Method and apparatus to select radio frequency identification devices in accordance with an arbitration scheme

- Round Rock Research, LLC

A method of establishing wireless communications between an interrogator and individual ones of multiple wireless identification devices, the method comprising utilizing a tree search method to establish communications without collision between the interrogator and individual ones of the multiple wireless identification devices, a search tree being defined for the tree search method, the tree having multiple levels respectively representing subgroups of the multiple wireless identification devices, the method further comprising starting the tree search at a selectable level of the search tree. A communications system comprising an interrogator, and a plurality of wireless identification devices configured to communicate with the interrogator in a wireless fashion, the respective wireless identification devices having a unique identification number, the ingerrogator being configured to employ a tree search technique to determine the unique identification numbers of the different wireless identification devices so as to be able to establish communications between the interrogator and individual ones of the multiple wireless identification devices without collision by multiple wireless identification devices attempting to respond to the interrogator at the same time, wherein the interrogator is configured to start the tree search at a selectable level of the search tree. RFID devices are selected by an interrogator. The interrogator sends a signal to a plurality of RFID devices. The signal indicates a bit string and a memory range comprising multiple bit locations. RFID devices compare the bits stored in their respective memory ranges to the bit string to determine which of the RFID devices are selected.

Skip to: Description  ·  Claims  ·  References Cited  · Patent History  ·  Patent History
Description
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION APPLICATIONS

This More than one reissue application has been filed for the reissue of U.S. Pat. No. 6,307,847, including the present reissue application Ser. No. 10/693,696, filed Oct. 23, 2003, a continuation reissue application Ser. No. 11/859,360, filed Sep. 21, 2007, a continuation reissue application Ser. No. 11/859,364, filed Sep. 21, 2007, and a continuation reissue application Ser. No. 12/493,542, filed Jun. 29, 2009. The present application is a reissue application of U.S. Pat. No. 6,307,847, issued from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/617,390, filed Jul. 17, 2000, and titled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System,” which is a Continuation continuation application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/026,043, filed Feb. 19, 1998, and titled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System,” now U.S. Pat. No. 6,118,789, each of which is incorporated by reference.

TECHNICAL FIELD

This invention relates to communications protocols and to digital data communications. Still more particularly, the invention relates to data communications protocols in mediums such as radio communication or the like. The invention also relates to radio frequency identification devices for inventory control, object monitoring, determining the existence, location or movement of objects, or for remote automated payment.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Communications protocols are used in various applications. For example, communications protocols can be used in electronic identification systems. As large numbers of objects are moved in inventory, product manufacturing, and merchandising operations, there is a continuous challenge to accurately monitor the location and flow of objects. Additionally, there is a continuing goal to interrogate the location of objects in an inexpensive and streamlined manner. One way of tracking objects is with an electronic identification system.

One presently available electronic identification system utilizes a magnetic coupling system. In some cases, an identification device may be provided with a unique identification code in order to distinguish between a number of different devices. Typically, the devices are entirely passive (have no power supply), which results in a small and portable package. However, such identification systems are only capable of operation over a relatively short range, limited by the size of a magnetic field used to supply power to the devices and to communicate with the devices.

Another wireless electronic identification system utilizes a large active transponder device affixed to an object to be monitored which receives a signal from an interrogator. The device receives the signal, then generates and transmits a responsive signal. The interrogation signal and the responsive signal are typically radio-frequency (RF) signals produced by an RF transmitter circuit. Because active devices have their own power sources, and do not need to be in close proximity to an interrogator or reader to receive power via magnetic coupling. Therefore, active transponder devices tend to be more suitable for applications requiring tracking of a tagged device that may not be in close proximity to an interrogator. For example, active transponder devices tend to be more suitable for inventory control or tracking.

Electronic identification systems can also be used for remote payment. For example, when a radio frequency identification device passes an interrogator at a toll booth, the toll booth can determine an identity of the radio frequency identification device, and thus of the owner of the device, and debit an account held by the owner for payment of toll or can receive a credit card number against which the toll can be charged. Similarly, remote payment is possible for a variety of other goods or services.

A communication system typically includes two transponders: a commander station or interrogator, and a responder station or transponder device which replies to the interrogator.

If the interrogator has prior knowledge of the identification number of a device which the interrogator is looking for, it can specify that a response is requested only from the device with that identification number. Sometimes, such information is not available. For example, there are occasions where the interrogator is attempting to determine which of multiple devices are within communication range.

When the interrogator sends a message to a transponder device requesting a reply, there is a possibility that multiple transponder devices will attempt to respond simultaneously, causing a collision, and thus causing an erroneous message to be received by the interrogator. For example, if the interrogator sends out a command requesting that all devices within a communication range identify themselves, and gets a large number of simultaneous replies, the interrogator may not be able to interpret any of these replies. Thus, arbitration schemes are employed to permit communications free of collisions.

In one arbitration scheme or system, described in commonly assigned U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,627,544; 5,583,850; 5,500,650; and 5,365,551, all to Snodgrass et al. and all incorporated herein by reference, the interrogator sends a command causing each device of a potentially large number of responding devices to select a random number from a known range and use it as that device's arbitration number. By transmitting requests for identification to various subsets of the full range of arbitration numbers, and checking for an error-free response, the interrogator determines the arbitration number of every responder station capable of communicating at the same time. Therefore, the interrogator is able to conduct subsequent uninterrupted communication with devices, one at a time, by addressing only one device.

Another arbitration scheme is referred to as the Aloha or slotted Aloha scheme. This scheme is discussed in various references relating to communications, such as Digital Communications: Fundamentals and Applications, Bernard Sklar, published January 1988 by Prentice Hall. In this type of scheme, a device will respond to an interrogator using one of many time domain slots selected randomly by the device. A problem with the Aloha scheme is that if there are many devices, or potentially many devices in the field (i.e. in communications range, capable of responding) then there must be many available slots or many collisions will occur. Having many available slots slows down replies. If the magnitude of the number of devices in a field is unknown, then many slots are needed. This results in the system slowing down significantly because the reply time equals the number of slots multiplied by the time period required for one reply.

An electronic identification system which can be used as a radio frequency identification device, arbitration schemes, and various applications for such devices are described in detail in commonly assigned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/705,043, filed Aug. 29, 1996, and now U.S. Pat. No. 6,130,602, which is incorporated herein by reference.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The invention provides a wireless identification device configured to provide a signal to identify the device in response to an interrogation signal.

One aspect of the invention provides a method of establishing wireless communications between an interrogator and individual ones of multiple wireless identification devices. The method comprises utilizing a tree search method to establish communications without collision between the interrogator and individual ones of the multiple wireless identification devices. A search tree is defined for the tree search method. The tree has multiple levels respectively representing subgroups of the multiple wireless identification devices. The method further comprising starting the tree search at a selectable level of the search tree. In one aspect of the invention, the method further comprises determining the maximum possible number of wireless identification devices that could communicate with the interrogator, and selecting a level of the search tree based on the determined maximum possible number of wireless identification devices that could communicate with the interrogator. In another aspect of the invention, the method further comprises starting the tree search at a level determined by taking the base two logarithm of the determined maximum possible number, wherein the level of the tree containing all subgroups is considered level zero, and lower levels are numbered consecutively.

Another aspect of the invention provides a communications system comprising an interrogator, and a plurality of wireless identification devices configured to communicate with the interrogator in a wireless fashion. The respective wireless identification devices have a unique identification number. The interrogator is configured to employ a tree search technique to determine the unique identification numbers of the different wireless identification devices so as to be able to establish communications between the interrogator and individual ones of the multiple wireless identification devices without collision by multiple wireless identification devices attempting to respond to the interrogator at the same time. The interrogator is configured to start the tree search at a selectable level of the search tree.

One aspect of the invention provides a radio frequency identification device comprising an integrated circuit including a receiver, a transmitter, and a microprocessor. In one embodiment, the integrated circuit is a monolithic single die single metal layer integrated circuit including the receiver, the transmitter, and the microprocessor. The device of this embodiment includes an active transponder, instead of a transponder which relies on magnetic coupling for power, and therefore has a much greater range.

In another aspect, an interrogator sends a signal to a plurality of RFID devices. The signal provides a bit string and indicates a memory range comprising multiple bit locations. RFID devices compare the bits stored in their respective memory ranges to the bit string to determine which of the RFID devices are chosen.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Preferred embodiments of the invention are described below with reference to the following accompanying drawings.

FIG. 1 is a high level circuit schematic showing an interrogator and a radio frequency identification device embodying the invention.

FIG. 2 is a front view of a housing, in the form of a badge or card, supporting the circuit of FIG. 1 according to one embodiment the invention.

FIG. 3 is a front view of a housing supporting the circuit of FIG. 1 according to another embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating a tree splitting sort method for establishing communication with a radio frequency identification device in a field of a plurality of such devices.

FIG. 5, is a diagram illustrating a modified tree splitting sort method for establishing communication with a radio frequency identification device in a field of a plurality of such devices.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

This disclosure of the invention is submitted in furtherance of the constitutional purposes of the U.S. Patent Laws “to promote the progress of science and useful arts” (Article 1, Section 8).

FIG. 1 illustrates a wireless identification device 12 in accordance with one embodiment of the invention. In the illustrated embodiment, the wireless identification device is a radio frequency data communication device 12, and includes RFID circuitry 16. The device 12 further includes at least one antenna 14 connected to the circuitry 16 for wireless or radio frequency transmission and reception by the circuitry 16. In the illustrated embodiment, the RFID circuitry is defined by an integrated circuit as described in the above-incorporated patent application Ser. No. 08/705,043, filed Aug. 29, 1996, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,130,602. Other embodiments are possible. A power source or supply 18 is connected to the integrated circuit 16 to supply power to the integrated circuit 16. In one embodiment, the power source 18 comprises a battery.

The device 12 transmits and receives radio frequency communications to and from an interrogator 26. An exemplary interrogator is described in commonly assigned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/907,689, filed Aug. 8, 1997and , now U.S. Pat. No. 6,289,209, which is incorporated herein by reference. Preferably, the interrogator 26 includes an antenna 28, as well as dedicated transmitting (e.g., modulator) and receiving circuitry, similar to that implemented on the integrated circuit 16.

Generally, the interrogator 26 transmits an interrogation signal or command 27 via the antenna 28. The device 12 receives the incoming interrogation signal via its antenna 14. Upon receiving the signal 27, the device 12 responds by generating and transmitting a responsive signal or reply 29. The responsive signal 29 typically includes information that uniquely identifies, or labels the particular device 12 that is transmitting, so as to identify any object or person with which the device 12 is associated.

Although only one device 12 is shown in FIG. 1, typically there will be multiple devices 12 that correspond with the interrogator 26, and the particular devices 12 that are in communication with the interrogator 26 will typically change over time. In the illustrated embodiment in FIG. 1, there is no communication between multiple devices 12. Instead, the devices 12 respectively communicate with the interrogator 26. Multiple devices 12 can be used in the same field of an interrogator 26 (i.e., within communications range of an interrogator 26).

The radio frequency data communication device 12 can be included in any appropriate housing or packaging. Various methods of manufacturing housings are described in commonly assigned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/800,037, filed Feb. 13, 1997, and now U.S. Pat. No. 5,988,510, which is incorporated herein by reference.

FIG. 2 shows but one embodiment in the form of a card or badge 19 including a housing 11 of plastic or other suitable material supporting the device 12 and the power supply 18. In one embodiment, the front face of the badge has visual identification features such as graphics, text, information found on identification or credit cards, etc.

FIG. 3 illustrates but one alternative housing supporting the device 12. More particularly, FIG. 3 shows a miniature housing 20 encasing the device 12 and power supply 18 to define a tag which can be supported by an object (e.g., hung from an object, affixed to an object, etc.). Although two particular types of housings have been disclosed, the device 12 can be included in any appropriate housing.

If the power supply 18 is a battery, the battery can take any suitable form. Preferably, the battery type will be selected depending on weight, size, and life requirements for a particular application. In one embodiment, the battery 18 is a thin profile button-type cell forming a small, thin energy cell more commonly utilized in watches and small electronic devices requiring a thin profile. A conventional button-type cell has a pair of electrodes, an anode formed by one face and a cathode formed by an opposite face. In an alternative embodiment, the power source 18 comprises a series connected pair of button type cells. Instead of using a battery, any suitable power source can be employed.

The circuitry 16 further includes a backscatter transmitter and is configured to provide a responsive signal to the interrogator 26 by radio frequency. More particularly, the circuitry 16 includes a transmitter, a receiver, and memory such as is described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/705,043, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,130,602.

Radio frequency identification has emerged as a viable and affordable alternative to tagging or labeling small to large quantities of items. The interrogator 26 communicates with the devices 12 via an electromagnetic link, such as via an RF link (e.g., at microwave frequencies, in one embodiment), so all transmissions by the interrogator 26 are heard simultaneously by all devices 12 within range.

If the interrogator 26 sends out a command requesting that all devices 12 within range identify themselves, and gets a large number of simultaneous replies, the interrogator 26 may not be able to interpret any of these replies. Therefore, arbitration schemes are provided.

If the interrogator 26 has prior knowledge of the identification number of a device 12 which the interrogator 26 is looking for, it can specify that a response is requested only from the device 12 with that identification number. To target a command at a specific device 12, (i.e., to initiate point-on-point communication), the interrogator 26 must send a number, identifying a specific device 12 along with the command. At start-up, or in a new or changing environment, these identification numbers are not known by the interrogator 26. Therefore, the interrogator 26 must identify all devices 12 in the field (within communication range) such as by determining the identification numbers of the devices 12 in the field. After this is accomplished, point-to-point communication can proceed as desired by the interrogator 26.

Generally speaking, RFID systems are a type of multi-access communication system. The distance between the interrogator 26 and devices 12 within the field is typically fairly short (e.g., several meters), so packet transmission time is determined primarily by packet size and baud rate. Propagation delays are negligible. In such systems, there is a potential for a large number of transmitting devices 12 and there is a need for the interrogator 26 to work in a changing environment, where different devices 12 are swapped in and out frequently (e.g., as inventory is added or removed). In such systems, the inventors have determined that the use of random access methods work effectively for contention resolution (i.e., for dealing with collisions between devices 12 attempting to respond to the interrogator 26 at the same time).

RFID systems have some characteristics that are different from other communications systems. For example, one characteristic of the illustrated RFID systems is that the devices 12 never communicate without being prompted by the interrogator 26. This is in contrast to typical multiaccess systems where the transmitting units operate more independently. In addition, contention for the communication medium is short lived as compared to the ongoing nature of the problem in other multiaccess systems. For example, in a RFID system, after the devices 12 have been identified, the interrogator can communicate with them in a point-to-point fashion. Thus, arbitration in a RFID system is a transient rather than steady-state phenomenon. Further, the capability of a device 12 is limited by practical restrictions on size, power, and cost. The lifetime of a device 12 can often be measured in terms of number of transmissions before battery power is lost. Therefore, one of the most important measures of system performance in RFID arbitration is total time required to arbitrate a set of devices 12. Another measure is power consumed by the devices 12 during the process. This is in contrast to the measures of throughput and packet delay in other types of multiaccess systems.

FIG. 4 illustrates one arbitration scheme that can be employed for communication between the interrogator and devices 12. Generally, the interrogator 26 sends a command causing each device 12 of a potentially large number of responding devices 12 to select a random number from a known range and use it as that device's arbitration number. By transmitting requests for identification to various subsets of the full range of arbitration numbers, and checking for an error-free response, the interrogator 26 determines the arbitration number of every responder station capable of communicating at the same time. Therefore, the interrogator 26 is able to conduct subsequent uninterrupted communication with devices 12, one at a time, by addressing only one device 12.

Three variables are used: an arbitration value (AVALUE), an arbitration mask (AMASK), and a random value ID (RV). The interrogator sends an Identify command (IdentifyCmnd) causing each device of a potentially large number of responding devices to select a random number from a known range and use it as that device's arbitration number. The interrogator sends an arbitration value (AVALUE) and an arbitration mask (AMASK) to a set of devices 12. The receiving devices 12 evaluate the following equation: (AMASK & AVALUE)==(AMASK & RV) wherein “&” is a bitwise AND function, and wherein “═” is an equality function. If the equation evaluates to “1” (TRUE), then the device 12 will reply. If the equation evaluates to “0” (FALSE), then the device 12 will not reply. By performing this in a structured manner, with the number of bits in the arbitration mask being increased by one each time, eventually a device 12 will respond with no collisions. Thus, a binary search tree methodology is employed.

An example using actual numbers will now be provided using only four bits, for simplicity, reference being made to FIG. 4. In one embodiment, sixteen bits are used for AVALUE and AMASK. Other numbers of bits can also be employed depending, for example, on the number of devices 12 expected to be encountered in a particular application, on desired cost points, etc.

Assume, for this example, that there are two devices 12 in the field, one with a random value (RV) of 1100 (binary), and another with a random value (RV) of 1010 (binary). The interrogator is trying to establish communications without collisions being caused by the two devices 12 attempting to communicate at the same time.

The interrogator sets AVALUE to 0000 (or “don't care” for all bits, as indicated by the character “X” in FIG. 4) and AMASK to 0000. The interrogator transmits a command to all devices 12 requesting that they identify themselves. Each of the devices 12 evaluate (AMASK & AVALUE)═(AMASK & RV) using the random value RV that the respective devices 12 selected. If the equation evaluates to “1” (TRUE), then the device 12 will reply. If the equation evaluates to “0” (FALSE), then the device 12 will not reply. In the first level of the illustrated tree, AMASK is 0000 and anything bitwise ANDed with all zeros results in all zeros, so both the devices 12 in the field respond, and there is a collision.

Next, the interrogator sets AMASK to 0001 and AVALUE to 0000 and transmits an identify command. Both devices 12 in the field have a zero for their least significant bit, and (AMASK & AVALUE)═(AMASK & RV) will be true for both devices 12. For the device 12 with a random value of 1100, the left side of the equation is evaluated as follows (0001 & 0000)=0000. The right side is evaluated as (0001 & 1100)=0000. The left side equals the right side, so the equation is true for the device 12 with the random value of 1100. For the device 12 with a random value of 1010, the left side of the equation is evaluated as (0001 & 0000)=0000. The right side is evaluated as (0001 & 1010)=0000. The left side equals the right side, so the equation is true for the device 12 with the random value of 1010. Because the equation is true for both devices 12 in the field, both devices 12 in the field respond, and there is another collision.

Recursively, the interrogator next sets AMASK to 0011 with AVALUE still at 0000 and transmits an Identify command. (AMASK & AVALUE)═(AMASK & RV) is evaluated for both devices 12. For the device 12 with a random value of 1100, the left side of the equation is evaluated as follows (0011 & 0000)=0000. The right side is evaluated as (0011 & 1100)=0000. The left side equals the right side, so the equation is true for the device 12 with the random value of 1100, so this device 12 responds. For the device 12 with a random value of 1010, the left side of the equation is evaluated as (0011 & 0000)=0000. The right side is evaluated as (0011 & 1010)=0010. The left side does not equal the right side, so the equation is false for the device 12 with the random value of 1010, and this device 12 does not respond. Therefore, there is no collision, and the interrogator can determine the identity (e.g., an identification number) for the device 12 that does respond.

De-recursion takes place, and the devices 12 to the right for the same AMASK level are accessed when AVALUE is set at 0010, and AMASK is set to 0011.

The device 12 with the random value of 1010 receives a command and evaluates the equation (AMASK & AVALUE)═(AMASK & RV). The left side of the equation is evaluated as (0011 & 0010)=0010. The right side of the equation is evaluated as (0011 & 1010)=0010. The right side equals the left side, so the equation is true for the device 12 with the random value of 1010. Because there are no other devices 12 in the subtree, a good reply is returned by the device 12 with the random value of 1010. There is no collision, and the interrogator 26 can determine the identity (e.g., an identification number) for the device 12 that does respond.

By recursion, what is meant is that a function makes a call to itself. In other words, the function calls itself within the body of the function. After the called function returns, de-recursion takes place and execution continues at the place just after the function call: i.e. at the beginning of the statement after the function call.

For instance, consider a function that has four statements (numbered 1,2,3,4 ) in it, and the second statement is a recursive call. Assume that the fourth statement is a return statement. The first time through the loop (iteration 1) the function executes the statement 2 and (because it is a recursive call) calls itself causing iteration 2 to occur. When iteration 2 gets to statement 2, it calls itself making iteration 3. During execution in iteration 3 of statement 1, assume that the function does a return. The information that was saved on the stack from iteration 2 is loaded and the function resumes execution at statement 3 (in iteration 2), followed by the execution of statement 4 which is also a return statement. Since there are no more statements in the function, the function de-recurses to iteration 1. Iteration 1, had previously recursively called itself in statement 2. Therefore, it now executes statement 3 (in iteration 1 ). Following that it executes a return at statement 4. Recursion is known in the art.

Consider the following code which can be used to implement operation of the method shown in FIG. 4 and described above.

Arbitrate(AMASK, AVALUE) { collision=IdentifyCmnd(AMASK,AVALUE) if (collision) then { /* recursive call for left side */ Arbitrate((AMASK>>1)+1, AVALUE) /* recursive call for right side */ Arbitrate((AMASK>>1)+1, AVALUE+(AMASK+1)) } /* endif */ }/* return */

The symbol “<<” represents a bitwise left shift. “<<” means shift left by one place. Thus, 0001<<1 would be 0010. Note, however, that AMASK is originally called with a value of zero, and 0000<<1 is still 0000. Therefore, for the first recursive call, AMASK=(AMASK<<1)+1. So for the first recursive call, the vale of AMASK is 0000+0001=0001. For the second call, AMASK=(0001<<)+1=0010+1=0011. For the third recursive call, AMASK=(0011<<1)+1=0110+1=0111.

The routine generates values for AMASK and AVALUE to be used by the interrogator in an identify command “IdentifyCmnd.” Note that the routine calls itself it there is a collision. De-recursion occurs when there is no collision. AVALUE and AMASK would have values such as the following assuming collisions take place all the way down to the bottom of the tree.

AVALUE AMASK 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 0011 0000 0111 0000  1111* 1000  1111* 0100 0111 0100  1111* 1100  1111*

This sequence of AMASK, AVALUE binary numbers assumes that there are collisions all the way down to the bottom of the tree, at which point the Identify command sent by the interrogator is finally successful so that no collision occurs. Rows in the table for which the interrogator is successful in receiving a reply without collision are marked with the symbol “*”. Note that if the Identify command was successful at, for example, the third line in the table then the interrogator would stop going down that branch of the tree and start down another, so the sequence would be as shown in the following table.

AVALUE AMASK 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000  0011* 0010 0011 . . . . . .

This method is referred to as a splitting method. It works by splitting groups of colliding devices 12 into subsets that are resolved in turn. The splitting method can also be viewed as a type of tree search. Each split moves the method one level deeper in the tree.

Either depth-first or breadth-first traversals of the tree can be employed Depth first traversals are performed by using recursion, as is employed in the code listed above. Breadth-first traversals are accomplished by using a queue instead of recursion. The following is an example of code for performing a breadth-first traversal.

Arbitrate(AMASK, AVALUE) { enqueue(0,0) while (queue != empty) (AMASK, AVALUE) = dequeue( ) collision=IdentifyCmnd(AMASK,AVALUE) if (collision) then { TEMP = AMASK+1 NEW_AMASK = (AMASK>>1)+1 enqueue(NEW_AMASK, AVALUE) enqueue(NEW_AMASK, AVALUE+TEMP) } /* endif */ endwhile }/* return */

The symbol “!=” means not equal to. AVALUE and AMASK would have values such as those indicated in the following table for such code.

AVALUE AMASK 0000 0000 0000 0001 0001 0001 0000 0011 0010 0011 0001 0011 0011 0011 0000 0111 0100 0111 . . . . . .

Rows in the table for which the interrogator is successful in receiving a reply without collision are marked with the symbol “*”.

FIG. 5 illustrates an embodiment wherein the interrogator 26 starts the tree search at a selectable level of the search tree. The search tree has a plurality of nodes 51, 52, 53, 54 etc. at respective levels. The size of subgroups of random values decrease in size by half with each node descended. The upper bound of the number of devices 12 in the field (the maximum possible number of devices that could communicate with the interrogator) is determined, and the tree search method is started at a level 32, 34, 36, 38, or 40 in the tree depending on the determined upper bound. In one embodiment, the maximum number of devices 12 potentially capable of responding to the interrogator is determined manually and input into the interrogator 26 via an input device such as a keyboard, graphical user interface, mouse, or other interface. The level of the search tree on which to start the tree search is selected based on the determined maximum possible number of wireless identification devices that could communicate with the interrogator.

The tree search is started at a level determined by taking the base two logarithm of the determined maximum possible number. More particularly, the tree search is started at a level determined by taking the base two logarithm of the power of two nearest the determined maximum possible number of devices 12. The level of the tree containing all subgroups of random values is considered level zero (see FIG. 5), and lower levels are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. consecutively.

By determining the upper bound of the number of devices 12 in the field, and starting the tree search at an appropriate level, the number of collisions is reduced, the battery life of the devices 12 is increased, and arbitration time is reduced.

For example, for the search tree shown in FIG. 5, if it is known that there are seven devices 12 in the field, starting at node 51 (level 0 ) results in a collision. Starting at level 1 (nodes 52 and 53 ) also results in a collision. The same is true for nodes 54, 55, 56, and 57 in level 2. If there are seven devices 12 in the field, the nearest power of two to seven is the level at which the tree search should be started. Log2 8=3, so the tree search should be started at level 3 if there are seven devices 12 in the field.

AVALUE and AMASK would have values such as the following assuming collisions take place from level 3 all the way down to the bottom of the tree.

AVALUE AMASK 0000 0111  0000 1111* 1000 1111* 0100 0111  0100 1111* 1100 1111*

Rows in the table for which the interrogator is successful in receiving a reply without collision are marked with the symbol “*”.

In operation, the interrogator transmits a command requesting devices 12 having random values RV within a specified group of random values to respond, the specified group being chosen in response to the determined maximum number. Devices 12 receiving the command respectively determine if their chosen random values fall within the specified group and, if so, send a reply to the interrogator. The interrogator determines if a collision occurred between devices that sent a reply and, if so, creates a new, smaller, specified group, descending in the tree, as described above in connection with FIG. 4.

Another arbitration method that can be employed is referred to as the “Aloha” method. In the Aloha method, every time a device 12 is involved in a collision, it waits a random period of time before retransmitting. This method can be improved by dividing time into equally sized slots and forcing transmissions to be aligned with one of these slots. This is referred to as “slotted Aloha.” In operation, the interrogator asks all devices 12 in the field to transmit their identification numbers in the next time slot. If the response is garbled, the interrogator informs the devices 12 that a collision has occurred, and the slotted Aloha scheme is put into action. This means that each device 12 in the field responds within an arbitrary slot determined by a randomly selected value. In other words, in each successive time slot, the devices 12 decide to transmit their identification number with a certain probability.

The Aloha method is based on a system operated by the University of Hawaii. In 1971, the University of Hawaii began operation of a system named Aloha. A communication satellite was used to interconnect several university computers by use of a random access protocol. The system operates as follows. Users or devices transmit at any time they desire. After transmitting, a user listens for an acknowledgment from the receiver or interrogator. Transmissions from different users will sometimes overlap in time (collide), causing reception errors in the data in each of the contending messages. The errors are detected by the receiver, and the receiver sends a negative acknowledgment to the users. When a negative acknowledgment is received, the messages are retransmitted by the colliding users after a random delay. If the colliding users attempted to retransmit without the random delay, they would collide again. If the user does not receive either an acknowledgment or a negative acknowledgment within a certain amount of time, the user “times out” and retransmits the message.

There is a scheme known as slotted Aloha which improves the Aloha scheme by requiring a small amount of coordination among stations. In the slotted Aloha scheme, a sequence of coordination pulses is broadcast to all stations (devices). As is the case with the pure Aloha scheme, packet lengths are constant. Messages are required to be sent in a slot time between synchronization pulses, and can be started only at the beginning of a time slot. This reduces the rate of collisions because only messages transmitted in the same slot can interfere with one another. The retransmission mode of the pure Aloha scheme is modified for slotted Aloha such that if a negative acknowledgment occurs, the device retransmits after a random delay of an integer number of slot times.

Aloha methods are described in a commonly assigned patent application naming Clifton W. Wood, Jr. as an inventor, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/026,248, filed Feb. 19, 1998, titled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System,” filed concurrently herewith, and , now U.S. Pat. No. 6,275,476, which is incorporated herein by reference.

In one alternative embodiment, an Aloha method (such as the method described in the commonly assigned patent application mentioned above) is combined with determining the upper bound on a set of devices and starting at a level in the tree depending on the determined upper bound, such as by combining an Aloha method with the method shown and described in connection with FIG. 5. For example, in one embodiment, devices 12 sending a reply to the interrogator 26 do so within a randomly selected time slot of a number of slots.

In another embodiment, levels of the search tree are skipped. Skipping levels in the tree, after a collision caused by multiple devices 12 responding, reduces the number of subsequent collisions without adding significantly to the number of no replies. In real-time systems, it is desirable to have quick arbitration sessions on a set of devices 12 whose unique identification numbers are unknown. Level skipping reduces the number of collisions, both reducing arbitration time and conserving battery life on a set of devices 12. In one embodiment, every other level is skipped. In alternative embodiments, more than one level is skipped each time.

The trade off that must be considered in determining how many (if any) levels to skip with each decent down the tree is as follows. Skipping levels reduces the number of collisions, thus saving battery power in the devices 12. Skipping deeper (skipping more than one level) further reduces the number of collisions. The more levels that are skipped, the greater the reduction in collisions. However, skipping levels results in longer search times because the number of queries (Identify commands) increases. The more levels that are skipped, the longer the search times. Skipping just one level has an almost negligible effect on search time, but drastically reduces the number of collisions. If more than one level is skipped, search time increases substantially. Skipping every other level drastically reduces the number of collisions and saves battery power without significantly increasing the number of queries.

Level skipping methods are described in a commonly assigned patent application 09/026,045 naming Clifton W. Wood, Jr. and Don Hush as inventors, titled “Method of Addressing Messages, Method of Establishing Wireless Communications, and Communications Systems,” filed concurrently herewith, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,072,801, and incorporated herein by reference.

In one alternative embodiment, a level skipping method is combined with determining the upper bound on a set of devices and starting at a level in the tree depending on the determined upper bound, such as by combining a level skipping method with the method shown and described in connection with FIG. 5.

In yet another alternative embodiment, both a level skipping method and an Aloha method (as described in the commonly assigned applications described above) are combined with the method shown and described in connection with FIG. 5.

In compliance with the statute, the invention has been described in language more or less specific as to structural and methodical features. It is to be understood, however, that the invention is not limited to the specific features shown and described, since the means herein disclosed comprise preferred forms of putting the invention into effect. The invention is, therefore, claimed in any of its forms or modifications within the proper scope of the appended claims appropriately interpreted in accordance with the doctrine of equivalents.

Claims

1. A method of establishing wireless communications between an interrogator and individual ones of multiple wireless identification devices, the wireless identification devices having respective identification numbers and being addressable by specifying identification numbers with any one of multiple possible degrees of precision, the method comprising utilizing a tree search in an arbitration scheme to determine a degree of precision necessary to establish one-to-one communications between the interrogator and individual ones of the multiple wireless identification devices, a search tree being defined for the tree search method, the tree having multiple selectable levels respectively representing subgroups of the multiple wireless identification devices, the level at which a tree search starts being variable the method further comprising starting the tree search at any selectable level of the search tree selectable level other than the top level of the search tree.

2. A method in accordance with claim 1 and further comprising determining the maximum possible number of wireless identification devices that could communicate with the interrogator, and selecting a level of the search tree based of the determined maximum possible number of wireless identification devices that could communicate with the interrogator.

3. A method in accordance with claim 2 and further comprising starting the tree search at a level determined by taking the base two logarithm of the determined maximum possible number, wherein the level of the tree containing all subgroups is considered level zero, and lower levels are numbered consecutively.

4. A method in accordance with claim 2 and further comprising starting the tree search at a level determined by taking the base two logarithm of the determined maximum possible number, wherein the level of the tree containing all subgroups is considered level zero, and lower levels are numbered consecutively, and wherein the maximum number of devices in a subgroup in one level is half of the maximum number of devices in the next higher level.

5. A method in accordance with claim 2 and further comprising starting the tree search at a level determined by taking the base two logarithm of the power of two nearest the determined maximum possible number, wherein the level of the tree containing all subgroups is considered level zero, and lower levels are numbered consecutively, and wherein the maximum number of devices in a subgroup in one level is half of the maximum number of devices in the next higher level.

6. A method in accordance with claim 1 wherein the wireless identification device comprises an integrated circuit including a receiver, a modulator, and a microprocessor in communication with the receiver and modulator.

7. A method of addressing messages from an interrogator to a selected one or more of a number of communications device, the method comprising:

establishing for respective devices unique identification numbers respectively having a first predetermined number of bits;
establishing a second predetermined number of bits to be used for random values;
causing the devices to select random values, wherein respective devices choose random values independently of random values selected by the other devices;
determining the maximum number of devices potentially capable of responding to the interrogator;
transmitting a command from the interrogator requesting devices having random values within a specified group of random values to respond, by using a subset of the second predetermined number of bits, the specified group being chosen in response to the determined maximum number;
receiving the command at multiple devices, devices receiving the command respectively determining if the random value chosen by the device falls within the specified group and, if so, sending a reply to the interrogator; and
determining using the interrogator if a collision occurred between devices that sent a reply and, if so, creating a new, smaller, specified group.

8. A method of addressing messages from an interrogator to a selected one or more of a number of communications devices in accordance with claim 7 wherein sending a reply to the interrogator comprises transmitting the unique identification number of the device sending the reply.

9. A method of addressing messages from an interrogator to a selected one or more of a number of communications devices in accordance with claim 7 wherein sending a reply to the interrogator comprises transmitting the random value of the device sending the reply.

10. A method of addressing messages from an interrogator to a selected one or more of a number of communications devices in accordance with claim 7 wherein sending a reply to the interrogator comprises transmitting both the random value of the device sending the reply and the unique identification number of the device sending the reply.

11. A method of addressing messages from an interrogator to a selected one or more of a number of communications devices in accordance with claim 7 wherein, after receiving a reply without collision from a device, the interrogator sends a command individually addressed to that device.

12. A method of addressing messages from an interrogator to a selected one or more of a number of communications devices, the method comprising:

causing the devices to select random values for use as arbitration numbers, wherein respective devices choose random values independently of random values selected by the other devices, the devices being addressable by specifying arbitration numbers with any one of multiple possible degrees of precision;
transmitting a command from the interrogator requesting devices having random values within a specified group of a plurality of possible groups of random values to respond, the specified group being less than the entire set of random values, the plurality of possible groups being organized in a binary tree defined by a plurality of nodes at respective levels, wherein the size of groups of random values decrease in size by half with each node descended, wherein the specified group is below a node on the tree selected based on the maximum number of devices capable of communicating with the interrogator;
receiving the command at multiple devices, devices receiving the command respectively determining if the random value chosen by the device falls within the specified group and, if so, sending a reply to the interrogator; and, if not, not sending a reply; and
determining using the interrogator if a collision occurred between devices that sent a reply and, if so, creating a new, smaller, specified group by descending in the tree.

13. A method of addressing messages from an interrogator to a selected one or more of a number of communications devices in accordance with claim 12 and further including establishing a predetermined number of bits to be used for the random values.

14. A method of addressing messages from an interrogator to a selected one or more of a number of communications devices in accordance with claim 13 wherein the predetermined number of bits to be used for the random values comprises an integer multiple of eight.

15. A method of addressing messages from an interrogator to a selected one or more of a number of communications devices in accordance with claim 13 wherein devices sending a reply to the interrogator do so within a randomly selected time slot of a number of slots.

16. A method of addressing messages from an interrogator to a selected one or more of a number of RFID devices, the method comprising:

establishing for respective devices a predetermined number of bits to be used for random values, the predetermined number being a multiple of sixteen;
causing the devices to select random values, wherein respective devices choose random values independently of random values selected by the other devices;
transmitting a command from the interrogator requesting devices having random values within a specified group of a plurality of possible groups of random values to respond, the specified group being equal to or less than the entire set of random values, the plurality of possible groups being organized in a binary tree defined by a plurality of nodes at respective levels, wherein the maximum size of groups of random values decrease in size by half with each node descended, wherein the specified group is below a node on a level of the tree selected based on the maximum number of devices known to be capable of communicating with the interrogator;
receiving the command at multiple devices, devices receiving the command respectively determining if the random value chosen by the device falls within the specified group and, only if so, sending a reply to the interrogator, wherein sending a reply to the interrogator comprises transmitting both the random value of the device sending the reply and the unique a unique identification number of the device sending the reply;
using the interrogator to determine if a collision occurred between devices that sent a reply and, if so, creating a new, smaller, specified group using a level of the tree different from the level used in the interrogator transmitting, the interrogator transmitting a command requesting devices having random values within the new specified group of random values to respond; and
if a reply without collision is received from a device, the interrogator subsequently sending a command individually addressed to that device.

17. A method of addressing messages from an interrogator to a selected one or more of a number of RFID devices in accordance with claim 16 and further comprising determining the maximum possible number of wireless identification devices that could communicate with the interrogator.

18. A method of addressing messages from an interrogator to a selected one or more of a number of RFID devices in accordance with claim 16 claim 17 wherein selecting the level of the tree comprises taking the base two logarithm of the determined maximum possible number, wherein a level of the tree containing all subgroups is considered level zero, and lower levels are numbered consecutively.

19. A method of addressing messages from an interrogator to a selected one or more of a number of RFID devices in accordance with claim 16 claim 17 wherein selecting the level of the tree comprises taking the base two logarithm of the determined maximum possible number, wherein a level of the tree containing all subgroups is considered level zero, and lower levels are numbered consecutively, and wherein the maximum number of devices in a subgroup in one level is half of the maximum number of devices in the next higher level.

20. A method of addressing messages from an interrogator to a selected one or more of a number of RFID devices in accordance with claim 16 claim 17 wherein selecting the level of the tree comprises taking the base two logarithm of the power of two nearest the determined maximum possible number, wherein the level of the tree containing all subgroups is considered level zero, and lower levels are numbered consecutively, and wherein the maximum number of devices in a subgroup in one level is half of the maximum number of devices in the next higher level.

21. A method of addressing messages from an interrogator to a selected one or more of a number of RFID devices in accordance with claim 16 wherein the wireless identification device comprises an integrated circuit including a receiver, a modulator, and a microprocessor in communication with the receiver and modulator.

22. A method of addressing messages from an interrogator to a selected one or more of a number of RFID devices in accordance with claim 16 and further comprising, after the interrogator transmits a command requesting devices having random values within the new specified group of random values to respond, determining, using devices receiving the command, if their chosen random values fall within the new smaller specified group and, if so, sending a reply to the interrogator.

23. A method of addressing messages from an interrogator to a selected one or more of a number of RFID devices in accordance with claim 22 and further comprising, after the interrogator transmits a command requesting devices having random values within the new specified group of random values to respond, determining if a collision occurred between devices that sent a reply and, if so, creating a new specified group and repeating the transmitting of the command requesting devices having random values within a specified group of random values to respond using different specified groups until all of the devices within communications range are identified.

24. A communications system comprising an interrogator, and a plurality of wireless identification devices configured to communicate with the interrogator in a wireless fashion, the wireless identification devices having respective identification numbers, the interrogator being configured to employ a tree search in a search tree having multiple selectable levels, to determine the identification numbers of the different wireless identification devices with sufficient precision so as to be able to establish one-on-one communications between the interrogator and individual ones of the multiple wireless identification devices, wherein the interrogator is configured to start the tree search at any selectable level of the search tree selectable level other than the top level of the search tree.

25. A communications system in accordance with claim 24 wherein the tree search is a binary tree search.

26. A communications system in accordance with claim 24 wherein the wireless identification device comprises an integrated circuit including a receiver, a modulator, and a microprocessor in communication with the receiver and modulator.

27. A system comprising:

an interrogator;
a number of communications devices capable of wireless communications with the interrogator;
means for establishing a predetermined number of bits to be used as random numbers, and for causing respective devices to select random numbers respectively having the predetermined number of bits;
means for inputting a predetermined number indicative of the maximum number of devices possibly capable of communicating with the receiver interrogator;
means for causing the interrogator to transmit a command requesting devices having random values within a specified group of random values to respond, the specified group being chosen in response to the inputted predetermined number;
means for causing devices receiving the command to determine if their chosen random values fall within the specified group and, if so, send a reply to the interrogator; and
means for causing the interrogator to determine if a collision occurred between devices that sent a reply and, if so, create a new, smaller, specified group.

28. A system in accordance with claim 27 wherein sending a reply to the interrogator comprises transmitting the random value of the device sending the reply.

29. A system in accordance with claim 27 wherein the interrogator further includes means for, after receiving a reply without collision from a device, sending a command individually addressed to that device.

30. A system comprising:

an interrogator configured to communicate to a selected one or more of a number of communications devices;
a plurality of communications devices;
the devices being configured to select random values, wherein respective devices choose random values independently of random values selected by the other devices, different sized groups of devices being addressable by specifying random values with differing levels of precision;
the interrogator being configured to transmit a command requesting devices having random values within a specified group of a plurality of possible groups of random values to respond, the specified group being less than the entire set of random values, the plurality of possible groups being organized in a binary tree defined by a plurality of nodes at respective levels, wherein the size of groups of random values decrease in size by half with each node descended, wherein the specified group is below a node on the tree selected based on a predetermined maximum number of devices capable of communicating with the interrogator;
devices receiving the command being configured to respectively determine if their chosen random values fall within the specified group and, if so, send a reply to the interrogator; and, if not, not send a reply; and
the interrogator being configured to determine if a collision occurred between devices that sent a reply and, if so, create a new, smaller, specified group by descending in the tree.

31. A system in accordance with claim 30 wherein the random values respectively have a predetermined number of bits.

32. A system in accordance with claim 30 wherein respective devices are configured to store unique identification numbers of a predetermined number of bits.

33. A system in accordance with claim 30 wherein respective devices are configured to store unique identification numbers of sixteen bits.

34. A system comprising:

an interrogator configured to communicate to a selected one or more of a number of RFID devices;
a plurality of RFID devices, respective devices being configured to store unique identification numbers respectively having a first predetermined number of bits, respective devices being further configured to store a second predetermined number of bits to be used for random values, respective devices being configured to select random values independently of random values selected by the other devices;
the interrogator being configured to transmit an identify command requesting a response from devices having random values within a specified group of a plurality of possible groups or random of random values, the specified group being less than or equal to the entire set of random values, the plurality of possible groups being organized in a binary tree defined by a plurality of nodes at respective levels, wherein the maximum size of groups of random values decrease in size by half with each node descended, wherein the specified group is below a node on a level of the tree selected based on the maximum number of devices known to be capable of communicating with the interrogator;
devices receiving the command respectively being configured to determine if their chosen random values fall within the specified group and, only if so, send a reply to the interrogator, wherein sending a reply to the interrogator comprises transmitting both the random value of the device sending the reply and the unique identification number of the device sending the reply;
the interrogator being configured to determine if a collision occurred between devices that sent a reply and, if so, create a new, smaller, specified group using a level of the tree different from the level used in previously transmitting an identify command, the interrogator transmitting an identify command requesting devices having random values within the new specified group of random values to respond; and
the interrogator being configured to send a command individually addressed to a device after communicating with a device without a collision.

35. A system in accordance with 34 wherein the interrogator is configured to input and store the predetermined number a number representing the specified group.

36. A system in accordance with 34 wherein the devices are configured to respectively determine if their chosen random values fall within a specified group and, if so, send a reply, upon receiving respective identify commands.

37. A system in accordance with claim 36 wherein the interrogator is configured to determine if a collision occurred between devices that sent a reply in response to respective identify commands and, if so, create further new specified groups and repeat the transmitting of the identify command requesting devices having random values within a specified group of random values to respond using different specified groups until all responding devices are identified.

38. A method comprising:

disposing a plurality of radio frequency identification (RFID) tags in a communication field of an interrogator, each respective tag of the plurality of tags including respective memory storing a respective identification code that identifies a respective object to which each respective tag is affixed;
sending a select command from the interrogator to the plurality of tags after disposing the plurality of tags in the field and before any of the plurality of tags communicate to the interrogator, the select command including a set of parameters, the set of parameters including a bit string and describing a memory range, the memory range comprising multiple bit locations;
each respective tag of the plurality of tags receiving the select command and comparing the bit string against the memory range of the respective memory of each respective tag to determine if the respective tag is a member of a population of tags;
each respective tag of the population picking a respective random value and associating the random value with a respective slot, wherein a sequence in which the population of tags are to reply to the interrogator is determined by each respective slot;
each respective tag of at least a portion of the population backscattering a respective reply to the interrogator, each respective reply including a respective random number generated by each respective tag, each respective tag replying in accordance with the sequence; and
sending an acknowledge command from the interrogator in response to the interrogator receiving a respective reply from a respective tag and determining the respective reply to be collision-free.

39. The method of claim 38, further comprising each respective tag of the at least a portion of the population backscattering at least a portion of the respective identification code.

40. The method of claim 39, further comprising the interrogator accessing a tag individually after receiving the random number from the tag, accessing the tag including the interrogator sending the random number to the tag.

41. The method of claim 40, wherein the memory range of the memory of the tag includes at least a portion of the random number.

42. The method of claim 38, wherein each respective random number generated by each respective tag is sixteen bits in length.

43. A method comprising:

affixing a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag to an object, the tag including tag memory;
disposing the tag in a communication field of an interrogator;
sending a first signal from the interrogator to the tag after disposing the tag in the field and before the tag communicates to the interrogator, the first signal including parameters that describe a memory range and a bit string;
receiving the first signal at the tag, and in response thereto, comparing the bit string against the memory range of the tag memory to determine if the tag is selected, the memory range of the tag memory storing a plurality of bits;
the tag picking a random value and associating the random value with a slot in accordance with an arbitration scheme for an inventory operation if the tag is determined to be selected;
sending a second signal from the interrogator to the tag;
backscattering a random number generated by the tag from the tag to the interrogator in accordance with the slot in response to receiving the second signal; and
sending a acknowledge command from the interrogator to the tag in response to the interrogator receiving the random number.

44. The method of claim 43, further comprising backscattering at least a portion of an identification code from the tag to the interrogator, wherein the identification code is stored in tag memory and identifies the object.

45. The method of claim 44, further comprising the interrogator individually accessing the tag after the interrogator sends the acknowledge command and receives the at least a portion of the identification code, wherein individually accessing the tag includes the interrogator sending an access command to the tag, the access command including the random number.

46. The method of claim 45, wherein the random number is sixteen bits long.

47. The method of claim 43, wherein the plurality of bits includes at least a portion of the random number.

48. A method comprising:

disposing a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag in a communication field of an interrogator, the tag including tag memory;
sending a select command from the interrogator to the tag after disposing the tag in the field and before the tag communicates to the interrogator, the select command including parameters that describe a memory range and a bit string;
receiving the select command at the tag, and in response thereto, comparing the bit string against the memory range of the tag memory to determine if the tag is selected, the memory range of the tag memory storing at least two bits; and
communicating a random number generated by the tag from the tag to the interrogator in accordance with an arbitration scheme if the tag is determined to be selected.

49. The method of claim 48, wherein the random number is stored in the tag memory.

50. The method of claim 48, wherein the at least two bits include at least a portion of the random number.

51. The method of claim 48, further comprising communicating at least a portion of an identification code from the tag to the interrogator in accordance with the arbitration scheme, wherein the identification code identifies an object to which the tag is affixed.

52. The method of claim 51, wherein the identification code is stored in the tag memory.

53. The method of claim 48, wherein the random number is sixteen bits long.

54. The method of claim 48, further comprising the tag picking a random value and using the random value as a slot, the tag communicating the random number at a time associated with the slot in accordance with the arbitration scheme.

55. The method of claim 54, further comprising sending an acknowledge command from the interrogator to the tag in response to the interrogator receiving the random number.

56. The method of claim 55, further comprising sending a signal from the interrogator to the tag, after sending the select command from the interrogator to the tag and before communicating the random number from the tag to the interrogator, wherein the signal indicates to the tag the time to communicate the random number.

57. The method of claim 48, further comprising sending a signal from the interrogator to the tag, after sending the select command from the interrogator to the tag and before communicating the random number from the tag to the interrogator, wherein the signal indicates to the tag when to communicate the random number to the interrogator.

58. The method of claim 48, wherein communicating the random number includes backscattering the random number.

59. The method of claim 48, further comprising sending an acknowledge command from the interrogator to the tag in response to the interrogator receiving the random number.

60. The method of claim 59, further comprising communicating at least a portion of an identification code from the tag to the interrogator in accordance with the arbitration scheme, wherein the identification code identifies an object to which the tag is affixed.

61. The method of claim 60, further comprising the interrogator individually accessing the tag after receiving the random number, wherein individually accessing the tag includes the interrogator sending an access command to the tag, the access command including a sixteen bit random number.

62. The method of claim 61, wherein the sixteen bit random number is the random number generated by the tag and communicated from the tag to the interrogator in accordance with the arbitration scheme.

63. A method comprising:

disposing a plurality of radio frequency (RFID) tags in a communication field of an interrogator;
sending a first signal from the interrogator to first and second tags of the plurality of tags after disposing the plurality of tags in the field and before any of the plurality of tags communicate to the interrogator, the first signal including a bit string and indicating a portion of memory, the portion of memory comprising multiple bit storage locations, the first tag having stored therein a first set of bits in bit storage locations corresponding to the portion of memory, and the second tag having stored therein a second set of bits in bit storage locations corresponding to the portion of memory;
the first tag receiving the first signal and comparing the bit string against the first set of bits to determine if the first tag is selected;
the second tag receiving the first signal and comparing the bit string against the second set of bits to determine if the second tag is selected;
the first tag picking a first random value and associating the first random value with a first slot in accordance with an arbitration scheme;
the second tag picking a second random value and associating the second random value with a second slot in accordance with the arbitration scheme;
the first tag backscattering a first identification code that identifies a first object to which the first tag is affixed; and
the second tag backscattering a second identification code that identifies a second object to which the second tag is affixed.

64. The method of claim 63, further comprising:

the first tag backscattering a first random number generated by the first tag;
and the second tag backscattering a second random number generated by the second tag.

65. The method of claim 64, further comprising:

the interrogator receiving the first random number from the first tag during a period of time associated with the first slot, and, in response thereto, the interrogator sending a first acknowledge signal to acknowledge the first tag; and
the interrogator receiving the second random number from the second tag during a period of time associated with the second slot, and, in response thereto, the interrogator sending a second acknowledge signal to acknowledge the second tag.

66. The method of claim 65, further comprising the interrogator accessing the first tag individually after receiving both the first random number and the first identification code from the first tag, accessing the first tag including the interrogator sending a command that includes a number randomly generated by the first tag that identifies the first tag.

67. The method of claim 66, wherein the number randomly generated by the first tag that identifies the first tag is the first random number, and the first random number is 16 bits in length.

68. The method of claim 67, further comprising sending a second signal from the interrogator after sending the first signal from the interrogator, the first tag backscattering the first identification code in response to receiving the second signal.

69. The method of claim 63, further comprising:

the interrogator sending a first acknowledge signal to acknowledge the first tag;
and the interrogator sending a second acknowledge signal to acknowledge the second tag.

70. A method comprising:

disposing a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag in a communication field of an interrogator;
sending a first command from the interrogator to the tag after disposing the tag in the field and before the tag communicates to the interrogator, the first command including a first set of fields comprising at least two first bit values;
the tag wirelessly receiving the first command;
the tag backscattering a first reply based, at least in part, on whether the two first bit values received from the interrogator match two corresponding bit values stored in the tag, the first reply including a random number generated by the tag;
sending a second command from the interrogator to the tag, the second command including a second set of fields comprising at least two second bit values;
the tag wirelessly receiving the second command; and
the tag backscattering a second reply based, at least in part, on whether the two second bit values received from the interrogator match the two corresponding bit values stored in the tag, the second reply including a random number generated by the tag.

71. The method of claim 70, further comprising backscattering at least a portion of an identification code from the tag to the interrogator, wherein the identification code identifies an object to which the tag is affixed.

72. The method of claim 70, further comprising the tag picking a random value and using the random value as a slot in accordance with an arbitration scheme, the tag backscattering a signal to the interrogator at a time associated with the slot.

73. The method of claim 72, further comprising sending an acknowledge command from the interrogator to the tag.

74. The method of claim 70, further comprising the interrogator individually accessing the tag, wherein individually accessing the tag includes the interrogator sending an access command to the tag, the access command including a sixteen bit random number.

75. The method of claim 74, further comprising backscattering at least a portion of an identification code from the tag to the interrogator, wherein the identification code identifies an object to which the tag is affixed.

76. The method of claim 70, further comprising the interrogator detecting a collision upon receiving the first reply.

Referenced Cited
U.S. Patent Documents
4075632 February 21, 1978 Baldwin et al.
4761778 August 2, 1988 Hui
4796023 January 3, 1989 King
4799059 January 17, 1989 Grindahl et al.
4845504 July 4, 1989 Roberts et al.
4862453 August 29, 1989 West et al.
4926182 May 15, 1990 Ohta et al.
4955018 September 4, 1990 Twitty et al.
4969146 November 6, 1990 Twitty et al.
5019813 May 28, 1991 Kip et al.
5025486 June 18, 1991 Klughart
5046066 September 3, 1991 Messenger
5055968 October 8, 1991 Nishi et al.
5121407 June 9, 1992 Partyka et al.
5124697 June 23, 1992 Moore
5142694 August 25, 1992 Jackson et al.
5144313 September 1, 1992 Kirknes
5144668 September 1, 1992 Malek et al.
5150114 September 22, 1992 Johansson
5150310 September 22, 1992 Greenspun et al.
5164985 November 17, 1992 Nysen et al.
5168510 December 1, 1992 Hill
5194860 March 16, 1993 Jones et al.
5231646 July 27, 1993 Heath et al.
5266925 November 30, 1993 Vercellotti et al.
5307463 April 26, 1994 Hyatt et al.
5365551 November 15, 1994 Snodgrass et al.
5373503 December 13, 1994 Chen
5449296 September 12, 1995 Jacobsen et al.
5461627 October 24, 1995 Rypinski
5479416 December 26, 1995 Snodgrass et al.
5500650 March 19, 1996 Snodgrass et al.
5530702 June 25, 1996 Palmer et al.
5550547 August 27, 1996 Chan et al.
5583850 December 10, 1996 Snodgrass et al.
5608739 March 4, 1997 Snodgrass et al.
5619648 April 8, 1997 Canale et al.
5621412 April 15, 1997 Sharpe et al.
5625628 April 29, 1997 Heath
5627544 May 6, 1997 Snodgrass et al.
5640151 June 17, 1997 Reis et al.
5649296 July 15, 1997 MacLellan et al.
5686902 November 11, 1997 Reis et al.
5790946 August 4, 1998 Rotzoll
5805586 September 8, 1998 Perreault et al.
5841770 November 24, 1998 Snodgrass et al.
5914671 June 22, 1999 Tuttle
5936560 August 10, 1999 Higuchi
5940006 August 17, 1999 MacLellan et al.
5942987 August 24, 1999 Heinrich et al.
5952922 September 14, 1999 Shober
5966471 October 12, 1999 Fisher et al.
5974078 October 26, 1999 Tuttle et al.
5988510 November 23, 1999 Tuttle et al.
6038455 March 14, 2000 Gardner et al.
6061344 May 9, 2000 Wood, Jr.
6072801 June 6, 2000 Wood, Jr. et al.
6075973 June 13, 2000 Greeff et al.
6097292 August 1, 2000 Kelly et al.
6104333 August 15, 2000 Wood, Jr.
6118789 September 12, 2000 Wood, Jr.
6130602 October 10, 2000 O'Toole et al.
6130623 October 10, 2000 MacLellan et al.
6150921 November 21, 2000 Werb et al.
6157633 December 5, 2000 Wright
6169474 January 2, 2001 Greeff et al.
6177858 January 23, 2001 Raimbault et al.
6185307 February 6, 2001 Johnson, Jr.
6192222 February 20, 2001 Greeff et al.
6216132 April 10, 2001 Chandra et al.
6226300 May 1, 2001 Hush et al.
6229987 May 8, 2001 Greeff et al.
6243012 June 5, 2001 Shober et al.
6265962 July 24, 2001 Black et al.
6265963 July 24, 2001 Wood, Jr.
6275476 August 14, 2001 Wood, Jr.
6282186 August 28, 2001 Wood, Jr.
6288629 September 11, 2001 Cofino et al.
6307847 October 23, 2001 Wood, Jr.
6307848 October 23, 2001 Wood, Jr. et al.
6324211 November 27, 2001 Ovard et al.
6415439 July 2, 2002 Randell et al.
6459726 October 1, 2002 Ovard et al.
6483427 November 19, 2002 Werb
6566997 May 20, 2003 Bradin
6570487 May 27, 2003 Steeves
6707376 March 16, 2004 Patterson et al.
6714559 March 30, 2004 Meier
6771634 August 3, 2004 Wright
6778096 August 17, 2004 Ward et al.
6784787 August 31, 2004 Atkins
6850510 February 1, 2005 Kubler et al.
6919793 July 19, 2005 Heinrich et al.
7026935 April 11, 2006 Diorio et al.
7315522 January 1, 2008 Wood, Jr.
7385477 June 10, 2008 O'Toole et al.
7672260 March 2, 2010 Wood, Jr.
20030235184 December 25, 2003 Dorenbosch
20050060069 March 17, 2005 Breed et al.
20050207364 September 22, 2005 Wood, Jr.
20060022800 February 2, 2006 Krishna et al.
20060022801 February 2, 2006 Husak et al.
20060022815 February 2, 2006 Fischer
20060056325 March 16, 2006 Wood, Jr.
20060209781 September 21, 2006 Wood, Jr.
20070139164 June 21, 2007 O'Toole et al.
20070176751 August 2, 2007 Cesar et al.
20080007412 January 10, 2008 Wood, Jr.
20080042806 February 21, 2008 Wood, Jr.
20080048832 February 28, 2008 O'Toole et al.
20080048835 February 28, 2008 O'Toole et al.
20080129485 June 5, 2008 Tuttle
20080180221 July 31, 2008 Tuttle
20090322491 December 31, 2009 Wood, Jr.
Foreign Patent Documents
0 779 520 September 1997 EP
1072128 May 2008 EP
WO 97/48216 December 1997 WO
1999043127 August 1999 WO
2008094728 August 2008 WO
Other references
  • ECC Report I, “Compatability between Inductive LF and HF RFID Transponder and Other Radio Communication Systems in the Frequency Ranges 135-148.5 kHz, 4.78-8.78 MHz and 11.56-15.56 MHz”, Electronic Comm. Committee, 14 pp. (Feb. 2002).
  • http://216.121.131.129article//articleview/330/1/1/; “EPC Doesn't Infringe RFID Patents”, RFID Journal, 2 pp. (Mar. 4, 2003).
  • Mullin, Eileen, “Electronic Product Code”, www.baselinemag.com, 4 pp. (printed Oct. 15, 2003).
  • http://www.rfid.zebra.com/epc.htm, Electronic Product Code (PEC), 1 page (Printed Oct. 15, 2003.
  • http://www.eretailnews.com/features/0105epcl.htm, The Electronic Product Code (EPC), 2 pp. (Printed Oct. 15, 2003).
  • http://www.eretailnews.com/Features/0105epeschema.htm, “The Electronic Product Code Schematic”, 1 p. (Printed Oct. 15, 2003).
  • http://www.eretailnews.com/features/epc.htm, The Electronic Product Code (EPC), 2 pp. (Printed Oct. 15, 2003).
  • http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/473/1/1/. “Second Source of Class 1 EPC Chips”, RFID Journal, 2 pp. (Jun. 26, 2003).
  • http://money.cnn.com/services/ticketheadlines/prn/cltu045.PI.09162003122727.24911.htm, “Manhattan Associates Announces Next-Generation Microsoft-Based RFID Solutions”, CNN Money, 3 pp. (Sep. 16, 2003).
  • Engels, Daniel, “Technical Report, The Use of the Electronic Product Code”, Auto-ID Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 8 pp. (Feb. 1, 2003).
  • Auto-ID Center, Technical Report, “13.56 MHz ISM Band Class 1 Radio Frequency Identification Tag Interface Specification: Reccommended Standard”, Version 1.0.0, Auto-ID Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 31 pp. (Feb. 1, 2003).
  • http://www.hightechaid.com/standards/18000.htm, “ISO/IEC 18000—RFID Air Interface Standards”, 6 pp. (Printed Oct. 15, 2003).
  • ISO, Automatic Identification—Radio Frequency Identification for Item Management—Communications and Interfaces—Part 3: Physical Layer; Anti collision System and Protocol Values at 1356 MHz Mode 4, #ISO/WD 18000-3-v40-4, 24 pp. (Mar. 1, 2001).
  • ISO/IEC, “ISO/IEC 18000, p. 3, Information Technology AIDC Techniques—RFID for Item Management—Air Interface, Part 3, Parameters for Air Interface Communications at 13.56 MHz”, #ISO IEC SC31 WG4 FCD18000-3, 176 pp. May 27, 2002).
  • International Standard ISO/IEC, “Final Committee Draft, ISO/IEC 14443-1, Identification Cards—Contactless Integrated Circuit(s) Cards—Proximity Cards, Part 1: Physical Characteristics”, 9 pp. (1997).
  • ISO/IEC, “Final Committee Draft, ISO/IEC 14443-2, Identification Cards—Contactless Integrated Circuit(s) cards—Proximity Cards—Part 2: Radio Frequency Power and Signal Interface”, Editor D. Baddeley, #ISO/IEC JTC/SC17/WG8, 16 pp. (Mar. 26, 1999).
  • Association Francaise de Normalization (AFNOR), “Identification Cards—Contactless Integrated Circuit(s) Cards—Proximity Cards—Part 3: Initalization and Anticollision”, ISO/IEC, #ISO/IEC FDIS 14443-3:2000(E), 48 pp. (Jul. 13, 2000).
  • Association Francaise de Normalization (AFNOR), “Identification Cards—Contactless Integrated Circuit(s) Cards—Proximity Cards—Part 4: Transmission Protocol”, ISO/IEC, #ISO/IEC FDIS 14443-4:2000(E), 37 pp. (Jul. 13, 2000).
  • Association Francaise de Normalization (AFNOR), “Identification Cards—Contactless Integrated Circuit(s) Cards—Vicinity Cards—Part 1: Physical Characteristics”, Final Draft, ISO/IEC, #ISO/IEC FDIS 15693-1:2000(E), 8 pp. (May 19, 2000).
  • Association Francaise de Normalization (AFNOR), “Identification Cards—Contactless Integrated Circuit(s) Cards—Vicinity Cards—Part 2: Air Interface and Initalization”, Final Draft, ISO/IEC, #ISO/IEC FDIS 15693-2:2000(E), 23 pp. (Feb. 3, 2000).
  • ISO/IEC, “Identification Cards—Contactless Integrated Circuit(s) Cards—Vicinity Cards—Part 3: Anticollision and Transmission Protocol”, ISO/IEC, #ISO/IEC CD 15693-3:1999(e), 48 pp. (Nov. 17, 1999).
  • ISO/IEC, “Automatic Identification—Radio Frequency Identification for Item Management—Communications and Interfaces—Part 3: Physical Layer, Anti-Collision System and Protocol Values at 13.56 MHz Mode 1”, ISO/IEC, #ISO/WD 18000-3-v40-1, 105 pp. (Mar. 1, 2001).
  • Capetanakis, John I., “Tree Algorithms for Packet Broadcast Channels”, IEEE Transactions for Information Theory vol. IT-25, No. 5, pp. 505-515 (Sep.1979).
  • EP serial No. 05016514.1; Extended Search Report And Search Opinion; mailed Jan. 26, 2007; 5 pp.
  • EP serial No. 05016513.3; Extended Search Report And Search Opinion; mailed Jan. 22, 2007; 5 pp.
  • Capetanakis, John I., “Generalized TDMA: The Multi-Accessing Tree Protocol,” IEEE Transaction on Communications, vol. Com 27, No. 10, pp. 1476-1484 (Oct. 1979).
  • Wolf, Jack Keil, “Principles of Group Testing and an Application to the Design and Analysis of Multi-Access Protocols,” NATO ASI Series E, Applied Sciences, N. 91, pp. 237-257 (1985).
  • Humblet, Pierre A., et al., “Efficient Accessing of a Multiaccess Channel”, Proc IEEE Conference Decis Control Incl Symp Adapt Processes 1, p. 624-627 (1980).
  • EPC™ Radio Frequency identity Protocols Class-1 Generation-2 UHF RFID Protocol for Communications at 860 MHz-960 MHz , EPC Global, Inc. Version 1.0.9, Cover Sheet and pp. 37-38 (Jan. 2005).
  • Finkenzeller, Klaus, “Radio Frequency Identification—The Authors Homepage of the RFID Handbook,” located at http://www.rfid-handbook.com, accessed Feb. 22, 2007.
  • Smart Active Labels Consortium, organization homepage located at http://www.sal-c.org, accessed Feb. 22, 2007.
  • Symbol Technologies, Inc., “Understanding Gen 2: What It Is, How You Will Benefit and Criteria for Vendor Assessment,” white paper, Jan. 2006.
  • Wright, Jim, “Trends and Innovations in RF Indentification,” SUN Microsystems Inc. presentation, Mar. 2005.
  • Wood, Jr., Clifton W. U.S. Appl. No. 11/859,360, filed Sep. 21, 2007.
  • Wood, Jr., Clifton W., U.S. Appl. No. 11/859,364, filed Sep. 21, 2007.
  • Wood, Jr., Clifton W., U.S. Appl. No. 10/693,697, filed Oct. 23, 2003.
  • Wood, Jr. Clifton W., U.S. Appl. No. 11/865,580, filed Oct. 1, 2007.
  • Wood, Jr., Clifton W., U.S. Appl. No. 11/865,584, filed Oct. 1, 2007.
  • Wood, Jr., Clifton W., U.S. Appl. No. 10/652,573, filed Aug. 28, 2008.
  • Wood, Jr., Clifton W., U.S. Appl. No. 11/862,121, filed Sep. 26, 2007.
  • Wood, Jr., Clifton W., U.S. Appl. No. 11/862,124, filed Sep. 26, 2007.
  • Wood, Jr., Clifton W., U.S. Appl. No. 11/862,130, filed Sep. 21, 2007.
  • International Application No. PCT/US08/50630, Written Opinion, Jun. 27, 2008.
  • International Application No. PCT/US08/50630, International Search Report, Jun. 27, 2008.
  • Tuttle, John R., U.S. Appl. No. 11/755,073 entitled “Methods and Systems of Receiving Data Payload of RFID Tags,” filed May 30, 2007.
  • International Application No. PCT/US99/02288, Written Opinion, Jan. 27, 2000.
  • International Application No. PCT/US99/02288, International Search Report, Aug. 3, 1999.
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 09/026,043, filed Feb. 19, 1998, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System,” now U.S. Patent No. 6,118,789.
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 09/026,045, filed Feb. 19, 1998, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages, Methods of Establishing Wireless Communications, and Communications System,” now U.S. Patent No. 6,072,801.
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 09/026,050, filed Feb. 19, 1998, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System,” now U.S. Patent No. 6,061,344.
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 09/026,248, filed Feb. 19, 1998, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System,” now U.S. Patent No. 6,275,476.
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 09/551,304, filed Apr. 18, 2000, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications Systems,” now U.S. Patent No. 6,282,186.
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 09/556,235, filed Apr. 18, 2000, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages, and Establishing Communications Using a Tree Search Technique That Skips Levels,” now U.S. Patent No. 6,226,300.
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 09/617,390, filed Jul. 17, 2000, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System,” now U.S. Patent No. 6,307,847.
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 09/773,461, filed Jan. 31, 2001, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages, Methods of Establishing Wireless Communications, and Communications System,” now U.S. Patent No. 6,307,848.
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 09/820,467, filed Mar. 28, 2001, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System,” now U.S Patent No. 7,315,522.
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 10/652,573, filed Aug. 28, 2003, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 10/693,697, filed Oct. 23, 2003, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages, Methods of Establishing Wireless Communications, and Communications System.”
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 11/143,395, filed Jun. 1, 2005, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 11/270,204, filed Nov. 8, 2005, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 11/416,846, filed May 2, 2006, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 11/855,855, filed Sep. 14, 2007, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 11/855,860, filed Sep. 14, 2007, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 11/859,360, filed Sep. 21, 2007, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 11/859,364, filed Sep. 21, 2007, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 11/862,121, filed Sep. 26, 2007, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 11/862,124, filed Sep. 26, 2007, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 11/862,130, filed Sep. 26, 2007, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 11/865,580, filed Oct. 1, 2007, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages, Methods of Establishing Wireless Communications, and Communications System.”
  • USPTO Transaction History of U.S. Appl. No. 11,865,584, filed Oct. 1, 2007, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages, Methods of Establishing Wireless Communications, and Communications System.”
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 09/026,043, filed Feb. 19, 1998, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System,” now U.S. Patent No. 6,118,789.
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 09/026,045, filed Feb. 19, 1998, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages, Methods of Establishing Wireless Communications, and Communications System,” now U.S. Patent No. 6,072,801.
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 09/026,050, filed Feb. 19, 1998, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System,” now U.S. Patent No. 6,061,344.
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 09/026,248, filed Feb. 19, 1998, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System,” now U.S. Patent No. 6,275,476.
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 09/551,304, filed Apr. 18, 2000, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System,” now U.S. Patent No. 6,282,186.
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 09/556,235, filed Apr. 18, 2000, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages, and Establishing Communications Using a Tree Search Technique That Skips Levels ,” now U.S. Patent No. 6,226,300.
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 09/617,390, filed Jul. 17, 2000, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System,” now U.S. Patent No. 6,307,847.
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 09/773,461, filed Jan. 31, 2001, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages, Methods of Establishing Wireless Communications, and Communications System,” now U.S. Patent No. 6,307,848.
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 09/820,467, filed Mar. 28, 2001, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System,” now U.S. Patent No. 7,315,522.
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 10/652,573, filed Aug. 28, 2003, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System”.
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 10/693,697, filed Oct. 23, 2003, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages, Methods of Establishing Wireless Communications, and Communications System.”
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 11/143,395, filed Jun. 1, 2005, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 11/270,204, filed Nov. 8, 2005, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 11/416,846, filed May 2, 2006, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 11/700,525, filed Jan. 30, 2007, entitled “Systems and Methods for RFID Tag Arbitration.”
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 11/755,073, filed May 30, 2007, entitled “Methods and Systems of Receiving Data Payload of RFID Tags.”
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 11/855,855, filed Sep. 14, 2007, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 11/855,860, filed Sep. 14, 2007, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 11/859,360, filed Sep. 21, 2007, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 11/859,364, filed Sep. 21, 2007, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 11/862,121, filed Sep. 26, 2007, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 11/862,124, filed Sep. 26, 2007, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 11/862,130, filed Sep. 26, 2007, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages and Communications System.”
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 11/865,580, filed Oct. 1, 2007, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages, Methods of Establishing Wireless Communications, and Communications System.”
  • Transaction History of related U.S. Appl. No. 11/865,584, filed Oct. 1, 2007, entitled “Method of Addressing Messages, Methods of Establishing Wireless Communications, and Communications System.”
  • Wood, Jr. Clifton W., U.S. Appl. No. 12/541,882, filed Aug. 14, 2009.
  • Wood, Jr. Clifton W., U.S. Appl. No. 12/493,542, filed Jun. 29, 2009.
Patent History
Patent number: RE41530
Type: Grant
Filed: Oct 23, 2003
Date of Patent: Aug 17, 2010
Assignee: Round Rock Research, LLC (Mount Kisco, NY)
Inventor: Clifton W. Wood, Jr. (Tulsa, OK)
Primary Examiner: Brian D Nguyen
Attorney: Gazdzinski & Associates, PC
Application Number: 10/693,696
Classifications
Current U.S. Class: Channel Assignment (370/329); Polling (370/346); Multiple Access (e.g., Tdma) (370/347)
International Classification: H04W 4/00 (20090101);