The present invention relates to radio communication in general, and, more particularly, to error-tolerant analog communication.
Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) systems are a class of wireless remote-sensing systems. RFID systems are typically based on radio links between a plurality of sensing devices (often referred to as “tags”) and a reader unit that collects information from the sensing devices. In their simplest implementations, RFID tags report just their own presence, generally conveyed as an identification code unique to that tag. For example, such RFID tags could be used to replace bar codes commonly used in stores to identify items of merchandise. More advanced RFID tags can include sensors such as, for example, temperature, pressure, chemical and other environmental sensors. Such more advanced tags use the radio link to convey the value of the sensed parameter to the reader unit.
The reader has an antenna capable of both transmitting and receiving radio signals. Radio-Frequency Identification Tags 102-1 through 102-4 are also equipped with an antenna capable of both transmitting and receiving. In order to detect the presence of the tags, the reader transmits a radio signal (hereinafter referred to as the “interrogation signal”) that is received by the tags. Each of the tags processes the received interrogation signal and responds by transmitting another radio signal (hereinafter referred to as the “response signal”).
The reader receives all the response signals from all the tags that are able to respond, and it must be able to discriminate the various received response signals from one another so as to successfully detect the identification codes of the tags that are transmitting. Such capability depends on several factors, for example, such factors include:
In many RFID systems it is important to have tags that are small, simple, and inexpensive. As a result, a technique known as “backscatter radio” is frequently used. In the American Heritage Dictionary, the word “backscatter” is defined as: “The deflection of waves . . . by electromagnetic . . . forces through angles greater than 90° to the initial direction of travel.” Hereinafter, “backscatter radio” refers to the technique of receiving a radio signal and then transmitting the same radio signal after some processing. This is in contrast to more traditional two-way radio communications wherein a device for transmitting and receiving radio signals (hereinafter referred to as a “transceiver”) comprises (1) a radio receiver that detects and demodulates a received radio signal to extract the information it carries; and (2) a radio transmitter that generates a new radio signal with the desired modulation and then transmits that signal through a transmitting antenna.
Backscatter-radio techniques lead to simple implementations because a backscatter radio transceiver does not need to have hardware (such as, for example, an oscillator or a power amplifier) for generating a radio signal. Furthermore, in systems such as the one depicted in
Several backscatter-radio techniques exist. The present invention is based on a technique hereinafter referred to as “linear backscatter.” In a system that utilizes linear backscatter, the tags behave as linear filters. Linear filters are well known in the art as devices whose outputs are linear functions of their inputs. In particular, RFID tags in accordance with the present invention have a single port that is used for both input and output (hereinafter referred to as “input-output port”). When an input signal is applied to the input-output port, an output signal is delivered from the input-output port that is based on the input signal and is a linear function of it. As such, the signal processing that occurs in the tag is known in the art as linear filtering.
Even though the mathematical definition of linear filtering allows for an output signal that begins before the input signal is applied, the real world requires that physical linear filters obey causality and, in practice, there is a delay between the application of the input signal and the resulting output signal. Indeed, as will be discussed in more detailed later, a certain amount of delay is desirable for avoiding the distortion caused by the signal propagation environment.
In most radio environments of practical interest, radio signals propagate from transmitting antenna to receiving antenna through a propagation medium that is known to be very closely linear. Therefore, in an RFID system as depicted in
It is well known in the art that, when linear filters are cascaded and combined as described in the list above, the overall cascade is also a linear filter. It is also well known in the art that a linear filter is entirely characterized by its “impulse response.” The impulse response of a linear filter is the output that the filter produces when the input is a narrow pulse.
In order to estimate the impulse response of a linear filter it is not necessary to actually apply a narrow pulse to the input of the filter. Several techniques are well known in the art to empirically estimate the impulse response of a linear filter by applying inputs to it that differ from a narrow pulse. However, it is convenient to describe linear filters in terms of their impulse response. Accordingly, hereinafter the operation of linear-backscatter RFID systems will be described as follows:
In the illustrative example of
The delay of clutter reflections is due to the finite speed of radio waves (the same as the speed of light). The delay is proportional to the round-trip distance between the reader and the object causing the reflection. The speed of light is, approximately, 30 cm (about one foot) per nanosecond; so, for example, an object situated at a distance of 6 m from the reader will add a pulse to the clutter approximately 40 ns after the transmission of pulse 210.
