SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED ACTION
It is hereby acknowledged that the following papers have been received and placed of record in the file: Amendment date 04/09/2026.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-11, 15-18, 20, 23 and 25-31 are presented for examination.
Note: This application claiming a continuation priority data of 371 application filed on 07-07-2021.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 10-18, 20, 23 and 25 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection and last final rejection on 07/01/2026 is withdrawn.
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(a) 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, 5-7, 10-11, 15-17, 20, 23 and 25-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar et al. (US 2023/0319877 A1) in view of Jang et al. (US 2023/0224955 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chitrakar teaches a communication method, comprising:
determining a first message frame, wherein the first message frame comprises a parameter for configuring a wireless local area network (WLAN) sensing session (the process of sensing session negotiation transmit a sensing session request frame which include the session ID and transmission parameters “The process for sensing session negotiation may start in step 1708 when a WLAN sensing requester, in this case STA1 1702, transmits a sensing session request frame comprising a Session ID and transmission parameters for subsequent solicited channel measurements to a first sensing receiver, in this case STA2 1704” see Chitrakar: ¶[0118]; Fig.17), the parameter comprises a session identifier and at least one session process identifier, and the session identifier is configured to verify a transmitted frame in a WLAN sensing session (session ID and Transmission in session request message at step 1708 and sensing session respond status see Chitrakar: Fig.17; ¶0118]), and
sending the first message frame (sending sensing request message to STA 2 1704 at step 1708 see Chitrakar: Fig.17; ¶0118]).
Chitrakar does not explicitly teaches the session process identifier to identify and verify frames transmitted in the WLAN sensing session, each session process identifier is configured to represent an interaction between a sender and a receiver of a WLAN sensing frame within the WLAN sensing session and the interaction is delayed response.
However, Jang teaches the session process identifier to identify and verify frames transmitted in the WLAN sensing session (Group ID or session ID capable of identifying whether it belongs to a group participating in a sensing session see Jang: ¶[0100]), each session process identifier is configured to represent an interaction between a sender and a receiver of a WLAN sensing frame within the WLAN sensing session (each ID include number of sensing sessions in the group after the group created see Jang: ¶[0102]) and the interaction is delayed response (STAs which transmitted a grouping response frame within specific time after the GO transmit corresponding to delay response see Jang: ¶[0124]; Fig.14) in order to prevent collision from occurring in the sensing process by including time information for sensing (see Jang: ¶[[0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to create the invention of Chitrakar to include (or to use, etc.) the session process identifier to identify and verify frames transmitted in the WLAN sensing session, each session process identifier is configured to represent an interaction between a sender and a receiver of a WLAN sensing frame within the WLAN sensing session and the interaction is delayed response as taught by Jang in order to prevent collision from occurring in the sensing process by including time information for sensing (see Jang: ¶[[0005]).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Chitrakar taught the communication method according to claim 1 as described hereinabove. Chitrakar further teaches wherein the parameter is further configured to identify a number of occurrence of the at least one session process identifier (number of streams to be use in response message associated with the session ID in WLAN sensing session request message “The Number of Stream subfield 1118 indicates the number of space time streams to be used in the response PPDU” see Chitrakar: Fig.11A; Fig.18).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Chitrakar taught the communication method according to claim 1 as described hereinabove. Chitrakar further teaches wherein a number of occurrence of the at least one session process identifier is related to: a number of the interaction, or a number of transmission of the WLAN sensing frame (number of streams to be use in response message (corresponding to feeding back) associated with the session ID in WLAN sensing session request message “The Number of Stream subfield 1118 indicates the number of space time streams to be used in the response PPDU” see Chitrakar: Fig.11A; Fig.18).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Chitrakar taught the communication method according to claim 1 as described hereinabove. Chitrakar further teaches wherein the parameter comprises an identification bit configured to identify a WLAN sensing mode (two modes of channel measurements for WLAN sensing are (i) solicited channel measurements and (ii) unsolicited channel measurements see Chitrakar: ¶[0060]; ¶[0096]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Chitrakar taught the communication method according to claim 1 as described hereinabove. Chitrakar further teaches wherein the parameter comprises a dialog token configured to secure the WLAN sensing session (Dialog token in WLAN sensing session request see Chitrakar: Fig 18 Dialog Token; ¶[0099]; ¶[0121]).
Regarding claim 11, Chitrakar teaches a communication method, comprising:
receiving a first message frame, wherein the first message frame comprises a parameter for configuring a wireless local rea network (WLAN) sensing session (STA2 1704 receiving sensing session request message include TX parameter see Chitrakar: Fig.17 step 1708; ¶[0118]); the parameter comprises a session identifier and at least one session process identifier, and the session identifier is configured to verify a transmitted frame in a WLAN sensing session (session ID and Transmission in session request message at step 1708 and sensing session respond status see Chitrakar: Fig.17; ¶0118]); and
executing a communication operation based on the first message frame (In step 1710, the first sensing receiver 1704 then transmits a sensing session response frame comprising a status to accept or reject the request see Chitrakar: Fig.17; ¶[0118]).
Chitrakar does not explicitly teaches the session process identifier to identify and verify frames transmitted in the WLAN sensing session, each session process identifier is configured to represent an interaction between a sender and a receiver of a WLAN sensing frame within the WLAN sensing session and the interaction is delayed response.
Chitrakar does not explicitly teaches the session process identifier to identify and verify frames transmitted in the WLAN sensing session, each session process identifier is configured to represent an interaction between a sender and a receiver of a WLAN sensing frame within the WLAN sensing session and the interaction is delayed response.
However, Jang teaches the session process identifier to identify and verify frames transmitted in the WLAN sensing session (Group ID or session ID capable of identifying whether it belongs to a group participating in a sensing session see Jang: ¶[0100]), each session process identifier is configured to represent an interaction between a sender and a receiver of a WLAN sensing frame within the WLAN sensing session (each ID include number of sensing sessions in the group after the group created see Jang: ¶[0102]) and the interaction is delayed response (STAs which transmitted a grouping response frame within specific time after the GO transmit corresponding to delay response see Jang: ¶[0124]; Fig.14) in order to prevent collision from occurring in the sensing process by including time information for sensing (see Jang: ¶[[0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to create the invention of Chitrakar to include (or to use, etc.) the session process identifier to identify and verify frames transmitted in the WLAN sensing session, each session process identifier is configured to represent an interaction between a sender and a receiver of a WLAN sensing frame within the WLAN sensing session and the interaction is delayed response as taught by Jang in order to prevent collision from occurring in the sensing process by including time information for sensing (see Jang: ¶[[0005]).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as claim 5 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as claim 6 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as claim 7 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as claim 10 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 as set forth hereinabove. Claim 23 recites an electronic apparatus that perform the same functionalities as the method of claim 1 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is rejected for the same reason as claim 11 as set forth hereinabove. Claim 25 recites an electronic apparatus that perform the same functionalities as the method of claim 11 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 26, the modified Chitrakar taught the communication method according to claim 1 as described hereinabove. Jang further teaches wherein case that the interaction is the delay responses, each session process identifier corresponds to a plurality of WLAN sensing frames sent by the transmitter and a response of the plurality of WLAN sensing frames fed back by the receiver (each ID include number of sensing sessions in the group after the group created see Jang: ¶[0102]; Figs.14-15) in order to prevent collision from occurring in the sensing process by including time information for sensing (see Jang: ¶[[0005]).
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 is rejected for the same reason as claim 26 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 is rejected for the same reason as claim 26 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is rejected for the same reason as claim 5 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 as set forth hereinabove. Claim 30 recites an non-transitory computer readable medium that perform the same functionalities as the method of claim 1 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 31, claim 31 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 as set forth hereinabove. Claim 31 recites an non-transitory computer readable medium that perform the same functionalities as the method of claim 11 as described hereinabove.
Claims 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar et al. (US 2023/0319877 A1) in view of Jang et al. (US 2023/0224955 A1) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0236307 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Chitrakar taught the communication method according to claim 7 as described hereinabove. The modified Chitrakar does not explicitly teaches wherein the WLAN sensing mode is a channel state information mode, a ranging mode, or a radar mode, and wherein the WLAN sensing mode is determined to be the channel state information mode, and sending power of a device sending a WLAN sensing frame is equal in one WLAN sensing session.
However, Kim teaches the wherein the WLAN sensing mode is a channel state information mode (CSI based sensing see Kim: ¶[0057]), a ranging mode, or a radar mode, and wherein the WLAN sensing mode is determined to be the channel state information mode (The WLAN sensing may be classified into CSI-based sensing which uses channel state information of a signal arrived at a receiver through a channel and radar-based sensing which uses a signal received after a transmission signal is reflected by an object see Kim: ¶[0057]), and sending power of a device sending a WLAN sensing frame is equal in one WLAN sensing session (The number of sensing bursts may be equal to or less than the number of devices in the group see Kim: ¶[0116]) in order to reduce power consumption can be reduce (see Kim: ¶[0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to create the invention of the modified Chitrakar to include (or to use, etc.) the wherein the WLAN sensing mode is a channel state information mode, a ranging mode, or a radar mode, and wherein the WLAN sensing mode is determined to be the channel state information mode, and sending power of a device sending a WLAN sensing frame is equal in one WLAN sensing session as taught by Kim in order to reduce power consumption can be reduce (see Kim: ¶[0005]).
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as claim 8 as set forth hereinabove.
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 GUANG W LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1897. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7AM-5PMET.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
GUANG W. LI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2478
July 17, 2026
/GUANG W LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights