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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2023/0172414 A1) in view of Bandy (US 2007/0126555 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 16, Wang discloses:
an ultra-wideband (UWB) device (fig.4 depicts a plurality of UWB devices), comprising:
a transceiver operable to perform a UWB communication (fig.12 element 216)
a memory (fig.12 element 204) for storing program instruction (fig.12 element 201, par.[0092]), communication identification of another UWB device, and slot allocation for the other UWB device (fig.4 and the associated disclosure); and
a processor (fig.12 element 220) coupled to the transceiver (fig.12 depicts the processor coupled to the transceiver) and to the memory (fig.12 depicts the processor coupled with the memory), wherein the processor is operable to execute the program instructions (par.[0093] which describes the functions of the processor),
a method for scheduling (par.[0031 – 0032] describes a Ranging Control Message (RCM) which is initiated by a controller, and configures the controllee (e.g. the device receiving the RCM) of the parameters for ranging) control in ultra-wideband (UWB) communication (par.[0002] describes Ultra-Wideband (UWB) communications and ranging), comprising:
transmitting a first control message at a beginning of a first communication period to a UWB device (par.[0031 – 0032] the RCM which is sent to the controllee as discussed above, par.[0046] fig.6 S11), the first control message indicating a first slot allocation to the UWB device for the first communication period (par.[0046] along with par.[0031 – 0032] as discussed above, as test signal provides an indication of which slots the responder should use to receive and respond), wherein the first communication period includes a hybrid ranging round of the UWB communication (par.[0005] the UWB ranging performance testing as discussed, wherein the device that distributes the communication time slots to a plurality of devices to be tested, and par.[0006 – 0007] which describes the ranging wherein the distance between the devices can be determined along with the time-slots to be used for communication, par.[0034]. Thus, there is a hybridized ranging being performed wherein distance and resources for communication are being initialized in combination with ranging with a one or more devices)
receiving, from the UWB device, a scheduling information message (fig.6 element S12 wherein the responders send feedback to the controller device, par.[0047] “In step S12, response signal messages returned from multiple devices to be tested in respective corresponding communication time slots are received. In the example of the disclosure, the response signal message is used for UWB ranging performance testing.”); and
transmitting a second control message, at a beginning of the second communication period, to the UWB device, the second control message indicating the second slot allocation to the UWB device for the second communication period (as discussed above the RCM allows for adjustment of ranging control parameters before the start of each ranging period, par.[0031 – 0032]).
While the disclosure of So teaches the ranging control message to perform ranging with a plurality of controlee devices, it may not disclose:
a scheduling information message indicating an estimated number of slots needed for a second communication period subsequent to the first communication period;
determining a second slot allocation to the UWB device based on the estimated number of slots needed.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Bandy teaches:
a scheduling information message (fig.8 and par.[0065] describe the controller receiving responses with regard to time slots used) indicating an estimated number of slots needed for a second communication period subsequent to the first communication period (fig.8 the responses can indicate collision, or response, or not used, wherein the indication can provide an estimate based on different characteristics of the response to how many slots are needed for a next round, using the feedback the controller is capable of estimating a number of tags, fig.10 element 1008 – 1010);
determining a second slot allocation to the UWB device based on the estimated number of slots needed (fig.10 element 1010, par.[0104 – 0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to try and implement the method for configuring a number of time slots for responses based on feedback from responders. The motivation/suggestion would have been that the controller may not know how many responders are in the network, and there would be a need to dynamically adjust the amount of response time slots based on the dynamic changes in the amount or responders in the network to ensure that efficient polling and response can be made.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 17, Bandy discloses:
reducing a number of slots allocated to the UWB device in response to the estimated number of slots needed indicating a decrease of a slot usage;
increasing the number of slots allocated to the UWB device in response to the estimated number of slots needed indicating an increase of the slot usage; or
maintaining the number of slot s allocated to the UWB device in response to the estimated number of slots needed being zero (see fig.10 wherein the number of slots may be adjusted based on the estimation feedback).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 18, Bandy discloses:
wherein: the first communication period and the second communication period each comprises a first period for the UWB device to detect a new user device, a second period for the UWB device to perform ranging with an existing user device, and a third period for the UWB device to perform data transfer with another existing user device; the first slot allocation comprises a command to allocate respective slots for the first period, the second period, and the third period in the first communication period; and the second slot allocation comprises a command to allocate updated respective slots for the first period, the second period, and the third period in the second communication period (fig.10 wherein a period may begin with a period for discovery, followed by ranging, and feedback, see inventory round, and further transmission of signaling in slots, which, in response, causes the devices to send feedback, element 1008).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Bandy discloses:
wherein the scheduling information message comprises the estimated number of slots needed based on an estimated number of user devices in one or more of the first period, the second period, or the third period in the second communication period (fig.10 as discussed above, the round comprises feedback from different period for inventory/discovery, communication, and feedback).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Wang discloses:
wherein the first control message further comprises an allocation of a slot to the UWB device for the transmission of the scheduling information message (Par.[0072] which recites, in part, “The RCM contains the test board address added in S52, and the communication time slot corresponding to each test board address. The RCM is sent through a broadcast message so that each device to be tested can know its respective communication time slot after receiving the RCM, and can communicate with the control terminal device in accordance with the specified communication time slot.”).
Regarding claim 6, Bandy discloses:
wherein the second slot allocation comprises a command to reduce a number of slots allocated to the first period in the second communication period in response to the estimated number of slots needed exceeding a largest number of slots that can be added to the second communication period (fig.10 element 1012, element 1014, determine a new number of time slots, and element 1016, adjust the number of time slots, par.[0111 – 0112]).
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses:
a method for scheduling (par.[0031 – 0032] describes a Ranging Control Message (RCM) which is initiated by a controller, and configures the controllee (e.g. the device receiving the RCM) of the parameters for ranging) control in ultra-wideband (UWB) communication (par.[0002] describes Ultra-Wideband (UWB) communications and ranging), comprising:
receiving a first control message at a beginning of a first communication period to a UWB device (par.[0031 – 0032] the RCM which is sent to the controllee as discussed above, par.[0046] and fig.6 S11), the first control message indicating a first slot allocation to the UWB device for the first communication period (par.[0046] along with par.[0031 – 0032] as discussed above, as test signal provides an indication of which slots the responder should use to receive and respond) wherein the first communication period includes a hybrid ranging round of the UWB communication (par.[0005] the UWB ranging performance testing as discussed, wherein the device that distributes the communication time slots to a plurality of devices to be tested, and par.[0006 – 0007] which describes the ranging wherein the distance between the devices can be determined along with the time-slots to be used for communication, par.[0034]. Thus, there is a hybridized ranging being performed wherein distance and resources for communication are being initialized in combination with ranging with a one or more devices);
allocating slots in the first communication period according to the control message (par.[0046] along with par.[0031 – 0032] as discussed above, as test signal provides an indication of which slots the responder should use to receive and respond);
transmitting, to the UWB device, a scheduling information message indicating the number of slots (as discussed above the RCM allows for adjustment of ranging control parameters before the start of each ranging period, par.[0031 - 0032]).
While the disclosure of So teaches the ranging control message to perform ranging with a plurality of controlee devices, it does not disclose:
Determining an estimated number of slots needed for a second communication period subsequent to the first communication period; and
Transmitting, to the UWB device, a scheduling information message indicating the estimated number of slots need for the second communication period.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Bandy teaches:
determining an estimated number of slots needed for a second communication period subsequent to the first communication period (fig.10 element 1008, 1010, 1012, 1014, and 1016,s); and
Transmitting, to the UWB device, a scheduling information message indicating the estimated number of slots need for the second communication period (again fig.10 elements 1008, 1010, 1012, 1014, and 1016, along with fig.6 and par.[0054 – 0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to try and implement the method for configuring a number of time slots for responses based on feedback from responders. The motivation/suggestion would have been that the controller may not know how many responders in the network, and there would be a need to dynamically adjust the amount of response time slots based on the dynamic changes in the amount of responders in the network to ensure that efficient polling and response can be made.
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses:
receiving a second control message at a beginning of the second communication period, from the UWB device, the control message indicating a second slot allocation for the second communication period, the second slot allocation reflecting the estimated number of slots needed; and allocating slots in the second communication period according to the second control message (fig.10 as the controller has the ability to modify the number of slots based on feedback).
Regarding claim 12, Bandy discloses:
wherein the scheduling information message is transmitted after the third period of the first communication period or at an end of the first communication period (fig.10 the scheduling information can be sent par.[0106 – 0107]).
Regarding claim 13, Bandy discloses:
determining of the estimated number of slots needed for the second communication period comprises: determining a number of user devices that are active in at least one of the first period, the second period, or the third period of the first communication period; estimating a number of user devices that are active in at least one of the first period, the second period, or the third period of the second communication period based on the number of user devices that are active in the first communication period; and determining an estimated number of slots for at least one of the first period, the second period, or the third period of the second communication period based on the estimated number of user devices that are active in the at least one of the first period, the second period, or the third period of the second communication period (fig.10 and par.[0102 – 0113]).
Regarding claim 14, Bandy discloses:
the determining of the estimated number of slots for at least one of the first period, the second period, or the third period of the second communication period comprises determining the estimated number slot that is greater than or equal to the number of user devices that are active in a respective period in the first communication period, and less than or equal to a maximum number of slots for the respective period (fig.10 element 1012 would comprise the evaluation of greater than or less than as discussed above).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Bandy as applied to the independent claims, in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0210631 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Wang and Bandy describes transmitting the first control message and before receiving the scheduling information message, detecting a second UWB device and wherein the second control message further indicates a slot allocation to the second UWB device for the second communication period (the disclosure and in particular Bandy describes dynamic adjustment of slots based on new nodes or reduction of nodes), but does not disclose:
receiving configuration information of the UWB device from a non-UWB channel.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Lee teaches:
receiving configuration information of the UWB device from a non-UWB channel (par.[0116] which describes the use of BLE device discovery, which is separate from the UWB device discovery or UWB out of band discovery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Wang and Bandy, with the disclosure of Lee. The motivation/suggestion would have been that devices are added or removed from production but have many different types of communications capabilities and it would be prudent to allow out-of-band signalling for device discovery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to the independent claims 1, 8, and 16, the applicant has amended the claims to recite, in part:
“the first control message indicating a first slot allocation to the other UWB device for the first communication period, wherein the first communication period includes a hybrid ranging round of the UWB communication”
Applicants allege that the disclosure of Wang (US 2023/0172414 A1) in view of Bandy (US 2007/0126555 A1), and in particular Wang does not disclose the hybrid ranging round. The applicant states: “In fact, nowhere in Wang is the term – or the concept of- “hybrid ranging round” used or implied”
With regard to the applicants assertion that the disclosure of Wang does not teach a Hybrid Ranging Round, at the beginning of the first communication period. The claim does not recite that the hybrid ranging round occurs at the beginning of the first communication period. With regard to Wang, the disclosure of Wang teaches that ranging is performed for resource allocation, and to determine a distance between devices based on the ranging. This must occur before any UWB communications take place, and ranging would begin at the beginning of the ranging round.
PNG
media_image1.png
345
919
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig.1 depicts a hybrid ranging round wherein the ranging is performed at Tround1 and Tround2 at the initiation of each of the rounds. The rounds comprise Thus, the disclosure teaches a hybrid ranging at the beginning of the first communication period. Thus applicants arguments concerning when the hybrid ranging round is to take place are moot.
Additionally, the applicants allege that the disclosure of Wang does not recite the term Hybrid ranging round and there is no concept of Hybrid Ranging Round within the disclosure of Wang. While Wang may not explicitly recite a “Hybrid Ranging Round” it certainly teaches to a Hybrid ranging round. For example, the office, in view of MPEP 2111, examines claims given a broadest reasonable interpretation. For example, the MPEP recites, in part:
“During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
See also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1643 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000)……….
Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow."); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) (Claim 9 was directed to a process of analyzing data generated by mass spectrographic analysis of a gas. The process comprised selecting the data to be analyzed by subjecting the data to a mathematical manipulation.
The examiner made rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 102. In the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, the examiner explained that the claim was anticipated by a mental process augmented by pencil and paper markings. The court agreed that the claim was not limited to using a machine to carry out the process since the claim did not explicitly set forth the machine.
The court explained that "reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim." The court found that applicant was advocating the latter, i.e., the impermissible importation of subject matter from the specification into the claim.). See also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The court held that the USPTO is not required, in the course of prosecution, to interpret claims in applications in the same manner as a court would interpret claims in an infringement suit. Rather, the "PTO applies to verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification”).
As can be seen, we are obligated to interpret claims broadly, and based on a broad interpretation of Hybrid Ranging Round, a hybrid ranging round may be any hybridized type of ranging round used for UWB communications. In this case the ranging performed in Wang satisfies the hybrid ranging by allowing for resource allocation (par.[0054 – 0055]), multiple users (fig(s).4-5), and distance determination (par.[0029 – 0030]) as discussed above with regard to the rejection above, thus, the disclosure of Wang teaches a Hybrid Ranging Round, and the claims stand rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ha et al. (US 2022/0397658 A1)
Ang et al. (US 2017/0289907 A1)
Jain et al. (US 2022/0295483 A1)
Lim (US 2023/0209493 A1)
Naguib et al. (US 2020/0100283 A1)
So et al. (US 2024/0014851 A1)
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights