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 § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 1, 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luo et al. (2024/025710), hereinafter Luo.
Re. Claim 1, Luo teaches a method of performing a sensing procedure by a station (STA) in a wireless LAN system, the method comprising: receiving, from an access point (AP), a sensing measurement setup request frame including first information indicating a role of the STA (¶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, to the AP, a sensing measurement setup 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 performing at least one of a first type of measurement procedure or a second type of measurement procedure based on the first information and the second information (¶0130 - the sensing measurement configuration is triggered and established by a first upper layer application of the first device), wherein the second information indicates an order of the first type of measurement procedure and the second type of measurement procedure (¶0121-0126 - the sensing capability information of the first STA device may refer to sensing measurement capabilities of the first STA device, for example, including but not limited to at least one of: information about the sensing role(s) supported by the first STA device; information about the type(s) of measurement report supported by the first STA device; information about the bandwidth supported by the first STA device; information about the number of antennas supported by the first STA device; or information about the sensing type(s) supported by the first STA device).
Re. Claim 11, Luo teaches a method of performing a sensing procedure by an access point (AP) in a wireless LAN system, the method comprising: transmitting, to a station (STA), a sensing measurement setup request frame including first information indicating a role of the STA (¶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); receiving, from the STA, a sensing measurement setup 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 performing at least one of a first type of measurement procedure or a second type of measurement procedure based on the first information and the second information (¶0130 - the sensing measurement configuration is triggered and established by a first upper layer application of the first device), wherein the second information indicates an order of the first type of measurement procedure and the second type of measurement procedure (¶0121-0126 - the sensing capability information of the first STA device may refer to sensing measurement capabilities of the first STA device, for example, including but not limited to at least one of: information about the sensing role(s) supported by the first STA device; information about the type(s) of measurement report supported by the first STA device; information about the bandwidth supported by the first STA device; information about the number of antennas supported by the first STA device; or information about the sensing type(s) supported by the first STA device).
Re. Claim 8, Luo teaches Claim 1.
Additionally Luo further teaches wherein: the second information is received from the AP through the sensing measurement setup 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).
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 13, the majority of Claim 13 restates limitations of independent Claim 1. As such, Claim 10 is rejected under the same reasoning. Additionally, Luo further teaches a processing apparatus configured to control a first station (STA) to perform sensing procedure in a wireless LAN system, the processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one computer memory operably connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, based on being executed by the at least one processor (Fig. 10, Fig 11).
Re. Claim 14, the majority of Claim 14 restates limitations of independent Claim 1. As such, Claim 10 is rejected under the same reasoning. Additionally, Luo further teaches at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium storing at least one instruction, wherein the at least one instruction executable by at least one processor controls a device performing sensing procedure in a wireless LAN system (¶0415 - In the implementation process, each step of the above method embodiments may be accomplished by an integrated logic circuit of hardware or by an instruction in form of software in the processor)
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 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.
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 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Ogenekom et al (JP 2022506848), hereinafter Ogenekom.
Re. Claim 2, Luo teaches Claim 1
However, Luo does not expressly teach wherein: the first type of measurement procedure is performed based on a null data physical protocol data unit (PPDU) (NDP) announcement frame, and the second type of measurement procedure is performed based on a trigger frame
Yet, Ogenekom explicitly teaches wherein: the first type of measurement procedure is performed based on a null data physical protocol data unit (PPDU) (NDP) announcement frame, and the second type of measurement procedure is performed based on a trigger frame (¶0113 - AP1 can initiate UL sounding by transmitting a null data packet (NDP) announcement (NDP-A) and a trigger frame (TF) for UL sounding).
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 a measurement being performed under the specification of said frames (Ogenekom, ¶0113). 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 3, Luo and Ogenekom teach Claim 2.
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 3.
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 first type of measurement 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 second type of measurement 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 5, Luo and Ogenekom teach Claim 2.
Luo additionally teaches wherein: based on the role of the STA being set as a sensing transmitter and a sensing receiver according to the first information (¶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 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.
Yet, Ogenekom explicitly teaches wherein 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 (Pg. 18, Paragraph 4 - Multiple AP trigger frames can indicate, for example, STA specific information and / or common information. STA-specific information (where STA indicates AP STA or non-AP STA) may indicate the role and / or STA ID of the 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 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. 18, Paragraph 4). 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 5.
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 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.
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.
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 2.
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.
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
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
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights