back to the first UE which enables the first UE to also compute CIR to compute ToF which is used for UWB ranging) ;
generating a first CIR corresponding to characteristics of a UWB channel from an accumulation of the second cipher code (figures 4 and 5, 0057, 0118-0119, 0131 – the second device uses the STS (e.g., cipher code(s) to determine a Channel Impulse Response (CIR) and transmits the aggregated UWB information (e.g, STS, CIR and/or other data) back to the first UE which enables the first UE to also compute CIR to compute ToF which is used for UWB ranging);
receiving, from the UWB device, a second CIR computed from an accumulation of the first cipher code (figures 4 and 5, 0057, 0118-0119, 0131 – the second device uses the STS (e.g., cipher code(s) to determine a Channel Impulse Response (CIR) and transmits the aggregated UWB information (e.g, STS, CIR and/or other data) back to the first UE which enables the first UE to also compute CIR to compute ToF which is used for UWB ranging); and
Hammerschmidt ‘177 does not teach comparing the second CIR with the first CIR.
Hammerschmidt ‘526 also teaches making the UWB ranging packet difficult to fake (or “spoof”) by an attacker … by including a cryptographically secure random sequency (e.g., cipher code) (0007). Hammerschmidt teaches comparing first and second CIRs (0097) and in response to determining that there is a sufficiently close match, then the ToF can then be computed.
Hong teaches the first and second UE devices may each have a CIR comparator (0058) wherein the UEs may compare a first CIR to a second CIR to identify correlation (0059, 0069, 0079) and accuracy of the calculated distance may be improved (0060), as well as, ensuring the UWB signal is secure (0061).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hammerschmidt ‘177 to compare a first and second CIR as taught by Hammerschmidt ‘526 or Hong thereby providing for more accurate ranging information as taught by Hammerschmidt ‘526 (0007) or Hong (0060-0061).
Regarding claim 20. Hammerschmidt teaches an ultra-wide band (UWB) device for two-way ranging (TWR), comprising: a transceiver operable to perform a UWB communication; a memory for storing program instructions, cipher codes, and channel-impulse responses accumulated from the cipher codes (figures 4 and 5, 0057, 0064, 0073, 0083-0084, 0118-0119, 0131 – first UE sends a plurality of UWB fragments to a second UE wherein the UWB signal includes a particular type of sequence STS (e.g. Scrambled Time Sequence(s) = cipher code(s) known only to the first and second UEs to ensure secure channel estimates)); and
a processor coupled to the transceiver and to the memory, wherein the processor is operable to execute the program instructions, which, when executed by the processor, cause the UWB device to perform the following operations (figure 14, 0102, 0137, 0220 – first and second UE comprise memory, processor, program and transceiver):
receiving, by a second UWB device and from another UWB device (e.g., first device), a first cipher code (figures 4 and 5, 0057, 0064, 0073, 0083-0084, 0118-0119, 0131 – first UE sends a plurality of UWB fragments to a second UE wherein the UWB signal includes a particular type of sequence STS (e.g. Scrambled Time Sequence(s) = cipher code(s) known only to the first and second UEs to ensure secure channel estimates));
generating, by the second UWB device, a first CIR corresponding to characteristics of a UWB channel from an accumulation of the first cipher code (figures 4 and 5, 0057, 0118-0119, 0131 – the second device uses the STS (e.g., cipher code(s) to determine a Channel Impulse Response (CIR) and transmits the aggregated UWB information (e.g, STS, CIR and/or other data) back to the first UE which enables the first UE to also compute CIR to compute ToF which is used for UWB ranging); and
transmitting, by the second UWB device, and to the other/first UWB device, a second cipher code corresponding to the characteristics of UWB channel in response to receiving the first cipher code (figures 4 and 5, 0057, 0118-0119, 0131 – the second device uses the STS (e.g., cipher code(s) to determine a Channel Impulse Response (CIR) and transmits the aggregated UWB information (e.g, STS, CIR and/or other data) back to the first UE which enables the first UE to also compute CIR to compute ToF which is used for UWB ranging);
receiving, by the second UWB device and from the first UWB device, a second CIR computed from an accumulation of the second cipher code (figures 4 and 5, 0057, 0118-0119 – the second device uses the STS (e.g., cipher code(s) to determine a Channel Impulse Response (CIR) and transmits the aggregated UWB information (e.g, STS, CIR and/or other data used to compute CIR) back to the first UE which enables the first UE to also compute CIR to compute ToF which is used for UWB ranging).
Hammerschmidt ‘177 does not teach comparing the second CIR with the first CIR.
Hammerschmidt ‘526 also teaches making the UWB ranging packet difficult to fake (or “spoof”) by an attacker … by including a cryptographically secure random sequency (e.g., cipher code) (0007). Hammerschmidt teaches comparing first and second CIRs (0097) and in response to determining that there is a sufficiently close match, then the ToF can then be computed.
Hong teaches the first and second UE devices may each have a CIR comparator (0058) wherein the UEs may compare a first CIR to a second CIR to identify correlation (0059, 0069, 0079) and accuracy of the calculated distance may be improved (0060), as well as, ensuring the UWB signal is secure (0061).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hammerschmidt ‘177 to compare a first and second CIR as taught by Hammerschmidt ‘526 or Hong thereby providing for more accurate ranging information as taught by Hammerschmidt ‘526 (0007) or Hong (0060-0061).
Regarding claims 2 and 15. Hammerschmidt ‘177 does not teach in response to a similarity between the first CIR and the second CIR being equal to or above a similarity threshold value, accepting a time-of-flight (TOF) between the first UWB device and the second UWB device; and
in response to the similarity between the first CIR and the second CIR being below the similarity threshold value, rejecting the TOF.
Hammerschmidt ‘526 also teaches making the UWB ranging packet difficult to fake (or “spoof”) by an attacker … by including a cryptographically secure random sequency (e.g., cipher code) (0007). Hammerschmidt teaches comparing first and second CIRs (0097 – based on the comparison, device A may compute the range) and in response to determining that there is a sufficiently close match, then the ToF can then be computed.
Hong teaches the first and second UE devices may each have a CIR comparator (0058) wherein the UEs may compare a first CIR to a second CIR to identify correlation (0059 – Compare first and second CIR to identify correlation … the UE may whether the signal received from the second UE is a predefined signal by means of the CIR, 0069 – compare first CIR with second CIR and calculate a correlation. For example, the UE may compare first CIR and second CIR to a threshold (0061).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hammerschmidt ‘177 to compare a first and second CIR as taught by Hammerschmidt ‘526 or Hong thereby providing for more accurate ranging information as taught by Hammerschmidt ‘526 (0007) or Hong (0060-0061).
Regarding claim 4. Hammerschmidt ‘177 teaches transmitting the first CIR to the UWB device, wherein the second cipher code and the first CIR are transmitted in a same packet (0057, figure 4 depicts a single packet for ping-pong ranging singles between UE1 and UE2).
Hammerschmidt ‘526 teaches transmitting CIR information in a single packet (see figure 9 wherein a single STS packet contains information for UEA and UEB).
Hong teaches transmitting CIR information in a single packet (0052-0054 and figure 3 depicts a single packet).
Regarding claim 16. Hammerschmidt ‘177 teaches transmitting the first CIR to the UWB device (figures 4 and 5, 0057, 0118-0119, 0131 – the second device uses the STS (e.g., cipher code(s) to determine a Channel Impulse Response (CIR) and transmits the aggregated UWB information (e.g, STS, CIR and/or other data) back to the first UE which enables the first UE to also compute CIR to compute ToF which is used for UWB ranging).
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammerschmidt et al (2022/0137177) in view of Hammerschmidt et al (2020/0014526) or Hong et al (2023/0024636) further in view of Niewczas et al (2022/0239532 found in Applicants specification as published at 0056).
Regarding claim 3. Hammerschmidt ‘177 in view of Hammerschmidt ‘526 and Hong do not explicitly teach transmitting the first CIR to the UWB device, wherein the first CIR and the second cipher code are transmitted in in separate packets.
Niewczas teaches comparing UWB information (e.g, CIR) using separate packets (0051 – UWB peaks may be associated with different data packets, 0142 – comparing the first path positions obtained through sending and receiving two cipher segments or ciphers from two separate packets) which enables for determining if early correlation peaks are potential candidates and whether to accept them or not. Some methods eliminate potential attacks by detecting harmful interference and if present, ignoring the ranging result (0143).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hammerschmidt ‘177 in view of Hammerschmidt ‘526 and Hong to use different packets as taught by Niewczas in order to determine if early correlation peaks are potential candidates and whether to accept them or not (Niewczas at 0143).
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 5-13 and 17-19 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.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
a) Applicant generally argues Hammerschmidt does not teach transmitting by the second UWB device and to the first UWB device, a second cipher code in response to receiving the first cipher code (bottom of page 8 – page 9).
The Examiner disagrees. Hammerschmidt ‘177 teaches the first UWB device transmits a first cipher code (e.g., STS = Scrambled Time Sequence wherein STS refers to a CIRTS that contains pseudo-random pulses known ONLY to the transmitter and receiver of a given link to ensure secure channel estimation and secure distance measurements and/or time-stamp validation – Hammerschmidt at figure 4, 0083) to the second UWB device wherein the second UWB device accumulates that code to generate a first CIR. Then the second UWB device transmits a second cipher code (e.g., STS) in addition the CIR back to the first UWB enabling the first UWB device to also compute CIR to compare ToF which is used for UWB ranging (see rejection listed above).
Hammerschmidt ‘526 also teaches making the UWB ranging packet difficult to fake (or ‘spoof’) by an attacker using a cryptographically secure random sequence (e.g., cipher code at 0007) … and comparing first and second CIRs (0097) and in response to determining that there is a sufficiently close match, then the ToF then can be computed.
Hong also teaches using cipher code (e.g., STS) and comparing first and second CIRs (0059, 0069, 0079).
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
---(2023/0345250) Dutz et al teaches CIRs are estimated at both devices (0038).
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARRY W TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-7509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7-5.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at 571-272-4177. 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.
/BARRY W TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights