DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
This action is in response to communications filed on 8/7/2024.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, & 14-19 have been examined and are rejected. Claims 6, 13, & 20 have been examined and are objected to.
Priority
This application claims priority to provisional application 63/610,358 filed 12/14/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/7/2024 and 3/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 13, & 20 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.
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)(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.
(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, 3, 8, 10, 15, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bakken (US 2024/0267118 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Bakken teaches:
An apparatus comprising: a memory; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, the processor configured to:
generate a first message comprising a first portion that signals a first backscatter device that a second portion of the first message following the first portion is intended for the first backscatter device; and transmit the first message; (the transmitting device is configured to modify the data packet to include an address sequence at the start of the constant tone extension, preceding the constant tone portion [Bakken: 0028], wherein the backscatter enabled device may only backscatter the received signal in the event that the address sequence sent as part of the data packet CTE corresponds to an ID of the backscatter enabled device itself [Bakken: 0068]).
With regard to Claim 3, Bakken teaches:
The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the second portion comprises a plurality of bits and wherein the first portion signals to the first backscatter device that the first backscatter device is allowed to modulate the plurality of bits with data; (a portion of the constant frequency portion of the signal comprises a plurality of bits that can be used to send data [Bakken: 0067], wherein the backscatter device then recognises the address sequence and responds by modulating the rest of the CTE and transmitting the modulated signal back to the sending device [Bakken: 0068-70]).
With regard to Claims 8, 10, 15, & 17, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 1 & 3 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 8, 10, 15, & 17 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1 & 3.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakken (US 2024/0267118 A1) in view of Mahalingam et al. (US 2024/0106532 A1).
With regard to Claim 2, Bakken teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the second portion comprises silence and wherein the first portion signals to the first backscatter device that the first backscatter device is allowed to transmit a message during the silence.
In a similar field of endeavor involving selective backscattering, Mahalingam discloses:
wherein the second portion comprises silence and wherein the first portion signals to the first backscatter device that the first backscatter device is allowed to transmit a message during the silence; (the BID message includes an indication of the duration of the backscattering opportunity, wherein the Backscatter STA detects the CTS-to-self message transmitted by the serving AP indicating availability of a dedicated backscattering opportunity [Mahalingam: 0145-46; 0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bakken in view of Mahalingam in order to indicate that the first backscatter device is allowed to transmit a message during the silence in the system of Bakken.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Bakken with Mahalingam as doing so would allow the AP to restrict the BID message and signal only as many BSTA identities and/or only as long a duration as will achieve the desired amount of contention [Mahalingam: 0112].
With regard to Claim 5, Bakken teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the processor is further configured to transmit a second message prior to transmitting the first message and wherein the first message is separated from the second message by a short interframe space.
In a similar field of endeavor involving selective backscattering, Mahalingam discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to transmit a second message prior to transmitting the first message and wherein the first message is separated from the second message by a short interframe space; (the AP transmits the CTS-to-self message shown, and the BSTAs monitor for backscattering opportunities by monitoring for a BID, e.g., after a SIFS, wherein the BIDA message may be followed by a short inter-frame space (SIFS) duration [Mahalingam: 0143-45; 0116; 0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bakken in view of Mahalingam in order to utilize a short interframe space in the system of Bakken.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Bakken with Mahalingam as doing so would utilize a predictable separating time period between messages that would facilitate reception of the message by the backscatter device.
With regard to Claim 7, Bakken teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the processor is further configured to generate a schedule for transmissions of the first backscatter device based on a buffer status report from the first backscatter device and wherein the first message is generated based on the schedule.
In a similar field of endeavor involving selective backscattering, Mahalingam discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to generate a schedule for transmissions of the first backscatter device based on a buffer status report from the first backscatter device and wherein the first message is generated based on the schedule; (after the BSR has been received from the BSTAs, the AP determines the identities of STAs that have UL transmissions to transmit, and matches those opportunities and resource requirement with BSR requirements received from BSTAs [Mahalingam: 0175]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bakken in view of Mahalingam in order to schedule backscatter devices based on buffer status reports in the system of Bakken.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Bakken with Mahalingam as doing so would allow backscatter devices with a greater need to transmit to receive a transmission opportunity.
With regard to Claims 9, 12, 14, 16, & 19, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 2, 5, & 7 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 9, 12, 14, 16, & 19 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 2, 5, & 7.
Claims 4, 11, & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakken (US 2024/0267118 A1) in view of He et al. (US 2025/0016825 A1).
With regard to Claim 4, Bakken teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the first portion is a preamble of the first message.
In a similar field of endeavor involving a zero-power device generating a backscatter signal, He discloses:
wherein the first portion is a preamble of the first message; (transmitting, by an access point device, a first signal portion including a first preamble signal, wherein the zero-power device performs backscattering based on the received first signal portion, such that a backscatter signal of the zero-power device also includes a preamble signal, and thus a non-zero-power device (e.g., a conventional Wi-Fi device) detects that the zero-power device is using the channel based on that preamble signal [He: 0153; 0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bakken in view of He in order to utilize a preamble as a first signal portion in the system of Bakken.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Bakken with He as doing so would promote efficiency by allowing the low-power backscatter device to determine whether the transmitted message is intended for it without having to process the remainder of the packet.
With regard to Claims 11 & 18, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claim 4 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claim. Accordingly, claims 11 & 18 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Karimaruthumkal (US 2021/0368439 A1) which teaches a backscattering device may receive a wake up radio (WUR) trigger packet from an access point (AP) indicating one or more parameters for backscattering transmission.
In the case of amendments, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN J MOREAU whose telephone number is (571) 272-5179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 - 6:00 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, Rebecca Song can be reached on 571-270-3667. 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.
/AUSTIN J MOREAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2417
Prosecution Insights