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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejection have been considered and they are not persuasive. For example, Qualcomm clearly teaches
wherein the first information comprises one of:
information indicating to provide a feedback for every specific number of sensing measurement exchange, wherein the specific number is greater than 1; or
information indicating to provide a feedback for every specific number of bursts (Qualcomm, page 3, section 7.2, an initiator may instruct the responder in the receiver role or in the receiver and transmitter role to accumulate the results and report once per the burst. Here, the specific number of bursts is 1; fig. 3, per burst delayed delivery of the aggregated report). It is noted that the applicant uses selective language in the claim and the examiner is only showing one of the claimed options.
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(s) 1-14, 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (EP4156556) in view of Qualcomm (DMG sensing procedure, doc.: IEEE 802.11-21/2015r2, 12-20-2021, cited in IDS)
Regarding claim 1, Du discloses a communication method for a wireless local area network (WLAN) sensing measurement feedback (fig. 3), performed by an initiator, comprising:
determining a sensing measurement setup message frame, wherein the sensing measurement setup message frame comprises first information associated with a time slot for the WLAN sensing measurement feedback ([0132-134], figs. 2,10, may send first indication information to the third device, where the first indication information is used to schedule or request the third device to sense the target object, including sensing duration and intervals), and the time slot represents a time interval for feeding back a sensing measurement result; and
sending the sensing measurement setup message frame ([0132-134], fig. 10, may send first indication information to the third device, where the first indication information is used to schedule or request the third device to sense the target object, including sensing duration and intervals).
Du does not explicitly disclose the time slot represents a time interval for feeding back a sensing measurement result,
wherein the first information comprises one of:
information indicating to provide a feedback for every specific number of sensing measurement exchange, wherein the specific number is greater than 1; or
information indicating to provide a feedback for every specific number of bursts.
Qualcomm discloses the time slot represents a time interval for feeding back a sensing measurement result (Qualcomm, page 3, section 7.2, fig. 1, may instruct the responder to report at the measurement instance, or/and it may instruct the responder to accumulate the results and report once per the burst),
wherein the first information comprises one of:
information indicating to provide a feedback for every specific number of sensing measurement exchange, wherein the specific number is greater than 1; or
information indicating to provide a feedback for every specific number of bursts (Qualcomm, page 3, section 7.2, an initiator may instruct the responder in the receiver role or in the receiver and transmitter role to accumulate the results and report once per the burst. Here, the specific number of bursts is 1; fig. 3, per burst delayed delivery of the aggregated report).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to combine the teachings as given by Du with the teachings given by Qualcomm. The motivation for doing so would have been to be complaint with standard implementation. It is noted that the applicant uses selective language in this claim and the examiner is only showing one of the claimed options.
Claims 8, 17-20 is rejected similarly with claim 1 noting Du discloses processors, memory (fig. 19).
Regarding claim 2, 9, 21, Du and Qualcomm disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first information comprises corresponding information according to the time slot which represents different time intervals (Qualcomm, fig 10 different time intervals within burst).
Regarding claim 3, 10, 22, Du and Qualcomm disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the first information comprises one of:
information indicating to provide a feedback for each measurement exchange (Qualcomm, figs. 2, 4, per instance or measurement instance delayed delivery of the report); or
information indicating to provide a feedback for every specific number of sensing measurement setup operations.
It is noted that the applicant uses selective language in this claim and the examiner is only showing one of the claimed options.
Regarding claim 4, 11, Du and Qualcomm disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the first information further comprises time synchronization function information (Du, [0095], fig. 2, request frame includes synchronization function information).
Regarding claim 5, 12, Du and Qualcomm discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the sensing measurement setup message frame further comprises second information indicating a WLAN sensing measurement feedback type (Du, [0127]), and
the feedback type comprises an immediate feedback (Qualcomm. Section 7.2, page 3, to report at the measurement instance) or/ or a delayed feedback (Qualcomm, fig. 2, delayed reporting).
It is noted that the applicant uses selective language in this claim and the examiner is only showing one of the claimed options.
Regarding claim 6, 13, Du and Qualcomm disclose the method of claim 5, wherein in response to the second information indicating the immediate feedback, the first information comprises the information indicating to provide a feedback for each measurement exchange (Qualcomm. Section 7.2, page 3, to report at the measurement instance).
Regarding claim 7, 14, Du and Qualcomm disclose the method of claim 5, wherein in response to the second information indicating the delayed feedback, the first information comprises one of:
the information indicating to provide a feedback for every specific number of sensing measurement exchange;
the information indicating to provide a feedback for every specific number of bursts (Qualcomm, page 3, section 7.2, report per burst); or
the information indicating to provide a feedback for every specific number of sensing measurement setup operations.
It is noted that the applicant uses selective language in this claim and the examiner is only showing one of the claimed options.
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 ZHENSHENG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00am-6:00pm.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
/ZHENSHENG ZHANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights