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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 03, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants submit that the Lakkis encoding operation itself (spreading by c32 of a binary or complex-valued data field, per paragraph [0092]) is not based on, and does not depend on, the autocorrelation peak of c32. To be clear, the encoded output would be identical for any other code with similar spreading characteristics; the autocorrelation peak is not an input or parameter of the encoding operation. The autocorrelation function is discussed as a metric for evaluating which code to use, not as an input to any encoding operation.
Examiner submits that the claims do not require the autocorrelation peak being an input or parameter of the encoding operation. Instead, claim 1 recites generating the sequence of data segments by encoding at least one useful data value using a second pseudo-random code and based on: the time reference, a position of the data segment in the sequence; and an autocorrelation peak of the second pseudo-random code. Examiner further notes that Applicants disclosure does not provide support of the autocorrelation function being an input to the encoding operation. The specification clearly recites that the autocorrelation function is being performed in the receiver side (Paragraphs 0033 – 0040).
Lakkis teaches of generating the sequence of data segments by encoding at least one useful data value using a second pseudo-random code (Paragraph 0092, Fig.7 and #318, Fig.3). Lakkis further teaches of employing pseudo-random codes that possess a near perfect autocorrelation function (autocorrelation peak).
Lakkis teaches of encoding at least one useful data value using a second pseudo-random code, where the pseudo-random code used for encoding and possesses a near perfect autocorrelation function. Therefore, the encoding is based on the autocorrelation peak.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites of “and a plurality of UWB beacons each comprising: i. a clock for measuring time-stamp data of the reception of data messages transmitted by the UWB transmitter; ii. a calculator for: synchronizing the clocks of the plurality of UWB beacons with each other; and calculating, by trilateration, the position of the UWB transmitter at the origin of the data message.”. in lines 2 – 10 could be changed to “wherein a plurality of UWB beacons each comprising: [[i.]] a clock for measuring time-stamp data of the reception of data messages transmitted by the UWB transmitter; [[ii.]] the system further comprises an UWB receiver that comprises a calculator for: synchronizing the clocks of the plurality of UWB beacons with each other; and calculating, by trilateration, the position of the UWB transmitter at the origin of the data message.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New claim 16 recites of “wherein the encoding of each data segment comprises positioning the autocorrelation peak of the second pseudo-random code within the data segment at a time position that is a function of the useful data value.”. In reviewing Applicants disclosure, the autocorrelation peak is determined in the receiver side and it is not part of the encoder of the transmitter (Paragraphs 0032 – 0040). Therefore, the new claim 16 after the filing of the original disclosure constitutes new matter.
New claim 17 recites of “wherein encoding the useful data value of each data segment comprises generating a time offset between (i) the time reference or a beginning of the data segment and (ii) the autocorrelation peak of the second pseudo-random code, said time offset being a function of the useful data value.” In reviewing Applicants disclosure, the autocorrelation peak is determined in the receiver side and the time offset is also generated in the receiver side and not in the transmitter (Paragraphs 0032 – 0040). Therefore, the new claim 17 after the filing of the original disclosure constitutes new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 8, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lakkis (US 2010/0272154).
Re claim 1, Lakkis teaches of a computer-implemented method for encoding at least one data message intended to be transmitted by a ultra-wide band (UWB) (UWB, Paragraphs 0005, 0045 and 0064) transmitter to a UWB receiver (Paragraph 0064, Fig.1), the method comprising: generating a header (preamble, #322, Fig.3 and #702, Fig.7) encoded by a first pseudo-random code (#324, Fig.3), said header defining a time reference (SFD, #710, Fig.7) after which a sequence of data segments (#704, #706, Fig.7) is intended to be transmitted (The start-frame delimiter field 212 comprises a sequence {1 -1 1 -1} spread by a128 and/or b128 to indicate the end of the sync field, Paragraph 0092); generating the sequence of data segments (#704, #706, Fig.7), each data segment encoding at least one useful data value using a second pseudo-random code (The header and data fields 202 and 203 may be binary or complex-valued, and spread using generalized Golay code c32, Paragraph 0092, Fig.7 and #318, Fig.3) and based on: the time reference (SFD, Fig.7, where the Start frame delimiter (SFD) time marks where the preamble ends and actual data begins), a position of the data segment in the sequence (where the data segments are positioned after the SFD, Fig.7); an autocorrelation peak of the second pseudo-random code (autocorrelation, Paragraphs 0006, 0069 – 0070, 0088 and 0093).
Re claim 8, Lakkis teaches of wherein the first pseudo-random code (binary Golay code of length 128, Paragraph 0082) has a number of bits greater than the number of bits of the second pseudo-random (Golay code of length 32, Paragraph 0093) (Fig.7).
Re claim 12, Lakkis teaches of a UWB transmitter comprising a calculator configured to carry out the steps of the encoding process according to claim 1 (processor, Fig.2).
Re claim 14, Lakkis teaches of a system for encoding and decoding at least one data message comprising a UWB transmitter according to claim 12 and a UWB receiver (#304, Fig.3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakkis in view of Lingam et al (US 2017/0272118).
Re claim 2, Lakkis teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as well as each data segment comprises a set of bits (Paragraph 0098 and Fig.7). Lakkis does not specifically teach of wherein each data segment comprises a set of bits, the method comprising a time shifting operation of a subset of bits, encoding the useful data value of at least one data segment in the sequence of data segments to position said subset of bits in the first position in the data segment.
Lingam teaches of performing a time shifting operation of a subset of bits (concatenate the parallel streams (#112, Fig.1) into a frame as shown in Fig.2), encoding the useful data value of at least one data segment in the sequence of data segments (DSSS, Fig.1) to position said subset of bits in the first position in the data segment (after SHR, Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have time shifted the subset of bits to efficiently generate the DSSS packet.
Claims 3 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakkis in view of Wang et al (US 2009/0175258).
Re claim 3, Lakkis teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as well as generating the first pseudo-random code and/or the second pseudo-random code using a linear feedback shift register (LFSR) (Paragraph 0076). Lakkis does not specifically mention of generating the first PN code and/or the second PN code from an initial PN code.
Wang teaches of generating the first pseudo-random code and/or the second pseudo-random code (PN generator using using a linear-feedback shift register (LFSR), Paragraph 0005) from an initial pseudo-random code (initial seed, Paragraph 0005).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have loaded an initial pseudo-random code in Lakkis LFSR so as to efficiently perform PN generation.
Re claim 4, Lakkis and Wang teach all the limitations of claim 3 as well as Wang teaches of generating the first pseudo-random code or the second pseudo-random code by replacing at least one bit of the initial pseudo-random code with a replacement pseudo-random code (the shift registers would replace the bits from the initial code to generate the PN code, Paragraph 0005).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced at least one bit of the initial pseudo-random code with a replacement pseudo-random code so as to efficiently perform PN generation.
Re claim 5, Lakkis and Wang teach all the limitations of claim 4 as well as Wang teaches of wherein generating the first pseudo-random code or the second pseudo-random code comprises replacing each bit of the first replacement pseudo-random replacement code with a second replacement pseudo-random code (the shift registers would replace each bit from the initial code to generate the PN code, Paragraph 0005).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced each bit of the initial pseudo-random code with a replacement pseudo-random code so as to efficiently perform PN generation.
Re claim 6, Lakkis and Wang teach all the limitations of claim 4 as well as Lakkis mentions of multiple spreading sequences such as m-sequences, Gold sequences, Barker sequences (Paragraph 0011).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pseudo-random code comprise a Barker sequence for its excellent autocorrelation features.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakkis and Wang in view of Buchmann et al (US 2009/0252326).
Re claim 7, Lakkis and Wang teach all the limitations of claim 3, except of comprising generating a plurality of second pseudo-random codes from the initial pseudo-random code by successively applying time shifts of a predefined number of bits to the initial pseudo-random code, and wherein generating the set of segments is performed using the plurality of second pseudo-random codes.
Buchmann teaches of generating a plurality of second pseudo-random codes from the initial pseudo-random code by successively applying time shifts of a predefined number of bits to the initial pseudo-random code, and wherein generating the set of segments is performed using the plurality of second pseudo-random codes (Time-shifted PRBS sequences, Paragraphs 0014).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have generated a plurality of second pseudo-random codes from the initial pseudo-random code by successively applying time shifts of a predefined number of bits to the initial pseudo-random code for minimizing cross-talk.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakkis in view of Hehn et al (US 2016/0259032).
Re claim 9, Lakkis teaches all the limitations of claim 1 except of a computer-implemented method for locating a transmitter comprising encoding the data message according to claim 1, the method comprising receiving a plurality of data messages by a plurality of UWB beacons, each beacon comprising a clock, said receiving comprising: synchronizing the clocks of the UWB beacon ; time-stamping, by each clock, the reception of the data messages; calculating the position of the transmitter from the data messages received by the plurality of UWB beacons.
Hehn teaches of a computer-implemented method for locating a transmitter comprising encoding the data message, the method comprising receiving a plurality of data messages by a plurality of UWB beacons (#102, Fig.1A), each beacon comprising a clock (#300, Fig.1A), said receiving comprising: synchronizing the clocks of the UWB beacon (synchronized clocks, Paragraph 0113); time-stamping, by each clock, the reception of the data messages (timestamping the signals 102, Fig.1A and Paragraphs 0113 – 0115); calculating the position of the transmitter from the data messages received by the plurality of UWB beacons (#152, Fig.1A and Paragraph 0125).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Hahn’s method to determine the location of devices with great accuracy.
Re claim 15, Lakkis teaches all the limitations of claim 12 except of system for encoding and decoding at least one data message comprising and a plurality of UWB beacons each comprising: i) a clock for measuring time-stamp data of the reception of data messages transmitted by the UWB transmitter; ii) a calculator for: synchronizing the clocks of the plurality of UWB beacons with each other; calculating, by trilateration, the position of the UWB transmitter at the origin of the data message.
Hehn teaches of a system for encoding and decoding at least one data message comprising a UWB transmitter and a plurality of UWB beacons (#102, Fig.1A) each comprising: i) a clock for measuring time-stamp data of the reception of data messages transmitted by the UWB transmitter (timestamping the signals 102, Fig.1A and Paragraphs 0113 – 0115); ii) a calculator for: synchronizing the clocks of the plurality of UWB beacons with each other (synchronized clocks, Paragraph 0113); calculating, by trilateration (trilateration, Paragraph 0114), the position of the UWB transmitter at the origin of the data message (#152, Fig.1A and Paragraph 0125).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Hahn’s method to determine the location of devices with great accuracy.
Claims 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakkis in view of Grayson et al (US 2023/0003907).
Re claim 18, Lakkis teaches all the limitations of claim 1 except of wherein encoding the useful data value of each data segment comprises applying a circular shift to the second pseudo-random code, the circular shift being a function of the useful data value, such that the autocorrelation peak of the circularly-shifted second pseudo-random code is positioned at a corresponding time position within the data segment.
Grayson teaches of encoding the useful data value of each data segment (#1715, Fig.16E) comprises applying a circular shift to the second pseudo-random code (#1630, Fig.16E), the circular shift being a function of the useful data value (FIG. 16A can include encoding or “keying” the navigation data of navigation data stream 1505 into the spreading code 1237 based on circularly shifting the spreading code by one of a plurality of pre-determined code phase shifts, such as one of 2m pre-determined phase shifts, determined by each successive bit group 1615 of m navigation data bits, Paragraph 0554), such that the autocorrelation peak of the circularly-shifted second pseudo-random code is positioned at a corresponding time position within the data segment (Each fixed-length set of each cyclically shifted spreading code 1647 chips can be correlated with replicas of the spreading code 1237, such as one or more shifted replicas of the spreading code applied by multiple correlators of a client device 160, to enable ranging data to be generated by client devices 160. Furthermore, the cyclical shift applied to the spreading code 1237 for each fixed-length set of chips can further denote navigation data that can be further utilized in generating precise timing and/or position data, Paragraph 0555).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied a circular shift to the second pseudo-random code for precise synchronization and ranging.
Re claim 19, Lakkis teaches all the limitations of claim 1 except of wherein the second pseudo-random code comprises N bits and is associated with N possible bit-shift positions, and wherein encoding the useful data value of each data segment comprises selecting one of the N bit-shift positions of the second pseudo-random code as a function of the useful data value of said data segment.
Grayson teaches of a pseudo-random code that comprises N bits and is associated with N possible bit-shift positions, and wherein encoding the useful data value of each data segment comprises selecting one of the N bit-shift positions of the second pseudo-random code as a function of the useful data value of said data segment (Paragraphs 0554 – 0556).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second pseudo-random code associated with N possible bit-shift positions for precise synchronization and ranging.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 – 11and 13 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at (571) 272-3044. 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.
/ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights