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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 pending.
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 1-4, 7-8, 15-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “sensing responder” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “non-sensing initator that participates in the sensing session,” as described in instant application specification [0060], while the accepted meaning is “the device that responds to the initiator's requests, helps facilitate the measurements, and may also be the transmitter or receiver” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. While instant application specification [0060] defines a sensing responder as a “non-sensing initiator that participates in the sensing session,” it is unclear whether this definition refers to an initiator that participates in the sensing session but is non-sensing (which would further render the claim unclear) or whether this refers to a device that participates in the sensing session but is not a sensing initiator. Examiner’s best interpretation, which will be used for purposes of examination in this Office Action, is the latter interpretation. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-4 rejected as dependent.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “availability of the another device is not detected” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether this refers to an availability determination in which the determination is that the another device is not available, or whether this refers to a recitation that no such availability determination occurred, and therefore the availability of the another device is not detected. Claim 15 recites a similar limitation and is indefinite for a similar reason.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “sensing capability information is carried” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear where / in what element the sensing capability information is “carried.” For example, it is unclear whether the sensing capability information is included in the set of operational parameters, is included in a specific one of the set of operational parameters (e.g., role information), or whether it is a separate element entirely. Examiner’s best understanding is that this is a separate element and not part of any previously recited element. Claim 16 recites a similar limitation and is indefinite for similar reasons. Claims 9 and 17rejected as dependent.
Regarding claim 17, “the extended capabilities element” lacks antecedent basis. Examiner’s best interpretation is that this claim is meant to depend from claim 15. This interpretation will be used in this Office Action. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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) 1-5, 10-13, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20220304051 A1 to Aboul-Magd.
Regarding claim 1,
Aboul-Magd teaches:
A wireless communication method, comprising:
receiving, by a first device, at least one measurement configuration identifier sent by a second device; ([0007] – “sending, by an initiating station (STA) to a plurality of responder STAs, a sensing request comprising a sensing announcement frame indicating identifiers (ID) of the plurality of responder STAs.”)
wherein each of the at least one measurement configuration identifier corresponds to a set of operational parameters to perform sensing measurement; ([0007] – “sending, by an initiating station (STA) to a plurality of responder STAs, a sensing request comprising a sensing announcement frame indicating identifiers (ID) of the plurality of responder STAs.”)
wherein, the set of operational parameters to perform sensing measurement comprises at least one of the following: role information of a device in the sensing measurement, (Fig. 5; [0007] – “sending, by an initiating station (STA) to a plurality of responder STAs, a sensing request comprising a sensing announcement frame indicating identifiers (ID) of the plurality of responder STAs.” Identifiers of the plurality of responder STAs correspond to role information) the number of antennas used for the sensing measurement, a bandwidth used for the sensing measurement, a type of a measurement result, a type of how to report the measurement result, and threshold setup information; (Fig. 5; [0056] – “The sensing announcement 242 may also group devices into groups to focus on a particular sensing sequencing. The sensing announcement 242 may also indicate how many sensing frames are to follow and the frame rate as well as other parameters such as the Bandwidth and MCS.” [0083-85] – “an indicator of number of sensing frames 508, an indicator of frequency of sensing frames 510… STA Info field, e.g., STA-1 info field 520, may identify a STA ID (e.g., AID) 522 and a feedback type 524 (e.g., phase or amplitude or combination of both or other channel information). STA Info field may also indicate those subcarriers for which feedback is requested. STA Info field may also include any other relevant information such as spatial resource, transmit/receive antennas.”)
the second device is a sensing session initiator or a proxy device of the sensing session initiator; ([0007] – “sending, by an initiating station (STA) to a plurality of responder STAs, a sensing request comprising a sensing announcement frame indicating identifiers (ID) of the plurality of responder STAs.”) and
the first device is a sensing responder. ([0007] – “sending, by an initiating station (STA) to a plurality of responder STAs, a sensing request comprising a sensing announcement frame indicating identifiers (ID) of the plurality of responder STAs.”)
Regarding claim 2,
Aboul-Magd teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Aboul-Magd further teaches:
The wireless communication method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one measurement configuration identifier is sent by the second device via a first request frame, the first request frame is configured to request establishing a sensing session. (Fig. 2, 5; [0007] – “sending, by an initiating station (STA) to a plurality of responder STAs, a sensing request comprising a sensing announcement frame indicating identifiers (ID) of the plurality of responder STAs.” [0055] – “Sensing procedure or process 200 may begin at time 222, in which the sensing initiator 102 may announce via the sensing announcement 242 that a sensing procedure is to begin.”)
Regarding claim 3,
Aboul-Magd teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Aboul-Magd further teaches:
The wireless communication method according to claim 2, wherein the first request frame comprises at least one measurement configuration field; (Fig. 5)
the measurement configuration field comprises a measurement configuration identifier field; (Fig. 5)
the measurement configuration identifier is configured to indicate a measurement configuration identifier corresponding to a measurement configuration that is requested by a sensing session initiator to be established. (Fig. 5; [0056] – “The sensing announcement 242 may also group devices into groups to focus on a particular sensing sequencing. The sensing announcement 242 may also indicate how many sensing frames are to follow and the frame rate as well as other parameters such as the Bandwidth and MCS.” [0083-85] – “an indicator of number of sensing frames 508, an indicator of frequency of sensing frames 510… STA Info field, e.g., STA-1 info field 520, may identify a STA ID (e.g., AID) 522 and a feedback type 524 (e.g., phase or amplitude or combination of both or other channel information). STA Info field may also indicate those subcarriers for which feedback is requested. STA Info field may also include any other relevant information such as spatial resource, transmit/receive antennas.”)
Regarding claim 4,
Aboul-Magd teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Aboul-Magd further teaches:
The wireless communication method according to claim 3, wherein the measurement configuration field further comprises a sensing initiator identifier to indicate an identifier of a device that requests establishing the sensing session. (Fig. 5 – MAC header 504; MAC headers comprise source and destination MAC addresses. Source MAC address may correspond to sensing initiator identifier. See instant application specification [0135] – “the first request frame further includes identifier information of the sensing session initiator, such as an AID, UID or a MAC address.”)
Regarding claim 5,
Aboul-Magd teaches:
A wireless communication device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, the processor is configured to invoke and run the computer program stored in the memory to perform the operations of:
receiving at least one measurement configuration identifier sent by another device; ([0007] – “sending, by an initiating station (STA) to a plurality of responder STAs, a sensing request comprising a sensing announcement frame indicating identifiers (ID) of the plurality of responder STAs.”)
wherein each of the at least one measurement configuration identifier corresponds to a set of operational parameters to perform sensing measurement; ([0007] – “sending, by an initiating station (STA) to a plurality of responder STAs, a sensing request comprising a sensing announcement frame indicating identifiers (ID) of the plurality of responder STAs.”)
wherein, the set of operational parameters to perform sensing measurement comprises at least one of the following: role information of a device in the sensing measurement, (Fig. 5; [0007] – “sending, by an initiating station (STA) to a plurality of responder STAs, a sensing request comprising a sensing announcement frame indicating identifiers (ID) of the plurality of responder STAs.” Identifiers of the plurality of responder STAs correspond to role information) the number of antennas used for the sensing measurement, a bandwidth used for the sensing measurement, a type of a measurement result, a type of how to report the measurement result, and threshold setup information; (Fig. 5; [0056] – “The sensing announcement 242 may also group devices into groups to focus on a particular sensing sequencing. The sensing announcement 242 may also indicate how many sensing frames are to follow and the frame rate as well as other parameters such as the Bandwidth and MCS.” [0083-85] – “an indicator of number of sensing frames 508, an indicator of frequency of sensing frames 510… STA Info field, e.g., STA-1 info field 520, may identify a STA ID (e.g., AID) 522 and a feedback type 524 (e.g., phase or amplitude or combination of both or other channel information). STA Info field may also indicate those subcarriers for which feedback is requested. STA Info field may also include any other relevant information such as spatial resource, transmit/receive antennas.”)
the another device is a sensing session initiator or a proxy device of the sensing session initiator; ([0007] – “sending, by an initiating station (STA) to a plurality of responder STAs, a sensing request comprising a sensing announcement frame indicating identifiers (ID) of the plurality of responder STAs.”) and
the wireless communication device is a sensing responder. ([0007] – “sending, by an initiating station (STA) to a plurality of responder STAs, a sensing request comprising a sensing announcement frame indicating identifiers (ID) of the plurality of responder STAs.”)
Regarding claim 10,
Aboul-Magd teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Aboul-Magd further teaches:
The wireless communication device according to claim 5, wherein the at least one measurement configuration identifier is sent by the another device via a first request frame, the first request frame is configured to request establishing a sensing session. (Fig. 2, 5; [0007] – “sending, by an initiating station (STA) to a plurality of responder STAs, a sensing request comprising a sensing announcement frame indicating identifiers (ID) of the plurality of responder STAs.” [0055] – “Sensing procedure or process 200 may begin at time 222, in which the sensing initiator 102 may announce via the sensing announcement 242 that a sensing procedure is to begin.”)
Regarding claim 11,
Aboul-Magd teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Aboul-Magd further teaches:
The wireless communication device according to claim 10, wherein the first request frame comprises at least one measurement configuration field; (Fig. 5)
the measurement configuration field comprises a measurement configuration identifier field; (Fig. 5)
the measurement configuration identifier is configured to indicate a measurement configuration identifier corresponding to a measurement configuration that is requested by a sensing session initiator to be established. (Fig. 5; [0056] – “The sensing announcement 242 may also group devices into groups to focus on a particular sensing sequencing. The sensing announcement 242 may also indicate how many sensing frames are to follow and the frame rate as well as other parameters such as the Bandwidth and MCS.” [0083-85] – “an indicator of number of sensing frames 508, an indicator of frequency of sensing frames 510… STA Info field, e.g., STA-1 info field 520, may identify a STA ID (e.g., AID) 522 and a feedback type 524 (e.g., phase or amplitude or combination of both or other channel information). STA Info field may also indicate those subcarriers for which feedback is requested. STA Info field may also include any other relevant information such as spatial resource, transmit/receive antennas.”)
Regarding claim 12,
Aboul-Magd teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Aboul-Magd further teaches:
The wireless communication device according to claim 11, wherein the measurement configuration field further comprises a sensing initiator identifier to indicate an identifier of a device that requests establishing the sensing session. (Fig. 5 – MAC header 504; MAC headers comprise source and destination MAC addresses. Source MAC address may correspond to sensing initiator identifier. See instant application specification [0135] – “the first request frame further includes identifier information of the sensing session initiator, such as an AID, UID or a MAC address.”)
Regarding claim 13,
Aboul-Magd teaches:
A wireless communication device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, the processor is configured to invoke and run the computer program stored in the memory to perform the operations of:
sending at least one measurement configuration identifier to at least one another device; ([0007] – “sending, by an initiating station (STA) to a plurality of responder STAs, a sensing request comprising a sensing announcement frame indicating identifiers (ID) of the plurality of responder STAs.”)
wherein each of the at least one measurement configuration identifier corresponds to a set of operational parameters to perform sensing measurement; ([0007] – “sending, by an initiating station (STA) to a plurality of responder STAs, a sensing request comprising a sensing announcement frame indicating identifiers (ID) of the plurality of responder STAs.”)
wherein, the set of operational parameters to perform sensing measurement comprises at least one of the following: role information of a device in the sensing measurement, (Fig. 5; [0007] – “sending, by an initiating station (STA) to a plurality of responder STAs, a sensing request comprising a sensing announcement frame indicating identifiers (ID) of the plurality of responder STAs.” Identifiers of the plurality of responder STAs correspond to role information) the number of antennas used for the sensing measurement, a bandwidth used for the sensing measurement, a type of a measurement result, a type of how to report the measurement result, and threshold setup information;
the wireless communication device is a sensing session initiator or a proxy device of the sensing session initiator; ([0007] – “sending, by an initiating station (STA) to a plurality of responder STAs, a sensing request comprising a sensing announcement frame indicating identifiers (ID) of the plurality of responder STAs.”) and
the at least one another device is a sensing responder. ([0007] – “sending, by an initiating station (STA) to a plurality of responder STAs, a sensing request comprising a sensing announcement frame indicating identifiers (ID) of the plurality of responder STAs.”)
