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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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) 1-2, 9-10 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chitrakar et al. (US 2023/0319877, hereinafter “Chitrakar”).
Regarding claim 1, Chitrakar discloses a communication method, performed by an initiator of wireless local area network (WLAN) sensing, the method comprising: determining a first message frame, wherein the first message frame comprises parameters associated with at least one WLAN sensing session (see para, 0118, sensing session request frame with session ID and transmission parameters); and sending the first message frame (see para. 0118, transmitting sensing frame).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Chitrakar discloses wherein the parameters comprise at least one session identifier, and each session identifier is configured to verify a transmitted frame in a corresponding WLAN sensing session (see para. 0118, session identifier).
Regarding claim 9, Chitrakar discloses a communication method, performed by a responder of wireless local area network (WLAN) sensing, the method comprising: receiving a first message frame, wherein the first message frame comprises parameters associated with at least one WLAN wireless local area network (WLAN) sensing session (see para, 0118, sensing receiver responds to sensing request frame); and performing communication according to the first message frame(see para. 0119, channel measurement based on sensing session parameters).
Regarding claim 19, Chitrakar discloses an electronic device, serving as an initiator of wireless local area network (WLAN) sensing, the electronic device comprising a processor, and a memory for-storing machine-readable instructions that a computer program executable by the processor, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine a first message frame (see para. 0013 and 0118, WLAN sensing session STA 1702 is an electric device which transmits a sensing request frame), wherein the first message frame comprises parameters associated with at least one WLAN sensing session (see para. 0118, sensing request frame with session ID and transmission parameters), and send the first message frame (see para. 0118, transmit sensing request frame).
Regarding claim 20, Chitrakar discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having thereon a computer program that when executed by a processor, causes the processor to execute the method of claim 1 (see para. 0013, 0164-0170 and 0118, see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 21, Chitrakar discloses an electronic device, serving as a responder of wireless local area network (WLAN) sensing, the electronic device comprising a processor, and a memory for storing a computer program executable by the processor, wherein when the computer program is executed by the processor, the method according to claim 9 is implemented (see para. 0013, 0164-0170 and 0118, see rejection of claim 9).
Regarding claim 22, Chitrakar discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, the method according to claim 9 is implemented (see para. 0013, 0164-0170 and 0118; see rejection of claim 9).
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 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.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar in view of Segev et al. (US 2018/0027561 A1, hereinafter “Segev”).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Chitrakar discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein the parameters comprise at least one associated/unassociated identifier, and each associated/unassociated identifier is configured to indicate that, a device participating in a corresponding WLAN sensing session comprises at least one of: a device associated with a device sending the first message frame, and/or a device unassociated with the device sending the first message frame. However, Segev from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the parameters comprise at least one associated/unassociated identifier, and each associated/unassociated identifier is configured to indicate that, a device participating in a corresponding WLAN sensing session comprises at least one of: a device associated with a device sending the first message frame, and/or a device unassociated with the device sending the first message frame (see para. 0488, associated identifier; par. 0502, unassociated identifier). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Segev identifier scheme into Chitrakar sensing frame scheme. The method can be implemented in a sensing frame. The motivation of doing this is to address a specific action from the associated or unassociated stations.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar in view of LI et al. (US 2018/0351721 A1, hereinafter “LI”).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Chitrakar discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein the parameters comprise a frequency band identifier of a channel bandwidth used by each WLAN sensing session. However, LI from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the parameters comprise a frequency band identifier of a channel bandwidth used by each WLAN sensing session (see para. 0282, Channel identifier of 20MHZ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include LI identifier scheme into Chitrakar sensing frame. The method can be implemented in a sensing frame. The motivation of doing this is to increase throughput and spectral efficiency (see para. 0004).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Chitrakar discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein the frequency band identifier comprises a first identifier bit, and the first identifier bit is configured to indicate a frequency band of a channel bandwidth used by a corresponding WLAN sensing session. However, LI from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the frequency band identifier comprises a first identifier bit, and the first identifier bit is configured to indicate a frequency band of a channel bandwidth used by a corresponding WLAN sensing session (see para. 0282, frequency channel identifier of 20 MHZ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include LI identifier scheme into Chitrakar sensing frame. The method can be implemented in a sensing frame. The motivation of doing this is to increase throughput and spectral efficiency (see para. 0004).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Chitrakar discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein the frequency band identifier further comprises a second identifier bit, and the second identifier bit is configured to indicate a sub-frequency band in the frequency band used by the corresponding WLAN sensing session. However, LI from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the frequency band identifier further comprises a second identifier bit, and the second identifier bit is configured to indicate a sub-frequency band in the frequency band used by the corresponding WLAN sensing session (see para. 0106, BW=01, primary 20 MHZ and secondary 20 MHZ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include LI identifier scheme into Chitrakar sensing frame. The method can be implemented in a sensing frame. The motivation of doing this is to increase throughput and spectral efficiency (see para. 0004).
Claim(s 7-8 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar in view of LI as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 9, 13-14 above, and further in view of Verma et al. (US 2017/0367099 A1, hereinafter “Cariou”).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Chitrakar and LI discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein the frequency band is 1GHz-7.125GHz, or 60GHz. However, Verma from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the frequency band is 1GHz-7.125GHz, or 60GHz (see para. 0129, 60 GHZ; para. 0221, bandwidth identifier; para. 0226, channel bandwidth identifier). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Verma frequency and bandwidth identifier scheme into Chitrakar and LI bandwidth identifying scheme. The method can be implemented in a frame. The motivation of doing this is to utilize the frequency bandwidth efficiently.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Chitrakar and Li disclose all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein the frequency band is 1GHz-7.125GHz, and the sub-frequency band indicated by the second identifier bit is one of: 20MHz, 40MHz, 80MHz, 80+80MHz / 160MHz, or 160+160MHz / 320MHz; or the frequency band is 60GHz, and the sub-frequency band indicated by the second identifier bit is one of: 540MHz, 1.08GHz, 2.16GHz, 2.16+2.16GHz / 4.32GHz, or 4.32+4.32GHz /8.64GHz, However, Cariou from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the frequency band is 1GHz-7.125GHz, and the sub-frequency band indicated by the second identifier bit is one of: 20MHz, 40MHz, 80MHz, 80+80MHz / 160MHz, or 160+160MHz / 320MHz; or the frequency band is 60GHz, and the sub-frequency band indicated by the second identifier bit is one of: 540MHz, 1.08GHz, 2.16GHz, 2.16+2.16GHz / 4.32GHz, or 4.32+4.32GHz /8.64GHz (see para. 0069, channel identifier with 2.16GHZ, 4.32GHZ). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Verma frequency and bandwidth identifier scheme into Chitrakar and LI bandwidth identifying scheme. The method can be implemented in a frame. The motivation of doing this is to utilize the frequency bandwidth efficiently.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD S ANWAR whose telephone number is (571)270-5641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5 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, 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.
MOHAMMAD S. ANWAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MOHAMMAD S ANWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463