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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 19-26 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1, 19-26 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3 of US Patent 12,114,357.
Regarding claim 1, 21, 24 although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 1
‘357 patent Claim 1
A method performed in a wireless local area network (Wireless Local Area Network) system, the method comprising:
A method performed in a wireless local area network (Wireless Local Area Network) system, the method comprising:
transmitting, by a non-AP station (STA), a sensing initiation frame to an access point (AP), wherein the the sensing initiation frame allows the non-AP STA to invoke a procedure to request the AP to perform a sensing procedure, wherein the sensing initiation frame is related to at least one sensing responder for which the AP is requested to include the sensing procedure, wherein the sensing initiation frame includes address information related to the at least one sensing responder and role information of the at least one sensing responder, wherein the role information has a first value for a sensing receiver role and has a second value for a second transmitter role;
transmitting, by a non-AP station (STA), a sensing request frame to an access point (AP), wherein the sensing request frame allows the non-AP STA to invoke a procedure to request the AP to perform a sensing procedure, wherein the sensing request frame is related to at least one sensing responder for which the AP is requested to include in the sensing procedure, wherein the sensing request frame includes address information related to the at least one sensing responder and role information of the at least one sensing responder, wherein the role information has a first value for a sensing receiver role and has a second value for a sensing transmitter role, wherein the first value for the sensing receiver role is set to one (1);
receiving, by the non-AP STA, a sensing response frame from the AP in response to the sensing initiation frame;
receiving, by the non-AP STA, a sensing response frame from the AP in response to the sensing request frame; and
receiving, by the non-AP STA, a sensing feedback frame from the AP,
receiving, by the non-AP STA, a sensing report frame from the AP,
wherein the sensing feedback frame includes information related to a result of a sensing measurement received by the AP.
wherein the sensing report frame includes a sensing measurement report received by the AP.
As can be seen by claim comparison, claim 1 of the instant application (claim 24 recites a version from perspective of AP) recites a substantially similar variation of claim 1 of ‘357; thus the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.App.1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art. Moreover, the doctrine of double patenting seeks to prevent the unjustified extension of patent exclusivity beyond the term of a patent.
Regarding claim 19, 22, 25, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 19
‘462 patent Claim 1
wherein the first value for a sensing receiver role is set to “1”.
…wherein the first value for the sensing receiver role is set to one (1);
Regarding claim 20, 23, 26, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 20
‘462 patent Claim 3
wherein the sensing measurement is received based on a trigger frame transmitted by the AP and at least one trigger-based physical later protocol data unit (PPDU) received by the AP.
wherein the sensing measurement report is received based on a trigger frame transmitted by the AP and at least one trigger-based physical later protocol data unit (PPDU) received by the AP.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 21, 24 objected to because of the following informalities: The claim(s) recite “second transmitter role”, which contextually appears to be a misspelling of "sensing transmitter role".
Claim 1, 21, 24 recites “…at least one sensing responder for which the AP is requested to include the sensing procedure”, which appears to be missing an “in” between “include” and “the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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.
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 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.
Claim 1, 21, 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IEEE 802.11-20/1232r0 in view of Yao (US 2007/0189168).
For claim 1, IEEE teaches: A method performed in a wireless local area network (Wireless Local Area Network) system (see at least slide 1-2, “WLAN sensing protocol”), the method comprising:
transmitting, by a non-AP station (STA), a sensing initiation frame to an access point (AP), wherein the sensing initiation frame allows the non-AP STA to invoke a procedure to request the AP to perform a sensing procedure (see at least slide 3-5, a sensing initiator may exchange sensing parameters with a sensing responder during negotiation comprising sensing request. See at least slide 3, devices may be well known AP and STAs, thus STA may be initiator and AP may be responder), wherein the sensing initiation frame is related to at least one sensing responder for which the AP is requested to include the sensing procedure (see at least slide 3-5, sensing request is sent to the sensing responder; the responder may be included in the sensing procedure (slide 6, as a sensing receiver or sensing transmitter)), wherein the sensing initiation frame includes role information of the at least one sensing responder, wherein the role information has a first value for a sensing receiver role and has a second value for a second transmitter role (see at least slide 4-6, sensing parameters include “Identification of the roles of sensing transmitter and sensing receiver”; the responder may be either role, thus responder identification may be one of two values i.e. a first identity indicating the responder is a sensing receiver, or a second identity indicating the responder is a sensing transmitter);
receiving, by the non-AP STA, a sensing response frame from the AP in response to the sensing initiation frame (see at least slide 5, responder may send sensing response back to the initiator); and
receiving, by the non-AP STA, a sensing feedback frame from the AP (see at least slide 4, 6, sensing measurements may be reported back to the initiator from the responder e.g. AP),
wherein the sensing feedback frame includes information related to a result of a sensing measurement received by the AP (see at least slide 4, 6, sensing measurements may be reported back to the initiator from the responder e.g. AP).
IEEE does not explicitly teach: …wherein the sensing initiation frame includes address information related to the at least one sensing responder. Yao from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0004, frame headers for STA and AP communications may comprise Transmitter Address and Receiver Address). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Yao to the system of IEEE, so the sensing initiation frame comprises a Receiver Address i.e. sensing responder AP, as suggested by Yao. The motivation would have been to facilitate transmission by implementing well known address fields in WLAN frames (Yao 0004).
Claim 21 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 1 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
For claim 24, IEEE teaches: An access point (AP) in a wireless local area network (Wireless Local Area Network) system (see at least slide 1-2, “WLAN sensing protocol”), comprising: a transceiver adapted to transmit and/or receive a wireless signal; and a processor adapted to control the transceiver (see at least slide 3, devices may be well known AP and STAs comprising processor/memory for communications), wherein the processor is further adapted to:
receive a sensing initiation frame from a non-AP station (STA), wherein the sensing initiation frame allows the non-AP STA to invoke a procedure to request the AP to perform a sensing procedure (see at least slide 3-5, a sensing initiator may exchange sensing parameters with a sensing responder during negotiation comprising sensing request. See at least slide 3, devices may be well known AP and STAs, thus STA may be initiator and AP may be responder), wherein the sensing initiation frame is related to at least one sensing responder for which the AP is requested to include the sensing procedure (see at least slide 3-5, sensing request is sent to the sensing responder, which may be included in the sensing procedure (slide 6, as a sensing receiver or sensing transmitter)), wherein the sensing initiation frame includes role information of the at least one sensing responder, wherein the role information has a first value for a sensing receiver role and has a second value for a second transmitter role (see at least slide 4-6, sensing parameters include “Identification of the roles of sensing transmitter and sensing receiver”; the responder may be either role, thus responder identification may be one of two values i.e. a first identity indicating the responder is a sensing receiver, or a second identity indicating the responder is a sensing transmitter);
transmit a sensing response frame to the non-AP STA in response to the sensing initiation frame (see at least slide 5, responder may send sensing response back to the initiator); and
transmit a sensing feedback frame to the non-AP STA (see at least slide 4, 6, sensing measurements may be reported back to the initiator from the responder e.g. AP),
wherein the sensing feedback frame includes information related to a result of a sensing measurement received by the AP (see at least slide 4, 6, sensing measurements may be reported back to the initiator from the responder e.g. AP).
IEEE does not explicitly teach: …wherein the sensing initiation frame includes address information related to the at least one sensing responder. Yao from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0004, frame headers for STA and AP communications may comprise Transmitter Address and Receiver Address). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Yao to the system of IEEE, so the sensing initiation frame comprises a Receiver Address i.e. sensing responder AP, as suggested by Yao. The motivation would have been to facilitate transmission by implementing well known address fields in WLAN frames (Yao 0004).
Claim 20, 23, 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IEEE 802.11-20/1232r0 in view of Yao (US 2007/0189168) in view of Sadeghi et al. (US 2020/0359248).
For claim 20, IEEE, Yao teach claim 1, but not explicitly: wherein the sensing measurement is received based on a trigger frame transmitted by the AP and at least one trigger-based physical later protocol data unit (PPDU) received by the AP. Sadeghi from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0026, an AP may transmit trigger frames to sensing transmitters during measurement phase and receive sensing packets accordingly (see at least 0002, trigger based PPDUs may be used for sensing)). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Sadeghi to the system of claim 1, so the responder (AP) may transmit trigger frames to receive and measure sensing packets/PPDUs, as suggested by Sadeghi. The motivation would have been to facilitate sensing via well known trigger based sensing packets (Sadeghi 0026).
Claim 23 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 20 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 26 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 20 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19, 22, 25 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, and any double patenting issues addressed.
For claim 19, 22, 25 the prior art fails to teach/suggest: wherein the first value for a sensing receiver role is set to “1”. The closest prior art IEEE 802.11-20/1232r0 discloses role information indicating sensing transmitter or sensing receiver (slide 4-6), but not the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Da Silva et al. (US 2021/0288779) discloses wireless local area network sensing sounding.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIREN WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-0687. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7-4. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 571-272-3940. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Siren Wei/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2467