DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remark
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 01/26/26.
Claims 1-12 have been amended.
A new 103 rejection is applied for the amendment.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadeghi et al. (US 2022/0394818, “Sadeghi”) in view of Da Silva et al. (US 2021/0288779, “Silva”; Provisional 63/034,119, hereinafter “Prov’119”) and further in view of Sun et al. (US 2020/0383119, “Sun”).
Regarding claim 1, Sadeghi discloses a communication method, comprising:
- receiving, by the first communication apparatus, a second PPDU from the second communication apparatus, wherein the second PPDU is used to trigger the first communication apparatus to provide feedback (See ¶.17, after triggered by the AP performing sensing (that is, AP sends a Trigger frame to allocate RU and solicit uplink HE TB PPDU transmissions from the devices), devices simultaneously transmit “sensing” packets—in the form of HE TB PPDUs— to the AP by using UL OFDMA transmission. The AP can thus estimate CSI to each of the devices using the HE-LTF field of the HE TB PPDU transmitted by the corresponding device); and
- sending, by the first communication apparatus, the feedback when the CSI variation value meets a threshold condition (See ¶.13, AP broadcasts a packet to all clients, clients estimate the CSI (at approximately the same time, using the same packet), and feedback the estimate to the AP. The feedback can be the complete CSI information or even a standard-defined metric (CSI “variance”); See claim 2, the CSI changes are reported for CSI changes that exceed a threshold and are not reported for CSI changes that do not exceed the threshold).
Sadeghi does not explicitly disclose what Silva discloses,
- generating, by a first communication apparatus, a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) comprising a media access control (MAC) frame that comprises a variation of a channel state information (CSI) variation value (Silva, See ¶.20, sensing is performed by tracking channel estimates obtained with multiple Wi-Fi packets (e.g., physical layer protocol data units—PPDUs) over time, and detecting changes that may indicate an event of interest (e.g., whether motion is present); See ¶.21, when a CSI varies over time, such may indicate the presence and motion of people or objects. In this manner, the variance of CSI channel measurements for a communication link over time may indicate the presence of motion; See ¶.75, operate the physical layer (PHY) communications and/or medium access control (MAC) communications for controlling access to the wireless medium; See ¶.39, If the sensing Null Data Packet (NDP) Request frame format is also used for the single responder case, the frame may include a single STA Info field, and the RA of the sensing NDP Request frame would be set to the MAC address of STA 2; See Prov’119, ¶.45, STA 1 could “opportunistically” obtain channel estimates by PPDUs sent by STA 2; See Prov’119, ¶.116, the RA of the sensing NDP request frame is set to the broadcast address, and the frame includes more than one “STA Info” fields, as shown in FIG. 10. If the sensing NDP Request frame format in FIG. 10 is also used for the single responder case (Figs. 4, 7, and 8), used in place of the format in FIG. 5, the frame will include a single STA Info field, and the RA of the sensing NDP Request frame would be set to the MAC address of STA 2; See Prov’119, ¶.128, operate the physical layer (PHY) communications and medium access control (MAC) communications for controlling access to the wireless medium, and/or any other communications layers for transmitting and receiving signals; Examiner’s Note: Sun discloses the limitations “MAC comprises CSI variation value”);
- sending, by the first communication apparatus, the first PPDU to a second communication apparatus (See Silva, Fig.4 and Prov’119, pg.10, ¶.53,
PNG
media_image1.png
210
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
Silva discloses that sending NDP frame operates in the network layers of PHY and MAC and the sensing method is performed by tracking channel estimates obtained with PPDUs over time, but does not explicitly disclose the limitations “a MAC comprises CSI variation value.”
However, Sun discloses the limitations “a MAC comprises CSI variation value” (Sun, ¶.89 and ¶.134, CSI reporting in MAC CEs; See ¶.9, ¶.129, and ¶.143, the CSI reporting includes a CSI variation of currently acquired CSI relative to CSI previously reported to o the base station exceeding a predefined or preconfigured condition, and the currently acquired CSI exceeding a certain threshold).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “generating, by a first communication apparatus, a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) comprising a media access control (MAC) and sending, by the first communication apparatus, the first PPDU to a second communication apparatus” as taught by Silva and “a MAC comprises CSI variation value” as taught by Sun into the system of Sadeghi, so that it provides a way of having an efficient and reliable way for WLAN sensing applications sound a channel with the use of null data packets (NDPs) by identifying transmit parameters included in a transmit control filed of the sensing NDP request frame (Silva, see ¶.153) and increasing the likelihood that the sensing STA can obtain measurements with a regular periodicity and so that WLAN sensing applications do not experience loss in performance resultant from the use of compressed beamforming feedback by using NDP procedure (Silva, See ¶.31) by using the CSI variation value within the MAC frame (Sun, See ¶.9).
Regarding claim 2, Sadeghi disclose “the first PPDU comprises a first field that indicates whether the CSI variation value meets the threshold condition (See ¶.13, AP broadcasts a packet to all clients, clients estimate the CSI (at approximately the same time, using the same packet), and feedback the estimate to the AP. The feedback can be the complete CSI information or even a standard-defined metric (CSI “variance”); See claim 2, the CSI changes are reported for CSI changes that exceed a threshold and are not reported for CSI changes that do not exceed the threshold).”
Regarding claim 3, Sadeghi discloses “when there are a plurality of simultaneous feedback from a plurality of communication apparatuses, including the first communication apparatus to the second communication apparatus, the plurality of simultaneous feedbacks are distinguished using a spatial stream or orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) (See ¶.9, provide for a low-overhead WLAN sensing implementation that satisfies the timing requirement by making use of UL OFDMA and/or UL MU-MIMO transmissions of HE PPDUs; See ¶.12, WLAN sensing applications being considered consists of an AP that measures the CSI of multiple radio links (that is, multiple clients) over time, and a decision is made either locally (intelligence in the AP) or in the cloud. In one or more embodiments, the procedure used by a WLAN sensing implementation to obtain the required CSI of multiple links/devices over time; See ¶.20, In OFDMA transmissions, different users can occupy different RUs in a PPDU. The transmission within an RU in a PPDU may be a single stream to one user, spatially multiplexed to one user (SU-MIMO), or spatially multiplexed to multiple users (MU-MIMO)).”
Regarding claim 5, it is a communication apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitation “a processor and a memory (See 406 & 408 Fig.4)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claims 6-7, they are claims corresponding to claims 2-3, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Regarding claim 9, it is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claims 10-11, they are claims corresponding to claims 2-3, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Claims 4, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadeghi in view of Silva and Sun and further in view of Liu (US 2017/0134207, “Liu”).
Regarding claim 4, Sadeghi, Silva, and Sun do not explicitly disclose what Liu discloses “the CSI variation value meets the following:
- the CSI variation value is normalized to a range [0, 1] (Liu, See ¶.36, metric of channel variation Q.H(L) is defined as the normalized different of channel estimation between L OFDM symbols as depicted by equation);
- a larger CSI variation value represents a greater variation of the CSI (See ¶.43, if the channel variation indicator is set to “1”, then it indicates that the channel is time-varying and that the channel variation metric M is higher than a threshold);
- a CSI variation value equal to 0 represents a variation of the CSI being minimal or being no change (See ¶.43, if the channel variation indicator is set to “0”, then it indicates that the channel is not time-varying); and
- a CSI variation value equal to 1 represents the variation of the CSI being maximal (See ¶.43, if the channel variation indicator is set to “1”, then it indicates that the channel is time-varying).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “one of the normalized CSI variations” as taught by Liu into the system of Sadeghi, Silva, and Sun, so that it provides a way of simply indicating whether the channel is time-varying or not (Liu, See ¶.43) by normalizing the difference of channel estimation between the multiple OFDM symbols (Liu, See ¶.33).
Regarding claims 8 and 12, they are claims corresponding to claims 4 & 4, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been considered. But, in view of the applicant’s amendment to the claims, examiner has clarified and totally remapped the rejection to the argued claim limitations, using the prior art of record in the current prosecution of the claims and a new prior art by Silva. The previous 103 rejection over Sadeghi in view of Liu has been replaced with a new 103 rejection over Sadeghi in view of Silva and further in view of Sun.
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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 PM.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411