CTNF 18/672,538 CTNF 88893 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Initial Examination Applicant's submission filed on 05/23/24 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claims 3 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: see the last part of the third clause (i.e., “… or to reject to terminate the sensing measurement setup the termination ”. Examiner believes “ the termination ” might be superfluous and notes it does not appear in similarly situated claim 11. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 5, 7, 9-10, 14, and 16-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Qualcomm (“Measurement setup termination”, Qualcomm, IEEE 802.11-21/1701r1, cited by Applicant of Record) . Regarding claim 1 , Qualcomm discloses a communication method [sld. 4-8] , comprising: transmitting, by a third device (Device/Initiator/Responder [sld. 5]) , a third information frame [sld. 7 “Measurement setup termination”] , wherein the third information frame indicates to terminate a sensing measurement setup or to reject to terminate the sensing measurement setup (Terminate [sld. 4-8]). Regarding claim 9 , it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is from the perspective of the receiver, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning. Regarding claim 16 , it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Qualcomm further discloses a communication device (Device/Initiator/Responder [sld. 5]) , comprising: a transceiver [sld. 5, inherent] ; a memory configured to store at least one computer program [sld. 4-6] ; and a processor configured to execute the at least one computer program stored in the memory [sld. 5, inherent]. Regarding claims 2, 10, and 17 , Qualcomm discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Qualcomm further discloses: wherein the third information frame comprises a sensing measurement setup termination frame [sld. 7 “Measurement setup termination”]. Regarding claims 5 and 20 , Qualcomm discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Qualcomm further discloses wherein in a case where the third information frame indicates to terminate the sensing measurement setup, the method further comprises: terminating, by the third device, a sensing measurement setup indicated by the third information frame (The setup is ultimate terminated by the third device [sld. 4-8]). Regarding claims 7 and 14 , Qualcomm discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Qualcomm further discloses: wherein a role of the third/fourth device is a sensing initiator or a sensing responder [sld. 4] . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3-4, 11-12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qualcomm as applied to claims 1, 9, and 16 respectively, and further in view of LG (“Role Negotiation in WLAN Sensing Procedure”, LG, IEEE 802.11-21/1736r2, cited by Applicant of Record) . Regarding claims 3, 11, and 18 , Qualcomm discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Although Qualcomm discloses wherein the sensing measurement setup termination frame comprises: the sensing measurement setup termination frame … for indicating to terminate the sensing measurement setup or to reject to terminate the sensing measurement setup the termination , (Terminate) as discussed above, Qualcomm does not explicitly disclose at least one of: a fifth indication subfield for indicating whether … comprises a command code subfield; a sixth indication subfield for indicating whether the sensing measurement setup termination frame comprises a first reason code field; the command code subfield …; or the first reason code field for carrying information of a reason for terminating the sensing measurement setup. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by LG. In the same field of endeavor, LG discloses at least one of: a fifth indication subfield for indicating whether … comprises a command code subfield (Roles (i.e., command code) are determined during setup and include operational attributes to be associated (i.e. indicating whether … comprises) (i.e., [sld. 7, 4]) ; a sixth indication subfield for indicating whether the sensing measurement setup termination frame comprises a first reason code field; the command code subfield … (Roles, including STA ID [sld. 4-7]) ; or the first reason code field for carrying information of a reason for terminating the sensing measurement setup . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qualcomm with LG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of determining how and when to determine the roles of sensing initiator and responder [LG sld. 2]. Regarding claims 4, 12, and 19 , Qualcomm discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Qualcomm further discloses wherein the sensing measurement setup termination frame further comprises at least one of: a first number-of-measurement setups field for indicating a quantity of sensing measurement setups to be terminated; or a first measurement setup ID list field for carrying IDs of one or more sensing measurement setups (STA ID [sld. 4-6] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6, 8 and 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qualcomm as applied to claims 1 and 9 respectively, and further in view of Chitrakar (US 20240314610 A1) . Regarding claim 6 , Qualcomm discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Although Qualcomm discloses wherein in a case where the third information frame indicates to terminate the sensing measurement setup, the method further comprises: terminating, by the third device, a sensing measurement setup indicated by the third information frame , (Third device ultimately terminates) as discussed above, Qualcomm does not explicitly disclose after the third device receives an acknowledgement message. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Chitrakar. In the same field of endeavor, Chitrakar discloses: after the third device receives an acknowledgement message [par. 0095, 97]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qualcomm with Chitrakar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of indicating to the Initiator the Measurement Request frame has been correctly received [Chitrakar par. 0097]. Regarding claim 13 , Qualcomm discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Although Qualcomm discloses wherein in a case where the third information frame indicates to terminate the sensing measurement setup, the method further comprises: terminating, by the fourth device , as discussed above, Qualcomm does not explicitly disclose an acknowledgement message. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Chitrakar. In the same field of endeavor, Chitrakar discloses: an acknowledgement message [par. 0095, 97]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qualcomm with Chitrakar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of indicating to the Initiator the Measurement Request frame has been correctly received [Chitrakar par. 0097]. Regarding claims 8 and 15 , Qualcomm discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Although Qualcomm discloses wherein the third/fourth device , as discussed above, Qualcomm does not explicitly disclose is an access point (AP) or a station (STA). However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Chitrakar. In the same field of endeavor, Chitrakar discloses: is an access point (AP) or a station (STA) [par. 0082]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qualcomm with Chitrakar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of determining how and when to determine the roles of sensing initiator and responder [Chitrakar par. 0097]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST). 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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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. /WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/672,538 Page 2 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/672,538 Page 3 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/672,538 Page 4 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/672,538 Page 5 Art Unit: 2465
Prosecution Insights