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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 10/17/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2024 and 06/23/2025 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are hereby attached.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ledvina (WO2019067105A1).
Regarding claim 1 Ledvina discloses: A client device (Figure 2:210), comprising: a processor (Para 0132: “FIG. 9 is a flowchart of a method 900 for performing communications between a mobile device and an access control system (e.g., that is associated with a vehicle or building) according to embodiments of the present invention. Method 900 can be performed by the mobile device (or other computing device), which can include one or more processors and a memory that stores program code for executing by the one or more processors. Aspects of method 900 can be performed in a similar manner is method 100.”); a network interface controller configured to provide access to a network (Para 0048: “At 303, a BT connection is created between the two devices. For example, vehicle 350 can respond with a message that includes credentials (e.g., an identifier) of vehicle 350, and mobile device 300 can respond with its credentials. In some implementations, each device can check the network address with addresses stored for previously-paired devices, e.g., so as to retrieve cryptographic keys are other information used for the connection.”); and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor , wherein the memory comprises a location logic that is configured to: configure a first set of Ultra-Wide Band (UWB) ranging exchanges associated with a first set of network devices based on at least a part of bonding data associated with a plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses (Para 0035: “[0035] After authentication and still nominally at Tl, mobile device 210 and vehicle 205 can exchange information about the ranging that is to occur at later times (e.g., times T2 and T3). The information exchanged can ensure that both devices are performing the ranging in a same manner and that the ranging occurs in a synchronized fashion. [0036] At time T2, mobile device 210 or vehicle 20S can send an initial ranging message, which can include a series of pulses. These pulses are narrower than the pulses used in the first wireless protocol at time Tl . Mobile device 210 can broadcast the initial ranging message so that each of the four UWB antennas 1-4 of the vehicle can receive it Mobile device 210 can track the exact time (e.g., to nanosecond accuracy) at which the initial ranging message was sent. Each of the UWB antennas can send a ranging response message, which can include an identifier that identifies which UWB antenna sent a particular response message. Mobile device 210 can track the exact times for receiving the four UWB ranging response messages.”); perform the first set of UWB ranging exchanges (Figure 9, step 930); obtain first UWB ranging data based on the first set of UWB ranging exchanges (Figure 9, step 940); configure a second set of UWB ranging exchanges associated with a second set of network devices based on at least a part of the bonding data associated with the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses (Figure 9, step 950); perform the second set of UWB ranging exchanges(Figure 9, step 950) ; obtain second UWB ranging data based on the second set of UWB ranging exchanges (Figure 9, step 950); and transmit the first UWB ranging data or the second UWB ranging data (Figure 9, step 790) .
Claim 20 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 1, therefore claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 3 Ledvina discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Ledvina further teaches: wherein the first set of UWB ranging exchanges and the second set of UWB ranging exchanges comprise two-way UWB ranging exchanges (Para 0125: “A UWB ranging exchange message can have a dual-purpose of providing an optionally-encrypted preamble for secure ranging and transferring necessary round-trip-time timestamps between the initiator and the responder. Example parameters for this message can include a validity time, transmit and receive timestamps, timestamp uncertainties, timestamp validity, RSSI, and status. This event can be triggered as part of a single two-way ranging exchange, or more three-way ranging exchanges for either one-to-one ranging or one-to-many ranging. [0126] A further description of example parameters of a UWB ranging exchange message re as follows. The validity timestamp can be in absolute time base. The number of ranging nodes can correspond to the number of valid ranging timestamps in the message.”).
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ledvina (WO2019067105A1) in view of Henry (US20220066010A1).