Regarding claim 18,
Aboul-Magd teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Aboul-Magd further teaches:
The wireless communication device according to claim 13, wherein the wireless communication device is configured to send the at least one measurement configuration identifier via a first request frame, the first request frame is configured to request establishing a sensing session. (Fig. 2, 5; [0007] – “sending, by an initiating station (STA) to a plurality of responder STAs, a sensing request comprising a sensing announcement frame indicating identifiers (ID) of the plurality of responder STAs.” [0055] – “Sensing procedure or process 200 may begin at time 222, in which the sensing initiator 102 may announce via the sensing announcement 242 that a sensing procedure is to begin.”)
Regarding claim 19,
Aboul-Magd teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Aboul-Magd further teaches:
The wireless communication device according to claim 18, wherein, the first request frame comprises at least one measurement configuration field; (Fig. 5)
the measurement configuration field comprises a measurement configuration identifier field; (Fig. 5)
the measurement configuration identifier is configured to indicate a measurement configuration identifier corresponding to a measurement configuration that is requested by a sensing session initiator to be established. (Fig. 5; [0056] – “The sensing announcement 242 may also group devices into groups to focus on a particular sensing sequencing. The sensing announcement 242 may also indicate how many sensing frames are to follow and the frame rate as well as other parameters such as the Bandwidth and MCS.” [0083-85] – “an indicator of number of sensing frames 508, an indicator of frequency of sensing frames 510… STA Info field, e.g., STA-1 info field 520, may identify a STA ID (e.g., AID) 522 and a feedback type 524 (e.g., phase or amplitude or combination of both or other channel information). STA Info field may also indicate those subcarriers for which feedback is requested. STA Info field may also include any other relevant information such as spatial resource, transmit/receive antennas.”)
Regarding claim 20,
Aboul-Magd teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Aboul-Magd further teaches:
The wireless communication device according to claim 19, wherein the measurement configuration field further comprises a sensing initiator identifier to indicate an identifier of a device that requests establishing the sensing session. (Fig. 5 – MAC header 504; MAC headers comprise source and destination MAC addresses. Source MAC address may correspond to sensing initiator identifier. See instant application specification [0135] – “the first request frame further includes identifier information of the sensing session initiator, such as an AID, UID or a MAC address.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 7-9, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220304051 A1 to Aboul-Magd in view of US 20240276303 A1 to Jang.
Regarding claim 7,
Aboul-Magd teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Aboul-Magd further teaches:
The wireless communication device according to claim 5, wherein, in response to the wireless communication device being a sensing transmitter and the another device being a sensing receiver, availability of the another device is not detected (Fig. 9; [0093] – “Lines 912 and 914 may represent actions performed by sensing responders 106 (e.g., receptively sensing responder 112 and 114).” [0099] – “sensing responder 106 (e.g., sensing responders 112 and 114) may send at time 938 sensing frames 952 and 954 to sensing initiator 102” See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).) before the wireless communication device sends a null data PPDU ([0099] – “sensing frames 952 and 954 may be NDP-like frames” [0053] – “uplink (UL) procedure or process may refer to embodiments in which one or more sensing frames may be carried in a sensing PPDU and transmitted by the one or more sensing responders 106 toward the sensing initiator.”) (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference)
Jang teaches:
wireless communication device being a sensing transmitter and the another device being a sensing receiver, ([0183] – “if the role of the sensing responder is a transmitter”)
wireless communication device sends a null data PPDU announcement (NDPA) ([0110] – “The sensing signal mentioned below refers to a signal for the purpose of measuring a channel, such as the previously used Null Data PPDU (NDP)” [0200] – “The sensing signal may include a Null Data Packet Announcement (NDPA) and a NDP, or may include only a NDP. The NDPA may always be transmitted before the NDP.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Jang’s known technique to Aboul-Magd’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Aboul-Magd teaches a base method of a sensing responder transmitting a null data PPDU (NDP) as a sensing frame; (2) Jang teaches a specific technique of sending a NDPA prior to sending NDP; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 8,
Aboul-Magd teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Aboul-Magd does not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
Jang teaches:
The wireless communication device according to claim 5, wherein, sensing capability information is carried in at least one of following elements: a neighbor report element, a radio measurement enabled capabilities element, a reduced neighbor report element, and an extended capabilities element; (Figs. 10, 13-14; [0100, 135-137] – “Setup phase: Notifies the maximum capability for each parameter. That is, there may be indications of whether or not the transmission method suggested above is possible, maximum values related to parameters, and the like. Negotiation phase: Negotiate transmission method and parameters”) and the neighbor report element comprises a “whether sensing is supported” field and is configured to indicate whether or not the wireless communication device supports sensing or supports the sensing measurement. ([0099] – “Setup Phase (Capability Advertisement & Negotiation): A phase of exchanging sensing-related capabilities and forming an association. Through this process, STAs can perform association by determining whether sensing is possible and whether they have appropriate sensing capabilities. The Setup Phase may also be named Discovery & Association Phase.” )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Jang’s known technique to Aboul-Magd’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Aboul-Magd teaches a base setup, request, and sensing method of an initiating STA and responder STAs; (2) Jang teaches a specific technique of a setup and negotiation phase; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 9,
Aboul-Magd in view of Jang teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Aboul-Magd does not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
Jang further teaches:
The wireless communication device according to claim 8, wherein the extended capabilities element comprises at least one of the following fields: (In regard to claim 9, the limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Parent claim 8 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “a neighbor report element,” “a radio measurement enabled capabilities element,” “a reduced neighbor report element,” and “an extended capabilities element.” If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitations to the other alternative(s) in dependent claims are not required limitations. See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, Jang teaches “the neighbor report element” as detailed in the rejection of claim 8. Claim 9 is based on another alternative/other alternatives, i.e., “the extended capabilities element.” Examiner further notes (Figs. 10, 13-14; [0100, 135-137] – “Setup phase: Notifies the maximum capability for each parameter. That is, there may be indications of whether or not the transmission method suggested above is possible, maximum values related to parameters, and the like. Negotiation phase: Negotiate transmission method and parameters”)
a max-number-of-antenna field, configured to indicate a maximum number of antennas supported by the wireless communication device; ([0117-123] – “the possible transmission parameters are… Number of used antennas (or spatial streams): The number of antennas or spatial streams for transmitting sensing signals”) and
a max-bandwidth field, configured to indicate a maximum bandwidth supported by the wireless communication device. ([0117-123] – “the possible transmission parameters are… “Measurable Bandwidth: maximum bandwidth for sensing signal.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Jang’s known technique to Aboul-Magd’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Aboul-Magd teaches a base setup, request, and sensing method of an initiating STA and responder STAs; (2) Jang teaches a specific technique of a setup/negotiation phase; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 15,
Aboul-Magd teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Aboul-Magd further teaches:
The wireless communication device according to claim 13, wherein, in response to the at least one another device being a sensing transmitter and the wireless communication device being a sensing receiver, availability of the wireless communication device is not detected (Fig. 9; [0093] – “Lines 912 and 914 may represent actions performed by sensing responders 106 (e.g., receptively sensing responder 112 and 114).” [0099] – “sensing responder 106 (e.g., sensing responders 112 and 114) may send at time 938 sensing frames 952 and 954 to sensing initiator 102” See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).) before the at least one another device sends a null data PPDU ([0099] – “sensing frames 952 and 954 may be NDP-like frames” [0053] – “uplink (UL) procedure or process may refer to embodiments in which one or more sensing frames may be carried in a sensing PPDU and transmitted by the one or more sensing responders 106 toward the sensing initiator.”) (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference)
Jang teaches:
The at least one another device being a sensing transmitter and the wireless communication device being a sensing receiver, ([0183] – “if the role of the sensing responder is a transmitter”)
the at least one another device sends a null data PPDU announcement (NDPA) ([0110] – “The sensing signal mentioned below refers to a signal for the purpose of measuring a channel, such as the previously used Null Data PPDU (NDP)” [0200] – “The sensing signal may include a Null Data Packet Announcement (NDPA) and a NDP, or may include only a NDP. The NDPA may always be transmitted before the NDP.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Jang’s known technique to Aboul-Magd’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Aboul-Magd teaches a base method of a sensing responder transmitting a null data PPDU (NDP) as a sensing frame; (2) Jang teaches a specific technique of sending a NDPA prior to sending NDP; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 16,
Aboul-Magd teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Aboul-Magd does not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
Jang teaches:
The wireless communication device according to claim 13, wherein, sensing capability information is carried in at least one of following elements: a neighbor report element, a radio measurement enabled capabilities element, a reduced neighbor report element, and an extended capabilities element; (Figs. 10, 13-14; [0100, 135-137] – “Setup phase: Notifies the maximum capability for each parameter. That is, there may be indications of whether or not the transmission method suggested above is possible, maximum values related to parameters, and the like. Negotiation phase: Negotiate transmission method and parameters”) and the neighbor report element comprises a “whether sensing is supported” field and is configured to indicate whether or not the wireless communication device supports sensing or supports the sensing measurement. ([0099] – “Setup Phase (Capability Advertisement & Negotiation): A phase of exchanging sensing-related capabilities and forming an association. Through this process, STAs can perform association by determining whether sensing is possible and whether they have appropriate sensing capabilities. The Setup Phase may also be named Discovery & Association Phase.” )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Jang’s known technique to Aboul-Magd’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Aboul-Magd teaches a base setup, request, and sensing method of an initiating STA and responder STAs; (2) Jang teaches a specific technique of a setup and negotiation phase; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 17,
Aboul-Magd in view of Jang teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Aboul-Magd further teaches:
The wireless communication device according to claim 15, wherein the extended capabilities element comprises at least one of the following fields: (In regard to claim 17, the limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Parent claim 16 (Claim 17 is assumed to depend from claim 16 rather than claim 15. see rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112b.) teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “a neighbor report element,” “a radio measurement enabled capabilities element,” “a reduced neighbor report element,” and “an extended capabilities element.” If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitations to the other alternative(s) in dependent claims are not required limitations. See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, Jang teaches “the neighbor report element” as detailed in the rejection of claim 16. Claim 17 is based on another alternative/other alternatives, i.e., “the extended capabilities element.” Examiner further notes (Figs. 10, 13-14; [0100, 135-137] – “Setup phase: Notifies the maximum capability for each parameter. That is, there may be indications of whether or not the transmission method suggested above is possible, maximum values related to parameters, and the like. Negotiation phase: Negotiate transmission method and parameters”)
a max-number-of-antenna field, configured to indicate a maximum number of antennas supported by the wireless communication device; (This element is not required to be part of the claimed invention as discussed above. Examiner further notes [0117-123] – “the possible transmission parameters are… Number of used antennas (or spatial streams): The number of antennas or spatial streams for transmitting sensing signals”) and
a max-bandwidth field, configured to indicate a maximum bandwidth supported by the wireless communication device. (This element is not required to be part of the claimed invention as discussed above. Examiner further notes [0117-123] – “the possible transmission parameters are… “Measurable Bandwidth: maximum bandwidth for sensing signal.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Jang’s known technique to Aboul-Magd’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Aboul-Magd teaches a base setup, request, and sensing method of an initiating STA and responder STAs; (2) Jang teaches a specific technique of a setup/negotiation phase; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 6, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220304051 A1 to Aboul-Magd in view of US 20240276303 A1 to Jang and further in view of US 20240022934 A1 to Lim.
Regarding claim 6,
Aboul-Magd teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Aboul-Magd further teaches:
The wireless communication device according to claim 5, wherein, in response to the another device being a sensing transmitter and the wireless communication device being a sensing receiver, ([0052] – “downlink (DL) procedure or process may refer to embodiments in which one or more sensing frames may be carried in a sensing PPDU and transmitted by the sensing initiator 102 toward the sensing responders 106”) the another device is configured to send a sensing poll trigger frame (Fig. 8; [0008] – “sending, by the initiating STA to the plurality of responder STAs, a sensing feedback request (SFR) trigger frame (TF)” [0017] – “the sensing request further comprises one or more of: a sensing frame and a sensing feedback request (SFR). In some embodiments, the SFR is one of a trigger frame (TF) and poll frame.”) (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) to detect availability of the wireless communication device before sending a null data PPDU ([0060] – “sensing frame 248 may be a null data packet (NDP) like frame”)
Jang teaches:
the another device being a sensing transmitter and the wireless communication device being a sensing receiver, (Fig. 23; [0183-186] – “if the role of the sensing responder is a receiver”)
the another device is configured to send a null data PPDU announcement (NDPA) ([0110] – “The sensing signal mentioned below refers to a signal for the purpose of measuring a channel, such as the previously used Null Data PPDU (NDP)” [0200] – “The sensing signal may include a Null Data Packet Announcement (NDPA) and a NDP, or may include only a NDP. The NDPA may always be transmitted before the NDP.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Jang’s known technique to Aboul-Magd’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Aboul-Magd teaches a base method of a sensing initiator transmitting a null data PPDU (NDP) as a sensing frame; (2) Jang teaches a specific technique of an initiator sending a NDPA prior to sending NDP; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Lim teaches:
the another device is configured to send a sensing poll trigger frame (SENS TF Poll) to detect availability of the wireless communication device before sending a null data PPDU ([0105] – “referring to FIG. 16, if n responders are present, the initiator may transmit a trigger frame (TF) sensing poll frame to the n responders. Some of the n responders may transmit a response frame to the TF sensing poll frame to the initiator. The initiator may transmit an NDPA frame and an NDP frame to the some of the responders that transmitted the response frames. Here, the interval between transmissions of the frames may be SIFS.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Lim’s known technique to Aboul-Magd’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Aboul-Magd teaches a base method of a sensing initiator transmitting a null data PPDU (NDP) as a sensing frame; (2) Lim teaches a specific technique of an initiator sending a trigger frame sensing poll prior to sending NDPA and NDP; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 14,
Aboul-Magd teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Aboul-Magd further teaches:
The wireless communication device according to claim 13, wherein, in response to the wireless communication device being a sensing transmitter and the at least one another device being a sensing receiver, ([0052] – “downlink (DL) procedure or process may refer to embodiments in which one or more sensing frames may be carried in a sensing PPDU and transmitted by the sensing initiator 102 toward the sensing responders 106”) the wireless communication device is configured to send a sensing poll trigger frame (Fig. 8; [0008] – “sending, by the initiating STA to the plurality of responder STAs, a sensing feedback request (SFR) trigger frame (TF)” [0017] – “the sensing request further comprises one or more of: a sensing frame and a sensing feedback request (SFR). In some embodiments, the SFR is one of a trigger frame (TF) and poll frame.”) (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) to detect availability of the at least one another device before sending a null data PPDU([0060] – “sensing frame 248 may be a null data packet (NDP) like frame”)
Jang teaches:
The wireless communication device being a sensing transmitter and the another device being a sensing receiver, (Fig. 23; [0183-186] – “if the role of the sensing responder is a receiver”)
The wireless communication device is configured to send a null data PPDU announcement (NDPA) ([0110] – “The sensing signal mentioned below refers to a signal for the purpose of measuring a channel, such as the previously used Null Data PPDU (NDP)” [0200] – “The sensing signal may include a Null Data Packet Announcement (NDPA) and a NDP, or may include only a NDP. The NDPA may always be transmitted before the NDP.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Jang’s known technique to Aboul-Magd’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Aboul-Magd teaches a base method of a sensing initiator transmitting a null data PPDU (NDP) as a sensing frame; (2) Jang teaches a specific technique of an initiator sending a NDPA prior to sending NDP; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Lim teaches:
the wireless communication device is configured to send a sensing poll trigger frame (SENS TF Poll) to detect availability of the wireless communication device before sending a null data PPDU ([0105] – “referring to FIG. 16, if n responders are present, the initiator may transmit a trigger frame (TF) sensing poll frame to the n responders. Some of the n responders may transmit a response frame to the TF sensing poll frame to the initiator. The initiator may transmit an NDPA frame and an NDP frame to the some of the responders that transmitted the response frames. Here, the interval between transmissions of the frames may be SIFS.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Lim’s known technique to Aboul-Magd’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Aboul-Magd teaches a base method of a sensing initiator transmitting a null data PPDU (NDP) as a sensing frame; (2) Lim teaches a specific technique of an initiator sending a trigger frame sensing poll prior to sending NDPA and NDP; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANA CROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Pacific time.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/JULIANA CROSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648