Clutter components may arise from multiple reflections, a phenomenon known as multipath-propagation that is a well-known cause of signal distortion for indoor radio systems. Although multiple reflections can cause clutter components to occur at delays longer than the round-trip delay to reflecting objects in the environment, all clutter components become progressively weaker with distance traveled. Therefore, after a certain amount of time, clutter becomes vanishingly small.
In the illustrative example of
An input signal applied to the input-output port 303 is converted, by transducer 304, into an acoustic wave that travels on the surface of the piezoelectric substrate. The conversion is linear, and the propagation of the wave is also linear. The surface wave travels from left to right.
The template for manufacturing an individual device comprises patterns for 32 reflectors, 302-1 through 302-32, each of which is capable of reflecting a portion of the incident wave back toward the transducer. However, as part of the manufacturing process, most of the patterns are deleted. The ones that are not deleted result in actual reflectors that are placed on the surface of the piezoelectric substrate.
In the illustrative example of
SAW devices are advantageous because the speed of propagation of the surface acoustic wave is about five orders of magnitude smaller than the speed of light. Accordingly, to achieve a delay of 1 μs, a traveled distance of about 3 mm is sufficient, instead of 300 m. So, for example, the illustrative impulse response of
Although
The duration (also referred to as “width”) of a narrow pulse of a radio-frequency signal depends on the signal's bandwidth. Generally, radio transmissions are regulated by national and international standards, and bandwidth is usually available in narrow bands and at frequencies that are assigned by regulating bodies. For example, in the United States, the band where WiFi systems operate has a center frequency of about 2.438 GHz and a bandwidth of about 70 MHz subdivided into channels of about 22 MHz each. Accordingly, an RFID system operating in this band will be able to transmit pulses with a bandwidth of, at most, 70 MHz. If the RFID system needs to share the band with other systems (for example, with a WiFi system) then the bandwidth available to the RFID system will be even less.
The width of a band-limited pulse cannot be less than, approximately, the inverse of the available bandwidth. So, for example, a pulse limited to a maximum bandwidth of 70 MHz must be longer than about 14 ns. In contrast, in the SAW devices of
In accordance with the depiction of actual reflectors shown in
The receiver in the reader must be able to discriminate between the two pulse patterns depicted in
d12=√{square root over (∫[y1(t)−y2(t)]2dt)}{square root over (∫[y1(t)−y2(t)]2dt)}. (1)
In the case of
It is well known in the art that the euclidean distance between two waveforms is related to the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) required to discriminate between them. In particular, in a communication system that must discriminate among a plurality of waveforms, it is the minimum distance between any two waveforms that determines the required SNR, which decreases as the inverse of the square of the minimum distance. Therefore, it is a goal of the RFID system of
It is well known in the art that waveforms such as y1(t) and y2(t) are part of a Hilbert space that comprises all the possible waveforms that can be received as response signals by the reader. It is also well known in the art that a technique known as “match filtering” can be used to detect the waveforms and discriminate between them, as long as all nominal waveforms have the same energy. Mathematically, detection through match filtering is accomplished by computing a plurality of inner products between a received waveform, r(t), and the nominal transmitted waveforms know a priori: to detect the presence of one of the two waveforms, y1(t) and y2(t), in the received signal, r(t), the reader computes two inner products:
(r(t),y1(t))=∫r(t)·y1(t)dt, (2)
(r(t),y2(t))=∫r(t)·y2(t)dt;
and compares the larger of the two to a threshold in order to decide which waveform is present. Thus, the ability to discriminate between the two waveforms is a function of the inner product between them; the larger the inner product, the harder it is to discriminate between two waveforms. It is well known in the art, and it is easy to show, that the inner product between two waveforms is a monotonically decreasing function of the euclidean distance between them. Therefore, maximizing the distance between two waveforms is equivalent to minimizing their inner product.
According to the two-dimensional representation of band-limited radio-frequency signals, each signal is represented not by one, but by two waveforms, one for the in-phase dimension and one for the quadrature dimension. The formula for the Euclidean distance given in equation (1) can be applied to either dimension, and the total euclidean distance between two band-limited radio-frequency signals is defined as
d12total=√{square root over (d12inphase2+d12quad2)}, (3)
wherein d12inphase and d12quad are the euclidean distances between the two in-phase waveforms and between the two quadrature waveforms of the two signals, respectively.
Thanks to the additional dimension, it is possible to achieve good distance between pulse even if the timing difference between them is small. The phase of a pulse is the angle of the pulse signal in the in-phase-quadrature plane.
In the design of linear RFID device 300, the phase of a pulse reflected by an actual reflector can be adjusted independently of the delay of the pulse by adjusting the corresponding reflector pattern in the template in a manner that is well known in the art. Indeed, in the prior art, reflector patterns 302-1 through 302-32 are adjusted such that the phase of reflected pulses changes, from one reflector pattern to the next, by a pre-determined step. For example, the step can be 60°, as illustrated in
The width of a 30-MHz pulse is approximately 33 ns, which is 11 times the delay increment between consecutive reflector patterns; therefore, curve 710 shows that the distance increases slowly as a function of separation between reflector patterns, as the two pulses being compared are, at first, very similar to one another. In contrast, curve 720, which shows the case wherein the phase step between consecutive reflector patterns is 60°, rises very steeply because of the phase difference between the pulses. Note that curve 720 intersects curve 710 at points that are multiples of 6 because, at those points, the accumulated phase change is 60°·6=360°, and there is no phase difference between the two pulses.
Heretofore, phase difference between pulses has been expressed as a phase angle measured in degrees. For band-limited waveforms, it is also possible to express phase difference as a “phase delay.” Hereinafter, phase delay will be used to express phase difference wherever advantageous for added clarity. It is well known in the art how to convert from phase difference to phase delay and vice versa for band-limited waveforms. Also, heretofore the term “delay” has been used without qualification to mean “group delay” as is customary in the art. Hereinafter, wherever advantageous for added clarity, the distinction between group delay and phase will be made explicit. The distinction between group delay and phase delay is well known in the art.
The present invention enables the fabrication of batches of linear RFID devices without some of the costs and disadvantages of RFID devices in the prior art. For example, the illustrative embodiments of the present invention provide a method for producing a batch of linear RFID devices that are advantageous in that they are less likely to be confused with each other than batches of similar devices in the prior art. Because the purpose of RFID devices is to identify something properly and accurately, anything that reduces the likelihood of misidentification is beneficial.
RFID devices fabricated in accordance with the present invention are less likely to be confused with each other because the phase and amplitude of the signal transmitted from each device is guaranteed to be “sufficiently dissimilar” from the phase and amplitude of the signal transmitted from every other device in the batch. This criterion is more restrictive than merely requiring that each signal is different—which is the sine qua non of RFID devices.
The sufficient dissimilarity of the signals is achieved by cleverly positioning the reflectors on the RFID according to one or more “rules”—such as those described in detail below. Furthermore, the minimum amount dissimilarily—or “distance” as used in information theory—can be adjusted to affect the likelihood of confusion between any two RFID devices in a batch.
In contrast to prior-art manufactured RFID devices 401-1 and 402-2 whose patterns of actual reflectors differ by only one position, RFID devices manufactured in accordance with the present invention have patterns of actual reflectors that differ by more than one position. In particular the present invention allows the manufacture of devices that are guaranteed to differ in at least two positions.
In this illustrative embodiment, there is a phase step of 60° between consecutive possible positions and, accordingly, pulse 930-2 is shown in
In order to achieve the desired multiple differences between pulse pairs, RFID devices in accordance with the present invention comprise only patterns of actual reflectors that meet certain constraints. In particular, the constraints are set forth as follows.
In order to express the constraints mathematically, it is advantageous to label the possible reflector positions with consecutive integers, starting with 1, in the order in which they occur in the RFID device, such that higher integers correspond to positions that yield larger group delays. For example, in RFID device 300 of
The N actual reflectors can also be separately labeled with consecutive integers running from 1 to N also in the order in which they occur in the RFID device, such that higher integers correspond to positions that yield larger group delays. In particular, hereinafter the symbol h will be used to denote integers that identify one of the M possible positions, and the symbols m and n will be used to denote integers that identify one of the N actual reflectors. In particular, the function h(n) will be used to denote the sequence number of the possible position where n-th actual reflector is actually placed. With these labelings, the group delay of the pulse reflected by actual reflector n can be expressed as a function, D(h(n)), that is a monotonically increasing function of h.
in an RFID system in accordance with the present invention, RFID devices have M possible reflector positions, of which N are occupied by actual reflectors. The positions of actual reflectors are denoted, for each RFID device, by the N integer values h(1), . . . , h(N). For each RFID device the following constraints must be satisfied:
(a) Each of the N−1 separations between adjacent reflected signals, defined as h(m+1)−h(m) and denoted as Δ(m), must be expressible as the sum of a base value, Δ0(m), and an integer multiple of a position step, Δstep, common to all separations; i.e., each separation must be expressible as Δ(m)=Δ0(m)+Δinc(m)·Δstep, wherein m is an integer in the range [1, . . . , N−1], and
(b) wherein Δ0(m) is a positive integer that defines the minimum allowed value of separation Δ(m), and
(c) wherein Δstep is a positive integer greater than one that defines the increment by which separation Δ(m) can be increased, and
(d) wherein Δinc(m) is a non-negative integer.
It is well known in the art that there are
possible configurations of N actual reflectors among M possible positions, wherein
is known in the art as a binomial coefficient. Only a subset of the
such patterns satisfy constraints (a) through (d). An RFID system in accordance with the present invention has RFID devices whose pattern of actual reflectors come from that subset. The subset is not unique, as it is defined by a particular choice of the values Δstep, and Δ0(1), . . . , Δ0(N−1).
Note that the ID's of any two RFID tags are, by definition, different. But that does not imply that any ID is equally advantageous in an RFID tag as any other ID.
When the number of distinct RFID tags that can be fabricated is large and a relatively small batch of tags is to be fabricated and used together, it is advantageous to select the ID's of the tags in the batch so that they are more “dissimilar” from each other than tags with sequentially or randomly selected ID's. The reason is that by carefully selecting which ID's are used in a batch, one can reduce the likelihood that any two ID's in the batch will be confused with each other.
As a greatly-simplified example, suppose that a printed label can comprise an ID between 1 and 1,000,000, and a batch of 100 labels is to be printed and used together. Although it might be simple to print the labels with the ID's 1 through 100, the fact that some numbers look similar—at least psycho-visually—increases the likelihood that the ID on one label will be confused with another ID. For example, on casual examination, the ID “89” can be easily confused with ID's “88,” “98,” or “99.”
In general, one way to reduce the likelihood of confusion is to ensure that each ID on each label is “sufficiently dissimilar” than the other ID's in the batch. For example, the 100 ID's might be chosen so that no two ID's can have the same digit in the same position. Therefore, if use of ID “89” would preclude the use of any other ID with an “8” in the ten's column or a “9” in the one's column, and thus there would not also be an ID “88” or “99.”
In the example of printed labels, the similarity of ID's is largely an issue of psycho-visual similarity. In RFID tags, the similarity of ID's is a function of the modulation of the radio-frequency signals that the tags transmit. This includes the frequency, phase, and amplitude of the signals. Therefore, in accordance with the illustrative embodiments of the present invention, the dissimilarity of ID's is measured by the distance—in the information theory sense—of the backscatter patterns of the ID's, which is a function of the absolute and relative positions of the actual reflectors on the RFID tag.
Referring to
patterns of N reflectors in M possible positions.
At task 1002, choose values for Δstep, and Δ0(1), . . . , Δ0(N−1) and create a table of patterns Valid_ID( ) which is a subset of the
patterns, that satisfy the constraints (a) through (d) listed above.
At task 1003, the number of RFID tags to be fabricated in a batch is determined and assigned to the variable L, and a counting the variable R is initialized to zero (0).
At task 1004, the variable R is incremented by one (1).
At task 1005, the test “is Valid ID(R) sufficiently dissimilar from all of the valid ID's selected for fabrication in the batch?” Upon the first occurrence of task 1005, there have been no valid ID's selected for fabrication, and, therefore, Valid_ID(1) is sufficiently dissimilar and control passes to task 1006. Upon subsequent occurrences of task 1005, when the answer is “Yes,” control passes to task 1006; otherwise control passes to task 1004.
The function Valid_ID( ) is described below and in the accompanying figures.
In accordance with the illustrative embodiments, the test of “sufficiently dissimilar” is manifest by a rule expressed in terms of the absolute and relative positions of the reflectors on the tag.
In accordance with the first illustrative embodiment, the rule is that at least C of the positions of the N actual reflectors in each of the L radio-frequency (RFID) devices are different from the positions of the N actual reflectors in each of the other L−1 radio-frequency (RFID) devices, wherein C is a positive integer greater than one and N is a positive integer greater than or equal to C. In other words, of the N reflectors on two tags, at least C of them are in different positions. It will be clear to those skilled in the art, after reading this disclosure, how to make and use alternative embodiments of the present invention in which C has another value (e.g., C=3, C=4, C=5, C=6, etc.). As a practical matter, C is chosen as a function of L, M, and N because L, M, and N affect the number of ID's needed for the batch and the number of different ID's available.
It will be clear to those skilled in the art, after reading this disclosure, how to make and use alternative embodiments of the present invention in which the rule is that at least C of the positions of the N actual reflectors in each of the L radio-frequency (RFID) devices are at least Z positions away from the positions of the N actual reflectors in each of the other L−1 radio-frequency (RFID) devices, wherein C is a positive integer greater than one, N is a positive integer greater than or equal to C, and Z is a positive integer greater. In other words, of the N reflectors on two tags, at least C reflectors in each pair of RFID tags that are at least Z positions away from C reflectors on each other. It will be clear to those skilled in the art, after reading this disclosure, how to make and use alternative embodiments of the present invention in which C has another value (e.g., C=3, C=4, C=5, C=6, etc.). It will be clear to those skilled in the art, after reading this disclosure, how to make and use alternative embodiments of the present invention in which Z has another value (e.g., Z=2, Z=3, Z=4, Z=5, Z=6, etc.). As a practical matter, C and Z are chosen as a function of L, M, and N because L, M, and N affect the number of ID's needed for the batch and the number of different ID's available.
At task 1006, Valid ID(R) is selected as an ID for fabrication in the batch.
At task 1007, the test is whether enough ID's have been selected for each tag in the batch? When the answer is “Yes,” control passes to task 1007; otherwise control passes to task 1003.
At task 1008, the batch of L tags is fabricated, each with one of the selected ID's.
The method depicted in
It is to be understood that the disclosure teaches just one example of the illustrative embodiment and that many variations of the invention can easily be devised by those skilled in the art after reading this disclosure and that the scope of the present invention is to be determined by the following claims.
This application claims the benefit of, and incorporates by reference, U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 61/209,393, filed 6 Mar. 2009. This application claims the benefit of, and incorporates by reference, U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 61/209,438, filed 6 Mar. 2009. This application claims the benefit of, and incorporates by reference, U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 61/311,309, filed 6 Mar. 2010.
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61209393 | Mar 2009 | US | |
61209438 | Mar 2009 | US | |
61311309 | Mar 2010 | US |