DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the preliminary amendment filed on 17 January 2024, having claims 1-12 and 14 (claims 13 and 15-16 were canceled).
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement filed on 17 January 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The NPL document PCT/KR2022/010695 was not considered because an English translation of the document was not provided.
Specification
4. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The acronym LAN recited in line 1 of the abstract must be written as “Local Area Network (LAN)” the first time is recited in the abstract.
The acronym SDP recited in line 6 of the abstract must be defined the first time it is mentioned in the abstract.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1, 12, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The acronym LAN recited in line 2 of claim 1 must be written as “Local Area Network (LAN)” the first time is recited in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “null data physical protocol data unit (PPDU) (NDP)” in lines 7-8. The limitation must be written as “null data packet (NDP) physical protocol data unit (PPDU)” to render the claim affirmative.
The acronym LAN recited in line 2 of claim 12 must be written as “Local Area Network (LAN)” the first time is recited in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “null data physical protocol data unit (PPDU) (NDP)” in lines 11-12. The limitation must be written as “null data packet (NDP) physical protocol data unit (PPDU)” to render the claim affirmative.
The acronym LAN recited in line 2 of claim 14 must be written as “Local Area Network (LAN)” the first time is recited in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “null data physical protocol data unit (PPDU) (NDP)” in lines 11-12. The limitation must be written as “null data packet (NDP) physical protocol data unit (PPDU)” to render the claim affirmative.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “first at least one STA” in line 6. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a first STA” in lines 1-2. Thus, it is not clear whether the first STA in lines 1-2 is the same or different from “first at least one STA” in line 6 of the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “first at least one STA” in line 6. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is incomprehensible. It is not clear what is meant by reading the limitation. It is suggested that this limitation is amended to recite “a second station of at least one STA” to render the claim definite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a second at least one STA among the first at least one STA” in lines 5-6. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is incomprehensible. It is not clear what is meant by reading the limitation. It is suggested that this limitation is amended to recite “a third station of the at least one STA” to render the claim definite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the second at least one STA” in line 8. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is incomprehensible. It is not clear what is meant by reading the limitation. It is suggested that this limitation is amended to recite “the third station of the at least one STA” to render the claim definite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “first at least one STA” in line 7. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a first STA” in line 1. Thus, it is not clear whether the first STA in line 1 is the same or different from “first at least one STA” in line 7 of the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “first at least one STA” in line 7. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is incomprehensible. It is not clear what is meant by reading the limitation. It is suggested that this limitation is amended to recite “a second station of at least one STA” to render the claim definite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a second at least one STA among the first at least one STA” in line 10. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is incomprehensible. It is not clear what is meant by reading the limitation. It is suggested that this limitation is amended to recite “a third station of the at least one STA” to render the claim definite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the second at least one STA” in lines 12-13. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is incomprehensible. It is not clear what is meant by reading the limitation. It is suggested that this limitation is amended to recite “the third station of the at least one STA” to render the claim definite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al. (US 2019/0200383 A1).
For claims 1 and 12, Jiang discloses a first station (STA) (Fig 2A, AP 232) for performing sensing procedure in a wireless LAN system ([0014] WLAN system and Fig 7, WLAN circuitry in STA or AP), the first STA comprising: at least one transceiver (Fig 6, transceiver 620); and
at least one processor (Fig 6, processor 602) connected to the at least one transceiver, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
transmit, through the at least one transceiver, a sensing polling frame (Fig 2A, poll trigger frame 236) to confirm participation in sensing measurement to first at least one STA (Fig 2A, AS 233 and AS 234) participating in the sensing procedure (Fig 2A, AP 232 is the first station, and it initiates the sensing procedure by transmitting a poll trigger frame 236 to STAs 233 and 234);
receive, through the at least one transceiver, a response frame (Fig 2A, response frame PR 237 and PR 238) to the sensing polling frame from a second at least one STA (Fig 2A, AS 233 or AS 234) among the first at least one STA ([0050] PR frames 237 and 238 are response frames to the poll trigger frame); and
based on the response frame, transmit, through the at least one transceiver, a null data physical protocol data unit (PPDU) (NDP) announcement frame (Fig 2A, NDPA frame 243) to the second at least one STA ([0050] the NDPA is a null data packet PPDU).
For claim 14, Jiang discloses a second station (STA) (Fig 2A, AS 233 or AS 234) for performing sensing procedure in a wireless LAN system ([0014] WLAN system and Fig 7, WLAN circuitry in STA or AP), the second STA comprising:
at least one transceiver (Fig 6, transceiver 620); and at least one processor (Fig 6, processor 602) connected to the at least one transceiver, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
participate in the sensing procedure initiated by a first STA (Fig 2A, AP 232 is the first station, and it initiates the sensing procedure by transmitting a poll trigger frame 236 to STAs 233 and 234);
receive, through the at least one transceiver, a sensing polling frame (Fig 2A, poll trigger frame 236) from a first station (STA) to confirm whether to participate in sensing measurement ([0054] the poll frame requests sensing measurement periods and results from the second station or third station);
transmit, through the at least one transceiver, a response frame to the sensing polling frame to the first STA (Fig 2A, response frame PR 237 is transmitted from AS 233 to the AP 232); and
receive, through the at least one transceiver, a null data physical protocol data unit (PPDU) (NDP) announcement frame based on the response frame from the first STA (Fig 2A, NDPA frame 243 is sent from AP 232 to AS 233 after receiving the response frame 237 from AS 233; [0050] the NDPA is a null data packet PPDU).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
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.
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 2-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2019/0200383 A1) in view of Chitrakar et al. (US 2023/0319877 A1).
For claim 2, Jiang does not expressly disclose the sensing polling frame includes a trigger type subfield, and a variant of the sensing polling frame is indicated as a sensing trigger frame by the trigger type subfield.
Chitrakar, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches the sensing polling frame includes a trigger type subfield, and a variant of the sensing polling frame is indicated as a sensing trigger frame by the trigger type subfield ([0127] the trigger frame is a WLAN sensing frame comprising a Trigger Type field and variant for sensing which indicates that this is sensing frame). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the polling frame of Jiang as a sensing measurement trigger frame based on the teachings of Chitrakar at the time of the invention.
For claim 3, Jiang and Chitrakar do not expressly disclose when the value of the trigger type subfield is set to one of 8 to 15, the variant of the sensing polling frame is indicated as the sensing trigger frame. However, Chitrakar discloses that one or more fields of the trigger frame may be set to an integer number (0, 1, etc.) [0127] and [0135]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to set the integer to 8 or 15 without departing from the scope of the invention.
For claim 4, Chitrakar discloses the sensing polling frame includes a trigger dependent common info field, and the trigger dependent common information field includes a sensing trigger sub-variant field indicating a sub-variant of the sensing polling frame ([0127] the frame comprises a Common Dependent Info field (Fig 20, 2008) which includes the sensing variant field).
For claim 5, Chitrakar discloses the sub-variant of the sensing polling frame is indicated by the sensing trigger sub-variant field as at least one of sensing polling, sensing measurement, secure measurement, or reporting ([0127] the trigger frame is a WLAN sensing frame comprising a Trigger Type field and variant for sensing which indicates that this is sensing frame).
For claim 6, Chitrakar discloses the trigger dependent common information field includes a sounding dialog token field ([0099] the NDPA frame comprises a sounding dialog token field), and a value of the sounding dialog token field is included in at least one of the NDP announcement frame, a feedback frame obtained through NDP transmitted by the NDP announcement frame, or a trigger frame that triggers the feedback frame ([0099] the trigger frame may request beamforming feedback from the receiving STAs).
For claim 11, does not expressly disclose the response frame includes at least one of an acknowledgment (ACK) frame or a Clear-To-Send (CTS) frame, and the NDP announcement frame is transmitted to the second at least one STA that transmitted at least one of the ACK frame or the CTS frame. Chitrakar discloses that the response frame may be a CTS frame [0114]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the response frame(s) of Jiang as CTS frame(s) and the NDPA frame of Jiang would be transmitted after receiving the CTS frames from the receiving STAs based on the teachings of Chitrakar at the time of the invention.
9. Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2019/0200383 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0159207 A1).
For claim 7, Jiang does not expressly disclose the response frame is included in a trigger-based (TB) PPDU based on a resource unit (RU) allocated by the sensing polling frame and is received from the second at least one STA.
Chen, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches the polling trigger frame comprises an RU allocation indication for the receiving STAs to use to send an uplink response frame (TB NDP feedback PPDU) [0058]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the trigger frame response method of Chen at the time of the invention to allocate resources to the receiving STAs participating in the sensing procedure.
For claim 8, Chen discloses the response frame includes at least one of information on participation in the sensing measurement, type of measurement information fed back information on whether delayed feedback is supported for the measurement information, or information on whether secure measurement is supported ([0058] the STAs may send the response frame (TB feedback PPDU) using a tone mapping as indicated in the RU in the polling trigger frame).
For claim 9, Chen discloses the information on whether to participate in the sensing measurement includes at least one of information indicating participation in the sensing measurement, information indicating non-participation in the sensing measurement corresponding to the sensing polling frame and information indicating that an operation according to the sensing procedure is not performed ([0058] if there is no user information in the information field of polling trigger frame, then there is no resource allocated to the STA, and no feedback would be transmitted back to the transmitting STA/AP; thus, no sensing measurement is performed).
For claim 10, Chen discloses the sensing polling frame includes a sensing parameter subfield, and the sensing parameter subfield includes at least one of information for requesting the sensing measurement, information on bandwidth over which the sensing measurement is performed ([0040] tone locations within a bandwidth over which the sensing measurement is performed are indicated in the polling trigger frame, and the receiving STAs use the information to send uplink TB NDP feedback PPDUs), type of measurement information to be fed back, and information on whether delay feedback for the measurement information is supported or information on whether secure measurement is supported.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM ET.
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471