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
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aygul et al (US20250142413), herein after referred as Aygul in view of Sadeghi et al (US20220394818), herein after referred as Sadeghi.
Regarding claims 1 (system) and 7 (method), Aygul teaches a wireless communication system [see Aygul fig. 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b and 9] comprising:
a plurality of wireless terminals [see Aygul, STA stations 7a, 7b, 9] each including a plurality of wireless interfaces [see figs. 7a, 7b, 9, 21 STAs include interfaces] corresponding to a plurality of channels in different frequency bands [see paragraph 0067-0068, numerous communicating devices in all frequency bands]; and a wireless base station device [see Aygul fig. 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b and 9, AP 910] that establishes wireless communication with the wireless terminals [see Aygul, STA stations 7a, 7b, 9]
each of the wireless terminals [see Aygul, STA stations 7a, 7b, 9, 21a] including:
a sensing circuitry [wireless transceiver in a STA, see fig. 21a, 0204-0205] that performs sensing on the channels [STAs configured to receive wireless sensing signals in all frequency band, see paragraph 0067-0068, 0159, 0199-0205]; and
a sensing information transmitter [wireless transceiver performs wireless reception, transmission or sensing, see 0202] that transmits sensing information including an identifier of a channel on which sensing has been performed, a sensing result of the channel, and an identifier of the wireless terminal [see fig. 9, 12 see 0048-0057, 0155-0165, the wireless station shares information about the sensing application, share feedback, updated sharing application and characteristics, i.e. CSI, channel sensing, identification of wireless devices and technology etc..]
the wireless base station device [see Aygul, AP 910, see fig. 9] including:
a sensing information reception unit receiver [see Signal identification/feature extraction unit 941 in fig. 9, paragraph 0119-0122] that receives the sensing information [see figs. 9, 12, paragraphs 0119-0122 where the unit receives sensing signal];
a sensing channel number storage circuitry [Sensing Transmission Control (STC) Unit, see fig. 12] that calculates and stores the number of sensing channels for each of the wireless terminals on a basis of the sensing information, the number of sensing channels being the number of channels sensed by the wireless terminal [see fig. 12, paragraphs 0164-0176, STC unit includes network sensing application registry and device sensing capability registry that is a database on the sensing capabilities of all devices in the network mapping to calculating/storing the number of sensing channels for each of the wireless terminals]; and
While Aygul teaches of resources allocation, reoptimization, resource allocation may be changed if multiple STAs leave the environment or multiple sensing session are terminated or when a new AP may enter an environment. Aygul fails to explicitly disclose of an allocation circuitry that allocates a reward according to the number of sensing channels to each of the plurality of wireless terminals. Sadeghi in the same field of endeavor teaches of WLAN sensing using high efficiency trigger based PPDUs. Sadeghi teaches in the abstract and claim 1 of an access point having a processing circuitry (functioning as a allocation circuitry) that obtains sensing measurements for channels between stations (STAs) bases on trigger based sensing. Thereafter, the processing circuitry encodes a second trigger frame for transmission to solicit transmission from two or more stations that have responded to the first trigger frame, the second trigger frame allocates (rewards/uplink resources)for transmissions to the two or more stations covering a full channel bandwidth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Aygul to include processing circuitry of Sadeghi in order to optimize bandwidth allocation based on channel sensing.
Regarding claim 8, A wireless base station device [see Aygul, AP 910, see fig. 9] that establishes wireless communication with a plurality of wireless terminals [see Aygul, STA stations 7a, 7b, 9, 21a] each including a plurality of wireless interfaces [see figs. 7a, 7b, 9, 21 STAs include interfaces] corresponding to a plurality of channels in different frequency bands [see paragraph 0067-0068, numerous communicating devices in all frequency bands];,
the wireless base station device [see Aygul, AP 910, see fig. 9] comprising:
a sensing information receiver [see Signal identification/feature extraction unit 941 in fig. 9, paragraph 0119-0122] that receives sensing information transmitted by each of the wireless terminals [see figs. 9, 12, paragraphs 0119-0122 where the unit receives sensing signal];, the sensing information including an identifier of a channel on which sensing has been performed, a sensing result of the channel, and an identifier of the wireless terminal [see fig. 9, 12 see 0048-0057, 0155-0165, the wireless station shares information about the sensing application, share feedback, updated sharing application and characteristics, i.e. CSI, channel sensing, identification of wireless devices and technology etc..];
a sensing channel number storage circuitry [Sensing Transmission Control (STC) Unit, see fig. 12] that calculates and stores the number of sensing channels for each of the wireless terminals on a basis of the sensing information, the number of sensing channels being the number of channels sensed by the wireless terminal [see fig. 12, paragraphs 0164-0176, STC unit includes network sensing application registry and device sensing capability registry that is a database on the sensing capabilities of all devices in the network mapping to calculating/storing the number of sensing channels for each of the wireless terminals]; and
While Aygul teaches of resources allocation, reoptimization, resource allocation may be changed if multiple STAs leave the environment or multiple sensing session are terminated or when a new AP may enter an environment. Aygul fails to explicitly disclose of an allocation circuitry that allocates a reward according to the number of sensing channels to each of the plurality of wireless terminals. Sadeghi in the same field of endeavor teaches of WLAN sensing using high efficiency trigger based PPDUs. Sadeghi teaches in the abstract and claim 1 of an access point having a processing circuitry (functioning as an allocation circuitry) that obtains sensing measurements for channels between stations (STAs) bases on trigger based sensing. Thereafter, the processing circuitry encodes a second trigger frame for transmission to solicit transmission from two or more stations that have responded to the first trigger frame, the second trigger frame allocates (rewards/uplink resources)for transmissions to the two or more stations covering a full channel bandwidth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Aygul to include processing circuitry of Sadeghi in order to optimize bandwidth allocation based on channel sensing.
Regarding claims 3, Aygul teaches of resources allocation, reoptimization, resource allocation may be changed if multiple STAs leave the environment or multiple sensing session are terminated or when a new AP may enter an environment. Aygul fails to explicitly teach wherein the reward is communication resources having an amount determined according to the number of sensing channels. Sadeghi in the same field of endeavor teaches of WLAN sensing using high efficiency trigger based PPDUs. Sadeghi teaches in the abstract and claim 1 of an access point having a processing circuitry (functioning as an allocation circuitry) that obtains sensing measurements for channels between stations (STAs) bases on trigger based sensing. Thereafter, the processing circuitry encodes a second trigger frame for transmission to solicit transmission from two or more stations that have responded to the first trigger frame, the second trigger frame allocates (rewards/uplink resources)for transmissions to the two or more stations covering a full channel bandwidth. This clearly establishes that the uplink communications resources are determined based on obtaining sensing measurement based on the responder to initiator transmission received from the two or mor stations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Aygul to include processing circuitry of Sadeghi in order to optimize bandwidth allocation based on channel sensing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-6 and 9-20 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.
Response to Arguments
In light of the Terminal Disclaimer filed on 7/20/26, the nonstatutory double patenting for claim 1-20 are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s remarks states the following, “Aygul does not describe or reasonably suggest the above-emphasized claim features. None of the SAR, the DSCR, or the STS calculates and stores, for each of the wireless terminals, the number of channels sensed by that wireless terminal. The SAR and the DSCR store application metadata and device capability data, and the STS negotiates the operational parameters of a sensing session; none of these describes a terminal-specific count of the channels a given terminal has actually sensed. Accordingly, Aygul does not describe or reasonably suggest "a sensing channel number storage circuitry that calculates and stores the number of sensing channels for each of the wireless terminals on a basis of the sensing information, the number of sensing channels being the number of channels sensed by the wireless terminal," as recited in Claim 1. To the extent the Office Action relies on Aygul's Sensing Transmission Control unit and [0178] of Aygul to supply this feature, the scheduling and negotiation of sensing sessions described at [0178] concerns the optimization of sensing-signal transmissions and the operational conditions of a sensing session; it does not identify, for each wireless terminal, the channels actually sensed by that terminal or calculate and store the number of such channels on a terminal- by-terminal basis.
Sadeghi does not remedy the deficiencies of Aygul. Sadeghi describes an access point
that encodes a first trigger frame to initiate trigger-based sensing with a plurality of stations, and encodes a second trigger frame to solicit transmissions from two or more stations that have responded to the first trigger frame, the second trigger frame allocating uplink resources to the two or more stations, the allocated uplink resources for transmissions covering a full channel bandwidth (see Sadeghi, Abstract, and Claim 1). The access point obtains sensing measurements, and encodes sensing measurement results comprising channel state information changes, based on the responder-to-initiator transmissions received from the two or more stations (see Sadeghi, Claim 1).
Sadeghi's second trigger frame allocates uplink resources covering a full channel
bandwidth to the responding stations uniformly; the allocation is not varied or differentiated according to the number of channels each station has actually sensed. Sadeghi therefore does not describe or reasonably suggest "an allocation circuitry that allocates a reward according to the number of sensing channels to each of the plurality of wireless terminals," which requires that the reward allocated to each terminal depend on that terminal's number of sensing channels. Because Sadeghi allocates uniform full-bandwidth uplink resources to all responding stations rather than a per-terminal reward that varies with each terminal's number of sensing channels, Sadeghi does not remedy the deficiency of Aygul.
Thus, Aygul and Sadeghi (either alone or in combination) do not describe or reasonably suggest a sensing channel number storage circuitry that calculates and stores, for each of the wireless terminals, the number of channels sensed by the wireless terminal, or an allocation circuitry that allocates a reward according to the number of sensing channels to each of the plurality of wireless terminals, as recited in Claim 1.
Thus, Aygul and Sadeghi do not describe or reasonably suggest wherein the wireless base station device includes a sensing channel number storage circuitry that calculates and stores the number of sensing channels for each of the wireless terminals on a basis of the sensing information, the number of sensing channels being the number of channels sensed by the wireless terminal; and an allocation circuitry that allocates a reward according to the number of sensing channels to each of the plurality of wireless terminals, as recited in Claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees specifically with respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding the lack of explicit calculation and storage of the number of channels sensed per terminal are not persuasive. Sadeghi discloses in the Abstract that the responder-to-initiator transmissions covering the full channel bandwidth and received on the allocated uplink resources and in claim 1 that the second TF allocates uplink resources to two or more stations, the allocated uplink resources covering a full channel bandwidth. Thus, Sadeghi clearly discloses in the of a system in which the access point allocates uplink resources covering the full channel bandwidth to each responding station. Each station senses and reports on the same set of channels, enabling the access point to calculate and store, for each station, the number of channels sensed and specifically, the full channel bandwidth. Sadeghi further describes in the abstract that the access point obtains sensing measurements based on the transmissions received from the stations that a sensing measurements based on the responder-to-initiator transmissions received from the STAs is obtained and in Claim 1 that the AP obtains sensing measurements for channels between stations based on the responder-to-initiator transmissions. The claim does not require that the number of channels sensed differ among terminals, only that the number be calculated and stored for each terminal. Sadeghi’s system inherently provides this functionality, as the access point receives sensing measurements from each terminal corresponding to the full bandwidth, and can track this number per terminal.
With respect to reward allocation, while Sadeghi does not explicitly disclose a reward mechanism, however the claim is satisfied by the system’s capability to allocate rewards/resources based on the number of channels sensed, which is uniform in Sadeghi’s scenario. The claim language does not require rewards to vary among terminals, only that the allocation be “according to the number of sensing channels” for each terminal. Sadeghi’s approach enables the access point to quantify, for each station, the sensing activity performed (i.e., the number of channels sensed), as evidenced by the encoding of sensing measurement results comprising channel state information changes for the stations (see Sadeghi, Abstract). Therefore, Aygul in combination with Sadeghi, renders Claim 1 obvious, as the claimed sensing channel number calculation, storage, and reward allocation can be implemented directly based on the sensing measurements and resource allocation disclosed in Sadeghi. Therefore, rejection of claims 1, 3 and 7-8 under 35 USC over Aygul in view of Sadeghi is maintained.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIRAG G SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-3144. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3:30 M-F.
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. 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.
/CHIRAG G SHAH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477
