DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/29/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 17742047 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of following:
- With respect to claims, the copending ’47 discloses a method for Wi-Fi sensing carried out by a Wi-Fi device including at least one processor configured to execute instructions to implement a sensing agent (see claim 1, lines 1-4 of copending ‘47), the method comprising: receiving, by the at least one processor, a sensing measurement in a frequency domain generated based on a sensing transmission received from a sensing transmitter (see claim 1, lines 5-10 of copending ‘47); generating, by the at least one processor, a time domain representation of the sensing measurement (see claim 1, lines 13-14 of copending ‘47); selecting, by the at least one processor, one or more time domain pulses indicative of the time domain representation (see claim 1, lines 15-17 of copending ‘47); and communicating, by the at least one processor, the one or more time domain pulses to a sensing algorithm manager for use in determining motion or movement (see claim 1, lines 19-21 of copending ‘47).
- Regarding to claims, the Application merely broaden the scope of the copending Application by eliminating term “ a channel representation information configuration identifying a representation of channel state information in a time domain”; “via the receiving antenna”. It have been held that the omission of the element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex Parte Raine, 168 USPQ 375 (bd. App. 1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not need would be obvious to one skill in the art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 22, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Beg et al. (Pub No. 20210135711).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
- With respect to claims 1, 22 and 27, Beg teaches a method for Wi-Fi sensing carried out by a Wi-Fi device including at least one processor configured to execute instructions to implement a sensing agent (par. 19 discloses “the wireless sensing system may operate as a motion detection system to detect the existence and location of motion based on Wi-Fi signals or other types of wireless signals”), the method comprising: receiving, by the at least one processor, a sensing measurement in a frequency domain generated based on a sensing transmission received from a sensing transmitter (par. 60 discloses “The received signal R at a wireless communication device can be transformed to the frequency domain, for example, using a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) or another type of algorithm”; par. 90 discloses “a motion detection system can convert the frequency-domain representation to a time-domain representation, which may be expressed in the form of Equation (6) or otherwise. The motion detection system may then make inferences regarding motion in the propagation environment (e.g., near/far, line of sight/non line of sight motion) based on the time-domain representation”); generating, by the at least one processor, a time domain representation of the sensing measurement (e.g. par. 87, 90); selecting, by the at least one processor, one or more time domain pulses indicative of the time domain representation (see par. 90, 102-104, par. 130 discloses “The channel responses may be analyzed in a time-domain representation, for example, to detect motion or the location of a moving object”); and communicating, by the at least one processor, the one or more time domain pulses to a sensing algorithm manager for use in determining motion or movement (see par. 27 discloses “a motion detection system returns motion data. In some implementations, motion data is a result that is indicative of a degree of motion in the space, the location of motion in the space, the direction of motion in the space, a time at which the motion occurred, or a combination thereof. In some instances, the motion data can include a motion score, which may include, or may be, one or more of the following: a scalar quantity indicative of a level of signal perturbation in the environment accessed by the wireless signals; an indication of whether there is motion; an indication of whether there is an object present; or an indication or classification of a gesture performed in the environment accessed by the wireless signals”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3,6,8,11-13,28-29,32,34,37-39 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
. Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUC H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Flex.
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.
/PHUC H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471