Regarding claim 2 Ledvina discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Ledvina does not teach “wherein: a first network device in the first set of network devices and a second network device in the second set of network devices are different network devices, a first UWB ranging exchange in the first set of UWB ranging exchanges is configured with the first network device based on bonding data associated with a virtual Bluetooth address in the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses, and a second UWB ranging exchange in the second set of UWB ranging exchanges is configured with the second network device based on the bonding data associated with the virtual Bluetooth address in the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses “
However, Henry in the analogous arts teaches: wherein: a first network device in the first set of network devices and a second network device in the second set of network devices are different network devices (Para 0069: “In at least one embodiment, the response at 512 includes UWB ranging parameters, which may include a novel or unique radio device group index, and any common UWB ranging parameters to be used with all UWB anchors in the group. In at least one embodiment, the response may also include a secure training sequence (STS) key or key index for the group that may be used to encrypt the ranging information/data when running subsequent UWB ranging exchanges for the mobile device 140(1). Essentially, the STS provides a unique hash, which enables a mobile device to determine that it is not ranging against a rouge anchor or an anchor for an incorrect anchor group.”), a first UWB ranging exchange in the first set of UWB ranging exchanges is configured with the first network device based on bonding data associated with a virtual Bluetooth address in the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses (Figure 7) , and a second UWB ranging exchange in the second set of UWB ranging exchanges is configured with the second network device based on the bonding data associated with the virtual Bluetooth address in the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses (Para 0109: “Feature J: In one embodiment of unicast phase operations, mobile devices that discover UWB ranging as per Feature C via a BLE broadcast UUID can send a BLE pairing query to the BLE MAC address for the radio device from which the broadcast UUID was obtained (the BLE MAC address is included in the broadcast UUID) and a secure connection can be established between the mobile device and the radio device. Within the session, the radio device can provide to the mobile device the parameters/information as discussed above at 512 including radio device group index, ranging group index for the mobile device, and/or common UWB ranging parameters (e.g., preamble type, expected modulation, UWB ranging mode, etc.) and the radio device can obtain the mobile device MAC addresses (e.g., UWB MAC, etc.). Thus, in this embodiment, the UWB ranging parameters obtained via the BLE unicast UUID in combination with UWB ranging instruction information obtained via the BLE broadcast UUID can be utilized by the mobile device to perform UWB ranging with a target UWB anchor.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ledvina with Henry to incorporate the feature of: wherein: a first network device in the first set of network devices and a second network device in the second set of network devices are different network devices, a first UWB ranging exchange in the first set of UWB ranging exchanges is configured with the first network device based on bonding data associated with a virtual Bluetooth address in the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses, and a second UWB ranging exchange in the second set of UWB ranging exchanges is configured with the second network device based on the bonding data associated with the virtual Bluetooth address in the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses. Ledvina and Henry are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose the use of Bluetooth technology for ranging. However, Ledvina fails to disclose a feature of devices belonging to different networks. This feature is disclosed by Henry. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Ledvina with Henry to incorporate the feature of: wherein: a first network device in the first set of network devices and a second network device in the second set of network devices are different network devices, a first UWB ranging exchange in the first set of UWB ranging exchanges is configured with the first network device based on bonding data associated with a virtual Bluetooth address in the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses, and a second UWB ranging exchange in the second set of UWB ranging exchanges is configured with the second network device based on the bonding data associated with the virtual Bluetooth address in the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses as such a feature would increase the energy efficiency of the system.
Claim 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ledvina (WO2019067105A1) in view of Kalavakuru (US11143738B1).
Regarding claim 4 Ledvina discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Ledvina does not teach “wherein the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses comprises a plurality of virtual Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) virtual addresses “.
However, Kalavakuru in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses comprises a plurality of virtual Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) virtual addresses (Para 34: “Radio-to-device mapper 214 receives (i) the baseband BLE packets, or respective portions of the BLE packets, that include respective BLE media access control (MAC) addresses of the BLE radios that transmitted the BLE packets, and (ii) the baseband WiFi packets, or respective portions of the WiFi packets, that include respective WiFi MAC addresses of the WiFi radios that transmitted the WiFi packets. Radio-to-device mapper 214 matches BLE MAC addresses to WiFi MAC addresses in BLE and WiFi packets that originate from the same wireless device. That is, radio-to-device mapper 214 identifies pairs of BLE and WiFi MAC addresses that belong/map to the same wireless device, and thus identifies sequences of BLE and WiFi packets that were transmitted by the same wireless device. Various techniques may be used to identify which pair of WiFi and BLE MAC addresses belong to (and which corresponding packets originate at) the same wireless device.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ledvina with Kalavakuru to incorporate the feature of: wherein the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses comprises a plurality of virtual Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) virtual addresses. Ledvina and Kalavakuru are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose the use of Bluetooth technology for ranging. However, Ledvina fails to disclose a feature of Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) virtual addresses. This feature is disclosed by Kalavakuru. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Ledvina with Kalavakuru to incorporate the feature of: wherein the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses comprises a plurality of virtual Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) virtual addresses as such a feature would increase the energy efficiency of the system.
Claim 15 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 4, therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ledvina (WO2019067105A1) in view of Louzir (EP3313082A1).
Regarding claim 5 Ledvina discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Ledvina does not teach “wherein the location logic is further configured to: obtain first fingerprint data associated with the first set of network devices; obtain second fingerprint data associated with the second set of network devices; and transmit the first fingerprint data or the second fingerprint data “.
However, Louzir in the analogous teaches: wherein the location logic is further configured to: obtain first fingerprint data associated with the first set of network devices (Summary: “To that end a method for detecting that a current device is not co-located with a set of devices is disclosed. The method comprises: Obtaining a current first fingerprint from current data measured by the current device; Obtaining a set of first fingerprints, wherein a first fingerprint is obtained from data measured by a device among the set of devices; Obtaining a set of current inter-fingerprint distances, wherein current inter-fingerprint distances are determined between the current first fingerprint and each first fingerprint of the set of first fingerprints; In case at least one current inter-fingerprint distance is above a first value, generating a first indication that the current device is not co-located with the set of devices.”); obtain second fingerprint data associated with the second set of network devices (Summary: “According to a particularly advantageous variant, the first fingerprints are obtained from the data measured by each device of the set of devices at a first time, the method further comprising: Obtaining a set of second fingerprints, wherein second fingerprints are obtained from the data measured by each device of the set of devices at a second time; obtaining a set of intra-fingerprint distances, wherein for each device of the set of devices, an intra-fingerprint distance is obtained between the first fingerprint of the device and the second fingerprint of the device; wherein the second alarm is generated in case: the current intra-fingerprint distance is above a third value; and all intra-fingerprint distances of the set of intra-fingerprint distances are below a fourth value.”); and transmit the first fingerprint data or the second fingerprint data (Description: “According to a specific and non-limiting embodiment, the current device 20 measures the current data, builds a current first (and/or second) fingerprint and sends the current first (and/or second) fingerprint to an external server over a communication network. Similarly, each device of the set 25 of devices builds a first (and/or second) fingerprint and sends the first (and/or second) fingerprint to the external server over the communication network. “) .
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ledvina with Louzir to incorporate the feature of wherein the location logic is further configured to: obtain first fingerprint data associated with the first set of network devices; obtain second fingerprint data associated with the second set of network devices; and transmit the first fingerprint data or the second fingerprint data. Ledvina and Louzir are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose the use of Bluetooth technology to detect objects. However, Ledvina fails to disclose a feature of fingerprint data. This feature is disclosed by Louzir. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Ledvina with Louzir to incorporate the feature of: wherein the location logic is further configured to: obtain first fingerprint data associated with the first set of network devices; obtain second fingerprint data associated with the second set of network devices; and transmit the first fingerprint data or the second fingerprint data as such a feature would increase the security and efficiency of the system.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ledvina (WO2019067105A1) in view of Louzir (EP3313082A1) and further in view of Kalavakuru (US11143738B1).
Regarding claim 6 the combination of Ledvina and Louzir discloses all the limitations of claim 5. Ledvina does not teach “wherein the first fingerprint data and the second fingerprint data are obtained via a set of Bluetooth communications “.
However, Kalavakuru in the analogous teaches: wherein the first fingerprint data and the second fingerprint data are obtained via a set of Bluetooth communications (Para 35: “Another approach uses discoverable information/identifiable metadata in WiFi and BLE packets that is sufficiently similar across the packets (e.g., user identifier) for the same wireless device, and can therefore be used to associate the packets (and thus the WiFi and BLE MAC addresses) to the same wireless device. Yet another approach use wireless fingerprinting to identify WiFi and BLE packets originated at the same device. Wireless fingerprinting may derive parameters such as clock skew, traffic profiles, and so on associated with the WiFi and BLE packets, and then match WiFi and BLE MAC addresses in the packets that have wireless fingerprints that match. An even further approach computes respective locations of a wireless device based on the WiFi packets and based on the BLE packets, and correlates the locations for a match.”).
Regarding claim 7 the combination of Ledvina, Louzir and Kalavakuru discloses all the limitations of claim 5. Kalavakuru further teaches: wherein the first fingerprint data comprises a first set of Media Access Control (MAC) addresses for the first set of network devices, and the second fingerprint data comprises a second set of MAC addresses for the second set of network devices (Para 35: “Another approach uses discoverable information/identifiable metadata in WiFi and BLE packets that is sufficiently similar across the packets (e.g., user identifier) for the same wireless device, and can therefore be used to associate the packets (and thus the WiFi and BLE MAC addresses) to the same wireless device. Yet another approach use wireless fingerprinting to identify WiFi and BLE packets originated at the same device. Wireless fingerprinting may derive parameters such as clock skew, traffic profiles, and so on associated with the WiFi and BLE packets, and then match WiFi and BLE MAC addresses in the packets that have wireless fingerprints that match. An even further approach computes respective locations of a wireless device based on the WiFi packets and based on the BLE packets, and correlates the locations for a match.”).
Regarding claim 8 the combination of Ledvina, Louzir and Kalavakuru discloses all the limitations of claim 5. Kalavakuru further teaches: wherein the location logic is further configured to: receive a first location determination for the client device based on the first UWB ranging data and the first fingerprint data (Para 35: “Yet another approach use wireless fingerprinting to identify WiFi and BLE packets originated at the same device. Wireless fingerprinting may derive parameters such as clock skew, traffic profiles, and so on associated with the WiFi and BLE packets, and then match WiFi and BLE MAC addresses in the packets that have wireless fingerprints that match. An even further approach computes respective locations of a wireless device based on the WiFi packets and based on the BLE packets, and correlates the locations for a match.”); or receive a second location determination for the client device based on the second UWB ranging data and the second fingerprint data.
Regarding claim 9 the combination of Ledvina, Louzir and Kalavakuru discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Ledvina further teaches: wherein one or more of the first UWB ranging data, the first fingerprint data, the second UWB ranging data, or the second fingerprint data are transmitted to a network device (Para 0037: “The known positions of the different UWB antennas in the vehicle can be used to triangulate the position of the mobile device 210 with respect to vehicle 205. [0038] In other embodiments, mobile device 210 can determine the distance from vehicle 205. For example, if the ranging information exchanged by the vehicle includes relative positions of the UWB antennas of the vehicle and an expected delay between receiving a ranging request message and transmitting a ranging response message, mobile device 210 can determine the distance using the tracked times of it sending and receiving ranging messages.”), and the first location determination or the second location determination is received from the network device (Para 0037: “The known positions of the different UWB antennas in the vehicle can be used to triangulate the position of the mobile device 210 with respect to vehicle 205. [0038] In other embodiments, mobile device 210 can determine the distance from vehicle 205. For example, if the ranging information exchanged by the vehicle includes relative positions of the UWB antennas of the vehicle and an expected delay between receiving a ranging request message and transmitting a ranging response message, mobile device 210 can determine the distance using the tracked times of it sending and receiving ranging messages.”).
Claims 10-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ledvina (WO2019067105A1) in view of Tan (WO2013191648A1).
Regarding claim 10 Ledvina discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Ledvina does not teach “wherein the bonding data associated with the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses comprises, for each virtual Bluetooth address, a long-term key “.
Tan in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the bonding data associated with the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses comprises, for each virtual Bluetooth address, a long-term key (Page 3: “To enable the establishment of a secure connection between two Bluetooth devices, the Bluetooth specification defines Security Mode 3 which is a link level security mode. A bond is created between the devices by creating, exchanging and storing a common link key (K) which is associated with the Bluetooth Device Address of the other device and such devices are said to be bonded or paired. The common link key is used in authentication procedures during the establishment of a secure connection between the two devices, and is also used to generate an encryption key for encrypting data sent over the connection.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ledvina with Tan to incorporate the feature of: wherein the bonding data associated with the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses comprises, for each virtual Bluetooth address, a long-term key. Ledvina and Tan are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose the use of Bluetooth technology for ranging. However, Ledvina fails to disclose a feature of Bluetooth bonding data. This feature is disclosed by Tan. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Ledvina with Tan to incorporate the feature of: wherein the bonding data associated with the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses comprises, for each virtual Bluetooth address, a long-term key as such a feature would increase the security and efficiency of the system.
Claim 17 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 10, therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 11 the combination of Ledvina and Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 10. Tan further teaches: wherein the location logic is further configured to participate in a set of pairing and bonding processes associated with the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses (Page 3: “The Bluetooth specification defines a pairing procedure (LMP-Pairing, also known as simple pairing) which may be performed for the purpose of generating and storing the link key for later use (this is known as bonding), or as part of the procedure for establishing a secure connection between two devices. The pairing procedure involves creating an initialisation key Kj.sub.nj.sub.t in both devices, using this to create a combined link key K.sub.AB, and then mutually authenticating the generated combined link key before allowing establishment of a secure connection.”).
The reason for modifying Ledvina with Tan is the similar to the one given in claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 12 the combination of Ledvina and Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Tan further teaches: wherein for each virtual Bluetooth address in the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses, the long-term key is generated during a respective pairing and bonding process in the set of pairing and bonding processes (Page 3: “The Bluetooth specification defines a pairing procedure (LMP-Pairing, also known as simple pairing) which may be performed for the purpose of generating and storing the link key for later use (this is known as bonding), or as part of the procedure for establishing a secure connection between two devices. The pairing procedure involves creating an initialisation key Kj.sub.nj.sub.t in both devices, using this to create a combined link key K.sub.AB, and then mutually authenticating the generated combined link key before allowing establishment of a secure connection.”).
The reason for modifying Ledvina with Tan is the similar to the one given in claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 13 the combination of Ledvina and Tan discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Tan further teaches: wherein the bonding data associated with the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses is stored during the set of pairing and bonding processes (Page 3: “To enable the establishment of a secure connection between two Bluetooth devices, the Bluetooth specification defines Security Mode 3 which is a link level security mode. A bond is created between the devices by creating, exchanging and storing a common link key (K) which is associated with the Bluetooth Device Address of the other device and such devices are said to be bonded or paired. The common link key is used in authentication procedures during the establishment of a secure connection between the two devices, and is also used to generate an encryption key for encrypting data sent over the connection.”).
The reason for modifying Ledvina with Tan is the similar to the one given in claim 10 above.
Claims 14, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ledvina (WO2019067105A1) in view of Altman (WO2016038611A1).
Regarding claim 14 Ledvina discloses: A network device (Figure 2:210), comprising: a processor (Para 0132: “FIG. 9 is a flowchart of a method 900 for performing communications between a mobile device and an access control system (e.g., that is associated with a vehicle or building) according to embodiments of the present invention. Method 900 can be performed by the mobile device (or other computing device), which can include one or more processors and a memory that stores program code for executing by the one or more processors. Aspects of method 900 can be performed in a similar manner is method 100.”); a network interface controller configured to provide access to a network; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor(Para 0048: “At 303, a BT connection is created between the two devices. For example, vehicle 350 can respond with a message that includes credentials (e.g., an identifier) of vehicle 350, and mobile device 300 can respond with its credentials. In some implementations, each device can check the network address with addresses stored for previously-paired devices, e.g., so as to retrieve cryptographic keys are other information used for the connection.”), wherein the memory comprises a location logic that is configured to: receive an indication of a plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses; receive bonding data associated with the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses(Para 0035: “[0035] After authentication and still nominally at Tl, mobile device 210 and vehicle 205 can exchange information about the ranging that is to occur at later times (e.g., times T2 and T3). The information exchanged can ensure that both devices are performing the ranging in a same manner and that the ranging occurs in a synchronized fashion. [0036] At time T2, mobile device 210 or vehicle 20S can send an initial ranging message, which can include a series of pulses. These pulses are narrower than the pulses used in the first wireless protocol at time Tl . Mobile device 210 can broadcast the initial ranging message so that each of the four UWB antennas 1-4 of the vehicle can receive it Mobile device 210 can track the exact time (e.g., to nanosecond accuracy) at which the initial ranging message was sent. Each of the UWB antennas can send a ranging response message, which can include an identifier that identifies which UWB antenna sent a particular response message. Mobile device 210 can track the exact times for receiving the four UWB ranging response messages.”), wherein the bonding data is further associated with one or more client devices; configure a set of network devices in a plurality of network devices with the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses and the bonding data(Para 0035: “[0035] After authentication and still nominally at Tl, mobile device 210 and vehicle 205 can exchange information about the ranging that is to occur at later times (e.g., times T2 and T3). The information exchanged can ensure that both devices are performing the ranging in a same manner and that the ranging occurs in a synchronized fashion. [0036] At time T2, mobile device 210 or vehicle 20S can send an initial ranging message, which can include a series of pulses. These pulses are narrower than the pulses used in the first wireless protocol at time Tl . Mobile device 210 can broadcast the initial ranging message so that each of the four UWB antennas 1-4 of the vehicle can receive it Mobile device 210 can track the exact time (e.g., to nanosecond accuracy) at which the initial ranging message was sent. Each of the UWB antennas can send a ranging response message, which can include an identifier that identifies which UWB antenna sent a particular response message. Mobile device 210 can track the exact times for receiving the four UWB ranging response messages.”).
Ledvina does not teach “and rotate the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses and the bonding data to additional network devices in the plurality of network devices“.
However, Altman in the analogous arts teaches: and rotate the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses and the bonding data to additional network devices in the plurality of network devices (Para 0119: “A link, channel, network interface, or other such abstracted bonding resource may be transferred in real time from one bonding group to another. In that case, bonding device configurations are stored in a database (such as presets) and may be updated in real time as needed. Changes made to the above-mentioned groups, access connectivity or services may be done in real time at the bonding device level (e.g., bonding engine) via the abstraction and virtualization protocols manage the distribution of the data streams through the bonding groups by change the configuration of the bonding devices (e.g., bonding groups) as instructed by the virtualization manager. By using a separate plane for control and data as in some of the embodiments of the present invention, a system may dynamically add a network interface to a group or remove the network interface from a group. For example, managing the bonding groups or sets may be according to optimizing network resource, or performance, characteristics such as cost, cost/performance, power consumption, desired run time, usage type, priorities, traffic types, applications, users, routes or paths, etc. “).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ledvina with Altman to incorporate the feature of: and rotate the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses and the bonding data to additional network devices in the plurality of network devices. Ledvina and Altman are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose the use of Bluetooth technology. However, Ledvina fails to disclose a feature of rotating Bluetooth addresses. This feature is disclosed by Altman. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Ledvina with Altman to incorporate the feature of: and rotate the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses and the bonding data to additional network devices in the plurality of network devices as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 16 the combination Ledvina and Altmann discloses all the limitations of claim 14. Ledvina further teaches: wherein the plurality of network devices is under management by the network device (Para 0024: “At block 110, the mobile device and vehicle are paired using a first wireless protocol. As explained in further detail later, the pairing (e.g., BT pairing) can involve an authentication between the mobile device and the vehicle via any one of various techniques. The pairing can result in a shared secret being saved on both devices, where the shared secret can be used for future authentications (e.g., via a challenge response) and/or encryption of messages between the mobile device and the vehicle. The mobile device can assume the central role during the initial setup and pairing.”).
Regarding claim 18 the combination Ledvina and Altmann discloses all the limitations of claim 14. Ledvina further teaches: wherein the location logic is further configured to store the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses and the bonding data in a datastore (Para 0049: “At 304, the processors of the two devices are awoken to communicate with the respective BT antenna devices to perform signal processing and provide control signals to the BT antenna devices for transmitting signals. For example, the operating system of mobile device 300 can access a database (e.g., a table) of paired devices to match a stored credential with the credential obtained from vehicle 350. Similarly, the engine control unit (ECU) of vehicle 350 can access a database of paired devices to match a stored credential with the credential obtained from mobile device 300. Information from each of the profiles of each device can be used for later stages of communication.”).
Regarding claim 19 the combination Ledvina and Altmann discloses all the limitations of claim 14. Altmann further teaches: wherein the plurality of virtual Bluetooth addresses and the bonding data are rotated based on at least one of historical client device location data or a machine learning process (Para 0121: “In some embodiments of the present invention, data protection and data security requirements may also be handled in this abstracting and virtualizing way (e.g., by the virtualization manager). For example, for certain applications a VPN, IPSec, or other cryptographic algorithms or method may be required. Yet for other applications, using the same bonding device(s), other methods should be used, at the same time or at different times. The virtualization manager may forward the security requirements, protocols, parameters, tunnel IDs, application with bonding connection association, and Bonded-Group-IDs between bonding device (or element or software) and the specific networking element implementing the security algorithm.”).
The reason for modifying Ledvina with Altman is the similar to the one given in claim 14 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bongani J. Mashele whose telephone number is (703)756-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00AM-5:00PM (CT).
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 Resha H. Desai, can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/BONGANI JABULANI MASHELE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights