DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 USC 101 is withdrawn in light of the filed amendment.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4, filed December 18, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 14 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wen et al (US 2019/0174330) and Xing (US 2019/0253184).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al. (US 2019/0174330, Wen hereafter) in view of Xing (US 2019/0253184)
RE claim 1 and 14, Wen discloses a method and system for performing sensing in a wireless network, the wireless network having at least one node of a first type arranged for performing analysis of channel state information related to wireless signals transmitted in the wireless network the wireless network further having nodes of a second type that is different from the first type (Paragraph 62-63 and Figure 3, “The embodiment mainly acquires channel state information between the WiFi device such as a wireless router and an access point”, “the signal receiver is exemplified by, but not limited to, a computer device having a wireless network card, the signal transmitter is exemplified by, but not limited to, a wireless router, and the wireless signal is exemplified by, but not limited to, a WiFi signal transmitted by the wireless router.”), and the method comprising: transmitting, by the at least one node of the plurality of nodes of the second type to a node of the at least one node of the first type, at least part of the determined channel state information related to the one or more wireless signals transmitted between the plurality of nodes of the second type (Paragraph 64, “ in step 301, a signal receiver receives a WiFi signal transmitted by a wireless router, and obtains channel state information from the WiFi signal. In this step, a wireless router can be used as a signal transmitter to transmit WiFi signals. A computer device having a wireless network card serves as a signal receiver. The signal receiver establishes a connection with the wireless router via the wireless network card, and receives a WiFi signal, and collects, obtains and stores the original channel state information of the WiFi signal, for example stored by recording in the text in binary form. The wireless router can be a commercial wireless router or a common router.”) receiving, by the node of the at least one node of the first type, the at least part of the determined channel state information related to the one or more wireless signals transmitted between the plurality of nodes of the second type (Paragraphs 70-87,pre-processing and processing of the CSI results in classified CSI data which indicates motion by a human or object through the area occupied by the signals between devices)
Wen does not explicitly disclose transmitting one or more wireless signals between plurality of nodes of the second type; determining, by at least one node of the plurality of nodes of the second type, channel state information, related to the one or more wireless signals transmitted between the plurality of nodes of the second type; determining, by the node of the at least one node of the first type, further channel state information related to the one or more further wireless signals transmitted between the at least one node of the plurality of nodes of the second type to the node of the at least one node of the first type; and determining a sensing value based on both the received at least part of the channel state information related to the one or more wireless signals transmitted between the plurality of nodes of the second type and the determined further channel state information related to the one or more further wireless signals transmitted between the at least one node of the plurality of nodes of the second type to the node of the at least one node of the first type.
However, Xing teaches transmitting one or more wireless signals between plurality of nodes of the second type (Paragraph 94, “a scenario in which CSI between a pair of 802.11 STA devices is used to determine an object that comes between the pair of 802.11 STA devices. When a moving object comes between the pair of 802.11 STA devices, the CSI between the pair of 802.11 STA devices changes. Based on changes of the CSI, invasion detection may be performed, or the object that comes between the pair of 802.11 STA devices may be determined.”); determining, by at least one node of the plurality of nodes of the second type, channel state information, related to the one or more wireless signals transmitted between the plurality of nodes of the second type (Paragraph 94, “a scenario in which CSI between a pair of 802.11 STA devices is used to determine an object that comes between the pair of 802.11 STA devices. When a moving object comes between the pair of 802.11 STA devices, the CSI between the pair of 802.11 STA devices changes. Based on changes of the CSI, invasion detection may be performed, or the object that comes between the pair of 802.11 STA devices may be determined.”); determining, by the node of the at least one node of the first type, further channel state information related to the one or more further wireless signals transmitted between the at least one node of the plurality of nodes of the second type to the node of the at least one node of the first type (Paragraph 93 further discloses CSI measurements can be between both STAs or STAs and an AP); and determining a sensing value based on both the received at least part of the channel state information related to the one or more wireless signals transmitted between the plurality of nodes of the second type and the determined further channel state information related to the one or more further wireless signals transmitted between the at least one node of the plurality of nodes of the second type to the node of the at least one node of the first type (Paragraphs 93-94, CSI measurements between both STAs and APs can be used to detect motion of objects or humans that pass among them.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Wen with the teachings of Xing since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 4, Wem in view of Xing discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Xing further teaches wherein the sensing value is indicative of movement of an object in a sensing zone, said sensing zone defined by at least the position of multiple of the plurality of nodes of the second type (Paragraphs 93-94, CSI measurements between both STAs and APs can be used to detect motion of objects or humans that pass among them. Figure 1 is interpreted as an overview of a ”zone” created by the coverage area formed between STAs and APs)
RE claim 13, Wen discloses a computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a processor (Figures 8-10), cause the processor to carry out the method according to claim 1 (See above grounds of rejection for claim 1).
RE claim 15, Wen discloses device for use as a node of the first type in the system according to claim 14 (See grounds of rejection for claim 14 above), the device comprising: an input for receiving the at least part of the determined channel state information from a node of the second type; and a processor arranged for analyzing the received at least part of the channel state information and further for, based on said analysis, determining a sensing value (Paragraph 64, “ in step 301, a signal receiver receives a WiFi signal transmitted by a wireless router, and obtains channel state information from the WiFi signal. In this step, a wireless router can be used as a signal transmitter to transmit WiFi signals. A computer device having a wireless network card serves as a signal receiver. The signal receiver establishes a connection with the wireless router via the wireless network card, and receives a WiFi signal, and collects, obtains and stores the original channel state information of the WiFi signal, for example stored by recording in the text in binary form. The wireless router can be a commercial wireless router or a common router.”)).
Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen in view of Xing and further in view of Omer et al. (US 10,567,914, Omer hereafter).
RE claim 5, Wen in view of Xing discloses the method according to claim 1 as set forth above. Wen in view of Xing does not explicitly disclose wherein the determining channel state information, related to the one or more wireless signals, by the at least one node of the plurality of nodes of the second type comprises extracting multiple time-series values from a communication stack of the at least one node of the plurality of nodes of the second type determinations.
However, Omer teaches wherein the determining channel state information, related to the one or more wireless signals, by the at least one node of the plurality of nodes of the second type comprises extracting multiple time-series values from a communication stack of the at least one node of the plurality of nodes of the second type determinations (Column 11,lines 40-50:"a more accurate, reliable or robust determination can be made by analyzing multiple motion indicator values for a time frame collectively. And in some cases, data sets can be updated recursively to further improve the accuracy, for example, of location. For instance, the motion indicator values for each sequential time frame can be used to recursively update data sets representing the conditional probability of detecting motion at distinct locations in the space, and the recursively updated data sets can be used to make an overall determination of where motion occurred during a subsequent time frame.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Wen in view of Xing with the teachings of Omer since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 6, Wen in view of Xing and further in view of Omer discloses the method according to claim 5 as set forth above. Note that Omer further teaches wherein the determining channel state information, related to the one or more wireless signals, by the at least one node of the plurality of nodes of the second type further comprises selecting a frequency or periodicity at which the channel state information is extracted (Column 4, lines 44-58 which discloses devices 102A and 102B further periodically transmit motion probe signals and column 13, lines 26-30 which disclose continually polling devices to obtain motion indicator values for each wireless link in the plurality of wireless links detect motion and/or presence data.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Wen in view of Xing with the teachings of Omer since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 7, Wen in view of Xing and further in view of Omer discloses the method according to claim 5 as set forth above. Note that Omer further teaches wherein the determining channel state information, related to said one or more wireless signals, by the at least one node of the plurality of nodes of the second type further comprises selecting the at least part of the channel state information to be transmitted from the determined channel state information (Column 4, lines 44-58 which discloses devices 102A and 102B further periodically transmit motion probe signals and column 13, lines 26-30 which disclose continually polling devices to obtain motion indicator values for each wireless link in the plurality of wireless links detect motion and/or presence data. Further, see column 11, lines 40-50:"a more accurate, reliable or robust determination can be made by analyzing multiple motion indicator values for a time frame collectively. And in some cases, data sets can be updated recursively to further improve the accuracy, for example, of location. For instance, the motion indicator values for each sequential time frame can be used to recursively update data sets representing the conditional probability of detecting motion at distinct locations in the space, and the recursively updated data sets can be used to make an overall determination.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Wen in view of Xing with the teachings of Omer since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 8, Wen in view of Xing and further in view of Omer discloses the method according to claim 7 as set forth above. Note that Omer further teaches wherein the selecting the at least part of the channel state information to be transmitted from the determined channel state information is performed based on at least one of: a state of the wireless network, the sensing value to be determined, and amount of the channel state information that is extracted (Column 4, lines 44-58 which discloses devices 102A and 102B further periodically transmit motion probe signals and column 13, lines 26-30 which disclose continually polling devices to obtain motion indicator values for each wireless link in the plurality of wireless links detect motion and/or presence data. Further, see column 11, lines 40-50:"a more accurate, reliable or robust determination can be made by analyzing multiple motion indicator values for a time frame collectively. And in some cases, data sets can be updated recursively to further improve the accuracy, for example, of location. For instance, the motion indicator values for each sequential time frame can be used to recursively update data sets representing the conditional probability of detecting motion at distinct locations in the space, and the recursively updated data sets can be used to make an overall determination.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Wen in view of Xing with the teachings of Omer since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 9, Wen in view of Xing and further in view of Omer discloses the method according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Omer further teaches wherein the analysis of the received at least part of the channel state information performed by the node of the at least one node of the first type is different from the analysis of the further channel state information performed by the node of the at least one node of the first type (Column 4, lines 44-58 which discloses devices 102A and 102B further periodically transmit motion probe signals and column 13, lines 26-30 which disclose continually polling devices to obtain motion indicator values for each wireless link in the plurality of wireless links detect motion and/or presence data. Further, see column 11, lines 40-50:"a more accurate, reliable or robust determination can be made by analyzing multiple motion indicator values for a time frame collectively. And in some cases, data sets can be updated recursively to further improve the accuracy, for example, of location. For instance, the motion indicator values for each sequential time frame can be used to recursively update data sets representing the conditional probability of detecting motion at distinct locations in the space, and the recursively updated data sets can be used to make an overall determination.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Wen in view of Xing with the teachings of Omer since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 10, Wen in view of Xing and further in view of Omer discloses the method according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Omer further teaches wherein the node of the at least one node of the first type controls which at least one node of the plurality of nodes of the second type determines channel state information related to said wireless signal (Column 4, lines 44-58 which discloses devices 102A and 102B further periodically transmit motion probe signals and column 13, lines 26-30 which disclose continually polling devices to obtain motion indicator values for each wireless link in the plurality of wireless links detect motion and/or presence data. Further, see column 11, lines 40-50:"a more accurate, reliable or robust determination can be made by analyzing multiple motion indicator values for a time frame collectively. And in some cases, data sets can be updated recursively to further improve the accuracy, for example, of location. For instance, the motion indicator values for each sequential time frame can be used to recursively update data sets representing the conditional probability of detecting motion at distinct locations in the space, and the recursively updated data sets can be used to make an overall determination.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Wen in view of Xing with the teachings of Omer since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 11, Wen in view of Xing and further in view of Omer discloses the method according to claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Omer further teaches wherein the node of the at least one node of the first type controls a characteristic of the transmitting at least part of the determined channel state information by the at least one node of the plurality of nodes of the second type to the node of the at least one node of the first type (Column 4, lines 44-58 which discloses devices 102A and 102B further periodically transmit motion probe signals and column 13, lines 26-30 which disclose continually polling devices to obtain motion indicator values for each wireless link in the plurality of wireless links detect motion and/or presence data. Further, see column 11, lines 40-50:"a more accurate, reliable or robust determination can be made by analyzing multiple motion indicator values for a time frame collectively. And in some cases, data sets can be updated recursively to further improve the accuracy, for example, of location. For instance, the motion indicator values for each sequential time frame can be used to recursively update data sets representing the conditional probability of detecting motion at distinct locations in the space, and the recursively updated data sets can be used to make an overall determination.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Wen in view of Xing with the teachings of Omer since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen in view of Xing in view Wogulis et al. (US 8,862,796, Wogulis hereafter).
RE claim 12, Wen in view of Xing discloses the method according to claim 1 as set forth above. Wen in view of Xing does not explicitly disclose wherein the wireless network comprises multiple nodes of the first type, and wherein the method further comprises: selecting one or more of the multiple nodes of the first type to which the at least part of the determined channel state information is transmitted, such that the selected one or more of the multiple nodes of the first type receive the at least part of the determined channel state information and analyze the received at least part of the channel state information.
However, Wogulis teaches wherein the wireless network comprises multiple nodes of the first type, and wherein the method further comprises: selecting one or more of the multiple nodes of the first type to which the at least part of the determined channel state information is transmitted, such that the selected one or more of the multiple nodes of the first type receive the at least part of the determined channel state information and analyze the received at least part of the channel state information (Column 10 lines 22-49 teaches a system in which data is collected, logged and analyzed by a real-time analytics server. This analytics server may be one of many and is arbitrarily selected by the logging server to receive the data to be analyzed. In doing so “the logging server 210 reduces latency in reporting real-time analytics data because the logging server 210 does not rely on any particular real-time server to process the tracking data communications”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Wen in view of Xing with the teachings of Wogulis in order to minimize the latency in performing data analysis and taking action based upon said analysis since the analysis is not reliant upon a single dedicated device or server.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/James P Duffy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461