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 .
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12149971. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
For claim 1, ‘971 discloses the limitations in claim 1.
For claims 2-19, ‘971 discloses the limitations in claims 2-19, respectively.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Au (US 2023/0388840) [R1] in view of Oteri (US 2019/0140730) [R2].
For claims 1 and 10, R1 discloses establishing a sensing session between an AP as a sensing initiator and a non-AP STA as a sensing responder (paragraphs 235-245, Fig 4); performing a first measurement, wherein the AP acts as a sensing transmitter and the STA acts as a sensing receiver (paragraphs 235-245, Fig 4). R1 does not explicitly state in response to determining that a preset condition is met, switching from the first measurement to a second measurement, wherein the STA acts as a sensing transmitter and the AP acts as a sensing receiver. R2 discloses in response to determining that a preset condition is met, switching from the first measurement to a second measurement, wherein the STA acts as a sensing transmitter and the AP acts as a sensing receiver (paragraphs 194-200). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to in response to determining that a preset condition is met, switching from the first measurement to a second measurement, wherein the STA acts as a sensing transmitter and the AP acts as a sensing receiver taught by R2. The rationale to combine would be to use a known technique in a similar device, to estimate channels (R2 paragraph 194), to determine the best path (R2 paragraphs 194, 174, Fig 13B), and design choice.
For claims 2 and 11, R1 discloses transmitting, by the AP, a NULL Data Packet to the STA, and receiving, by the AP, a frame including an indication of CSI variation from the STA, wherein the CSI variation is calculated at least based on the measurement of the NULL Data Packet (paragraphs 212, 513, 526).
For claims 3 and 12, R1 discloses determining a duration of the CSI variation being less than a preset threshold; and in response to determining that the duration is equal to or longer than a preset duration threshold, determining that a preset condition is met (paragraphs 236-240).
For claims 4 and 13, R1 discloses receiving, by the AP, a NULL Data Packet from the STA, and determining, by the AP, CSI variation at least based on the measurement of the NULL Data Packet (paragraphs 223 and 235).
For claims 5 and 14, R1 discloses in response to determining that the CSI variation is above a preset threshold, switching from the second measurement to the first measurement (paragraphs 241, 238).
For claims 6 and 15, R1 discloses transmitting, by the AP, a sensing measurement termination frame including an identifier of the first measurement to the STA (paragraphs 340), transmitting, by the AP, a sensing measurement setup request including an identifier of the second measurement to the STA, and receiving, by the AP, a response including the identifier of the second measurement from the STA (paragraphs 235-245, 340, Fig 4).
For claims 7 and 16, R1 discloses the second measurement has less NDP transmission frequency than the first measurement, or the second measurement has less NDP transmission power than the first measurement, or the second measurement has less NDP transmission bandwidth than the first measurement (paragraphs 235-245, 340, 348, 363, 366, Fig 4).
For claims 8 and 17, R1 discloses a sensing measurement instance of the first measurement includes at least one of a polling phase, an NDPA sounding phase, and a reporting phase, a sensing measurement instance of the second measurement includes at least one of a polling phase and a Trigger frame sounding phase (paragraphs 219-225, 235-245, Fig 4).
For claims 9 and 18, R1 discloses transmitting, by the AP, to the STA, a Sensing Measurement Setup Request frame including an identifier of the first measurement, an indication of allocation of sensing roles, an indication of enabling threshold-based reporting, and an indication of duration threshold (paragraphs 235-245, 404, 340,238, 392, Fig 4).
For claim 19, R1 discloses a processor (paragraphs 235-245, 316-317 Fig 16), and a memory having stored there on computer programs which (paragraphs 235-245, 316-317 Fig 16), when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method according to claim 1 (paragraphs 235-245, 316-317Fig 16).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: OMER et al (US 2022/0386272) discloses sensing configurations for transmissions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3678. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-4PM ET M-Th.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463 4/