DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on 03/16/2026 has been entered and made of record.
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 Status
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are amended.
Claim 4 is canceled.
No new claim is/are added.
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are pending for examination.
Applicant Argument
Re: Objections to the Specification:
Applicant’s Remarks (remark page 9), filed on 03/16/2026, regarding specification objection have been considered and the specification has been amended. The objections to specification have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Re: Objections to the Claims:
Applicant’s Remarks (remark page 9), filed on 03/16/2026, regarding claim objection have been considered and the claims 2-13 have been amended. The objections to claims 2-13 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Re: Rejections Under §101:
Applicant’s Remarks (remark page 9), filed on 03/16/2026, regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C $ 101 to claim 15 have been considered and the claim 15 has been amended. The Rejection under 35 U.S.C $ 101 to claim 15 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Re: Rejections Under §103:
Applicant’s response has been fully considered. Below are applicant’s main arguments and examiner’s response to those arguments:
Applicant’s argument: (remark pages 10-11), filed on 03/16/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 14, ‘McFarland and Beg fail to teach or suggest … Independent claims 1 and 14 are thus allowable at least over McFarland. Beg is cited as teaching additional claim limitations and does not compensate for McFarland's failings’.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. McFarland teaches server gather information including signal strengths (link quality) from all access point and Wi-Fi clients via interface to Wi-Fi system (McFarland: [FIG.1], [FIG.5], [0028], [0046]) and band steering from one frequency band to another frequency band (McFarland: [FIG.12], [FIG.14]). Beg teaches Wi-Fi sensing system, where for AP supports multi-bands, instruct sensing device to use different frequency band to improve the accuracy of wireless sensing algorithm (Beg: [FIG.2A], [0120], [0103]). Therefore, combination of McFarland and Beg teaches the subject matters as claimed. See the detailed Office Action bellow under 35 U.S.C. § 103 section.
Applicant’s arguments (remark pages 11-12), filed on 03/16/2026, with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection below which better address the claimed invention as amended.
This Office Action is made Final.
Claim Objection
Claims 1, 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 14 recite “such that” in line 20 and line 16 respectively. Language that suggests or makes optional or intended result (i.e., such that) but does not require step to be performed or does not limit the scope of the claim to a particular structure or does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation(s). Such clauses may render parts of the claim(s) optional (see MPEP 2106 and 2111.04).
Claim 15 line 1: “A non-transitory computer program code” lack of clarity. Should read as “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to store computer program code”.
Claim 15 line 3: “the method of claim 13” should read as “the method of claim 14” or the method implemented by the system of claim 13, because claim 13 is a system claim.
Appropriate correction(s) is/are required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-2, 5, 11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McFarland et al. (US 20210105639 A1), hereinafter “McFarland”, in view of Beg et al. (US 20240147281 A1), hereinafter “Beg”.
Per claim 1, 14 and 15:
Regarding claim 1, McFarland teaches ‘A system’ (McFarland: [FIG.1]; [0027]: “the Wi-Fi system”); ‘for configuring a radiofrequency-based sensing system’ (McFarland: [0028]: “The servers 20 can be a cloud-based controller configured to receive measurement data, to analyze the measurement data, and to configure the access points 14 in the Wi-Fi system”). However, McFarland fails to expressly teach a radiofrequency-based sensing system;
’each of said plurality of sensing nodes being associated with one of at least two access points’ (McFarland: [FIG.1]: “CLIENT LINK”, Wi-Fi client: “16A”-“16E”, Access Point: “14A”-“14G”; [0027]: “the Wi-Fi system 10 can include between 2 to 12 access points or more in a home … the Wi-Fi client devices 16 and the associated access point”; plurality of Wi-Fi clients associated with one of at least two access points). However, McFarland fails to expressly teach Wi-Fi clients are sensing nodes;
‘said system comprising: at least one input interface; at least one output interface’ (McFarland: [FIG.4]: “I/O INTERFACES”); ‘at least one processor’ (McFarland: [FIG.4]: “PROCESSOR”);
‘configured to:
obtain, via said at least one input interface, connection information from said plurality of sensing nodes and from said at least two access points’ (McFarland: [FIG.1]: “PROVISIONUNG & OPTIMZATION” <-> “MODEM/ROUTER”: interface to Wi-Fi system; [FIG.5]: step 302: “ACCESS POINTS OBTAIN MEASUREMENTS AND GATHER INFORMATION”; step 303: “THE MEASUREMENTS AND GATHERED INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO THE CLOUD SERVERS”; [0046]: “The information gathered can include signal strengths and supportable data rates between all nodes as well as between all nodes and all Wi-Fi client devices”, link quality (signal strengths); [0028]: “The servers 20 can also be configured to determine which access point 14 each of the Wi-Fi client devices 16 connect (associate) with”; obtain connection information from all access points and from all Wi-Fi client devices (via their access points to “MODEM/ROUTER” to server)). However, McFarland fails to expressly teach Wi-Fi clients are sensing nodes;
‘said connection information indicating which access point each node from said plurality of sensor nodes is currently connected to’ (McFarland: [FIG.1]: connections of Wi-Fi clients and their corresponding access points; [0028]: “”The servers 20 can also be configured to determine which access point 14 each of the Wi-Fi client devices 16 connect (associate) with”). However, McFarland fails to expressly teach Wi-Fi clients are sensor nodes;
‘determine, based on said connection information, one or more current access points by determining a current access point for each of said plurality of sensing nodes, said at least two access points comprising said one or more current access points’ (McFarland: [FIG.5]: step 304: “CLOUD SERVERS PERFORM AN OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM BASED ON THE MEASUREMENTS AND GATHERED INFORMATION”; step: 305: “AN OUTPUT OF OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM IS USED TO CONFIGURE THE DISTRITUED WI-FI SYSTEM”; [FIG.1]: Wi-Fi client: Access Point => (“16A”, “16B”): “14C”, “16D”: “14E”, each Wi-Fi client is assigned to a Access Point). However, McFarland fails to expressly teach Wi-Fi clients are sensing nodes;
‘assign each of said plurality of sensing nodes to a group based on said current access point determined for said respective sensing node’ (McFarland: [0059]: “Grouping requires selecting the client devices 16 that will work together”; [FIG.5]: a group of Wi-Fi client nodes {“16A”, “16B”} associated with same Access Point “14C” (working together with “14C”)). However, McFarland fails to expressly teach Wi-Fi clients are sensing nodes;
‘configure, via said at least one output interface, said radiofrequency-based sensing system to use said assignment to the respective group’ (McFarland: [FIG.5]: step 305: “AN OUTPUT OF OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM IS USED TO CONFIGURE THE DISTRITUED WI-FI SYSTEM”; [FIG.1]: Wi-Fi client: Access Point => (“16A”, “16B”): “14C”, (“16D”): “14E”, configure Wi-Fi client node: “16A” and “16B” to group {“16A”, “16B”} associated with Access Point “14C”, Wi-Fi client node “16D” to group {“16D”} associated with Access Point “14E”). However, McFarland fails to expressly teach radiofrequency-based sensing system.
McFarland does not expressly teach ‘said radiofrequency-based sensing system being able to detect presence of humans, animals and/or objects based on changes in received radiofrequency signals, said radiofrequency-based sensing system comprising a plurality of radiofrequency-based sensing nodes’.
However, Beg in the same field of endeavor teaches ‘a radiofrequency-based sensing system’ (Beg: [FIG.1], [FIG.2A]; [Abstract]: “Systems and methods for Wi-Fi sensing are provided. Wi-Fi sensing systems include sensing devices and remote devices configured to communicate through radio-frequency signals”; [0120]: “a bi-directional series of sensing transmissions between a sensing device (…. sensing initiator, or sensing receiver) and a remote device (… sensing responder, or sensing transmitter) that allows a series of sensing measurements to be computed”);
‘sensing nodes’ (Beg: [FIG.2A]: sensing nodes “204A”, “204B”, “204C”; [Abstract]: “Sensing devices described herein are configured to provide Wi-Fi sensing measurements”);
‘said radiofrequency-based sensing system being able to detect presence of humans, animals and/or objects based on changes in received radiofrequency signals’ (Beg: [0098]: “a wireless sensing system may be used for a variety of wireless sensing applications by processing wireless signals (e.g., radio frequency signals) transmitted through a space between wireless communication devices … detecting motion of objects in the space … presence detection … human detection”; [0099]: “the wireless sensing system can detect motion (or another characteristic depending on the wireless sensing application) by analyzing changes in the channel information collected over time … determine if there is motion or no motion within the environment represented by the channel response, for example, based on changes or patterns in the channel estimations”; [0169]: “the object can be a human (e.g., person 106 shown in FIG. 1), an animal”);
‘said radiofrequency-based sensing system comprising a plurality of radiofrequency-based sensing nodes’ (Beg: [FIG.2A]: sensing nodes “204A”, “204B”, “204C”; [Abstract]: “Sensing devices described herein are configured to provide Wi-Fi sensing measurements”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beg’s teaching with that of McFarland in order to configure a system for Wi-Fi sensing (Beg: [0005]: “a system configured for Wi-Fi sensing”).
Combination of McFarland and Beg teaches ‘such that each of said plurality of sensing nodes transmits and/or receives radiofrequency signals for said radiofrequency-based sensing, for detecting presence of humans, animals and/or objects, to and/or from one or more other sensing nodes in said respective sensing node's group only’ (McFarland: [0059]: “Grouping requires selecting the client devices 16 that will work together”; [FIG.5]: a group of Wi-Fi clients {“16A”, “16B”} associated with same Access Point “14C” (working together with “14C”); [0075]: “wireless capabilities of these devices … all devices grouped together must operate on the same frequency channel”; [FIG.12]: “A client must associate on a single frequency band”, a group with all Wi-Fi clients of a same single frequency band would transmit and receive signals among the group only. Beg: [Abstract]: “Wi-Fi sensing systems”; [FIG.2A]: transmit or receive signals among sensing nodes “204A”, “204B”, “204C”; [0098]: “a wireless sensing system may be used for a variety of wireless sensing applications by processing wireless signals (e.g., radio frequency signals) transmitted through a space between wireless communication devices … detecting motion of objects in the space … presence detection … human detection”; [0169]: “the object can be a human (e.g., person 106 shown in FIG. 1), an animal”; would transmit or receive radiofrequency signals among sensing nodes working together (e.g. within a group of nodes with same frequency channel));
‘determine a link quality between a sensing node of said plurality of sensing nodes and said at least two access points’ (McFarland: : [FIG.1]: “CLIENT LINK”; [0046]: “The information gathered can include signal strengths and supportable data rates between all nodes as well as between all nodes and all Wi-Fi client devices”; determine signal strengths (link quality). Beg: [FIG.2A]: sensing node “204A”, “204B”, “204C”; [Abstract]: “Sensing devices described herein are configured to provide Wi-Fi sensing measurements”; [0103]: “Wi-Fi devices can connect to any of the APs, but typically select one with a good signal strength”);
‘determine a suitability of frequency resources used by said at least two access points for radiofrequency-based sensing’ (McFarland: [FIG.12]: “An AP cannot use more than 1 channel in a frequency band”, “A client must associate on a single frequency band”; [0070]: “client association steering, and band steering”; [FIG.14]: “TO STEER CLIENT A FROM NODE 1 TO NODE 2”. Beg: [FIG.2A]; [Abstract]: “Systems and methods for Wi-Fi sensing are provided. Wi-Fi sensing systems include sensing devices and remote devices configured to communicate through radio-frequency signals”; [0120]: “a sensing device (…. sensing initiator, or sensing receiver) and a remote device (… sensing responder, or sensing transmitter)”; [0103]: “a wireless sensing system can perform band steering or client steering of nodes throughout a wireless network, for example, in a Wi-Fi multi-AP or Extended Service Set (ESS) topology, multiple coordinating wireless APs each provide a Basic Service Set (BSS) which may occupy different frequency bands and allow devices to transparently move between from one participating AP to another … If the AP supports multi-bands (e.g., 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz), the wireless sensing system may keep a device connected to the same physical AP, but instruct it to use a different frequency band to obtain more diverse information to help improve the accuracy or results of the wireless sensing algorithm”, steer client to Access Point based on frequency band suitability);
‘select one of said at least two access points based on said link qualities and said suitability, and cause said sensing node to use said selected access point as current access point’ (McFarland: [FIG.4]: Access Point: “14A”-“14E”, assign Wi-Fi client “16A” and “16B” to Access point “14C”. [FIG.5]: step 302: “ACCESS POINTS OBTAIN MEASUREMENTS AND GATHER INFORMATION”, step: 305: “AN OUTPUT OF OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM IS USED TO CONFIGURE THE DISTRITUED WI-FI SYSTEM”’; [0070]: “client association steering, and band steering”; [FIG.14]: “TO STEER CLIENT A FROM NODE 1 TO NODE 2”. Beg: [0103]: “instruct it to use a different frequency band”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beg’s teaching of Wi-Fi sensing system with that of McFarland in order to configure a system for Wi-Fi sensing (Beg: [0005]: “a system configured for Wi-Fi sensing”).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites the method implemented by the system as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 15, McFarland teaches ‘A non-transitory computer program code’ (McFarland: [FIG.3]: “PROGRAM(S)” for a computing device; [0044]: “The software in memory 210 may include one or more software programs … computer programs”);
Combination of McFarland and Beg teaches ‘perform the method of claim 14’ (see rejection of claim 14 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beg’s teaching of Wi-Fi sensing system with that of McFarland in order to configure a system for Wi-Fi sensing (Beg: [0005]: “a system configured for Wi-Fi sensing”).
Regarding claim 2, combination of McFarland and Beg teaches the system as claimed in claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of McFarland and Beg teaches ‘assign a first sensing node, a second sensing node, a third sensing node, and a fourth sensing node of said plurality of sensing nodes to a first group’ (McFarland: [0059]: “Grouping requires selecting the client devices 16 that will work together”; [FIG.10]: Four Wi-Fi client “16” associated with Access Point “14-1” (working together with “14-1”); [0070]: “client devices 16”. Beg: [FIG.2A]: sensing nodes “204A”, “204B”, “204C”; [Abstract]: “Sensing devices described herein are configured to provide Wi-Fi sensing measurements”; group sensing nodes working together with an Access Point);
‘assign said first sensing node and said second sensing node to a first subgroup of said first group’ (McFarland: [0075]: “wireless capabilities of these devices … all devices grouped together must operate on the same frequency channel”; [0076]: “The importance of the signal strengths was discussed earlier in the example of how client devices 16 should be grouped”; [0090]: “Clustering techniques are well known and contemplated herein and can be based on the signal strength”; [0006]: “Wi-Fi signals attenuate with distance”; [FIG.10]: could further subgroup the four Wi-Fi client “16” into two subgroups by signal strengths (similar distance to Access Point “14-1”) => first subgroup: {the Wi-Fi client “16” right above Access Point “14-1”, the Wi-Fi client “16” right below Access Point “14-1”}, second subgroup: {the other two Wi-Fi client “16”}; [0011]: “The optimization decision can be based on client device properties related to OFDMA such as traffic load, packet lengths, signal strengths to access points”; [0027]: “an objective of the Wi-Fi system 10 is for distances between the access points 14 to be of similar size as distances between the Wi-Fi client devices 16 and the associated access point 14. Such small distances ensure that every corner of a consumer's home is well covered by Wi-Fi signals”; [0046]: “The information gathered can include signal strengths”. Beg: [FIG.2A]: sensing nodes “204A”, “204B”, “204C”; [Abstract]: “Sensing devices described herein are configured to provide Wi-Fi sensing measurements”. Could further subgroup sensing nodes on the same Access Point by signal strengths or same frequency channel);
‘assign said third sensing node and said fourth sensing node to a second subgroup of said first group’ (discussed in element above);
‘configure said radiofrequency-based sensing system to use said assignment of said first, second, third, and fourth sensing nodes to said first and second subgroups of said first group’ (McFarland: step: 305: “AN OUTPUT OF OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM IS USED TO CONFIGURE THE DISTRITUED WI-FI SYSTEM”; [0011]: “The optimization decision can be based on client device properties related to OFDMA such as traffic load, packet lengths, signal strengths to access points”. Beg: [FIG.2A]: sensing nodes “204A”, “204B”, “204C”; [Abstract]: “Sensing devices described herein are configured to provide Wi-Fi sensing measurements”);
‘each of said first, second, third, and fourth sensing nodes transmitting and/or receiving radiofrequency signals for said radiofrequency-based sensing to and/or from one or more other sensing nodes in said respective sensing node's subgroup’ (McFarland: [0059]: “Grouping requires selecting the client devices 16 that will work together”; [0075]: “wireless capabilities of these devices … all devices grouped together must operate on the same frequency channel”. Beg: [Abstract]: “Sensing devices described herein are configured to provide Wi-Fi sensing measurements”); [0098]: “a wireless sensing system may be used for a variety of wireless sensing applications by processing wireless signals (e.g., radio frequency signals) transmitted through a space between wireless communication devices”; would transmit or receive signals among sensing nodes in a subgroup).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beg’s teaching of Wi-Fi sensing system with that of McFarland in order to configure a system for Wi-Fi sensing (Beg: [0005]: “a system configured for Wi-Fi sensing”).
Regarding claim 5, combination of McFarland and Beg teaches the system as claimed in claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of McFarland and Beg teaches ‘cause said sensing node to use said selected access point as current access point in a first mode’ (McFarland: [0087]: “Closely related steering where clients associate, is steering which frequency band they connect on”; [FIG.1]: Wi-Fi client “16A” associated with Access Point “14C”. Beg: [0103]: “a wireless sensing system can perform band steering or client steering of nodes throughout a wireless network … If the AP supports multi-bands (e.g., 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz), the wireless sensing system may keep a device connected to the same physical AP, but instruct it to use a different frequency band to obtain more diverse information to help improve the accuracy or results of the wireless sensing algorithm”; [FIG.2A]: sensing node “204A”, “204B”, “204C”; sensing node could use Access Point based on band steering (a first mode));
‘said sensing node using a further access point as current access point in said second mode’ (McFarland: [0076]: “The importance of the signal strengths was discussed earlier in the example of how client devices 16 should be grouped”; FIG.1]: Wi-Fi client “16A” associated with Access Point “14C”. Beg: [FIG.2A]: sensing node “204A”, “204B”, “204C”; [Abstract]: “Sensing devices described herein are configured to provide Wi-Fi sensing measurements”; [0103]: “Wi-Fi devices can connect to any of the APs, but typically select one with a good signal strength”; sensing node could use Access Point based signal strength (a second mode));
‘said sensing node being used to perform said radiofrequency-based sensing in said first mode and said sensing node not being used to perform said radiofrequency-based sensing in a second mode’ (McFarland: [0070]: “client association steering, and band steering”; [FIG.14]: “TO STEER CLIENT A FROM NODE 1 TO NODE 2”. Beg: [0103]: “a wireless sensing system can perform band steering or client steering of nodes throughout a wireless network … If the AP supports multi-bands (e.g., 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz), the wireless sensing system may keep a device connected to the same physical AP, but instruct it to use a different frequency band to obtain more diverse information to help improve the accuracy or results of the wireless sensing algorithm”, sensing node could be used to perform said radiofrequency-based sensing by steering to a suitable frequency band (a first mode) instead of based on signal strength (not being used in a second mode)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beg’s teaching of Wi-Fi sensing system with that of McFarland in order to configure a system for Wi-Fi sensing (Beg: [0005]: “a system configured for Wi-Fi sensing”).
Regarding claim 11, combination of McFarland and Beg teaches the system as claimed in claim 1 (discussed above).
McFarland teaches ‘wherein said at least two access points comprise a mesh router and one or more mesh satellites’ (McFarland: [FIG.1]: Access Point “14A”-“14E”, Router “18”, “LOCAL SELF ORGANIZATUON TO CONNECT TO CLOUD”; [0008]: “a mesh of Wi-Fi devices”).
Claims 3, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of McFarland and Beg as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Deng et al. (US 20150063095 A1), hereinafter “Deng”.
Regarding claim 3, combination of McFarland and Beg teaches the system as claimed in claim 2 (discussed above).
Combination of McFarland and Beg teaches ‘determine a link quality between said first, second and third sensing nodes’ (McFarland: [FIG.1]: “CLIENT LINK”; [0046]: “The information gathered can include signal strengths and supportable data rates between all nodes as well as between all nodes and all Wi-Fi client devices”; determine signal strengths (link quality). Beg: [FIG.2A]: sensing node “204A”, “204B”, “204C”; [Abstract]: “Sensing devices described herein are configured to provide Wi-Fi sensing measurements”);
‘assign said first sensing node and said second sensing node to said first subgroup based on said link qualities, and assign said second sensing node and said third sensing node to said second subgroup based on said link qualities’ (McFarland: [0059]: “Grouping requires selecting the client devices 16 that will work together”; [0076]: “The importance of the signal strengths was discussed earlier in the example of how client devices 16 should be grouped”; [0090]: “Clustering techniques are well known and contemplated herein and can be based on the signal strength”; [0006]: “Wi-Fi signals attenuate with distance”; [FIG.10]: could further subgroup the four Wi-Fi client “16” into two subgroups by signal strengths (similar distance to Access Point “14-1”) => first subgroup: {the Wi-Fi client “16” right above Access Point “14-1”, the Wi-Fi client “16” right below Access Point “14-1”}, second subgroup: {the other two Wi-Fi client “16”}. Beg: [FIG.2A]: sensing nodes “204A”, “204B”, “204C”; could subgroup sensing nodes on a same Access Point by signal strength (link quality)). However, combination of McFarland and Beg fails to expressly teach a node could be in two subgroups at the same time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beg’s teaching of Wi-Fi sensing system with that of McFarland in order to configure a system for Wi-Fi sensing (Beg: [0005]: “a system configured for Wi-Fi sensing”).
However, Deng in the same field of endeavor teaches a device could be in two different proximity groups at the same time (Deng: [Table 1]: “WTRU6”, “Proximity group membership”:{“PG2”, “PG5”}; ]0070]: “there may be overlap between different proximity groups and the network may coordinate neighbor discovery processes in different proximity groups to limit interference”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Deng’s teaching with that of combination of McFarland and Beg in order to limit interference by coordination (see reference quote in element above).
Regarding claim 6, combination of McFarland, Beg and Deng teaches the system as claimed in claim 3 (discussed above) or combination of McFarland and Beg teaches the system as claimed in claim 4 (discussed above).
McFarland teaches ‘wherein said link qualities are determined based on received signal quality parameters’ (McFarland: [0046]: “The information gathered can include signal strengths”; [0011]: “The optimization decision can be based on client device properties related to … signal strengths”, link qualities based on received signal strengths); ‘propagation delays of transmissions between pairs of devices and/or based on channel state information associated with said transmissions’ (these are optional).
Regarding claim 7, combination of McFarland, Beg and Deng teaches the system as claimed in claim 6.
McFarland does not expressly teach, but Beg teaches ‘wherein said transmissions between said pairs of devices are performed multiple times’ (Beg: block 1802: “a measurement campaign including a series of sensing transmissions”; [0099]: “The wireless sensing system may trigger a connected device to generate a transmission and produce a channel response measurement at a receiver device. This triggering process can be repeated periodically to obtain a sequence of time variant measurements. A wireless sensing algorithm may then receive the generated time-series of channel response measurements (e.g., computed by Wi-Fi receivers) as input, and through a correlation or filtering process, may then make a determination (e.g., determine if there is motion or no motion within the environment represented by the channel response”; [0120]: “a bi-directional series of sensing transmissions between a sensing device (…. sensing initiator, or sensing receiver) and a remote device (… sensing responder, or sensing transmitter) that allows a series of sensing measurements to be computed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beg’s teaching with that of McFarland in order to generate a time-series of channel response measurement for determining motion or no motion (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 8, combination of McFarland, Beg and Deng teaches the system as claimed in claim 7.
