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 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants arguments regarding 112 rejection are not persuasive. Applicant in the specification gives in fig. 12a and 12b and [0088] only examples of interpretations which do not limit the limitation. Language such as “example”, “may” or “can” does not limit the scope of the limitation but rather gives possible few interpretations.
Applicant tried to clarify that transmission is performed by electronic device but what is receiving communication is not clarified.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
According to the independent claims “a data unit of a Wi-Fi communications protocol based on the radar pulse configuration information, the data unit comprising a preamble and a data field”, common understanding of data unit is a some type of binary(trinary or any other type of data set) code, but then it is unclear what Applicant means by “a duration of the data field”. It is important to note that data unit generation does not in way or shape or form assign the duration to the data field. Examiner interpretations is that transmission of the data is associated with appropriate duration of the transmission of wifi signal. But then it is unclear whether several transmissions can be considered as single transmission. For example, let’s look at scenario where Device is transmitting multiple signals such during whole day at the same time radar of the device is performing measurement which last only several seconds. It looks like it will read on the limitation “transmitting at least one radar pulse within a duration of the data field” as data field is day long but radar transmission and reception lasts only several second.
Also, it is unclear what is performing data communication. Scenarios:
1st I write message to my friend that today at 3pm there will be a radar communication and then radar is operating at 3pm.
2nd I communicate to radar station saying that at 3pm they need to switch on radar and radar is switched on at 3 while at the same time operator browsing the internet and monitoring messages.
One can present multiple interpretation of the claim and therefore the scope of the claim is unclear. Also, it is unclear whether Wifi communication data are embedded in the radar transmission or correspond to completely different transmission using completely different antenna.
Examiner interpretation in current rejection is that the data transmission is continuous long transmission using the same or different antenna. Data transmission is the all transmit receive communication which includes transmitting + receiving radar data preamble data header data pulse data (one can call it radar frame).
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) 1, 4-5, 8, 11-12, 15, 18-19is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 20220206131 in view of D0 US 20190154439 A1.
Regarding claims 1,8 and 15 D1 teaches
1, 8, 15. A method comprising:
obtaining radar pulse configuration information at an electronic device;[0060]
generating a data unit(fig. 8 rtx) of a Wi-Fi communications protocol based on the radar pulse configuration information[0060], the data unit comprising a preamble(fig. 8) and a data field;[0079-0081]
transmitting at least one radar pulse within a duration of the data field;(fig. 8)
receiving at least one reflection of the at least one radar pulse within the duration of the data field; and(fig. 8 RRX1, RRX2)
processing the at least one reflection to determine a distance between an object and the electronic device.[0092]
but does not explicitly teach while D0 teaches
wherein the electronic device includes: an RF circulator configured to provide RF isolation between a transmitter and a receiver, the RF circulator having a first port coupled to the transmitter, a second port coupled to an antenna, and a third port coupled to the receiver, and wherein RF energy entering the first port flows in a clockwise direction and emits from the second port, enabling monostatic radar operation on the electronic device.(fig. 3b)[0013]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the filing to modify invention by D1 with invention by D0 in order provide system which can operate in radar mode as required in D1.
D1 also teaches
4, 11, 18. The method of Claim 1, wherein:
the at least one radar pulse is transmitted by an antenna of the electronic device;(fig. 8 implicit)
the method further comprises switching from a transmit mode to a receive mode; ([0042] devices are exchanging information)and
the at least one reflection is received within the duration of the data field by the antenna of the electronic device.(RRx1 is receiving the reflection)
5, 12, 19. The method of Claim 1, wherein:
the at least one radar pulse is transmitted by at least one first antenna of the electronic device; and
the at least one reflection is simultaneously received by at least one second antenna of the electronic device within the duration of the data field. (multi-static radar Fig. 5, 7 and 9)
Claim(s) 3, 10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 and D0.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17 D1 teaches
3, 10, 17. radar pulse transmission and radar pulse reception is performed in the data field of the data unit; and(fig. 8)
a duration of the radar pulse reception(fig. 8 in RRX1 echo time)) is less(in fig. 8 shows but does not explicitly say) than a reduced interframe spacing (RIFS) time(time corresponding to radar alert and propagation delays) of the Wi-Fi communications protocol.
Although D1 does not explicitly say that timing from t0 to t4 in fig. 8 is greater that echo time it would be obvious to do that selection based on fig 8 in order to assure that the echo from the previous frame does not leak into current frame.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 and D0 and further in view of D2 US 2021003690.
While D1 does not teach while D2 teaches
2, 9, 16. The method of Claim 1, wherein a radar pulse duration included in the radar pulse configuration information is stored in the preamble(CEF) of the data unit.[0144]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the filing to modify invention by D1 with invention by D2 in order to defy Golay sequence.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 and D0 and further in view of D3 KR-20200047271-A.
D1 teaches
6, 13, 20. The method of Claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting a clear-to-send (CTS)-to-self;[0073] signal to reserve a transmit opportunity (TXOP)
wherein the at least one radar pulse is transmitted and the at least one reflection is received in response to determining that a communications channel is available (fig. 8 the reception is performed after alerts)
but does not teach while D3 teaches
and after transmitting the at least one radar pulse and receiving the at least one reflection, sending a contention free (CF)-end packet to indicate an end of a contention-free period(220 in fig. 2b page 6 ),
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the filing to modify invention by D1 with invention by D3 in order assure safe communication without loss of packets.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 and D0 and further in view of D4 Qiao “Survey and Performance Evaluation of the Upcoming Next Generation WLANs Standard - IEEE 802.11ax”, Mobile Networks and Applications (2019) 24:1461–1474.
Regarding claims 7 and 14 D1 does not teach but D4 teaches
7, 14. The method of Claim 1, further comprising:
configuring a target wake time (TWT) interval and a TWT service period (SP) duration in response to determining that low latency or high throughput Wi-Fi traffic exists,
wherein the at least one radar pulse is transmitted and the at least one reflection is received within the TWT interval and after the TWT SP duration.(page 1463 col 2)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the filing to modify invention by D1 with invention by D4 in order s to enhance power-saving.
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 HELENA SERAYDARYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0706. The examiner can normally be reached on M-T, 7:30-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Hodge can be reached on (571)272-2097. 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 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.
/HELENA H SERAYDARYAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights