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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
2. Claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the LG WLAN Sensing document (D1 as used in the written opinion) in view of U.S. Pub. 2024/0276303 to Jang.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, (as in the written opinion) the LG WLAN document D1 teaches a method implemented in a first station (STA), the method comprising:
receiving, from a second STA, a message including information indicating a request to participate in a sensing procedure and information indicating one or more requested sensing parameters to be used for performing the sensing procedure as at least one of a transmit responder or a receive responder; (see pages 5 and 7-8, which teach that that the STAs must negotiate the roles and parameters for the WLAN sensing process, and see pages 7-8 for parameters such as Tx/Rx schedules, sensing period, frame structure, type of measurement and/or feedback, beamforming, etc.).
Regarding the other two steps of claim 1 which recite:
“transmitting, to the second STA, in response to the received request to participate in the sensing procedure, a response message including an indication that the first STA is capable of participating in the sensing procedure using the one or more sensing parameters, the response message at least indicating that the first STA is capable of participating in the sensing procedure as a transmit responder; and
performing, using the requested sensing parameters, the sensing procedure as the transmit responder by, transmitting one or more beamformed signals”,
although the LG WLAN Sensing document D1 would implicitly include these steps (in the process described on pages 5-9), as this document is written at a high level, and does not go into details such as that after negotiating roles, this negotiation would implicitly require the recited station to “transmit a response…” and then subsequently “preforming the sensing procedure…” (as also shown at a high level on page 7 and beamforming page 8), Jang is added to more explicitly teach these features.
In an analogous art, Jang teaches a method (as shown in Fig. 10) of STAs negotiating roles within a WLAN sensing procedure. See for example, sections [0098] to [0113]. See Figs. 1a and 1b (as described in sections [0053] to [0063]), which include transceivers 113/123 in STA1 and STA2. See also Fig. 11 which shows sensing the request and response signals between STA1 and STA2 (as described in sections [0130] to [0132]). See also Fig. 23 (as described in sections [0187] to [0198]), which describe and shows steps 2310, 2320 and 2330, which are the recited steps of “receiving…”, “transmitting…” and “performing…”, between the two STAs, as recited. See also Figs.1 and 8 of Jang which includes a transceiver in each STA (for apparatus claim 11).
Therefore, as D1 and Jang both teach multi-STA measurement procedures which include the STAs assigning and/or negotiating the transmit or receive responder roles, and as Jang more explicitly teaches the STAs transmitting and receiving messages to participate with a specific role in the process (and also to perform the sensing process), it would have been obvious to include these features of Jang into D1, as described in [0092] of Jang, as to enable the STAs to perform these features.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, which recite “wherein the response message indicates that the first STA is capable of participating as both the transmit responder and a receive responder”, see page 12 of D1 and see section [0142] of Jang which teaches that the negotiated role may be changed (from transmitter to receiver), which renders obvious “participating as both transmitter and receiver” as either STA may assume either role, and see Figs. 9-10 as described in sections [0095] to [0110], which also describe the negotiation of roles between the STAs, as recited.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, which recite “wherein performing the sensing procedure as both the transmit responder and the receive responder comprises: transmitting the one or more beamformed signals; and transmitting, to the second STA, information associated with measurements of the one or more transmitted beamformed signals”, see for example, Figs. 9-10 as described in sections [0095] to [0110], which describe the first STA (shown as STA) transmitting signals used to sense a target, and then subsequently transmitting back to the recited “second STA” (which is the AP shown in Fig. 9), the feedback measurements (recited “information associated with the measurements of the one or more transmitted beamformed signals”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, which recite “wherein the one or more requested sensing parameters include at least one of a sensing resolution, a sensing duration, a sensing accuracy, or a presence in a given location”, see for example, sections [0151] and [0158] of Jang which teach that the parameters include the beacon period (which is the recited “sensing duration”).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, which recite “wherein at least one of the first STA or the second STA is a non-Access Point (AP)-STA”, see for example, section [0109] of Jang which teaches that the STAs may be a non-AP-STA, as recited.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, which recite “wherein at least one of the first STA or the second STA is an Access Point (AP)-STA”, see for example, section [0109] of Jang which teaches that the STAs may be an AP-STA, as recited.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. 2016/0285724 to Lundquist.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, which recite “further comprising: transmitting, to the second STA, responsive to the requested one or more sensing parameters, a request for additional bandwidth; receiving, from the second STA, a message including information allocating additional bandwidth; and transmitting the one or more beamformed signals using the allocated additional bandwidth”, although Jang teaches using an allocated bandwidth (see sections [0201] and [0221]), as it does not “request additional bandwidth”, Lundquist is added.
In an analogous art, Lundquist teaches a peer to peer (“STA to STA”) network where any of the STAs/peer devices may request additional bandwidth. See for example, sections [0017] to [0018], which teach messages between the STAs/peers which request the additional bandwidth and answer the request for bandwidth.
Therefore, as D1, Jang and Lundquist all teach peer to peer (or STA to STA) networks with messaging between these devices and as Lundquist explicitly teaches a device requesting additional bandwidth, it would have been obvious to modify the D1/Jang combination to include this feature, for the reasons as described in Lundquist, which are that as wireless network conditions change, bandwidth requirements may therefore change and need to be updated to ensure communications are maintained.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 3 and 13 above, and further in view of either one of U.S. Pubs. 2022/0416976 to Baek or 2021/0266128 to Zhang.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, which recite “wherein requested sensing parameters to be used for performing the sensing procedure as the receive responder include at least one of a multiplexing type or resources for transmitting the information associated with the measurements of the one or more beamformed signals”, although section [0059] of Jang which teaches determining the time/frequency resources, as the “multiplexing type” is not indicated, either Baek or Zhang is added.
In an analogous art, Baek or Zhang teach wireless stations establishing resources for measurements and feedback. See for example, the Abstract, sections [0015] to [0019] of Baek, and sections [0084] to [0089], [0137] to [0138] and [0286] of Zhang which teach the negotiated resources for communication include the multiplexing type, as recited.
Therefore, as D1/Jang and either Baek/Zhang teach negotiating communication resources, and as either Baek or Zhang teach including the multiplexing type, it would have been obvious to include the multiplexing type for the reasons as in either Baek or Zhang, as resources are conventionally determined by the type of multiplexing.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of either one of U.S. Pubs. 2023/0155663 to Li or 8,843,073 to Cordiero.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, which recite “wherein the information requested sensing parameters to be used for performing the sensing procedure as the transmit responder includes at least one of a beam direction, a beam identifier (ID), or a beam-refinement duration”, although D1 and Jang teach beamforming, as they do not specifically identify the beam, either Li or Cordeiro is added.
In an analogous art, Li or Cordeiro teach UEs measuring beams. See for example, Fig. 4B and section [0069] of Li which teaches “For example, the transmitter may identify the beam indicated by the directional sensing signal request, and may identify the one or more parameters for the second sensing signal based at least in part on the identified beam (e.g., such that the second sensing signal has one or more characteristics matching those of the beam)”. and see the last lines of claim 1 of Cordeiro which teaches “wherein the at least one directional parameter includes an identifier of a remote device towards which the one or more measurements are to be directed, and an identifier of a beam through which the second device is to perform the one or more measurements”.
Therefore, as D1 and Jang both teach beamforming in multi-STA measurement procedures and as either Li or Cordeiro teach identifying beams for measurement, it would have been obvious to include these features into Jang/D1, so as to specifically identify the beams used for the STA measuring process, as is desired.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 10,938,464 to Jeong.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, which recite “wherein a predetermined angle of arrival and departure (AoA-AoD) pattern is used when measuring the one or more beamformed signals includes to identify one or more obstacles”, as the references above teach beamforming, Jeong is added to teach determining obstacles, as recited.
In an analogous art, Jeong teaches a system which detects obstacles between wireless devices. See for example, Figs. 6, 7, 9 and 12 as described in columns 15-16, which involve changing beamforming angles to detect the obstacles, and see claim 1 of Jeong which teaches that the obstacles are determined with “pre-trained beamforming configurations” which is equivalent to the recited “predetermined angles”.
Therefore, as all of D1, Jang and Jeong teach beamforming in a multi-STA environment and as Jeong teaches using predetermined beamforming patterns to detect obstacles, it would have been obvious to include this feature into D1/Jang, as Jeong teaches the conventionality and benefits of detecting obstacles using beamforming, as using the directed beams is suited to detection of objects (as the beam directions are already known), as is conventional.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's filed arguments have been considered but are not persuasive, as they generally assert that the references do not teach the claimed features.
As shown in the drawings on pages 5-8 in Document D1, in the “negotiation phase” STA 1 sends a “SENS Request” message to STA 2, and then STA 2 subsequently responds with a “SENS Response” message. Regarding the first two steps of the claim language, the “SENS Request” message is the recited “message to participate…” and the “SENS Response” message is “message indicating that the first station is capable of participating in the sensing procedure”, which would include its role (as these drawings relate to the negotiation of roles within the sensing process).
It is also noted that Applicant has not addressed the cited sections of Jang. For example, the previous Office Action cited Fig. 11, sections [0130]-[0132] and also cited sections [0187]-[0198] of Jang. Fig. 11 and sections [0130]-0132] teach the messages between the first and second STAs and section [0196] of Jang teaches “the first STA may transmit a sensing initiation frame to the second STA. The sensing initiation frame may include information on sensing roles of the first and second STAs. The information on the sensing roles of the first and second STAs may include information on whether the first and second STAs are transmitters for transmitting the sensing signal or receivers for receiving the sensing signal”.
Therefore, as the references teach the first and second messages between devices/STAs and these messages include the recited/negotiated roles, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN SHAUN KELLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5652. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays.
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at (571)270-3647. 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.
/STEVEN S KELLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights