DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8, 10-18, 20, 23 and 25 are pending in this application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Oath/Declaration
The applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 01/04/2024 and 07/23/2025 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 6 and 16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 line 2 recites “related to a number of the interaction or a number of sending and feeding back of the WLAN sensing frame” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear which limitations associating with “or” and which limitations associating with “and” operation. Similar issue exists in claim 16 line 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10-13, 15-17, 20, 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chitrakar et al. (US 2023/0319877 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chitrakar teaches a communication method, comprising:
determining a first message frame, wherein the first message frame comprises a parameter configured to set a wireless local area network (WLAN) sensing function (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); and
sending the first message frame (sending sensing request message to STA 2 1704 at step 1708 see Chitrakar: Fig.17; ¶0118]).
Regarding claim 2, Chitrakar taught the communication method according to claim 1 as described hereinabove. Chitrakar further teaches wherein the parameter comprises a session 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]).
Regarding claim 3, Chitrakar taught the communication method according to claim 1 as described hereinabove. Chitrakar further teaches wherein the parameter comprises at least one session process identifier, and each session process identifier is configured to represent an interaction between a sender and a receiver of a WLAN sensing frame in a WLAN sensing session (each of session ID corresponding to STA1 1702 (Sender) to STA2 1704, STA3 1705 or STA4 1706 in the Sensing session request message see Chitrakar: Fig.17; ¶[0118]).
Regarding claim 5, Chitrakar taught the communication method according to claim 3 as described hereinabove. Chitrakar further teaches wherein the parameter comprises an identification bit 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, Chitrakar taught the communication method according to claim 3 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 sending and feeding back 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, 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, 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 configured to set a WLAN sensing function (STA2 1704 receiving sensing session request message include TX parameter see Chitrakar: Fig.17 step 1708; ¶[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]).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as claim 2 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as claim 3 as set forth hereinabove.
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.
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 4, 8, 14 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 Kim et al. (US 2023/0236307 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Chitrakar taught the communication method according to claim 3 as described hereinabove. Chitrakar does not explicitly teaches wherein a mode of the interaction is timely feedback or delayed feedback.
However, Kim teaches the wherein a mode of the interaction is timely feedback or delayed feedback (The initiator can proceed with the request & response process to receive feedback at a specific time see Kim: ¶[0183]) in order to enabling operation in a more expanded area (see Kim: ¶[0006]).
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 wherein a mode of the interaction is timely feedback or delayed feedback as taught by Kim in order to enabling operation in a more expanded area (see Kim: ¶[0006]).
Regarding claim 8, Chitrakar taught the communication method according to claim 7 as described hereinabove. 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 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 14, claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as claim 4 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as claim 8 as set forth hereinabove.
Conclusion
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 on 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GUANG W. LI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2478
January 7, 2026
/GUANG W LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478