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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-10, 19 and 20 in the reply filed on 16 August 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 August 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 September 2024 and 26 February 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because language “based at least one” should be amended to “based at least on”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: language “based at least one the” in paragraph 0024 should be amended to “based at least on”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 9 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, the Office recommends amending “partially overlaps” in line 3 to “partially overlapping”. Further, the Office recommends amending “at least one” to “at least on” in line 7. Claim 19 contains similar issues to Claim 1.
Claim 3, at line 2, should be amended to recite “the second UWB session” rather than “the second UWB” as currently drafted.
Claim 9, at lines 1-3, should be amended to recite “the second UWB session” rather than “the second UWB” as currently drafted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10, 19 and 20 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.
Claims 1 and 19 recite the following limitations (emphasis added by the Office):
“computing a first access time of the first UWB session and a second access time of the second UWB session; determining a first credit value based at least on the first access time and a second credit value based at least one the second access time; and
selecting one of the first UWB session or the second UWB with a higher credit value.”
As highlighted above, the last limitation indicates that the UWB with a higher credit value is selected. However, neither UWB session in the claim is recited as having a credit value. The claim indicates that “access times” are respectively computed for the UWB sessions. Credit values are subsequently determined “based at least on” the access times. However, the claim language does not indicate that the credit values are ever associated with the respective sessions. Therefore, it is unclear how the selection of a UWB session with a higher credit value can occur, as neither session is ever associated with a credit value. Therefore, the claims are found to be indefinite.
Claims 2-10 and 20 are rejected by virtue of dependency on the independent claims.
Further regarding Claim 3, the claim recites a further step of “selecting one of the first UWB session and the second UWB with a higher deficit value.” However, in light of the selection recited in Claim 1, Claim 3 is unclear as to whether a particular session is further selected or a particular session would be unselected if previously selected in Claim 1. Further, neither UWB session is associated with a “deficit value”, as the claim language lacks a relationship between the respective sessions and any “deficit value”. Claim 2 recites “session deficit values” and “previous…session deficit values”; however, it is not clear whether the “deficit value” in Claim 3 is related to these previous recitations. Lastly, claim language “the selected session” lacks antecedent basis. The Office recommends amending this phrase to “the selected UWB session”.
Further regarding Claim 9, the claim recites a further step of “selecting one of the first UWB session and the second UWB with a higher deficit sum value.” However, in light of the selection recited in Claim 1, Claim 3 is unclear as to whether a particular session is further selected or a particular session would be unselected if previously selected in Claim 1.
Further regarding Claim 10, the claim language recites “determining a non-selected UWB session overlapping with the selected UWB session and having the respective round begin time earlier than an round end time of the selected UWB session; updating a respective session deficit value of the non-selected UWB session by adding the respective session deficit difference value; and perform access with the selected session.” However, in light of Claims 1 and 9, which indicates that a selection is made between the first and second UWB sessions, the claim language “non-selected UWB session” would refer to whichever of the first and second UWB sessions is not selected. Therefore, it is not clear whether the “non-selected UWB session” is intended to refer to the first/second UWB session or a separate session within the “set of colliding UWB sessions”. Further, the limitation “determining a non-selected UWB session … having the respective round begin time earlier than an round end time of the selected UWB session overlapping with the selected UWB session” is unclear because “the respective round begin time” is linked to the first and second UWB sessions. Therefore, the claim language is unclear as to how the “non-selected UWB session” “has” a respective round begin time”. Lastly, the claim language “adding the respective session deficit difference value; and perform access with the selected session” is unclear because Claim 7 indicates a first and second session deficit difference value. Therefore, it is not clear which of these values is referenced in Claim 10.
In light of the issues identified above, the Office will proceed with examination of the claimed subject matter as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claim 1, the claim recites: “determining a set of colliding UWB sessions that comprises a first UWB session and a second UWB session partially overlaps with each other in time; computing a first access time of the first UWB session and a second access time of the second UWB session; determining a first credit value based at least on the first access time and a second credit value based at least one the second access time; and selecting one of the first UWB session or the second UWB with a higher credit value.” These steps, as drafted, amount to evaluating and computing items of information (determining sessions that meet a condition, access times and credit values, and selecting a session), which can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, the steps under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite any further elements separate from the abstract idea above. Likewise, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not recite any further elements separate from the abstract idea above.
Regarding independent Claim 19, the claim recites the same abstract idea as presented above in Claim 1. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 19 recites the following: “An ultra-wideband (UWB) device, comprising: a transceiver operable to perform a UWB communication; a memory for storing program instructions, device information of a plurality of devices, round begin times and round end times of the plurality of UWB sessions, and computed access times for one or more of the plurality of devices; 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 to schedule communication of the plurality of devices.” The structural components in the claim language above are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the steps recited above. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional structural elements are recited at a high level of generality and the additional step of receiving the topology amounts to mere data gathering, a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, and thereby cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 1 and 19 are not patent-eligible.
Claims 2 and 20 recite additional steps of computing session deficit values. Therefore, the steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also fall under the mental processes (i.e., observing and evaluating information) grouping of abstract ideas (consistent with the abstract idea found in independent Claims 1 and 19).
Claim 4 recites additional steps of determining a time period, determining a priority sum value, and computing shared times. Therefore, the steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also fall under the mental processes (i.e., observing and evaluating information) grouping of abstract ideas (consistent with the abstract idea found in independent Claim 1).
Claim 5 recites additional steps related to computing the access times recited in independent claim 1. Therefore, the steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also fall under the mental processes (i.e., observing and evaluating information) grouping of abstract ideas (consistent with the abstract idea found in independent Claim 1).
Claim 6 recites additional steps of determining a priority sum value and computing access times. Therefore, the steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also fall under the mental processes (i.e., observing and evaluating information) grouping of abstract ideas (consistent with the abstract idea found in independent Claim 1).
Claim 7 recites additional steps of computing session deficit difference values for the respective sessions. Therefore, the steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also fall under the mental processes (i.e., observing and evaluating information) grouping of abstract ideas (consistent with the abstract idea found in independent Claim 1).
Claim 8 recites additional steps of determining respective credit values and deficit sum values. Therefore, the steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also fall under the mental processes (i.e., observing and evaluating information) grouping of abstract ideas (consistent with the abstract idea found in independent Claim 1).
Claim 9 recites additional steps of selecting one of the sessions and updating a respective session deficit sum value. Therefore, the steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also fall under the mental processes (i.e., observing and evaluating information) grouping of abstract ideas (consistent with the abstract idea found in independent 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reddy et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20260067849), hereinafter Reddy.
Regarding Claim 19, Reddy discloses an ultra-wideband (UWB) device, comprising:
a transceiver operable to perform a UWB communication (Figure 8 – UWB transceiver 835);
a memory for storing program instructions, device information of a plurality of devices, round begin times and round end times of the plurality of UWB sessions, and computed access times for one or more of the plurality of devices (Figure 8 – memory 860); and
a processor coupled to the transceiver and to the memory, wherein the processor is operable to execute the program instructions (Figure 8 – processor 810 coupled via bus 805 to the transceiver and memory; refer to paragraph 0084 for operation of the processor for executing instructions stored in the memory), which, when executed by the processor, cause the UWB device to perform the following operations to schedule communication of the plurality of devices:
determining a set of colliding UWB sessions that comprises a first UWB session and a second UWB session partially overlaps with each other in time (Figure 5 at step 555 and paragraph 0056 – the controller determines a round hopping pattern according to first and second potential interferences; as shown in Figure 6 and described in paragraph 0057, the potential interferences pertain to overlaps between UWB sessions);
computing a first access time of the first UWB session and a second access time of the second UWB session (Figure 6 and paragraph 0057 – the controller analyzes first and second potential interferences, shown as “Rounds” i and j for the respective patterns);
determining a first credit value based at least on the first access time and a second credit value based at least one the second access time (paragraph 0057 and Figure 6 - UWB ranging sessions scheduled according to the round hopping pattern determined based on considering both the first and the second potential interferences (e.g., including rounds j′, j′+1, j′+2 . . . ) may capitalize the gap between the updated interference pattern (e.g., gaps between rounds i, i+1, i+2, . . . ) such that the overlaps between ranging rounds of the UWB ranging session scheduled accordingly and the first or the second potential interference are reduced. For example, the determined round hopping pattern may maximize the use of the gap between rounds i, i+1, i+2, . . . (e.g., align the start of round j′+n with the end of interference round i′+m, where n and m are any suitable integers)); and
selecting one of the first UWB session or the second UWB with a higher credit value (paragraph 0057 and Figure 6 - the determined round hopping pattern may maximize the use of the gap between rounds i, i+1, i+2, . . . (e.g., align the start of round j′+n with the end of interference round i′+m, where n and m are any suitable integers); paragraph 0058 – slots in ranging rounds that still overlap with the other session are made inactive).
Claim 1 is directed to a method comprising the same steps performed by the device of Claim 19. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 19.
Regarding Claims 2 and 20, Reddy discloses the determining of the first credit value comprises computing a first session deficit value of the first UWB session based on the first access time and a previous first session deficit value (paragraph 0057 and Figure 6 - the determined round hopping pattern may maximize the use of the gap between rounds i, i+1, i+2, . . . (e.g., align the start of round j′+n with the end of interference round i′+m, where n and m are any suitable integers); paragraph 0058 – slots in ranging rounds that still overlap with the other session are made inactive, as shown in the updated pattern); and the determining of the second credit value comprises computing a second session deficit value of the second UWB session based on the second access time and a previous second session deficit value (paragraph 0057 and Figure 6 - the determined round hopping pattern may maximize the use of the gap between rounds i, i+1, i+2, . . . (e.g., align the start of round j′+n with the end of interference round i′+m, where n and m are any suitable integers); paragraph 0058 – slots in ranging rounds that still overlap with the other session are made inactive (as shown in the updated pattern).
Regarding Claim 3, Reddy discloses selecting one of the first UWB session and the second UWB with a higher deficit value (paragraph 0057 and Figure 6 - the determined round hopping pattern may maximize the use of the gap between rounds i, i+1, i+2, . . . (e.g., align the start of round j′+n with the end of interference round i′+m, where n and m are any suitable integers); paragraph 0058 – slots in ranging rounds that still overlap with the other session are made inactive); updating a respective session deficit value of the selected UWB session by subtracting a round duration of the selected UWB session (paragraph 0057 and Figure 6 - the determined round hopping pattern may maximize the use of the gap between rounds i, i+1, i+2, . . . (e.g., align the start of round j′+n with the end of interference round i′+m, where n and m are any suitable integers); paragraph 0058 – slots in ranging rounds that still overlap with the other session are made inactive – the updated pattern subtracts the portion of the round to prevent interference with the other pattern); and perform access with the selected session (Figure 6 – the updated pattern is utilized to perform ranging).
Regarding Claim 7, Reddy discloses computing a first session deficit difference value of the first UWB session to be equal to the first access time paragraph 0058 – slots in ranging rounds that still overlap with the other session are made inactive – the updated pattern subtracts the portion of the round to prevent interference with the other pattern); and computing a second session deficit difference value of the second UWB session to be equal to the second access time (paragraph 0058 – slots in ranging rounds that still overlap with the other session are made inactive – the updated pattern subtracts the portion of the round to prevent interference with the other pattern).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Manolakos et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20250039828) is directed to time alignment configuration for hybrid cellular and UWB positioning (refer to Figure 7 and paragraphs 0068-0070).
Eisendle et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20240154643) discloses managing UWB communication sessions in order to reduce collisions (refer to Figure 7 and paragraphs 0059-0065).
Kim et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20230065013) discloses using a UWB session priority parameter as a decision criterion for scheduling a ranging (paragraph 0032).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights