Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the Amendment to application 18/918,457 filed on 5/6/26.
Response to Arguments
1. Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
In view of the amendment(s) the no claims are interpreted as 112(f).
2. Rejection of claims under Double Patenting
In view of the terminal disclaimer, the double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
3. Rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 – 7, remarks, filed 5/6/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 – 7 under USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim et al. (PCT/KR2021/009725).
4. Newly added claim(s)
Newly submitted claim(s) 8 – 10 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: “Search burden on Examiner”
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim(s) 8 - 10 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1 – 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry et al. (US 11,470,571, Henry hereafter) in further view of Kim et al. (PCT/KR2021/009725, For examination purposes US 2023/0164622 is used, Kim hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Henry teaches a method of an UWB (ultra-wideband) ranging (“UWB ranging”, col. 13, line 8) performed by a location server (“location server 590”, col. 12, line 28), the method (see figure 12) comprising:
setting, via the location server, sessions (being UWB slots “different slots”, col. 13, line 29) for an UWB, wherein the sessions can comprise a first session (1205a), as second session (similar to the first session and subsequent to the first session) and a third session (similar to the first session and subsequent to the second session) (see col. 13, lines 6-7, 28-32);
allocating, via the location server, a number of blocks (“at least one burst 1220”, col. 13, line 14) in each one of the sessions for the UWB (see col. 13, lines 13-14); and
generating, via the location server, an UWB ranging (“UWB ranging”, col. 13, line 8) for the sessions based on time information for each block, (the time information being a size for the block).
However, does not specifically teach and/or suggest wherein time information of a first block in a first session is generated based on a first multiplier and a specific integer value.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches wherein time information of a first block in a first session is generated based on a first multiplier and a specific integer value (See Fig. 5, shows he ranging round 1, ranging round 2 and so forth; where the first session is interpreted as ranging round 2, which is a multiplier of 2 with a 40 (value or one of the values of ranging round 1).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Kim’s ranging round with the system of Henry. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because in doing so it can adjust the timing based on the distance; making the UWB ranging accurate.
Regarding claim 1, Henry with Kim teaches claim 1, Kim further teaches wherein the multiplier is 2 (As mentioned above in claim 1, 2 is the multiplier, (2 x 40), between 50 – 90, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Henry with Kim teaches the method of claim 1, Kim further teaches wherein time information of a second block in a second session is generated based on a second multiplier and a specific integer value (As mentioned above in claim 1, 2 is the multiplier, (2 x 40), between 50 – 90, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Henry with Kim teaches the method of claim 3, Kim further teaches wherein the second multiplier is 3 (ranging round 3 is 101-104 which is 3 x 40 = 120, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Henry with Kim teaches the method of claim 3, Kim further teaches wherein time information of a third block in a third session is generated based on a third multiplier and a specific integer value. (ranging round 3 is 101-104 which is 3 x 40 = 120, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Henry with Kim teaches The method of claim 5, wherein the third multiplier is 4 (ranging round 4, 4 x 40, between 151-190, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, the system substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANMAY K SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri - 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
TANMAY K. SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2632
/TANMAY K SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights