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 .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “separating temporally one or more locations” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear, such that the scope of the claim would not be reasonably ascertainable by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 5 recites “a respective time slot” twice which is unclear.
Claim 7 recites “the series” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim(s) 2-12 are additionally rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeng et al. (US 2020/0309932 A1 “ZENG”).
Regarding claim 1, ZENG discloses a method of use of a vehicle Ultra-Wide Band (UWB) system comprising one or more UWB sensors (a UWB system 100 that may include nodes 110-136 located at various locations around a vehicle 102 [0025]) and having enrolled one or more identifiers (a target portable device 106 (e.g., a key fob, smart phone, or smart watch) [0027]), the method comprising periodically:
separating temporally one or more locations, wherein the one or more locations comprising, for each respective identifier, at least one respective location of the respective identifier with the one or more UWB sensors (enable the nodes 110-136 to perform various operations, including localization of a target portable device 106 (e.g., a key fob, smart phone, or smart watch) [0027])
and carrying out a plurality of radar measurements, wherein the plurality of radar measurements comprise, for at least one respective UWB sensor, a plurality of respective radar measurements, the plurality of respective radar measurements being, for each identifier, greater than the number of at least one respective location of the identifier with the one or more UWB sensors (UWB system 100 may determine that there is an obstacle 1214 located near vehicle 102 based on the CIR data [0074]); (the UWB system 100 may have each node 110-136 send numerous blinks sequentially (e.g., 14,000 blinks) [0039]).
Regarding claim 10, ZENG discloses a vehicle UWB system comprising one or more UWB sensors (a UWB system 100 that may include nodes 110-136 located at various locations around a vehicle 102 [0025]) and configured to be used according to the method of claim 1 (Examiner’s note: See rejection of claim 1) and/or to execute a scheduling method comprising: planning of the one or more locations and the plurality of radar measurements. Examiner’s note: The limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 11, ZENG discloses a UWB sensor for a vehicle UWB system (a UWB system 100 that may include nodes 110-136 located at various locations around a vehicle 102 [0025]) and configured for a use of the system according to the method of claim 1 (Examiner’s note: See rejection of claim 1) and/or execute the scheduling method comprising: planning of the one or more locations and the plurality of radar measurements. Examiner’s note: The limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 12, ZENG discloses a computer program comprising program-code instructions for the execution (nodes 110-136 may include a processor, memory, and a transceiver unit [0027]) of the method according to claim 1 (Examiner’s note: See rejection of claim 1) and/or the scheduling method comprising planning of the one or more locations and the plurality of radar measurements, when said program is executed by a processor. Examiner’s note: The limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZENG, in view of Tertinek et al. (US 2022/0271793 A1 “TERTINEK”).
Regarding claim 2, ZENG discloses (Examiner’s note: What ZENG does not disclose is ) the method according to Claim 1, wherein each respective location of a respective identifier with the one or more UWB sensors comprises UWB exchanges each consisting of transmissions of frames between the respective identifier and the one or more UWB sensors (nodes 110-136 may also include transceivers configured for communication with other electronic devices, including the ability to send communication signals and receive communication signals [0028]), wherein the plurality of radar measurements comprise: for each respective radar measurement of a respective UWB sensor, emission of frame by the respective UWB sensor (the UWB system 100 may have each node 110-136 send numerous blinks sequentially (e.g., 14,000 blinks) [0039], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, TERTINEK teaches that the data frame includes one or more data sequences which are specifically suited for use in operations performed when the UWB transceiver operates in one of said plurality of different transceiver modes. In this way, the operation of the UWB transceiver in the specific mode for which the data sequence is suited may be facilitated. In particular, data sequences may be specifically suited for use in a particular transceiver mode in the sense that their contents can be processed by the transceiver or operated on by the transceiver when the transceiver operates in said particular mode. In one or more embodiments, the data frame further includes time gaps between said data sequences [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ZENG to include the teachings of TERTINEK, because in this way, the UWB transceiver may be given enough time to switch to the desired mode of operation, and, in turn, increase the reliability of the transceiver's operation, as recognized by TERTINEK.
Regarding claim 7, ZENG/ TERTINEK discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein each respective location of a respective identifier with the one or more UWB sensors comprises: transmissions of frames from the identifier to each UWB sensor in slots at the start and end of the series, and for each UWB sensor, transmission of a frame from the UWB sensor to the respective identifier in a respective slot in the middle of the series (the data frame includes one or more data sequences which are specifically suited for use in operations performed when the UWB transceiver operates in one of said plurality of different transceiver modes. In this way, the operation of the UWB transceiver in the specific mode for which the data sequence is suited may be facilitated. In particular, data sequences may be specifically suited for use in a particular transceiver mode in the sense that their contents can be processed by the transceiver or operated on by the transceiver when the transceiver operates in said particular mode. In one or more embodiments, the data frame further includes time gaps between said data sequences [TERTINEK 0032], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZENG, in view of TERTINEK, and further in view of Schober et al. (US 2022/0139133 A1 “SCHOBER”).
Regarding claim 3, ZENG/ TERTINEK discloses the method according to Claim 2, further comprising carrying out each respective location of a respective identifier with the one or more UWB sensors is within a time interval consisting of a series of time slots (the data frame further includes time gaps between said data sequences [TERTINEK 0032], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SCHOBER teaches that when a specific ranging session associated with said priority parameter collides or overlaps with at least one other ranging session in a given time slot, the scheduler is configured to schedule said specific ranging session if the priority parameter has a higher value than a priority parameter associated with the other ranging session [0009]. Furthermore, SCHOBER teaches that a higher priority may be given to ranging sessions with a particular external communication node if a previous distance measurement indicates that the communication node is approaching the external communication node [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ZENG to include the teachings of SCHOBER, because doing so would enable a high data throughput for communication devices and a high precision for the localization of devices, as recognized by SCHOBER.
Regarding claim 4, ZENG/ TERTINEK/ SCHOBER discloses the method according to Claim 3, further comprising: carrying out the transmissions of frames of the UWB exchanges between the priority identifier and the one or more UWB sensors within slots of the series belonging to a first group, wherein the series comprising a second group of one or more slots outside the first group; and emitting at least one frame of the radar measurement within one of the one or more slots of the second group (the data frame includes one or more data sequences which are specifically suited for use in operations performed when the UWB transceiver operates in one of said plurality of different transceiver modes. In this way, the operation of the UWB transceiver in the specific mode for which the data sequence is suited may be facilitated. In particular, data sequences may be specifically suited for use in a particular transceiver mode in the sense that their contents can be processed by the transceiver or operated on by the transceiver when the transceiver operates in said particular mode. In one or more embodiments, the data frame further includes time gaps between said data sequences [TERTINEK 0032], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 5, ZENG/ TERTINEK/ SCHOBER discloses the method according to Claim 3, further comprising: transmitting each frame of one of the UWB exchanges at the start of a respective time slot; emitting each frame of the radar measurement of the UWB sensor at the end of a respective time slot; and for each UWB sensor, emitting, by the respective time slots in which the UWB sensor, a frame of a radar measurement different from the respective time slots; and transmitting a frame of a UWB exchange between one of the one or more identifiers and the UWB sensor (the data frame includes one or more data sequences which are specifically suited for use in operations performed when the UWB transceiver operates in one of said plurality of different transceiver modes. In this way, the operation of the UWB transceiver in the specific mode for which the data sequence is suited may be facilitated. In particular, data sequences may be specifically suited for use in a particular transceiver mode in the sense that their contents can be processed by the transceiver or operated on by the transceiver when the transceiver operates in said particular mode. In one or more embodiments, the data frame further includes time gaps between said data sequences [TERTINEK 0032], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZENG, in view of TERTINEK, and further in view of Lien et al. (US 2018/0348339 A1 “LIEN”).
Regarding claim 6, ZENG/ TERTINEK discloses the method according to claim 2,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LIEN teaches that the first modulation type can include a radar modulation, such as a linear-frequency modulation, a stepped-frequency modulation, phase shift-keying, and so forth. A second modulation type is selected to enable communication data to be communicated wirelessly. The communication modulation type may include orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing [0093-0094]. Specifically, LIEN teaches selecting the first modulation type and selecting the second modulation type causes the radar signal and the communication signal to be orthogonal to each other [claim 16].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ZENG to include the teachings of LIEN, because doing so would avoid/ mitigate interference between the multiple signals, as recognized by LIEN.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZENG, in view of SCHOBER.
Regarding claim 8, ZENG discloses a scheduling method implemented by a vehicle UWB system comprising one or more UWB sensors (a UWB system 100 that may include nodes 110-136 located at various locations around a vehicle 102 [0025]) and having enrolled one or more identifiers (a target portable device 106 (e.g., a key fob, smart phone, or smart watch) [0027]), for a use of the vehicle UWB system according to the method of claim 1 (Examiner’s note: See rejection of claim 1),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SCHOBER teaches that depending on the session priority, one of the two sessions will be scheduled more often than the other one. This session priority is determined by a priority parameter (i.e., a priority setting) used by the scheduler. The higher the value of this priority parameter, the more likely it is that the corresponding ranging session will be scheduled [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ZENG to include the teachings of SCHOBER, because doing so would enable a high data throughput for communication devices and a high precision for the localization of devices, as recognized by SCHOBER.
Regarding claim 9, ZENG/ SCHOBER discloses the scheduling method according to Claim 8, further comprising: detecting at least one scheduling in a given time slot of emission of a frame of the radar measurement and of transmission of a frame of one of the UWB exchanges; and for each of the at least one scheduling detected in a given time slot, shifting temporally the scheduling of the emission of the frame of the radar measurement with respect to the transmission of the frame of the one of the UWB exchanges (depending on the session priority, one of the two sessions will be scheduled more often than the other one. This session priority is determined by a priority parameter (i.e., a priority setting) used by the scheduler. The higher the value of this priority parameter, the more likely it is that the corresponding ranging session will be scheduled [SCHOBER 0027], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
An (US 2022/0067402 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of a vehicle including: a plurality of Ultra Wide Band (UWB) transceivers; and a controller configured to control the plurality of UWB transceivers to selectively operate, based on location information of a mobile key in which the UWB function is embedded, in at least one of a first mode for communication and a second mode for detecting an obstacle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 June 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights