DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 12/22/2025.
Claims 1-19 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 18-19 are independent claims. In Amendment, claims 1, 3, 8-13, and 18-19 are amended. This Office Action is made final.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. 2023/0232484 A1) in view of Krishnaswamy et al. (U.S. 2012/0294275 A1).
Re claim 1, Chen et al. disclose in Figures 1-11 a sensing by proxy (SBP) initiator (e.g. abstract and Figures 5 and 9 with STA) comprising: a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: exchange, with an SBP responder, a first wireless frame for establishing the SBP procedure (e.g. Figure 9 and paragraph [0111] with SBP establishment) and after the SBP procedure is reestablished, receive an SPB report from the SBP responder (e.g. paragraphs [0111 and 0118 wherein reports are generated after establishment/exchange communication). Chen et al. fail to disclose a set a timer for an SBP procedure; in a case where the SBP procedure terminates upon expiration of the timer, reestablish the SBP procedure by exchanging, with the SBP responder, a second wireless frame for establishing the SBP procedure. However, Krishnaswamy et al. disclose in Figures 1-12 a set a timer for an SBP procedure (e.g. paragraphs [0013 and 0060-0063] where a timer is enabled); in a case where the SBP procedure terminates upon expiration of the timer, reestablish the SBP procedure by exchanging, with the SBP responder, a second wireless frame for establishing the SBP procedure (e.g. paragraphs [0036, 0060-0063, 0078 and 0119] wherein after timer expiration, the communication is resumed/exchanged). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add a set a timer for an SBP procedure; in a case where the SBP procedure terminates upon expiration of the timer, reestablish the SBP procedure by exchanging, with the SBP responder, a second wireless frame for establishing the SBP procedure as conceptually seen in Krishnaswamy et al.’s invention into Chen et al.’s invention because it would enable to maintain seamless wireless communication/session efficiently by maintaining communication.
Re claim 2, Chen et al. in view of Krishnaswamy et al. disclose the second wireless frame includes information indicating that the first wireless frame has been exchanged with the SBP responder (e.g. Chen et al. – Figures 5 and 19 with paragraph [0111]).
Re claim 3, Chen et al. in view of Krishnaswamy et al. disclose the information includes an association identification（AID） assigned in a case where the SBP procedure is established by exchanging the first wireless frame (e.g. Chen et al. – Figures 5 and 19 with paragraph [0111]).
Re claim 4, Chen et al. in view of Krishnaswamy et al. disclose the information includes a device identification（ID） of a transmission destination node and a device ID of a transmission source node configured for the first wireless frame (e.g. Chen et al. – Figures 5 and 19 with paragraph [0111] with the source and destination addresses as part of the wireless frame/packets for communication in the network).
Re claim 5, Chen et al. in view of Krishnaswamy et al. disclose the device ID includes a media access control (MAC) address (e.g. Chen et al. – Figures 5 and 19 with paragraph [0103 and 0104]).
Re claim 8, Chen et al. in view of Krishnaswamy et al. disclose the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to check that the SBP procedure has been established with the SBP responder, based on the information included in the second wireless frame received from the SBP responder (e.g. Chen et al. – Figures 5 and 19 with paragraph [0111]).
Re claim 9, Chen et al. in view of Krishnaswamy et al. disclose the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to exchange the second wireless frame by transmitting a wireless frame for requesting association to the SBP responder, and receiving a wireless frame for responding to the request from the SBP responder (e.g. Chen et al. – Figures 5 and 19 with paragraphs [0116-0117]).
Re claim 10, Chen et al. in view of Krishnaswamy et al. disclose the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to exchange the second wireless frame by receiving a wireless frame for requesting reestablishment of the SBP procedure from the SBP responder (e.g. Krishnaswamy et al. – paragraphs [0036, 0071, 0119]), transmitting a wireless frame for requesting association to the SBP responder, and receiving a wireless frame for responding to the request from the SBP responder (e.g. Chen et al. – Figures 5 and 19 with paragraphs [0116-0117]).
Re claim 11, Chen et al. in view of Krishnaswamy et al. disclose the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to exchange the second wireless frame by transmitting a wireless frame for requesting reestablishment of the SBP procedure to the SBP responder (e.g. Krishnaswamy et al. – paragraphs [0036, 0048-0049, 0071, and 0119]), and receiving a wireless frame for responding to the request from the SBP responder (e.g. Chen et al. – Figures 5 and 19, abstract with paragraphs [022 and 0116]).
Re claim 12, Chen et al. in view of Krishnaswamy et al. disclose the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to exchange the second wireless frame by receiving a wireless frame for requesting reestablishment of the SBP procedure from the SBP responder (e.g. Krishnaswamy et al. – paragraphs [0036, 0048-0049, 0071, and 0119]), and transmitting a wireless frame for responding to the request to the SBP responder (e.g. Chen et al. – Figures 5 and 19, abstract with paragraphs [022 and 0116]).
Re claim 13, Chen et al. in view of Krishnaswamy et al. disclose the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to after the SBP procedure terminates, reconfigure the timer (e.g. Krishnaswamy et al. – paragraphs [0036 and 0103]).
Re claim 16, Chen et al. in view of Krishnaswamy et al. disclose the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to determine whether or not to exchange the second wireless frame, based on information indicating that the first wireless frame has been exchanged (e.g. Krishnaswamy et al. – abstract and Figures 1-2).
Re claim 17, Chen et al. in view of Krishnaswamy et al. disclose the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to determine whether or not to exchange the second wireless frame, based on information indicating that the SBP initiator supports resumption of an SBP procedure (e.g. Krishnaswamy et al. – paragraphs [0036, 0048-0049, 0061-0063, 0071, and 0119]).
Re claim 18, it is a device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 19, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. 2023/0232484 A1) in view of Krishnaswamy et al. (U.S. 2012/0294275 A1) and further in view of Saha et al. (U.S. 8,135,025 B2).
Re claims 14-15, Chen et al. in view of Krishnaswamy et al. fail to disclose the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to reconfigure the timer by extending expiration time of the timer and by starting measurement of the timer again. However, Saha et al. disclose the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to reconfigure the timer by extending expiration time of the timer and by starting measurement of the timer again (e.g. col. 5 line 65 to col. 6 line 20 with resetting the timer). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to reconfigure the timer by extending expiration time of the timer and by starting measurement of the timer again as conceptually seen in Saha et al.’s invention into Chen et al. in view of Krishnaswamy et al.’s invention because it would enable to maintain existing connection/state of session.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 pm.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451