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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 18 have been amended. Claims 5-6, 8-10, 14-15, 22-23, 25-27, and 31-32 have been previously cancelled. Claims 1-4,7,11-13,16-21,24,28-30 and 33-34 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but not persuasive.
Main Argument
Applicant Argues “The Action provides that elements including the hybrid sensing trigger, the channel resource allocations, and the transmissions in claim 1 of the present application correspond to elements present within the method disclosed in Han. The Applicant respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the method of Han does not differentiate the two kinds of transmissions for sensing and data that are recited in present claim 1, and the cited transmissions are received and measured in different locations (or different STAs) than in present claim 1.”
Reply to Main Argument
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
At least paragraphs [0011], and [0006] of Han teach that the first frame sent by the AP is a sensing frame that triggers radar measurement. The first frame includes radar measurement resource allocation information for the radar measurement (sensing). At least paragraphs [0013], [0026] and FIG. 12 of Han teach that a fourth frame is sent from the AP which is used to request the radar measurement data from the STAs. A sixth frame containing the radar measurement data is then sent back to the AP. It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that these different frames represent sensing and data transmission separately.
Further, at least paragraphs [0017], [0296], and [0300] of Han teach that the Ap coordinates a plurality of STAs to perform radar measurement. The AP supports joint processing of a plurality of pieces of radar measurement data. The AP can process and combine radar measurement data from each STA to improve the accuracy of the measurement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that because the AP of Han has the ability to support joint processing of a plurality of pieces of radar measurement data, combined with its coordination of a plurality of STAs to perform radar measurement and send the measurement data back to the AP, implies that the AP can process and combine radar measurement data from each of the STAs to improve the accuracy of the measurement.
Second Argument
Applicant Argues “As such, in present claim 1, there are two groups of sensing transmitters (e.g. STAs) and the sensing measurements are only based on the sensing transmissions (e.g. NDPs without data) from one of the two groups of STAs. The other group of STAs are for data transmissions.”
Reply to Second Argument
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 does not recite two groups of sensing transmitters or NDPs without data, nor does it recite a separate group of STAs for data transmission. Claim 1 recites “a first sensing transmitter…a second sensing transmitter, a first station, and a second station”, with no mention of “groups of sensing transmitters” or a “group” of STAs for data transmission. At least paragraph [0006] and figures 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, and 15 of Han teaches the AP sending multiple different frames to multiple STAs.
Third Argument
Applicant Argues “Finally, while the AP in Han sends the first frame, it does not perform the sensing measurements as is recited in the present claims. Instead, the STAs themselves perform the measurements.”
Reply to Third Argument
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
At least paragraphs [0017], [0296], and [0300] of Han teach that the Ap coordinates a plurality of STAs to perform radar measurement. The AP supports joint processing of a plurality of pieces of radar measurement data. The AP can process and combine radar measurement data from each STA to improve the accuracy of the measurement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that because the AP of Han has the ability to support joint processing of a plurality of pieces of radar measurement data, combined with its coordination of a plurality of STAs to perform radar measurement and send the measurement data back to the AP, implies that the AP can process and combine radar measurement data from each of the STAs to improve the accuracy of the measurement.
Applicant is reminded that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 13, 16-18, 20, 30, and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 20220066018 A1), hereinafter Han.
For claim 1,
Han teaches a method for Wi-Fi sensing carried out by a sensing receiver ([Abstract] radar measurement method and apparatus used to support radar measurement in WLAN, and [FIG. 2] AP (access point) acts as a sensing receiver) including
a transmitting antenna ([0333] a transceiver),
a receiving antenna ([0333] a transceiver), and
at least one processor configured to execute instructions, the method comprising ([0333] a processor configured to perform methods of the disclosure):
creating a hybrid sensing-data trigger ([0006] AP generates a first frame, and [0091] first frame is also called a WiFi sensing trigger, and sensing requires the use of data),
wherein the hybrid sensing-data trigger comprises resource allocation fields corresponding to each of: a first sensing channel resource allocation to a first sensing transmitter ([0011] radar measurement information includes radar measurement resource allocation, and [0006] the radar measurement resource information can be sent to M number of stations (STAs) where M is a positive integer);
a second sensing channel resource allocation to a second sensing transmitter ([0011] radar measurement information includes radar measurement resource allocation, and [0006] the radar measurement resource information can be sent to M number of stations (STAs) where M is a positive integer; Fig. 2);
a first data channel resource allocation to a first station ([0011] radar measurement information includes radar measurement resource allocation, and [0006] the radar measurement resource information can be sent to M number of stations (STAs) where M is a positive integer); and
a second data channel resource allocation to a second station; transmitting, via the transmitting antenna, the hybrid sensing-data trigger to the first sensing transmitter, the second sensing transmitter, the first station, and the second station ([0011] radar measurement information includes radar measurement resource allocation, and [0006] the radar measurement resource information can be sent to M number of stations (STAs) where M is a positive integer);
receiving, via the receiving antenna, a first sensing transmission from the first sensing transmitter and a second sensing transmission from the second sensing transmitter ([FIGs. 2-4] multiple STAs receive multiple sensing transmissions);
receiving, via the receiving antenna, a first data transmission from the first station and a second data transmission from the second station ([FIG. 11] and [0202] AP receives radar measurement from one or more STAs); and
generating, by the at least one processor, a first sensing measurement based on the first sensing transmission and a second sensing measurement based on the second sensing transmission ([0017], [0296], and [0300] the Ap coordinates a plurality of STAs to perform radar measurement. The AP support joint processing of a plurality of pieces of radar measurement data. The AP can process and combine radar measurement data from each STA to improve the accuracy of the measurement.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that because the AP of Han has the ability to support joint processing of a plurality of pieces of radar measurement data, combined with its coordination of a plurality of STAs to perform radar measurement and send the measurement data back to the AP, implies that the AP can process and combine radar measurement data from each of the STAs to improve the accuracy of the measurement.
For claim 3,
Han teaches wherein at least one of the first sensing channel resource allocation and the second sensing channel resource allocation comprises a plurality of carrier tones from a OFDM modulation scheme ([0170] resource unit allocation field includes one or more subcarriers, and [0205] STA may use OFDMA technology when transmitting radar measurement data back to the AP, meaning the resource allocation field may include subcarriers related to OFDMA).
For claim 13,
Han teaches wherein the first sensing channel resource allocation, the second sensing channel resource allocation, the first data channel resource allocation and the second data channel resource allocation are determined to maximize resource usage ([0168-0170] the use of a resource unit allocation field tied to an AID representing a station implies that each station is allocated the resources necessary for each individual station. This shows that resource allocation is determined in order to maximize resource usage, as is well known in the art).
For claim 16,
Han teaches wherein the hybrid sensing-data trigger is configured to cause: transmission of the first sensing transmission from the first sensing transmitter according to the first sensing channel resource allocation ([0100-0102] and [FIG. 4] multiple STAs receive multiple sensing transmissions);
transmission of the second sensing transmission from the second sensing transmitter according to the second sensing channel resource allocation ([0100-0102] and [FIG. 4] multiple STAs receive multiple sensing transmissions);
transmission of the first data transmission from the first station according to the first data channel resource allocation ([FIG. 11] and [0202] AP receives radar measurement from one or more STAs triggered by frame); and
transmission of the second data transmission from the second station according to the second data channel resource allocation ([FIG. 11] and [0202] AP receives radar measurement from one or more STAs triggered by frame).
For claim 17,
Han teaches wherein the first sensing transmission and the first data transmission are received from a first device acting as the first sensing transmitter and the first station ([FIG. 11] and [0113] STAs are stations serving as transmitters of sensing transmission and data).
For claims 18, 20, 30, 33, and 34, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 3, 13, 16, and 17, respectively.
Claim(s) 2 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, in view of Turkmen et al. (US 20240080832 A1), hereinafter Turkmen.
For claim 2, Han teaches claim 1.
Han does not explicitly teach, however Turkmen teaches determining, by the at least one processor, a first sensing requirement and a first sensing priority of the first sensing transmitter ([0024] signal can be either communication (data) signal or sensing signal, and [0051-0055] transmission is determined based on sensing and data requirements as well as the priority of the sensing. This process is completed for each transmission and, therefore, each transmitter);
determining, by the at least one processor, a second sensing requirement and a second sensing priority of the second sensing transmitter ([0024] signal can be either communication (data) signal or sensing signal, and [0051-0055] transmission is determined based on sensing and data requirements as well as the priority of the sensing. This process is completed for each transmission and, therefore, each transmitter);
determining, by the at least one processor, a first data requirement and a first data priority of the first station ([0024] signal can be either communication (data) signal or sensing signal, and [0051-0055] transmission is determined based on sensing and data requirements as well as the priority of the sensing. This process is completed for each transmission and, therefore, each station); and
determining, by the at least one processor, a second data requirement and a second data priority of the second station ([0024] signal can be either communication (data) signal or sensing signal, and [0051-0055] transmission is determined based on sensing and data requirements as well as the priority of the sensing. This process is completed for each transmission and, therefore, each station);
wherein the first sensing channel resource allocation, the second sensing channel resource allocation, the first data channel resource allocation and the second data channel resource allocation are determined according to the first sensing requirement and the first sensing priority, the second sensing requirement and the second sensing priority, the first data requirement and the first data priority, and the second data requirement and the second data priority ([0024] signal can be either communication (data) signal or sensing signal, and [0051-0055] transmission is determined based on sensing and data requirements as well as the priority of the sensing. This process is completed for each transmission and, therefore, each station and transmitter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Han for transmitting and receiving sensing information and data with the method of Turkmen for determining a sensing requirement and priority for each transmitter as well as a data requirement and priority for each station to ensure the appropriate amount of resources are used for each transmission and to facilitate efficiency in the system and reduce failed transmission and the unnecessary use of resources.
For claim 19, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 2.
Claim(s) 4 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, in view of Turkmen, and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 20210105818 A1), hereinafter Ahn.
For claim 4, Han and Turkmen teach claim 2.
Han and Turkmen do not explicitly teach, however Ahn teaches wherein determining the first data requirement and the first data priority and the second data requirement and the second data priority is based on a first measure of fullness of a first transmission data buffer and a second measure of fullness of a second transmission data buffer ([0071] each STA transmits a buffer status report to the AP before the trigger frame is sent. The sensing/data requirement and sensing/data priority is determined based on the allowed transmission length of the STA and the buffer fullness.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Han and Turkmen for transmitting and receiving sensing information and data with the method of Ahn for determining a first and second data requirement and priority based on the fullness of buffers to ensure the availability of resources for transmission and to facilitate efficiency in the system and reduce failed transmission and the unnecessary use of resources.
For claim 21, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 4.
Claim(s) 7 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, in view of Turkmen, and further in view of Jafarian et al. (US 20130303202 A1), hereinafter Jafarian.
For claim 7, Han and Turkmen teach claim 2.
Han and Turkmen do not explicitly teach, however Jafarian teaches wherein determining the first data requirement and the first data priority and the second data requirement and the second data priority is based on a quality of service access category of the first transmission data buffer and a quality of service access category of the second transmission data buffer ([0042] Quality of Service (QoS) is used to prioritize data packets being transmitted, including the access category (voice, video, best effort, and background) which acts as a data requirement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Han and Turkmen for transmitting and receiving sensing information and data with the method of Jafarian for determining a first and second data requirement and priority based on quality of service (QoS) to ensure the availability of resources for transmission and to facilitate efficiency in the system and reduce failed transmission and the unnecessary use of resources.
For claim 24, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 7.
Claim(s) 11 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, in view of Turkmen, and further in view of Lopez et al. (US20240154739 A1), hereinafter Lopez.
For claim 11, Han and Turkmen teach claim 2.
Han and Turkmen do not explicitly teach, however Lopez teaches wherein determining at least one of the first sensing requirement and the first sensing priority, and the second sensing requirement and the second sensing priority is based on a total number of sensing transmitters ([0125] and [0135] resource allocation is determined by the amount of bandwidth each STA requires, starting from smallest to largest. This implies that each sensing requirement and priority is based on the total number of sensing transmitters as it allocates resources for each transmitter requirement.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Han and Turkmen for transmitting and receiving sensing information and data with the method of Lopez for determining a first and second sensing requirement and priority based on the needs of each and every transmitter (a total number) to ensure the availability of resources for transmission and to facilitate efficiency in the system and reduce failed transmission and the unnecessary use of resources.
For claim 28, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 11.
Claim(s) 12 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, in view of ZHU et al. (US 20230309144 A1), hereinafter Zhu.
For claim 12, Han teaches claim 1.
Han does not explicitly teach, however Zhu teaches wherein the first sensing channel resource allocation, the second sensing channel resource allocation, the first data channel resource allocation and the second data channel resource allocation are determined according to a pre-allocated split between data transmission and sensing bandwidth ([0022] different bandwidth part (BWP) configurations apply for communication and sensing, implying that there are pre-allocated splits between data transmission and sensing bandwidths due to the different configurations. This implies that all resource allocations would be determined by the specific BWP configuration used.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Han for transmitting and receiving sensing information and data with the method of Zhu for determining a first and second sensing and data resource allocation based on a different BWP configurations to ensure the availability of resources for transmission and to facilitate efficiency in the system and reduce failed transmission and the unnecessary use of resources.
For claim 29, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 12.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Benjamin T. Ranew whose telephone number is (571)272-2746. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571) 270-0422. 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.
/BENJAMIN T. RANEW/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/NATASHA W COSME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights