DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to Application 18/576048 filed on 1/2/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS)s comply with 37 CFR 1.97 provisions. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS.
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 9, 11 and 18 are 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.
The limitations “capable of” in claim 11 or “able to” in claims 9 and 18 are rejected because the limitations fail to recite positively, present tense functionalities. Stated differently, there is no positive statement that these limitations in fact do occur.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomayev et al. (hereinafter Lomayev) US 2021/0044407 A1 in view of Siomina et al. (hereinafter Siomina) US 2014/0098690 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Lomayev teaches a first communication apparatus (Fig.6) comprising:
a receiver, which in operation, receives a measurement request frame from a second communication apparatus (¶0241; a WLAN sensing set-up and/or negotiation procedure between two STAs [first/second communication apparatus] that perform WLAN sensing, e.g., devices 102 and 140 (FIG. 1) [first/second communication apparatus], may include an exchange of a request message and a response message to negotiate the number of symbols to be present in one or more PPDUs [measurement request frame], e.g., in each PPDU, transmitted as part of the WLAN sensing procedure), the measurement request frame carrying a delayed response field indicating whether a delayed response is allowed (Fig. 6 & ¶0275-¶0279; a WLAN sensing set-up/negotiation procedure between two STAs that perform WLAN sensing may include an exchange of a request and response to define one or more of, e.g., some or more of, the following burst parameters [response field]: …Time interval between PPDUs within each burst…Time interval between calibration bursts (T.sub.sens) [delayed response]; and/or [0279] Number of bursts. This means that the parameters/fields include time interval between bursts or delayed response when it is appropriate. For example, during the negotiation process STAs determine if the delayed response is allowed or not);
and a transmitter, which in operation, transmits a measurement Physical Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) to be used for channel measurements in response to the measurement request frame (Fig. 6 & ¶0258; device 140 (FIG. 1) may transmit PPDUs according to calibration scheme 600, and wireless sensing component 110 (FIG. 1) maybe configured to utilize calibration scheme 600 to process one or more fields of one or more PPDUs to calibrate a reference channel estimation for WLAN sensing. ¶0261; different bursts of PPDUs may be separated by a second time interval, denoted T.sub.sens, which may be configured to support WLAN sensing measurements).
Lomayev does not expressly teach “… whether a delayed response is allowed” However, this limitation is suggested because during the negotiation setup/process, SATs devices determine T.sub.sens interval between responses which suggested that the delay is allowed. Despite that, Examiner uses Siomina to support Lomayev teachings.
Siomina is directed to measuring node. Siomina teaches “allowed” (¶0085-¶0087; postponing a UL measurement that had been requested or scheduled may involve extending the measurement period [which means delay is allowed], such that the measuring node may delay sending its measurement report for a certain amount of time. Canceling the one or more UL measurements reduces the number of UL measurements that the measuring node has to perform over the predetermined measurement period. Note that an apparatus compliant with IEEE 802.11 standards means that communicating by means of PPDUs exchange between node).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Siomina into the system of Lopmayev in order to perform parallel measurements (abstract). Utilizing such teachings enable the system to determine an adjustment to a measurement configuration for the measuring apparatus. The measurement configuration relates to, for example, a number of parallel measurements to perform. The adjustment is based on a comparison of UL measurements being performed or to be performed by the measuring apparatus over a predetermined measurement period and the capability of the measuring apparatus to perform parallel measurements (abstract).
Regarding Claim 2, Lomayev in view of Siomina teaches the first communication apparatus according to claim 1, Siomina further teaches wherein the transmitter is further configured to transmit the measurement PPDU in a next transmission opportunity when the delayed response field indicates that a delayed response is allowed (Fig. 9 & ¶0071-¶0091; transmitting PPDU).
Regarding Claim 8, Lomayev in view of Siomina teaches the first communication apparatus according to claim 1, Siomina further teaches further configured to advertise itself as being one of a Type 1 or Type 2 device, the Type 1 device being of lesser capability than the Type 2 device; wherein the delayed response field is set to indicate that delayed response is allowed if the first communication apparatus is a Type 1 device, and set to indicate that delayed response is not allowed if the first communication apparatus is a Type 2 device (Fig. 9 & ¶0069-¶0085; as stated in claim 1, STAs devices during negotiation process/setup exchange message to send sensing capabilities to the measuring node. Each of those apparatus over measurement period has a maximum number of measurement types supported over a period of type which means that each of those apparatus is different types like type 1 and type 2. Note that in ¶0085-¶0087; postponing a UL measurement that had been requested or scheduled may involve extending the measurement period [which means delay is allowed], such that the measuring node may delay sending its measurement report for a certain amount of time. Canceling the one or more UL measurements reduces the number of UL measurements that the measuring node has to perform over the predetermined measurement period. Note that an apparatus compliant with IEEE 802.11 standards means that communicating by means of PPDUs exchange between node).
Regarding Claim 10, Lomayev in view of Siomina teaches the first communication apparatus according to claim 1, Lomayev further teaches wherein the transmitter is further configured to transmit the measurement PPDU as one of a Null Data Packet (NDP) or any 802.11 PPDU carrying a Data frame (¶0170; the one or more first PPDUs may include one or more Null-Data-Packets (NDPs) from the second wireless communication device).
Regarding Claim 12, Lomayev in view of Siomina teaches the first communication apparatus according to claim 1, Lomayev further teaches configured to negotiate with the second communication apparatus, during a setup phase, one or more time windows in which to perform a sensing measurement (¶0164, ¶0170 & ¶0238; PPDUs include NDPs which transmitted in bursts to configure or allow for CSI or any other channel estimation measurements to estimate SIFS plus a TXTIME of PPDU used for measurement or to negotiate count of symbols to be included per PPDU to be used for intra-packet channel).
Regarding Claim 15, Lomayev in view of Siomina teaches the first communication apparatus according to claim 1, Lomayev further teaches wherein the measurement request frame is a Data frame carrying a measurement request Sensing Application command (¶0109, ¶0114-¶0115 & ¶0232-¶0250; obvious because the wireless sensor may be configured to perform any other additional or alternative type of wireless sensing, e.g., to detect any other changes in the environment and/or for any other suitable wireless sensing applications. ¶0232; the VHT field 502 of PPDU format 500 may be configured to support a WLAN sensing application, e.g., as described below).
Regarding claim 17, Lomayev teaches a second communication apparatus (Fig. 6 & ¶0275; negotiate procedure is at least between two STAs “first/second” apparatus), comprising: a receiver, which in operation, receives information relating to a first communication apparatus (Fig. 6 & ¶0275-¶0280; a WLAN sensing set-up/negotiation procedure between two STAs that perform WLAN sensing may include an exchange of a request and response to define one or more of, e.g., some or more of, the following burst parameters: [0276] Number of PPDUs to be present in each “calibration burst”; [0277] Time interval between PPDUs within each burst. In one example, if this information is not defined in the set-up/negotiation, the value may be set/fixed to a predefined value, e.g., SIFS; [0278] Time interval between calibration bursts (T.sub.sens); and/or [0279] Number of bursts);
circuitry, which in operation, generates a measurement request frame based on the information (¶0241; a WLAN sensing set-up and/or negotiation procedure between two STAs that perform WLAN sensing, e.g., devices 102 and 140 (FIG. 1), may include an exchange of a request message and a response message to negotiate the number of symbols to be present in one or more PPDUs, e.g., in each PPDU, transmitted as part of the WLAN sensing procedure),
the measurement request frame carrying a delayed response field indicating whether a delayed response is allowed (Fig. 6 & ¶0275-¶0279; a WLAN sensing set-up/negotiation procedure between two STAs that perform WLAN sensing may include an exchange of a request and response to define one or more of, e.g., some or more of, the following burst parameters [response field]: [0276] Number of PPDUs to be present in each “calibration burst”; [0277] Time interval between PPDUs within each burst. In one example, if this information is not defined in the set-up/negotiation, the value may be set/fixed to a predefined value, e.g., SIFS; [0278] Time interval between calibration bursts (T.sub.sens) [delayed response]; and/or [0279] Number of bursts. This means that the parameters/fields include time interval between bursts or delayed response when it is appropriate. For example, during the negotiation process STAs determine if the delayed response is allowed or not);
and a transmitter, which in operation, transmits a measurement request frame to the first communication apparatus (Fig. 6 & ¶0258; device 140 (FIG. 1) may transmit PPDUs according to calibration scheme 600, and wireless sensing component 110 (FIG. 1) maybe configured to utilize calibration scheme 600 to process one or more fields of one or more PPDUs to calibrate a reference channel estimation for WLAN sensing. ¶0261; different bursts of PPDUs may be separated by a second time interval, denoted T.sub.sens, which may be configured to support WLAN sensing measurements).
Lomayev does not expressly teach “allowed” However, this limitation is suggested because during the negotiation setup/process, SATs devices determine T.sub.sens interval between responses which suggested that the delay is allowed. Despite that, Examiner uses Siomina to support Lomayev teachings.
Siomina is directed to measuring node. Siomina teaches “allowed” (¶0085-¶0087; postponing a UL measurement that had been requested or scheduled may involve extending the measurement period [which means delay is allowed], such that the measuring node may delay sending its measurement report for a certain amount of time. Canceling the one or more UL measurements reduces the number of UL measurements that the measuring node has to perform over the predetermined measurement period. Note that an apparatus compliant with IEEE 802.11 standards means that communicating by means of PPDUs exchange between node).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Siomina into the system of Lopmayev in order to perform parallel measurements (abstract). Utilizing such teachings enable the system to determine an adjustment to a measurement configuration for the measuring apparatus. The measurement configuration relates to, for example, a number of parallel measurements to perform. The adjustment is based on a comparison of UL measurements being performed or to be performed by the measuring apparatus over a predetermined measurement period and the capability of the measuring apparatus to perform parallel measurements (abstract).
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same rationale applies.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomayev in view of Siomina and further in view of Tenny et al. (hereinafter Tenny) US 2018/0007626 A1.
Regarding Claim 7, Lomayev in view of Siomina teaches the first communication apparatus according to claim 1, but do not expressly teach wherein the receiver is further configured to receive the measurement request frame as payload of an 802.11 Data frame, the 802.11 Data frame comprising a Sub-Network Access Protocol (SNAP) field including an Ethertype subfield, wherein the Ethertype subfield is set as 89-0d.
Tenny teaches wherein the receiver is further configured to receive the measurement request frame as payload of an 802.11 Data frame, the 802.11 Data frame comprising a Sub-Network Access Protocol (SNAP) field including an Ethertype subfield, wherein the Ethertype subfield is set as 89-0d (¶0094-¶0095; Based on EtherType “89-0d” in the SNAP header, the data port in the UE routes the data frame to the station management entity (SME), which further processes the Payload Type field (e.g., Payload Type field 1025). FIG. 10C illustrates a table 1040 of example Payload Type values. The Payload Type is used by the UE to select a corresponding protocol handler for processing the Payload field (e.g., Payload field 1030). For the Payload Type value representing 5G paging, the SME forwards the content of the Payload field (e.g., Payload field 1030) to the 5G paging protocol hander for further processing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Tenny into the system of Lomayev in view of Siomina in order to indicate which protocol is encapsulated in the payload of the frame and is used at the receiving end by the data link layer to determine how the payload is processed (common knowledge).
Regarding Claim 16, Lomayev in view of Siomina teaches the first communication apparatus according to claim 1, but do not expressly teach wherein the measurement request frame is an Ethertype 89-0d Data frame.
Tenny teaches wherein the measurement request frame is an Ethertype 89-0d Data frame (¶0093-¶0095; Based on EtherType “89-0d”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Tenny into the system of Lomayev in view of Siomina in order to indicate which protocol is encapsulated in the payload of the frame and is used at the receiving end by the data link layer to determine how the payload is processed (common knowledge).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomayev in view of Siomina and further in view of Asterjadhi et al. (hereinafter Asterjadhi) US 2019/0342891 A1.
Regarding Claim 11, Lomayev in view of Siomina teaches the first communication apparatus according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach further configured to advertise whether it is capable of transmitting a measurement PPDU upon receiving a Measurement request frame and, if it is advertised to be capable of doing so, further advertise a type of measurement PPDU that it is capable of transmitting, the type of measurement PPDU being a NDP or an 802.11 PPDU carrying a Data frame.
Asterjadhi teaches further configured to advertise whether it is capable of transmitting a measurement PPDU upon receiving a Measurement request frame and, if it is advertised to be capable of doing so, further advertise a type of measurement PPDU that it is capable of transmitting, the type of measurement PPDU being a NDP or an 802.11 PPDU carrying a Data frame (¶0113; advertise NDP PPDU)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Asterjadhi into the system of Lomayev in view of Siomina in order to vote on the channel parameters base don channel conditions observed by the STAs (¶0113). Utilizing such teachings enable the system to send a trigger frame to STAs to vote on what the STAs have determined. Id.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomayev in view of Siomina and further in view of Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang) US 2015/0288427 A1.
Regarding Claim 13, Lomayev in view of Siomina teaches the first communication apparatus according to claim 12, Lomayev teaches in ¶0119; power measurement used for any purpose however, they do not expressly teach wherein the one or more time windows being negotiated are scheduled automatic power save delivery (S-APSD) service periods (SP)
Wang teaches wherein the one or more time windows being negotiated are scheduled automatic power save delivery (S-APSD) service periods (SP) (¶0160 & ¶0170; AAP may provide schedule information for the JTS for the transmission of one or more transmit opportunities using the joint transmission request 1110. This schedule information may be referenced to the local timer at either the ATAP or the AAP, or may be referenced to any other timer that is agreed upon. This schedule may be, for example, time and duration or any other type of indication of a period such as, for example, scheduled automatic power save delivery (S-APSD) slots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Wang into the system of Lomayev in view of Siomina in order to allow device to take more time in sleeping state and consume less power to improve the performance by minimizing transmission latency (common knowledge).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lomayev in view of Siomina and further in view of Stacey et al. (hereinafter Stacey) US 2021/0282229 A1.
Regarding Claim 14, Lomayev in view of Siomina teaches the first communication apparatus according to claim 12, but do not expressly teach wherein the one or more time windows being negotiated are Target Wait Time (TWT) service periods (SP)
Stacey teaches wherein the one or more time windows being negotiated are Target Wait Time (TWT) service periods (SP) (¶0106, ¶0147, ¶0169 & ¶0178; for transitioning some TID data flow to one link to the other, or to negotiate a TWT SP in a particular link, an link ID field could be used).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Stacey into the system of Lomayev in view of Siomina in order to use the link in many frames or elements to manage operation across links (¶0147). Utilizing such teachings enable the system to indicate more than one link (example: a TID that is spread across multiple links for aggregation). Id.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 9 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if 1) all outstanding rejections are overcome and 2) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of records fail to teach each of the limitations of the identified claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-5PM.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
MAHRAN ABU ROUMI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2455
/MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455