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 § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (2024/025710), hereinafter Luo in view of Ogenekom et al (JP 2022506848), hereinafter Ogenekom.
Re. Claim 1, Luo teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a station (STA) from an access point (AP), a sensing measurement request frame including first information related to a role of the STA (¶0008 - At least one sensing measurement configuration sent by an access point (AP) device is received by a first station (STA) device. & ¶0119 - the AP device broadcasts or unicasts a sensing session setup request frame to request an unassociated STA device which supports the sensing function to inform the AP device of its sensing capability information); transmitting, by the STA to the AP, a sensing measurement response frame (¶0119 - The unassociated first STA device which supports the sensing function may respond a sensing session setup response frame to the AP device, thereby setting up a sensing session with the AP device); and wherein, BASED ON the role of the STA being set as a sensing transmitter and a sensing receiver through the first information at least one of the first type of procedure or the second type of procedure is performed based on a STA ID (identifier) list of at least one of the NDP announcement frame or the trigger frame (Examiner interprets this limitation, previously provided in cancelled Claim 5, is conditional and not required for the full embodiment of the rest of the claim due to the use of the term “based on”. Further, Examiner interprets that the use of this term creates an understanding that if the STA is not set as a sensing transmitter and receiver, the remainder of the limitation is not relevant to be performed. As Applicant themselves argue in their response, Luo does not teach where the STA is set as a sensing transmitter and receiver specifically and as such, fulfills the alternate embodiment of this limitation).
However, Luo does not expressly teach performing, by the STA, at least one of i) a first downlink (DL) sounding-procedure based on a null data physical layer protocol data unit (NDP) announcement frame OR ii) an uplink (UL) sounding procedure based on a trigger frame, based on the first information and second information wherein the second information is related to an order of the DL sounding procedure and the UL sounding procedure.
Yet, Ogenekom explicitly teaches performing, by the STA, AT LEAST ONE OF i) a first downlink (DL) sounding-procedure based on a null data physical layer protocol data unit (NDP) announcement frame OR ii) an uplink (UL) sounding procedure based on a trigger frame, based on the first information and second information (Pg. 15, Paragraph 9- AP1 can initiate UL sounding by transmitting a null data packet (NDP) announcement (NDP-A) and a trigger frame (TF) for UL sounding. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”), wherein the second information is related to an order of the DL sounding procedure and the UL sounding procedure (Pg. 15, Paragraph 6 - Assuming channel reciprocity, some implementations can be used to replace UL sounding with DL sounding for DL MIMO transmission purposes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Ogenekom to the teaching of Luo. The motivation for such would be to improve transmission efficiency via the use of announcement frames and trigger frames as Ogenekom provides that the measurement is performed in response to a trigger frame (Ogenekom, Pg. 15, Paragraphs 6 and 9). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 10, the majority of Claim 10 restates limitations of independent Claim 1. As such, Claim 10 is rejected under the same reasoning. Additionally, Luo further teaches a station (STA) for performing sensing procedure in a wireless LAN system (Fig. 2)
Re. Claim 12, the majority of Claim 12 restates limitations of independent Claim 1. As such, Claim 10 is rejected under the same reasoning. Additionally, Luo further teaches an access point (AP) for performing sensing procedure in a wireless LAN system, the AP comprising: at least one transceiver; and at least one processor connected to the at least one transceiver (Fig. 9, Fig. 11)
Re. Claim 3, Luo and Ogenekom teach Claim 1.
Additionally, Luo further teaches wherein: based on the role of the STA being set as a sensing receiver by the first information, the first type of measurement procedure is performed by the STA, and based on the role of the STA being set to a sensing transmitter by the first information, the second type of measurement procedure is performed by the STA (¶0064 - When setting up a sensing session, the terminals may negotiate sensing roles and operational parameters, or the terminal may declare its roles and operational parameters (for example, through a beacon frame or other special frame)).
Re. Claim 4, Luo and Ogenekom teach Claim 1.
Additionally, Luo further teaches wherein: the sensing measurement setup request frame includes a measurement setup ID (¶0066 - The sensing initiator may set multiple sets of measurement parameters, and one set of measurement parameters (which is identified by measurement setup ID and equivalent to Burst Group) may be applied to multiple measurements (which is identified by a measurement instance ID and equivalent to Burst)), and the role of the STA being set as the sensing receiver, the DL sounding procedure is performed (¶0064 - When setting up a sensing session, the terminals may negotiate sensing roles and operational parameters, or the terminal may declare its roles and operational parameters (for example, through a beacon frame or other special frame)), and the role of the STA being set as the sensing transmitter, the UL sounding procedure is performed (¶0064 - When setting up a sensing session, the terminals may negotiate sensing roles and operational parameters, or the terminal may declare its roles and operational parameters (for example, through a beacon frame or other special frame).
However, Luo does not expressly teach wherein the procedure is performed based on the NDP announcement frame including the measurement setup ID.
Yet, Ogenekom teaches wherein the NDP announcement frame include[s] the measurement setup ID (¶0205 - the second trigger frame 1520 may be an NDP frame capable of carrying the identification information of AP2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Ogenekom to the teaching of Luo. The motivation for such would be to improve transmission efficiency via the use of announcement frames and trigger frames as Ogenekom provides that the NDP frame includes setup identification (Ogenekom, ¶0205). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 6, Luo and Ogenekom teach Claim 1.
However, Luo does not expressly teach wherein, based on an ID of the STA not being included in the STA ID list of the NDP announcement frame, the DL sounding procedure is not performed, and based on the ID of the STA not being included in the STA ID list of the trigger frame, the UL sounding procedure is not performed.
Yet, Ogenekom explicitly teaches wherein, based on an ID of the STA not being included in the STA ID list of the NDP announcement frame, the first type of procedure is not performed, and based on the ID of the STA not being included in the STA ID list of the trigger frame, the second type of procedure is not performed (Pg. 26, Paragraph 1 - the second trigger frame 1520 may be an NDP frame carrying the identity of AP2. NDP frames may indicate that AP 2 is ready for the upcoming multi-AP transmission. The second trigger frame 1520 may also include a start time field indicating a transmission start time for transmission of the synchronization frame 1530. Examiner interprets that if the transmission is indicated in the NDP trigger frame as being ready, then not indicating the transmission means that the process is not ready and should not be performed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Ogenekom to the teaching of Luo. The motivation for such would be to improve transmission efficiency via the use of announcement frames and trigger frames as Ogenekom provides that the performance of the associated measurements is dependent on the presence of the STA ID in the respective frame (Ogenekom, Pg. 26, Paragraph 1). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 8, Luo teaches Claim 1.
Additionally Luo further teaches wherein: the second information is received from the AP through the sensing measurement request frame (¶0103-0104 - the first request frame is also referred as a sensing session setup request frame… the first request frame further includes at least one of the following: an application type corresponding to a sensing session to be set up, or information about time to live corresponding to the sensing session to be set up).
Re. Claim 9, Luo teaches Claim 1.
Additionally Luo further teaches wherein: The STA is a sensing responder (¶0041 - The sensing responder is a device rather than the sensing initiator participating in the sensing session, & ¶0053 - STA1 may be a sensing initiator, a sensing transmitter, a sensing receiver or a sensing processor), and the AP is a sensing initiator (¶0079 - the AP device is a proxy device of a sensing initiator).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo, in view of Ogenekom, and Jang et al. (2024/0389137), hereinafter Jang.
Re. Claim 7, Luo and Ogenekom teach Claim 1.
However, the combination of Luo and Ogenekom does not expressly teach wherein, after the setup measurement setup response frame is transmitted, a polling frame is received from the AP, and the second information is included in a common info field of the polling frame.
Yet, Jang explicitly teaches wherein, after the setup measurement setup response frame is transmitted, a polling frame is received from the AP, and the second information is included in a common info field of the polling frame (¶0009 - receiving, from an access point (AP), a first polling frame including first information related to participation in a first type of measurement for the first STA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Jang to the teaching of Luo and Ogenekom. The motivation for such would be to improve transmission efficiency and response via the implementation of a polling frame after setup to ensure the next step should be taken as Jang provides a polling frame that is used to respond to a first type of measurement requested by an STA (Jung, ¶0009). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding independent claims 1, 10 and 12, filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, on Page 7 Applicant argues that Luo ¶0119 teaches a “bottom-up” method of reporting capability. To refute this, Examiner has included ¶0008 (At least one sensing measurement configuration sent by an access point (AP) device is received by a first station (STA) device) which shows measurement configuration information being sent from the AP to the STA report capability. The original citation has been maintained for consistency of the record.
Second, on Page 7, Applicant argues that Luo does not disclose either a UL or DL sounding procedure. To this end, Examiner has included Ogenekom in the rejection and provided the previously referenced sections to supplement the rejection provided under Luo.
Third, on Page 8, Applicant argues that Ogenekom fails to suggest a “dedicated control parameter” which they define as the second information to dynamically provide order for performing a procedure. To this, Examiner has provided Pg. 15, Paragraph 6 (Assuming channel reciprocity, some implementations can be used to replace UL sounding with DL sounding for DL MIMO transmission purposes), which Examiner interprets to disclose the claimed invention. Further, Examiner feels that Applicant is providing an interpretation in their explanation that expands beyond the bounds of the claimed language. The second information is defined as “related to an order of the DL sounding procedure and the UL sounding procedure”, and does not mention a “dedicated control parameter” or “dynamically provid[ing] the order for performing… sounding procedure[s]” as Applicant argues. What is claimed is merely any information Related to the use of a UL sounding and DL sounding, which Examiner has provided.
Finally, on Page 8, Applicant argues that the amended limitation that previously made up Claim 5 is not found in either Ogenekom nor Luo, to which Examiner finds that the limitation in its entirety is in fact an conditional statement that need not be required for the embodiment to be fully realized. The use of the phrase “based on” in the limitation, and the performance of the procedure being contingent on the role of the STA being set implies to Examiner that, should the STA not be set properly, the remainder of the limitation is not performed, but the proceeding limitations would still be permitted. As such, Examiner finds that since neither Ogenekom nor Luo disclose a role of the STA being both sensing transmitter and receiver, the remainder of the limitation need not be shown and is not necessary for rejection. Should Applicant amend the limitation away from the conditional language, this limitation will be considered in full at that time.
As such, while all arguments have been considered in full, Examiner does not find them persuasive at this time and upholds the rejection as previously provided under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for Claims 1, 10, and 12, as well as all claims depending therein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Du et al. (KR 20240031405 A) – Pg. 5-8
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 NOAH JAMES SUGDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00 ET, Fri 9:00-1:00 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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/N.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
