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 .
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation "the PHY parameters" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-6, 11, 12, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LOMAYEV et al PG PUB 2021/0044407.
Re Claims 1, 12 and 16, LOMAYEV et al teaches in figure 1, a Wireless Communication Device 140 includes a receiver and a WLAN sensor (circuitry) [0106] for receiving, See figure , PPDU 1 (a first PPDU) and PPDU 2 (a second PPDU) associated with a time interval between consecutive PPDUs from a Wireless communication device 102 Tx 118 (a second communication apparatus with a transmitter) [0130] wherein based on the time interval the communication device 140 receives the first PPDU at a first time period and the second PPDU at a second time period which is after the first time period; the WLAN sensor, which in operation, determines whether to use the second PPDU for sensing based on a comparison between the first and second PPDU [0096 0222].
Re Claims 2, 18, LOMAYEV et al teaches the WLAN sensor determines whether the first and second PPDUs are the same PPDU or format [0194].
Re Claims 3, 6, 19, LOMAYEV et al teaches the WLAN sensor extracting LTF in the first PPDU (a benchmark PPDU) and any other fields (PHY parameters) of the PPDU [0096] to obtain the CSI of the second PPDU if the first and second PPDUs have the same LTF (PHY parameters) wherein the WLAN sensor is configured to store information [0111], in this case, the extracted LTF can be stored to enable the comparison between the PPDUs. te
Re Claim 4, LOMAYEV et al teaches the transmit parameters for the first and second PPDUs can include a number of VHT-LTF and a number of space-time streams [0230].
Re Claim 5, LOMAYEV et al teaches the WLAN sensor determining the first PPDU or benchmark PPDU.
Re Claim 11, LOMAYEV et al teaches WLAN sensor configured to perform channel measurement based on a periodic transmission of the PPDUs [0113].
Re Claim 15, LOMAYEV et al teaches the WLAN sensor configured to store a NDP format [0170 0178] associated with a detection threshold (a threshold calculation phase) [0148] wherein WLAN sensor in 102 transmits PPDUs with the same NDP format for sensing session to the 104 (the first communication apparatus).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LOMAYEV et al PG PUB 2021/0044407 in view DU et al PG PUB 2024/0022290.
Re Claim 7, LOMAYEV et al teaches the WLAN sensor can store PHY parameters for the first PPDU (the benchmark PPDU) which can include a number of RSSI [0189], VHT-LTF and a number of space-time streams [0230] and related bands [0054]. LOMAYEV et al fails to explicitly teach “CSI matrix”. However, DU et al teaches CSI matrix is included in the 802.11 standard [0119 0122] supporting WLAN sensing. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to be compliant with the known standard. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LOMAYEV et al PG PUB 2021/0044407 in view Sadeghi et al PG PUB 2020/0359248.
Re Claim 10, LOMAYEV et al fails teach explicitly teach “the channel estimation is based on a PPDU that is transmitted from the second communication apparatus to a third communication apparatus.”. However, Sadeghi et al teaches a WLAN sensing scenario in figure 11, a AP triggers sensing to STA2 whereby a STA1 (the second communication apparatus) transmits a PPDU to STA2 (a third communication apparatus) [0025]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to be adaptive to different WLAN sensing scenarios. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re Claim 8, prior art fails to teach to calculate a rank of the stored CSI matrix from the benchmark PPDU and compares a rank of a CSI matrix of the second PPDU with the calculated rank of the stored CSI matrix as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 10, 12 and15-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM 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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights