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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE 102024105182.5, filed on 02/23/2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
FIG. 1A labels the horizontal axis with the non-English legend “Zeit.” The corresponding axis in FIGS. 1B-1D is labeled “Time.” Correction required: replace “Zeit” with “Time” in FIG. 1A.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The drawings, Figs. 2A and 2B, reference character “226”, which is not mentioned in the description. Correction required to identify element 226, without adding new matter.
[0051] recites “the dual use of the radio device 220 also as the second device 222, the distance measurements will occur a short distance after one another (for example, at an interval of a few nanometres or a few micrometers).” Reference character 222 designates the radar device ([0042]); “the second device” conflicts with the separately described “second radio device 104.” To avoid confusion or conflict in the elements, “the second device 222” should be changed to “the radar device 222” per [0042].
[0062] recites “The device 200 also comprises, in addition to the device 100, the second radio device 104.” Reference character 200 designates the system ([0034]; FIGS. 2A-2B). Correction required: “The system 200 also comprises ...”
[0052-0053] Reference character 104 designates the second radio device ([0037], [0042], [0047]), but [0052-0053] refer to “the distance to the object d2,” “the object 104,” and “the angle α2 between the device 100 and the object 104,” while [0042] uses “objects (e.g. the user 102)” for items detected by the radar. The same reference character is thus associated with two different terms, which is also the source of the “the object” language in claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 24. Correction required: refer to “the second radio device 104” and “the second distance d2” in [0052-0053].
[0061], [0075], [0090] Each paragraph defines the angle correlation as “a difference between the angle between the device and the object and the angle of incidence at time t1” being substantially equal to “the difference between the angle of incidence and the angle between the device and the object at time t2,” reversing the order of the two angles between t1 and t2. The distance counterpart ([0059]) uses the same order at both times. Correction required: recite the difference in the same order at both times (see the Claim Objection for Claims 8, 9, 23, and 24 below).
[0069]). “Exemplary aspect 4 is a device according to exemplary aspect 1 or 2” duplicates the number of the aspect in [0070], which in turn refers to “exemplary aspect 2 or 3.” Correction required: “Exemplary aspect 3 ...”
[0092]) “Exemplary aspect 26 is a device according to any of the exemplary aspects 16 to 24.” Exemplary aspects 16 to 24 are methods ([0082-0090]), and the parallel aspect 25 ([0091]) is “a method.” Correction required: “Exemplary aspect 26 is a method ...”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2, objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 24 are objected to because of the following informality. Each recites “the object” without antecedent basis: claim 2 (“the distance to the object“; “the angle between the device and the object“), claim 3 (same two phrases), claim 6 (“the angle between the device and the object“), claim 7 (same), claim 9 (same phrase, three times), and parallel method claims 17, 18, 21, 22, and 24 (identical phrases). Claims 1 and 16 recite only “objects” detected in the environment and do not introduce “an object.” Read as a whole, these limitations parallel the “second distance to the second radio device” and the “angle between the device and the second radio device” of claims 1 and 16, and [0052-0053] equate “the object 104” and “the distance to the object d2” with the second radio device 104 and the second distance d2. The scope is therefore reasonably ascertainable, and the informality is treated as an objection rather than a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (MPEP § 2173.05(e); Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Examiner’s interpretation: “the distance to the object” is the second distance, and “the angle between the device and the object” is the angle between the device and the second radio device. Correction required: replace “the distance to the object” with “the second distance” and “the object” with “the second radio device” in each listed claim.
Claims 2, 3, 17, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities. (1) “the distance determined using the radio device” does not identify which of the two recited radio devices is meant and does not use the “first distance” terminology of claims 1 and 16. (2) “the determination results in” does not identify which of the several determinations recited in claims 1 and 16 (the time-resolved determination of the first distance, the time-resolved determination of the second distance, or the determination of temporal correlation) is meant. Examiner’s interpretation: (1) is the determined first distance, determined using the first radio device ([0052]); (2) is the determination of whether the measurements are temporally correlated. Correction required: for example, in claim 2, “if the processor determines that the determined first distance is temporally correlated with the second distance and/or that the angle of incidence is temporally correlated with the angle between the device and the second radio device,” with corresponding changes in claims 3, 17, and 18.
Claims 8, 9, 23, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities. (1) In each claim, the second-recited “the difference” lacks antecedent basis; “a difference” is required. (2) Claims 9 and 24 recite “a difference between the angle between the device and the object and the angle of incidence at time t1 is substantially equal to the difference between the angle of incidence and the angle between the device and the object at time t2,” reversing the order of the two angles between t1 and t2, whereas claims 8 and 23 use the same order at both times. Examiner’s interpretation: consistent with claims 8 and 23 and with FIGS. 1C-1D (Diff1, Diff2), each “difference” is the magnitude of the difference between the two measured values, so that the angles are temporally correlated when the magnitude at t1 is substantially equal to the magnitude at t2. Correction required: recite the difference in the same order at t1 and t2 (for example, “a difference between the angle between the device and the second radio device and the angle of incidence at time t1 is substantially equal to a difference between the angle between the device and the second radio device and the angle of incidence at time t2“).
Claims 25 and 26 are objected to because each begins “The device as claimed in claim 16,” while claim 16 is a method claim, and claims 16-24, 27, and 28 are all method claims. The limitations of claims 25 and 26 define the radar device recited in method claim 16 and claims 25 and 26 parallel device claims 10 and 11. The preamble is an evident clerical error. Examiner’s interpretation: claims 25 and 26 are method claims depending from claim 16. Correction required: “The method as claimed in claim 16.” If Applicant instead intends claims 25 and 26 to be directed to a device, Applicant should so state, because a device claim does not further limit a method claim (35 U.S.C. 112(d); MPEP § 608.01(n)).
Claim 21 is objected to because “the time-resolved determining the second distance” lacks literal antecedent basis; claim 16 recites “time-resolved detecting objects using the radar device ... and determining a second distance.” Examiner’s interpretation: the determining of the second distance recited in claim 16, performed in a time-resolved manner. Correction required: conform the terminology of claims 16 and 21 (for example, “time-resolved determining a second distance” in claim 16).
Claims 16 and 22 are objected to because of the following grammatical informalities: claim 16, “a first distance and/or angle of incidence” should read “a first distance and/or an angle of incidence,” and “and/or of an angle between the device” should read “and/or an angle between the device”; claim 22, “and of the second distance” should read “and the second distance.”
Claims 12 and 27 are objected to because the abbreviation “UWB” is not defined in the claims. Correction required: “ultra-wideband (UWB)” at its first occurrence in each claim chain.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 10-19, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oman et al. (US 2014/0330449 A1) in view of Pandey et al. (US 2023/0045985 A1) and further in view of Ang et al. (WO 2016/059451 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 16, Oman et al. (‘449) in view of Pandey et al. (‘985) and Ang et al. (‘451) teaches:
Oman et al. (‘449) teaches: A device, comprising: ([0001]: “This disclosure generally relates to a passive entry passive start (PEPS) vehicle security system, and more particularly relates to using ultra wideband transceivers (UWBX) to determine a distance based on a round trip time of flight (TOF) measurement of a request pulse and a reply pulse.”; [0014]: “the system 10 is generally configured to thwart a relay attack on the system 10 by determining a distance 12 between a vehicle 14 and a nomadic device 16“; [0005]: “The first UWBX is installed on a vehicle and is configured to transmit a request pulse at a request time“).
Oman et al. (‘449) teaches: a first radio device which is designed to exchange radio signals with a second radio device which is spaced apart from the first radio device, for a time-resolved determination of a first distance and/or an angle of incidence between the first radio device and the second radio device; (Fir. 1, [0016]: “the controller 18 and the first UWBX 22 cooperate to transmit a request pulse 24 at a request time 26“; [0018]: “The system 10 also includes a mobile UWBX 30, preferably installed in the nomadic device 16 and configured to transmit a reply pulse 32 in response to the request pulse 24“; [0019]: “The controller 18 may be further configured to determine the distance 12 between the first UWBX 22 and the mobile UWBX 30 based on the first time interval 28 (FIG. 5) between the request time 26 and a first time 34 that corresponds to when the reply pulse 32 is received by the first UWBX 22“; [0032]: “which allows position range and tracking of electronic tags (fob/cellphone) as well as passive targets both inside and outside the vehicle“). First UWBX 22 is the first radio device, and mobile UWBX 30 in nomadic device 16 is the spaced-apart second radio device. The tracking of the electronic tag, including “the motion of the tag carried by the operator approaching the vehicle” ([0032]), requires the distance 12 to be determined at successive times, which is a time-resolved determination of the first distance. The distance alternative is relied upon. The angle of incidence alternative need not be addressed.
Oman et al. (‘449) teaches: a radar device which is designed to detect objects in an environment of the device ([0029]: “the arrangement of the three UWBXs may be configured to function for ranging and communications to an active tag (electronic key) and for short range (less than 10 m) detection of passive targets such as pedestrians or inanimate objects around the vehicle to allow for the implementation of the functions described below by a single set of hardware“; [0031]: “For the passive target mode, the vehicle’s UWBX(s) can be used in a radar mode“).
Oman et al. (‘449) teaches that its radar-mode UWBXs detect passive targets, such as pedestrians, around the vehicle ([0029], [0031]). Oman et al. (‘449) does not teach a time-resolved determination, by the radar device, of a second distance to the second radio device. Oman et al. (‘449) determines the distance to the nomadic device by time of flight over the ranging link ([0019]) and does not teach that the target ranged by its radar mode is the nomadic device or the operator carrying it.
Oman et al. (‘449) does not explicitly teach, but Pandey et al. (‘985) teaches: and for a time-resolved determination of a second distance to the second radio device and/or an angle between the device and the second radio device; and ([0013]: “transmitting, by the electronic device, a UWB radar pulse in the vicinity of the UWB tag and receiving, by the electronic device, a reflected UWB radar pulse from the first object and the second object“; [0013]: “computing, by the electronic device, a distance value measured from the electronic device, and a direction value measured from the electronic device using a time of flight value between the transmitted UWB radar pulse and the reflected UWB radar pulse“; [0075]: “identifies both the first object with the UWB tag (1000) and the multiple second objects“; [0051]: “The UWB tag (1000) is a tag which is capable of receiving and transmitting UWB signal and can be attached to the object“; [0101]: “monitoring the first object and the second object in the vicinity of the UWB tag (1000) over the period of time“). The first object of Pandey et al. (‘985) is the object carrying the UWB tag. Ranging that object by UWB radar and monitoring it over a period of time is a time-resolved determination of a second distance to the second radio device. The distance alternative is relied upon. The angle alternative need not be addressed.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the radar-mode UWBXs of Oman et al. (‘449), which already detect passive targets such as pedestrians around the vehicle, to determine over time the distance to the target carrying the UWB-equipped nomadic device, as taught by Pandey et al. (‘985). One would have been motivated to do so because Pandey et al. (‘985) teaches that UWB radar ranging of the object to which a UWB tag is attached yields a radar-derived distance that can be related to the tag’s own UWB distance ([0015], [0082]), and Oman et al. (‘449) seeks to follow “the motion of the tag carried by the operator approaching the vehicle” ([0032]); ranging by radar the operator who carries the nomadic device gives the system of Oman et al. (‘449) a second, radar-derived distance for that same approaching operator. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Oman et al. (‘449) states that a single set of UWBX hardware performs both active-tag ranging and short-range passive-target radar detection ([0029]), and Pandey et al. (‘985) likewise performs UWB tag positioning and UWB radar ranging within a single device that is “an ultra-wide band (UWB) signal generating capable device with a UWB radar sensor” ([0051]).
Oman et al. (‘449) teaches: a processor ([0015]: “The controller 18 may include a processor 20 such as a microprocessor or other control circuitry“).
Oman et al. (‘449) teaches that controller 18 determines the time-of-flight distance 12 and unlocks the doors when that distance is less than an unlock threshold ([0019]). Oman et al. (‘449) does not teach a processor designed to determine whether the time-of-flight distance is temporally correlated with a second, radar-derived distance. Oman et al. (‘449) evaluates distance 12 against unlock and lock thresholds ([0019], [0027]) and does not describe comparing it with any other distance determination.
Oman et al. (‘449) does not explicitly teach, but Ang et al. (‘451) teaches: which is designed to determine whether the determined first distance is temporally correlated with the second distance and/or whether the angle of incidence is temporally correlated with the angle between the device and the second radio device. (p. 4, lines 11-15: “The computation unit is operative to compare the first key fob distance measure with the second key fob distance measure and to determine a distance mismatch between the first key fob distance measure and the second key fob distance measure“; p. 4, lines 23-27: “In particular, a distance mismatch may be detected when a difference between the first and second key fob distance measure is greater than a predetermined threshold“; p. 16, lines 1-6: “Furthermore, an evaluation unit performs a two-way time of flight measurement and derives a second distance between the car 13 and the key fob 14 using the UWB response signal of the key fob 14“; p. 24, lines 13-16: “needs to be repeated after a pre-determined time“; p. 24, lines 5-11: “based on pre-defined thresholds for RSSI (LF) vs. UWB flight time matching, a relay attack can be detected“). Ang et al. (‘451) compares a UWB time-of-flight distance with an independently derived distance of the same key fob, at a first check and again at a second check repeated after a pre-determined time (p. 23-27). Determining whether two time-resolved distance determinations match across successive checks is determining whether they are temporally correlated under the BRI set forth above. Ang et al. (‘451) derives its second distance measure from the received signal strength of a low-frequency signal rather than from radar; the radar-derived distance is supplied by Oman et al. (‘449) as modified by Pandey et al. (‘985). The distance correlation alternative is relied upon. The angle correlation alternative need not be addressed.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the controller 18 of Oman et al. (‘449), as modified by Pandey et al. (‘985), to compare the UWB time-of-flight distance 12 with the radar-derived distance to the operator carrying the nomadic device at each of successive checks, and to determine whether the two distances match, as taught by Ang et al. (‘451). One would have been motivated to do so because Oman et al. (‘449) is expressly directed to thwarting relay attacks ([0014]), and Ang et al. (‘451) teaches that, during a relay attack, the UWB flight time “will in general be higher than expected” (p. 24) and will not match a distance measure obtained through an independent physical channel, so that a threshold comparison of the two distance measures detects the attack (p. 6, 25-26). The radar-mode range in the modified system is such an independent measurement, because it is obtained by the vehicle’s own UWBXs from reflections off the operator carrying the nomadic device (Oman et al. (‘449), [0029], [0031]; Pandey et al. (‘985), [0013]) rather than from the reply of the nomadic device over the ranging link that a relay would extend. There is a reasonable expectation of success because controller 18 of Oman et al. (‘449) already computes distance 12 numerically from request and reply times ([0019]), the UWB radar processing of Pandey et al. (‘985) outputs a distance value for the tag-carrying object ([0013]), and the comparison of Ang et al. (‘451) is a difference evaluated against a predetermined threshold (p. 6) that executes on the same type of vehicle computation unit.
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations are substantially identical to those of Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 2 and 17, Oman et al. (‘449) in view of Pandey et al. (‘985) and Ang et al. (‘451) teaches the device according to Claim 1.
Oman et al. (‘449) teaches performing a predetermined action, namely unlocking, when a distance condition is met ([0019]: “unlock doors of the vehicle 14 only if the distance 12 is less than an unlock threshold“). Oman et al. (‘449) does not teach performing the action if the determination results in the time-of-flight distance being temporally correlated with the radar-derived distance, because Oman et al. (‘449) does not make that determination.
Oman et al. (‘449) does not explicitly teach, but Ang et al. (‘451) teaches: designed to perform, enable, or cause a predetermined action if the determination results in the distance determined using the radio device being temporally correlated with the distance to the object and/or the angle of incidence being temporally correlated with the angle between the device and the object. (p. 4, lines 11-21: “By way of example, the unlock condition is fulfilled when the UWB measurement signal is received and there is no distance mismatch between the first and second key fob distance measure“; p. 7, lines 29-33: “the evaluation unit sends the unlock signal if the computation unit of the evaluation unit determines that there is no mismatch between the first key fob distance measure and the second key fob distance measure“). The “perform” alternative (unlocking) is relied upon, and the “enable” and “cause” alternatives need not be addressed. The distance alternative is relied upon, and the angle alternative need not be addressed.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to condition the unlocking of Oman et al. (‘449), as modified, on the determination that the time-of-flight distance and the radar-derived distance match, as taught by Ang et al. (‘451). One would have been motivated to do so because Ang et al. (‘451) teaches that permitting the unlock only when there is no distance mismatch is what converts the mismatch determination into protection against a relay attack (p. 6, 9), and protection against relay attack is the stated objective of Oman et al. (‘449) ([0014]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because Oman et al. (‘449) already gates unlocking on a computed distance condition ([0019]) and adding the match condition of Ang et al. (‘451) is an additional logical condition evaluated by the same controller 18.
Regarding Claim 17, the limitations are substantially identical to those of Claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claims 3 and 18, Oman et al. (‘449) in view of Pandey et al. (‘985) and Ang et al. (‘451) teaches the device according to Claim 1.
Oman et al. (‘449) teaches preventing a predetermined action when a distance condition is not met ([0027]: “the controller 18 may be further configured to prevent unlocking of a door lock 54 of the vehicle 14 if the distance is greater than a lock threshold“). Oman et al. (‘449) does not teach preventing the action if the determination results in the time-of-flight distance being different from the radar-derived distance, because Oman et al. (‘449) does not compare those distances.
Oman et al. (‘449) does not explicitly teach, but Ang et al. (‘451) teaches: designed to prevent a predetermined action if the determination results in the distance determined using the radio device being different to the distance to the object and/or the angle of incidence being different to the angle between the device and the object. (p. 16, lines 19-23: “only releases the doors if it receives a response from the UWB measurement and if there is no distance mismatch“). Because the doors are released only if there is no distance mismatch, a determined mismatch (different distances) prevents the door release. The distance alternative is relied upon, and the angle alternative need not be addressed.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure controller 18 of Oman et al. (‘449), as modified, to withhold unlocking when the time-of-flight distance and the radar-derived distance differ, as taught by Ang et al. (‘451). One would have been motivated to do so because Ang et al. (‘451) identifies a distance mismatch as the indicator of a relay attack (p. 23-27), and blocking the action on a mismatch directly serves the anti-relay objective of Oman et al. (‘449) ([0014]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because the prevention is the logical complement of the lock and unlock conditions already implemented by controller 18 of Oman et al. (‘449) ([0019], [0027]).
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations are substantially identical to those of Claim 3 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claims 4 and 19, Oman et al. (‘449) in view of Pandey et al. (‘985) and Ang et al. (‘451) teaches the device according to Claim 2.
Oman et al. (‘449) teaches: wherein the predetermined action comprises granting entry or access. ([0019]: “unlock doors of the vehicle 14 only if the distance 12 is less than an unlock threshold“). Unlocking the vehicle doors grants entry. The “entry” alternative is relied upon. The “access” alternative need not be addressed.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations are substantially identical to those of Claim 4 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claims 11 and 26, Oman et al. (‘449) in view of Pandey et al. (‘985) and Ang et al. (‘451) teaches the device according to Claim 1.
Oman et al. (‘449) teaches operating its UWBXs in a radar mode to detect objects ([0031]: “For the passive target mode, the vehicle’s UWBX(s) can be used in a radar mode“). Oman et al. (‘449) does not teach that the radar device detects objects using microwaves and does not state an operating frequency for its UWBXs.
Oman et al. (‘449) does not explicitly teach, but Ang et al. (‘451) teaches: wherein the radar device is designed to detect objects using microwaves. (p. 2: “an unlicensed use of UWB in the frequency range is authorized from 3.1 to 10.6 GHz“).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the radar-mode UWBXs of Oman et al. (‘449) within the 3.1 to 10.6 GHz UWB band taught by Ang et al. (‘451). One would have been motivated to do so because Ang et al. (‘451) identifies that band as the one in which unlicensed UWB operation is authorized (p. 3-4), and a vehicle-mounted UWBX intended for unlicensed passive-entry use must operate within authorized spectrum. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Ang et al. (‘451) describes UWB ranging at a center frequency in that band with resolution suitable for short-range use (p. 13, lines 31-33: “an UWB ranging application can have an approximate resolution in the cm range“), which is sufficient for the short-range (less than 10 m) passive-target detection of Oman et al. (‘449) ([0029]).
Regarding Claim 26, the limitations are substantially identical to those of Claim 11 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of Claim 11.
Regarding Claims 12 and 27, Oman et al. (‘449) in view of Pandey et al. (‘985) and Ang et al. (‘451) teaches the device according to Claim 1.
Oman et al. (‘449) teaches: wherein the radio signals are UWB signals or comprise UWB signals. ([0003]: “Described herein is a passive entry and passive start (PEPS) system that employs an Ultra Wideband (UWB) communication protocol“). The first alternative is relied upon. The remaining alternative need not be addressed.
Regarding Claim 27, the limitations are substantially identical to those of Claim 12 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of Claim 12.
Regarding Claims 13 and 28, Oman et al. (‘449) in view of Pandey et al. (‘985) and Ang et al. (‘451) teaches the device according to Claim 1.
Oman et al. (‘449) teaches: designed as a vehicle, access door, or computer device. ([0014]: “the system 10 is generally configured to thwart a relay attack on the system 10 by determining a distance 12 between a vehicle 14 and a nomadic device 16“; [0005]: “The first UWBX is installed on a vehicle and is configured to transmit a request pulse at a request time“). The vehicle alternative is relied upon. The access door and computer device alternatives need not be addressed.
Regarding Claim 28, the limitations are substantially identical to those of Claim 13 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14, Oman et al. (‘449) in view of Pandey et al. (‘985) and Ang et al. (‘451) teaches:
The following limitation is taught for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1, which are incorporated here, including each statement of what Oman et al. (‘449) does not teach and the motivation and reasonable-expectation-of-success statements for each combination: A system, comprising: a device as claimed in claim 1; and
Oman et al. (‘449) teaches: the second radio device. ([0018]: “The system 10 also includes a mobile UWBX 30, preferably installed in the nomadic device 16 and configured to transmit a reply pulse 32 in response to the request pulse 24“).
Regarding Claim 15, Oman et al. (‘449) in view of Pandey et al. (‘985) and Ang et al. (‘451) teaches the system according to Claim 14.
Oman et al. (‘449) teaches: wherein the second radio device is designed as an electronic key or as a smartphone. ([0014]: “the nomadic device may be a key fob, a smart phone“). The electronic key alternative is relied upon. The smartphone alternative need not be addressed.
Claims 5-9 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oman et al. (US 2014/0330449 A1) in view of Pandey et al. (US 2023/0045985 A1) and Ang et al. (WO 2016/059451 A1), and further in view of Mindell et al. (US 2020/0341137 A1).
Regarding Claims 5 and 20, Oman et al. (‘449) in view of Pandey et al. (‘985), Ang et al. (‘451), and Mindell et al. (‘137) teaches the device according to Claim 1.
Oman et al. (‘449) teaches: wherein the time-resolved determination of the first distance and/or the angle of incidence comprises a determination at a first time t1 and at a second time t2, ([0032]: “which allows position range and tracking of electronic tags (fob/cellphone) as well as passive targets both inside and outside the vehicle“; [0032]: “if the motion of the tag carried by the operator approaching the vehicle indicates rapid movement“). Identifying the motion of the tag requires determinations of distance 12 at a first time and a later second time. The distance alternative is relied upon. The angle alternative need not be addressed.
Oman et al. (‘449) teaches tracking the tag through repeated distance determinations ([0032]). Oman et al. (‘449) does not teach that the first time and the second time are temporally separated by at least 1 second and does not state any interval between its determinations.
Oman et al. (‘449) does not explicitly teach, but Mindell et al. (‘137) teaches: wherein the first time and the second time are temporally separated by at least 1 second. ([0058]: “capable of measuring distance by TOF on the order of about a millimeter or sub-millimeter scale in precision, at 1 Hz or less in frequency over a total range of hundreds of meters“). A time-of-flight measurement frequency f of 1 Hz or less corresponds to successive distance determinations separated by a period T = 1/f of at least 1 second, which falls within the claimed range. MPEP § 2131.03.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the successive time-of-flight determinations of the modified Oman et al. (‘449) system at a rate of 1 Hz or less, so that the first and second determinations are separated by at least 1 second, as taught by Mindell et al. (‘137). One would have been motivated to do so because Mindell et al. (‘137) teaches that time-of-flight ranging at that rate achieves millimeter-scale precision and that such systems “can be implemented with very low-cost components” ([0058]), and both precision and component cost are concerns for the vehicle-mounted UWBX system of Oman et al. (‘449); Ang et al. (‘451) further teaches that its second check relies on the owner moving between checks (p. 23-27), which a separation of at least 1 second accommodates. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Mindell et al. (‘137) applies its timing to time-of-flight ranging of a transmitter “mounted on an object to be tracked in distance and position” ([0057]), which is the same type of measurement that controller 18 of Oman et al. (‘449) performs on the nomadic device ([0019]).
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations are substantially identical to those of Claim 5 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of Claim 5.
Regarding Claims 6 and 21, the Claims 6 and 21 depend from Claims 5 and 20, respectively, and each recite the same additional limitation. They are grouped, and the analysis for Claim 6 is presented below.
Regarding Claim 6, Oman et al. (‘449) in view of Pandey et al. (‘985), Ang et al. (‘451), and Mindell et al. (‘137) teaches the device according to Claim 5.
Oman et al. (‘449) teaches tracking passive targets with its radar-mode UWBXs ([0032]: “which allows position range and tracking of electronic tags (fob/cellphone) as well as passive targets both inside and outside the vehicle“). Oman et al. (‘449) does not teach determining the radar-derived second distance at the same first time t1 and second time t2 at which the time-of-flight distance is determined, and does not describe coordinating the timing of its radar determinations with its ranging determinations.
Oman et al. (‘449) does not explicitly teach, but Ang et al. (‘451) teaches: wherein the time-resolved determination of the second distance and/or the angle between the device and the object comprises a determination at the first time t1 and at the second time t2. (p. 24, lines 13-16: “needs to be repeated after a pre-determined time“; p. 23, under “2.1 no relay attack”: “will in general differ from the first check because the car owner is moving around and the distance and orientation of the key fob antenna changes“; p. 23, lines 13-14: “based on pre-defined thresholds for RSSI (LF) vs. UWB flight time matching, a relay attack can be detected“). Ang et al. (‘451) obtains its second distance measure at each of the first check and the repeated second check, which are the same checks at which the UWB flight time is obtained. The distance alternative is relied upon, and the angle alternative need not be addressed.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the radar-derived distance of the modified Oman et al. (‘449) system at the same first and second times as the time-of-flight distance, as taught by Ang et al. (‘451). One would have been motivated to do so because the comparison of Ang et al. (‘451) is meaningful only when both distance measures describe the key carrier at the same check (p. 23-27), and an approaching operator’s distance changes between checks (Oman et al. (‘449), [0032]), so a radar value taken at a different time would not represent the same position. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Oman et al. (‘449) operates the ranging function and the radar function on the same set of UWBX hardware under the same controller ([0029]), so scheduling the two functions at common check times is a matter of controller timing.
Regarding Claim 21, the limitations are substantially identical to those of Claim 6 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of Claim 6.
Regarding Claims 7 and 22, Oman et al. (‘449) in view of Pandey et al. (‘985), Ang et al. (‘451), and Mindell et al. (‘137) teaches the device according to Claim 5.
Oman et al. (‘449) teaches: designed to perform the time-resolved determination of the first distance and/or the angle of incidence and of the second distance and/or the angle between the device and the object at at least one additional time tN. ([0032]: “which allows position range and tracking of electronic tags (fob/cellphone) as well as passive targets both inside and outside the vehicle“). Tracking both the electronic tag and the passive targets is an ongoing series of position-range determinations. That series continues beyond any two selected times, so the determinations of both distances are performed more than at least one additional time. The distance alternatives are relied upon. The angle alternatives need not be addressed.
Regarding Claim 22, the limitations are substantially identical to those of Claim 7 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
Regarding Claims 8 and 23, Oman et al. (‘449) in view of Pandey et al. (‘985), Ang et al. (‘451), and Mindell et al. (‘137) teaches the device according to Claim 6.
Oman et al. (‘449) teaches determining the time-of-flight distance 12 ([0019]) and tracking the tag over successive times ([0032]). Oman et al. (‘449) does not teach determining a difference between a radar-derived distance and the time-of-flight distance, and does not teach determining correlation by whether that difference at time t1 is substantially equal to that difference at time t2.
Oman et al. (‘449) does not explicitly teach, but Pandey et al. (‘985) teaches: wherein the first distance determined is temporally correlated with the second distance if a difference between the second distance and the first distance at time t1 is substantially equal to the difference between the second distance and the first distance at time t2. ([0015]: “determining, by the electronic device, a first difference between the distance value of the UWB tag and the distance value of each of the object and the second object, wherein the first difference indicates a relative distance value“; [0082]: “The tag-object correlation controller (144) analyzes data sets at different time instances dynamically based on the movement of the TAG devices/the electronic device (100)“; [0082]: “duration for which (Tag, object) pair remains within range and eligible for association“). Pandey et al. (‘985) determines the difference between the UWB tag distance and the radar-derived distance of the object, and evaluates that relationship at different time instances as the tag moves. Pandey et al. (‘985) evaluates the difference against a distance threshold ([0085]: “the distance threshold is 12 centimeters, the direction threshold is 30 degrees“) and does not describe comparing the difference at one time instance with the difference at another. Ang et al. (‘451) supplies the first and second checks at which both distances are determined (p. 23-27), as set forth for Claim 6.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure controller 18 of the combined system to determine the difference between the radar-derived distance and the time-of-flight distance at each of the first and second checks of Ang et al. (‘451), and to treat the two distances as corresponding where that difference is substantially the same at both checks. One would have been motivated to do so because, in the combined system, the radar ranges the operator who carries the nomadic device while the time-of-flight measurement ranges the device itself; Pandey et al. (‘985) shows a tag and the object with which it is associated exhibiting a non-zero relative distance (Table 5, (TAG1, Key): 3 cm; Table 6) and teaches that the tag-object relationship is established by whether the pair “remains within range” as the tag moves across different time instances ([0082]); and Ang et al. (‘451) teaches that the legitimate owner moves between the first and second checks (p. 23-27). A difference that persists across that change in position therefore indicates that the device is moving with the radar-detected carrier, which is the correspondence Pandey et al. (‘985) evaluates, without requiring the two distances to coincide at a single instant. There is a reasonable expectation of success because both distances are already computed by the controller of the combined system at each check, Pandey et al. (‘985) demonstrates computing the tag-to-object distance difference from UWB tag and UWB radar values within a single device ([0013], [0015]), and the added step is the subtraction and comparison of two stored values.
Regarding Claim 23, the limitations are substantially identical to those of Claim 8 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of Claim 8.
Regarding Claims 9 and 24, Oman et al. (‘449) in view of Pandey et al. (‘985), Ang et al. (‘451), and Mindell et al. (‘137) teaches the device according to Claim 6.
wherein the angle of incidence is temporally correlated with the angle between the device and the object if a difference between the angle between the device and the object and the angle of incidence at time t1 is substantially equal to the difference between the angle of incidence and the angle between the device and the object at time t2.
Regarding the angle of incidence alternative, with respect to Claims 1 and 5, Oman et al. (‘449) teaches: an angle of incidence between the first radio device and the second radio device ([0024]: “by determining a location where the circles intersect, the direction 44 can be determined in addition to the distance 12“). Direction 44 is determined together with distance 12 at each of the successive determinations relied upon for Claim 5, for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 5, which are incorporated here.
Additionally, regarding the radar angle alternative, with respect to Claims 1 and 6, Oman et al. (‘449) teaches radar-mode detection of passive targets ([0029], [0031]). Oman et al. (‘449) does not teach a radar-determined angle between the device and the second radio device and does not teach determining that angle at the first time t1 and the second time t2. Oman et al. (‘449) does not explicitly teach, but Pandey et al. (‘985) teaches: an angle between the device and the second radio device ([0013]: “a direction value measured from the electronic device“; [0101]: “monitoring the first object and the second object in the vicinity of the UWB tag (1000) over the period of time“). Determination of that angle at the first time t1 and the second time t2 is taught by Ang et al. (‘451) for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 6, which are incorporated here, because the radar direction value of Pandey et al. (‘985) is computed from the same radar return as its radar distance value ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the radar-mode UWBXs of Oman et al. (‘449) to compute, from each radar return, a direction value for the target carrying the nomadic device in addition to its distance, as taught by Pandey et al. (‘985). One would have been motivated to do so because Oman et al. (‘449) already locates the nomadic device by direction 44 as well as distance 12 ([0024]), and Pandey et al. (‘985) teaches that the direction value is obtained from the same UWB radar return as the distance value ([0013]), so the radar direction gives the system a second, independently derived bearing for the approaching operator. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Pandey et al. (‘985) computes the radar direction value with UWB hardware of the same type that Oman et al. (‘449) already operates in radar mode ([0013]; Oman et al. (‘449), [0031]).
Further regarding Claim 9, Oman et al. (‘449) teaches determining direction 44 ([0024]). Oman et al. (‘449) does not teach determining a difference between a radar-derived angle and the angle of incidence and does not teach determining angular correlation by whether that difference at time t1 is substantially equal to that difference at time t2.
Oman et al. (‘449) does not explicitly teach, but Pandey et al. (‘985) teaches: wherein the angle of incidence is temporally correlated with the angle between the device and the object if a difference between the angle between the device and the object and the angle of incidence at time t1 is substantially equal to the difference between the angle of incidence and the angle between the device and the object at time t2. ([0015]: “a second difference between the direction value of the UWB tag and the direction value of each of the first object and the second object, wherein the second difference indicates a relative direction value“; [0082]: “The tag-object correlation controller (144) analyzes data sets at different time instances dynamically based on the movement of the TAG devices/the electronic device (100)“). Pandey et al. (‘985) evaluates the relative direction against a direction threshold ([0085]) and does not describe comparing the relative direction at one time instance with that at another.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the same comparison to the direction values of the combined system, determining the angular difference at each of the first and second checks of Ang et al. (‘451) and treating the angles as corresponding where that difference is substantially the same at both checks. One would have been motivated to do so because Pandey et al. (‘985) treats relative direction as a parallel indicator of the tag-object relationship alongside relative distance ([0083]: “Similar for relative direction“; [0086]), and an approaching operator’s bearing changes between the checks of Ang et al. (‘451) just as the operator’s distance does (p. 23), so a persistent angular difference indicates that the device moves with the radar-detected carrier. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Oman et al. (‘449) already computes direction 44 ([0024-0026]), and Pandey et al. (‘985) computes the radar direction value and the direction difference within a single UWB device ([0013], [0015]).
Regarding Claim 24, the limitations are substantially identical to those of Claim 9 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of Claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bilik et al. (US 2017/0369034 A1) discloses a vehicle MIMO radar that locates a target possessing a short-range communication unit and unlocks the door closest to that target. It relates to radar ranging of a key-carrying person for vehicle access.
Hassan et al. (US 2010/0305779 A1) discloses a remote vehicle control system that estimates key fob range by a time-of-flight modality and an independent RF signal-strength modality, each filtered over a series of raw estimates. It relates to the use of two independent range modalities over time, but it fuses the estimates rather than testing their consistency.
Perraud (US 2023/0292132 A1) discloses assessing the plausibility of a UWB ranging measurement by comparing it with correlated physical-layer metrics, such as received power, channel impulse response, and angle of arrival, to detect relay attacks. It relates to consistency-checking a UWB distance against other measurements, but uses no radar measurement.
Pirch et al. (US 2023/0186704 A1) discloses a UWB access-control reader that performs two-way ranging with a credential device and switches to UWB radar operation to detect tailgating. It relates to a single UWB device used for both ranging and radar at an access door.
Schat (US 2020/0027294 A1) discloses using a vehicle’s 77 GHz collision-avoidance radar for distance bounding and challenge/response authentication of a key fob to counter relay attacks. It relates to the use of vehicle microwave radar in keyless entry security.
Tertinek (US 2022/0301371 A1) discloses vehicle UWB nodes operable in a radar mode to detect an approaching object and in a ranging mode to measure the key fob distance by time of flight. It relates to dual-mode UWB radar and ranging in a vehicle entry system, but does not compare the two measurements.
Tertinek (US 2023/0013034 A1) discloses vehicle UWB anchors that track a key fob in a ranging mode or, at intermediate distances, in a radar mode so that the key fob may power down. It relates to ranging and radar tracking of the same key fob by the same UWB anchors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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 at (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.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights