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 .
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 1-5, 9-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Das et al (US 20230123619 A1: hereinafter Das).
Regarding claim 1, Das discloses a first wireless communication device (see Das ¶[0023,24, 199], fig. 1, 5), comprising:
a transceiver configured to be coupled to an antenna (see Das ¶[0023,24, 199], fig. 1, 5); a controller coupled to the transceiver (see Das ¶[0023,24, 199], fig. 1, 5);
wherein the controller is configured to calculate a range to a second wireless communication device based on a set of exchanged messages (see Das ¶[0023,24, 199], fig. 1, 5);
wherein the controller is configured to calculate the range while limiting at least one of: a set of allowed message repetitions and a set of allowed LTF (long training frame) totals, for channel bandwidths (BW) greater than 160 MHz (see ¶[0117, 0132, 0199] Table 1, fig. 10b) .
Regarding claim 24. A method for wireless ranging (see Das ¶[0117, 0132, 0199] Table 1, fig. 10b), comprising: calculating a range from a first wireless communication device to a second wireless communication device (see Das ¶[0023,24, 199], fig. 1, 5); calculating the range while limiting a set of allowed message repetitions for channel bandwidths (BW) greater than 160 MHz (see Das ¶[0117, 0132, 0199] Table 1, fig. 10b); and calculating the range while limiting a set of allowed LTF (long training frame) totals, for channel bandwidths (BW) greater than 160 MHz (see Das ¶[0117, 0132] Table 1, fig. 10b).
Regarding claim 2, Das discloses the first device of claim 1: wherein the channel bandwidth is less than or equal to 320 MHz (see Das ¶[0023,24, 199], fig. 1, 5).
Regarding claim 3, Das discloses the first device of claim 1: wherein the controller is configured to calculate the range while limiting both the set of allowed message repetitions and the set of allowed LTF (long training frame) totals, for channel bandwidths (BW) greater than 160 MHz (see Das ¶[0023,24, 199], fig. 1, 5).
Regarding claim 4, Das discloses the first device of claim 1: wherein the controller is configured to calculate the range using a time of flight (TOF) of a message transmitted from the first wireless communication device to the second wireless communication device (see Das ¶[023, 24, 200], fig. 1, 5).
Regarding claim 5, Das discloses the first device of claim 1: wherein the controller is configured to calculate the range using a first time of flight (TOF) of a first message transmitted from the first wireless communication device to the second wireless communication device, and using a second time of flight (TOF) of a second message transmitted from the second wireless communication device to the first wireless communication device (see Das ¶[023, 24, 200], fig. 1, 5).
Regarding claim 9, Das discloses the first device of claim 1: wherein the set of messages include a format and bandwidth subfield that indicates a requested or allocated PPDU format and a bandwidth (BW) used to transmit the messages. (Das ¶0063, 0133), Lindskog ¶0072)
Regarding claim 10, Das discloses the first device of claim 9: wherein the format and bandwidth subfield includes capability bits that specify support for 160 MHz operation and support for 320 MHz operation (Das, ¶0158, 0180, fig. 10b).
Regarding claim 11, Das discloses the first device of claim 1: wherein the first device is an Initiating STA (ISTA) and the second device is a Responding STA (RSTA); and wherein the range is an I2R/R2I (ISTA to RSTA/RSTA to ISTA) range ( ¶0137-0140).
Regarding claim 12, Das discloses the first device of claim 11: wherein the set of messages include a format and bandwidth subfield that includes capability bits that specify, a Max R2I STS (a maximum number of space-time streams (STS) to be used in R2I NDP in a session); and a Max I2R STS (a maximum number of space-time streams to be used in I2R NDP in a session) range ( ¶0137-0140, fig. 10b).
Regarding claim 13, Das discloses the first device of claim 12: wherein the format and bandwidth subfield includes capability bits that specify a Max I2R LTF Total, a Max R2I LTF Total, a Max I2R Repetition, and a Max R2I Repetition for BW<=160 MHz (see ¶[0117, 0132] Table 1, fig. 10b).
Regarding claim 14, Das discloses the first device of claim 11: wherein the set of messages include a subelement that includes a Max I2R Repetition=320 MHz subfield set to a maximum number of EHT-LTF repetitions that the ISTA uses in a preamble of 320 MHz I2R NDP (see Das, ¶0149-152, fig. 10b).
Regarding claim 15, Das discloses the first device of claim 14: wherein the Max I2R Repetition=320 MHz subfield is set to a number of EHT-LTF repetitions minus 1 (see Das, ¶149-152, Table 4, Field 0, 1 correspond to repetitions 1, 2).
Regarding claim 16, Das discloses the first device of claim 11: wherein the set of messages include a subelement that includes a Max R2I Repetition=320 MHz subfield set to a maximum number of EHT-LTF repetitions that the RSTA uses in the preamble of 320 MHz R2I NDP (see Das, 0186, 0147).
Regarding claim 17, Das discloses the first device of claim 16: wherein the Max R2I Repetition=320 MHz subfield is set to a number of EHT-LTF repetitions minus 1 (see Das, ¶149-152, Table 4, Field 0, 1 correspond to repetitions 1, 2).
Regarding claim 18, Das discloses the first device of claim 11: wherein the set of messages include a subelement that includes a Max R2I LTF Total=320 MHz that indicates a maximum number of EHT-LTFs to be destined to an ISTA in the 320 MHz R2I NDP (see Das, fig. 10b, Table 4).
Regarding claim 19, Das discloses the first device of claim 11: wherein the set of messages include a subelement that includes a Max I2R LTF Total=320 MHz subfields that indicates a maximum number of EHT-LTFs to be destined to an RSTA in an 320 MHz I2R NDP (see Das, fig. 10b, Table 4).
Regarding claim 20, Das discloses the first device of claim 11: wherein the first and second messages advertise or list an I2R/R2I repetition capability for BW=320 MHz and BW<=160 MHz separately (see Das, fig. 10b, Table 4).
Regarding claim 21, Das discloses the first device of claim 11: wherein first and second messages advertise or list an I2R/R2I LTF total capability for BW=320 MHz and BW<=160 MHz separately (see Das, ¶149-152, fig. 10A-10D).
Regarding claim 22, Das discloses the first device of claim 1: wherein the I2R/R2I repetition capability and the I2R/R2I LTF total capability are advertised or listed in a subelement of the messages (see Das, ¶149-152, fig. 10A-10D).
Regarding claim 23, Das discloses the first device of claim 1: wherein the first and second messages conform to wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) protocols for WiFi communications (see Das, ¶0030).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Lee et al (US 20180227714 A1; hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 6, the first device of claim 1, Das fails to disclose wherein the first device is a station (STA) and the second device is an access point (AP); wherein the STA calculates its range to the AP as, range=c*TOF; wherein c is a speed of light in a vacuum or air; wherein TOF (Time Of Flight)=[(t4−t1)−(t3−t2)]/2; wherein t1=TOD (Time Of Departure) of a first message (M1) transmitted from the STA to the AP; wherein t2=TOA (Time OF Arrival) of the first message (M1) received by the AP; wherein t3=TOD of a second message (M2) transmitted from the AP to the STA; and wherein t4=TOA of the second message (M2) received by the STA.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses wherein the first device is a station (STA) and the second device is an access point (AP); wherein the STA calculates its range to the AP as, range=c*TOF; wherein c is a speed of light in a vacuum or air; wherein TOF (Time Of Flight)=[(t4−t1)−(t3−t2)]/2; wherein t1=TOD (Time Of Departure) of a first message (M1) transmitted from the STA to the AP; wherein t2=TOA (Time OF Arrival) of the first message (M1) received by the AP; wherein t3=TOD of a second message (M2) transmitted from the AP to the STA; and wherein t4=TOA of the second message (M2) received by the STA (see Lee, [0078] For at least some implementations, device D1 may capture the time of departure (TOD) of the REQ frame, device D2 may capture the time of arrival (TOA) of the REQ frame, device D2 may capture the TOD of the ACK frame, and device D2 may capture the TOA of the ACK frame. Device D2 may inform device D1 of the time values for t2 and t3, for example, so that device D1 has timestamp values for t1, t2, t3, and t4. Thereafter, device D1 may calculate the round trip time (RTT) value of the exchanged FTM_REQ frame and ACK frames as RTT=(t4−t3)+(t2−t1). The distance (d) between the first device D1 and the second device D2 may be estimated as d=c*RTT/2, where c is the speed of light.).
Given that Das is directed towards sensing in a WLAN environment and given that Lee is directed towards motion sensing using a WLAN network, further each of Das and Lee discuss determining range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the range determination of Das by the range calculation of Lee, thereby creating a more accurate system.
Claims 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Lindskog et al (US 20190306825 A1; hereinafter “Lindskog”).
Regarding claims, 7 and 8, the first device of claim 1, Das discloses wherein the calculate the range is trigger-based (see Das, ¶[0018]); wherein the first device is part of a set of devices assigned to the second device (see Das, fig. 5);
Das discloses messaging between devices, however, Das fails to specifically disclose wherein the set of messages exchanged between the first device and the second device include: a Polling part, that performs a fast poll among the set of assigned devices to identify short term resource needs; a Position (FTM) Sounding part, that performs a two-way exchange of Null Data frames to acquire a channel impulse response; and a Reporting part, that exchanges encrypted TOF (Time Of Flight) estimations.
Lindskog discloses wherein the set of messages exchanged between the first device and the second device include: a Polling part, that performs a fast poll among the set of assigned devices to identify short term resource needs; a Position (FTM) Sounding part, that performs a two-way exchange of Null Data frames to acquire a channel impulse response; and a Reporting part, that exchanges encrypted TOF (Time Of Flight) estimations (see Lindskog, [0043, 0044] a frame exchange software module 232 to create and exchange ranging frames (such as polling frames and trigger frames), measurement frames (such as Fine Timing Measurement (FTM) frames, null data packet announcements (NDPAs), and null data packets (NDPs)), reporting frames (such as location measurement reports (LMRs)…… [0047] a timestamp software module 235 to capture or record timestamps of signals received by the AP 200 (such as Time of Arrival (TOA) information), to capture or record timestamps of signals transmitted from the AP 200 (such as Time of Departure (TOD) information)).
Given that Das is directed towards managing ranging parameters in a WLAN and given that Lindskog discloses determining communication parameters in a WLAN, and given that each of Das and Lindskog are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ranging trigger process of Das by adding wherein the set of messages exchanged between the first device and the second device include: a Polling part, that performs a fast poll among the set of assigned devices to identify short term resource needs; a Position (FTM) Sounding part, that performs a two-way exchange of Null Data frames to acquire a channel impulse response; and a Reporting part, that exchanges encrypted TOF (Time Of Flight) estimations, as disclosed by Lindskog, therefore creating a more reliable process.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
IEEE 802.11: Discloses all the limitations claimed, dated October 2023, authorship shares one common inventor with the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5144. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 PM M-F.
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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at (571) 272-8004. 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.
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights