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
Applicant's arguments filed 10/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Beg fails to teach transmitting by a sensing initiator a sensing null data packet (NDP) and receiving, from a sensing responder, a channel state information (CSI) report responsive to the sensing NDP, wherein the CSI report comprises receiver frequency response information determined by performing a channel estimation operation, as claimed in Claim 1.
Response: para 49 states “The channel information for each of the communication links may be analyzed (e.g., by a hub device or other device in a wireless communication network, or a sensing transmitter, sensing receiver, or sensing initiator communicably coupled to the network) “ indicating the channel information can be analyzed by the initiating transmitter to determine the motion has occurred in the space implying that the channel information needs to be sent from a receiver of the network. Since the analysis is don’t based on the frequency response of the channel the CSI report comprises frequency information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Beg et al (US 20230221423).
Regarding claim 1, Beg teaches method of wireless sensing performed over a wireless network (abs), the method comprising: transmitting by a sensing initiator a sensing null data packet (para 83); receiving from a sensing responder a channel state information (CSI) report responsive to the sensing NDP (para 85), wherein the CSI report comprises receiver frequency response information determined by performing a channel estimation operation (para 130, “ the received signal represents the channel response of space 200. As shown in FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B, channel response 360 and channel response 370 are different from frequency domain representation 350 of the transmitted signal. W”); and performing a wireless sensing operation according to the frequency response information (para 130, “ the received signal represents the channel response of space 200. As shown in FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B, channel response 360 and channel response 370 are different from frequency domain representation 350 of the transmitted signal. W”).
Regarding claim 2, Beg teaches the frequency response information pertains to a frequency response of the sensing responder (para 130, “wireless communication device 204A transmits a signal that has a flat frequency profile (the magnitude of each frequency component f.sub.1, f.sub.2, and f.sub.3 is the same), as shown in frequency domain representation 350. Because of the interaction of the signal with space 200 (and the objects therein), the signals received at wireless communication device 204B that are based on the signal sent from wireless communication device 204A are different from the transmitted signal. In this example, where the transmitted signal has a flat frequency profile, the received signal represents the channel response of space 20”), and the performing a wireless sensing operation comprises indicating the frequency response variation of the sensing responder (para 130, “When motion occurs in space 200, a variation in the channel response will also occur. For example, as shown in FIG. 3B, channel response 370 that is associated with motion of object in space 200 varies from channel response 360 that is associated with no motion in space”).
Regarding claim 13 and 20, Beg teaches transmitter apparatus for performing wireless sensing, the apparatus comprising: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor and operable to store data; and a radio under control of said processor and operable to perform wireless sensing (para) , and wherein the processor is operable to cause the radio to: transmit a sensing null data packet (NDP); receive a channel state information (CSI) report responsive to the sensing NDP, wherein the CSI report comprises receiver frequency response information; and perform a wireless sensing operation according to the frequency response information (para 83, 85, and 130)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beg as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Chong et al (US 20210266838).
Regarding claim 3 and 15, Chong teaches the variation in frequency response is caused by the sensing responder adjusting a low noise amplifier (LNA) switch for receiving data (para 56). It would have been obvious to modify Beg to include the variation in frequency response is caused by the sensing responder adjusting a low noise amplifier (LNA) switch for receiving data because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to vary the frequency response of the signal of Chong in the object tracking system of Beg to yield a predictable object tracking device.
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beg as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Bourdoux et al (US 20040252632).
Regarding claim 4 and 16, Bourdoux teaches the variation in frequency response is caused by the sensing responder device adjusting a various gain amplifier (VGA) for receiving data (para 158). It would have been obvious to modify Beg to include the variation in frequency response is caused by the sensing responder device adjusting a various gain amplifier (VGA) for receiving data because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to vary the frequency response of the signal of Bourdoux in the object tracking system of Beg to yield a predictable object tracking device.
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beg as applied to claim 2 and 14 above, and further in view of Malik et al (US 20180287568).
Regarding claim 5 and 17, Malik teaches the CSI report comprises at least one of: a receiver operating point (OP) gain type subfield; and a receiver OP gain index subfield (para 64). It would have been obvious to modify Beg to include the CSI report comprises at least one of: a receiver operating point (OP) gain type subfield; and a receiver OP gain index subfield because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to vary the frequency response of the signal of Malik in the object tracking system of Beg to yield a predictable object tracking device.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A BRAINARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648