McFarland does not expressly teach, but combination of Beg and Deng teaches ‘wherein said transmissions between said pairs of devices are performed multiple times with different transmission powers’ (Beg: block 1802: “a measurement campaign including a series of sensing transmissions”; [0099]: “The wireless sensing system may trigger a connected device to generate a transmission and produce a channel response measurement at a receiver device. This triggering process can be repeated periodically to obtain a sequence of time variant measurements. A wireless sensing algorithm may then receive the generated time-series of channel response measurements (e.g., computed by Wi-Fi receivers) as input, and through a correlation or filtering process, may then make a determination (e.g., determine if there is motion or no motion within the environment represented by the channel response”; [0120]: “a bi-directional series of sensing transmissions between a sensing device (…. sensing initiator, or sensing receiver) and a remote device (… sensing responder, or sensing transmitter) that allows a series of sensing measurements to be computed”; [0126]: “A term “transmission parameters” may refer to a set of IEEE 802.11 PHY transmitter configuration parameters”. Deng: [0217]: “the different SRS transmission power levels each WTRU in the proximity or target group applies during the measurement occasions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of combination of Beg and Deng with that of McFarland in order to determine different characteristics of the motion with changes in the channel characteristics (Beg: [0105]: “Changes in the channel characteristics are accordingly reflected in these matrices, and by analyzing the matrices, motion can be detected, and different characteristics of the detected motion can be determined”).
Regarding claim 10, combination of McFarland, Beg and Deng teaches the system as claimed in claim 3 (discussed above) or combination of McFarland and Beg teaches the system as claimed in claim 4 (discussed above).
McFarland teaches ‘wherein, for each of said link qualities, a respective link quality between one device and another device is determined based on a loss of packets transmitted by said one device to said other device’ (McFarland: [FIG.1]: “CLIENT LINK”; [0046]-[0047]: “obtain measurements and gather information to enable optimization of the networking settings (step 302). The information gathered can include signal strengths … the packet error rates in the links between the nodes and between the nodes and the clients”, link quality based on loss of packets (packet error rate)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of McFarland, Beg and Deng as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Cardoso de Moura et al. (US 20170332208 A1), hereinafter “Cardoso”.
Regarding claim 9, combination of McFarland, Beg and Deng teaches the system as claimed in claim 3 (discussed above) or combination of McFarland and Beg teaches the system as claimed in claim 4 (discussed above).
Combination of McFarland, Beg and Deng does not expressly teach ‘based on roundtrip times of roundtrip message exchanges between pairs of devices’.
However, Cardoso in the same field of endeavor teaches environment sensing to determine RF communication range by transmitting round trip message between network nodes (Cardoso: [FIG.9]: “RTT”; [0174]: “the network node performing the determination of RTT transmits a message to a selected other network node … the network node performing the RTT determination may at one point in time be within RF communication range”; [0177]: “the RTT determination may then store the determined RTT value for the selected network node, along with any additional information (e.g., calibration information, signal quality information”; [0020]: “environmental sensing”; [0041]: “interface with an autonomous vehicle driving system, external Wi-Fi/Bluetooth-enabled sensing units spread over the city”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cardoso’s teaching with that of combination of McFarland, Beg and Deng to determine link quality based on roundtrip times of roundtrip message exchanges between pairs of devices in order to determine distance using RTT (Cardoso: [0161]: “determination of the distances using RTT measurements”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of McFarland and Beg as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kjærgaard et al. (“Mobile Sensing of Pedestrian Flocks in Indoor Environments using WiFi Signals”), hereinafter “Kjergaard”.
Regarding claim 12, combination of McFarland and Beg teaches the system as claimed in claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of McFarland and Beg teaches ‘wherein a distance between said sensing node and a target sensing area being smaller than a threshold’ (McFarland: [0006]: “Wi-Fi signals attenuate with distance”; [0027]: “the distance between any access point 14 is always small, as is the distance to any Wi-Fi client device 16 needing Wi-Fi service … small distances ensure that every corner of a consumer's home is well covered by Wi-Fi signals”). However, combination of McFarland and Beg fails to expressly teach a distance between sensing node and target sensing area is smaller than a threshold;
‘determine one or more distances between one or more of said at least two access points and said target sensing area’ (McFarland: [0027]: “the distance between any access point 14 is always small, as is the distance to any Wi-Fi client device 16 needing Wi-Fi service … small distances ensure that every corner of a consumer's home is well covered by Wi-Fi signals”. Beg: [FIG.2A]: “214A”, sensing device: “204A”, “204B”, “204C”; [0120]: “a sensing device (commonly known as wireless access-point, Wi-Fi access point, access point”; [0174]: a surface of the object moves from first position 214A to second position 214B in space 200 (e.g., some distance away from first position 214A”; determine distance between at least one access point and target sensing area);
‘said one or more access points being able to transmit and/or receive radiofrequency signals for said radiofrequency-based sensing in said target sensing area’ (Beg: [FIG.2A]: “214A”, sensing device: “204A”, “204B”, “204C”, transmit or receive signals in the sensing area; [0120]: “a sensing device (commonly known as wireless access-point, Wi-Fi access point, access point”);
‘select one of said at least two access points based on said link qualities and said one or more distances, and cause said sensing node to use said selected access point as current access point’ (McFarland: associate Wi-Fi client “16A” to Access Point “14C”; [FIG.5]: step: 305: “AN OUTPUT OF OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM IS USED TO CONFIGURE THE DISTRITUED WI-FI SYSTEM”; [0070]: “client association steering, and band steering”; [FIG.14]: “TO STEER CLIENT A FROM NODE 1 TO NODE 2”. Beg: [0103]: “instruct it to use a different frequency band”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beg’s teaching of Wi-Fi sensing system with that of McFarland in order to configure a system for Wi-Fi sensing (Beg: [0005]: “a system configured for Wi-Fi sensing”).
However, Kjergaard in the same field of endeavor teaches accuracy of sensing would drop when distance threshold between sensing node and target sensing area increases (Kjergaard: [FIG.4]: “Flock detection accuracy depending on distance threshold”, accuracy drops when distance threshold increases; [Page 5, Col 1]: “the distance threshold is estimated for each space using the signal strength measurements”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kjergaard’s teaching with that of combination of McFarland and Beg to determine a link quality between a sensing node of said plurality of sensing nodes and said at least two access points, a distance between sensing node and target sensing area is smaller than a threshold in order to achieve acceptable sensing accuracy (see reference quotes in element above).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of McFarland and Beg as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Liu et al. (CN 104507050 A), hereinafter “Liu”.
Regarding claim 13, combination of McFarland and Beg teaches the system as claimed in claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of McFarland and Beg teaches ‘determine whether one or more wireless multipaths from said sensing node to said at least two access points pass through a target sensing area and have a signal strength exceeding a minimum signal strength’ (Beg: [FIG.2A]: “214A”, sensing node: “204A”, “204B”, “204C”, signal path: “216”, “218”, “220” pass through the sensing area, signal path “222” does not pass through the sensing area). However, combination of McFarland and Beg fails to expressly teach have a signal strength exceeding a minimum signal strength;
‘select one of said at least two access points based on said link qualities and based on said determination whether one or more wireless multipaths pass through said target sensing area, and cause said sensing node to use said selected access point as current access point’ (McFarland: associate Wi-Fi client “16A” to Access Point “14C”; [FIG.5]: step: 305: “AN OUTPUT OF OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM IS USED TO CONFIGURE THE DISTRITUED WI-FI SYSTEM”; [0070]: “client association steering, and band steering”; [FIG.14]: “TO STEER CLIENT A FROM NODE 1 TO NODE 2”. Beg: [0103]: “instruct it to use a different frequency band”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beg’s teaching of Wi-Fi sensing system with that of McFarland in order to configure a system for Wi-Fi sensing (Beg: [0005]: “a system configured for Wi-Fi sensing”).
However, Liu in the same field of endeavor teaches a sensing device is unable to perceive the AP signal if AP signal strength is less than the minimum signal strength (Liu: [Page 2]: “the sensing probability of each reference point RP relative to the access point is obtained. Wherein, if the AP signal strength at the test location is less than the minimum signal strength that the sampling device can perceive, indicating that the device is unable to perceive the AP signal”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liu’s teaching with that of combination of McFarland and Beg to determine whether one or more wireless multipaths from said sensing node to said at least two access points pass through a target sensing area and have a signal strength exceeding a minimum signal strength in order to select AP with signal perceivable by sensing node (see reference quotes in element above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GUOXING FAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
/G.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2462
/YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights