Election/Restrictions
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) was/were submitted on 8/21/24 and 11/7/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an inertial measurement unit” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “means for performing radio frequency sensing with a second link” and “means for detecting a latency sensitive event” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification discloses that the above means are computer-implemented (see e.g., ¶ 77 of the published specification which discloses a processor implementing functions described). However, the specification appears to be silent on algorithm(s) for a processor to perform the above means. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210409979 by Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang) (IDS filed 8/21/24) in view of WO 2022193459 by Zhou et al. (hereinafter Zhou) (IDS filed 8/21/24) and in further view of US 20230076285 by Ko et al. (hereinafter Ko) (IDS filed 8/21/24).
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches an apparatus (fig. 1b, non-access point multi-link device 120a), comprising:
a memory (fig. 2, wireless system 200 comprising memory 250; ¶ 46, System 200 may be any of the electronic devices (e.g., AP MLD 110, non-AP MLD 120) of system 100);
a first transceiver configured to utilize a first radio link (fig. 2, transceivers 220a-n; ¶ 46, System 200 includes processor 210, one or more transceivers 220a-220n; ¶ 54, transceiver 220a can enable connection(s) and communication over a multi-link WLAN network having a first link (e.g., link 150a) associated with 2.4 GHz wireless communication channel; fig. 1b, non-access point multi-link device 120a receiving from access point multi-link device 110 over a link 150a);
a second transceiver configured to utilize a second radio link that is different from the first radio link (fig. 2, transceivers 220a-n; ¶ 46, System 200 includes processor 210, one or more transceivers 220a-220n; ¶ 54, transceiver 220b can enable connection(s) and communication over the multi-link WLAN network having a second link (e.g., link 150b) associated with 5 GHz wireless communication channel… transceiver 220c can enable connection(s) and communication over the multi-link WLAN network having a third link (e.g., link 150c) associated with 6 GHz wireless communication channel; fig. 1b, non-access point multi-link device 120a receiving from access point multi-link device 110 over a link 150b and/or link 150c);
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory, the first transceiver, and the second transceiver (fig. 2, shows processor 210 communicatively coupled to memory 250 and transceivers 220a-220n; ¶ ), and configured to (¶ 49, Processor 210 together with instructions stored in memory 250 performs operations enabling wireless system 200 of system 100 to implement the backup link establishment and operation as described herein):
receive downlink data packets from a station via the first radio link (fig. 1b, non-access point multi-link device 120a receiving from access point multi-link device 110 over a link 150a; ¶ 37, non-AP MLD 120a and AP MLD 110 can use multiple MAC/PHY links 150a-150c to simultaneously or substantially simultaneously transfer data; ¶ 99, AP MLD's downlink (DL) low latency traffic delivered; ¶ 118, receiving the DL data frames).
Although Wang teaches at least one processor and the second radio link, Wang does not explicitly disclose at least one processor configured to perform radio frequency sensing with a second radio link, detect a latency sensitive event and transmit an indication of the latency sensitive event.
Zhou in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches at least one processor configured to (¶ 716) perform radio frequency sensing (¶ 87, For devices that support low frequency bands (for example, 2.4GHz, 5GHz or 6GHz), the Wi-Fi sensing process needs to be performed on the low frequency band, and for devices that support high frequency bands (for example, 60GHz), it needs to be performed on the high frequency band For the Wi-Fi sensing process, for devices that support both low frequency bands and high frequency bands, the Wi-Fi sensing process needs to be performed on both the low frequency band and the high frequency band; ¶ 263, multi-link device (Multi-Link Device, MLD)), detect a latency sensitive event and transmit an indication of the latency sensitive event (¶ 84, The Sensing Transmitter in the Sensing Session sends the sensing measurement signal to the Sensing Receiver in the Sensing Session, and the Sensing Receiver feeds back the measurement results, etc.; ¶ 77, there may be multiple Sensing Types. For example, a sensing type based on channel state information (Channel State Information, CSI), that is, CSI-based Sensing, the sensing type obtains a sensing measurement result by processing the CSI of a received sensing measurement signal. Another example is the reflected wave-based sensing type, that is, Radar-based Sensing. This sensing type obtains the sensing measurement result by processing the reflected wave of the received sensing measurement signal; ¶ 342, the measurement feedback type of the at least one sensing session includes at least one of the following; ¶ 343, The compressed channel state information (CSI) corresponding to the at least one sensing session, the mapping from Doppler to distance (range-Doppler map), and the mapping from time to distance (range-time map); ¶ 56, It uses wireless signals to measure and perceive the surrounding environment, so that it can complete the detection of indoor intrusion, movement, fall, etc., gesture recognition and three-dimensional space Image creation and many other functions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s teachings with Zhou’s above teachings. The motivation is speeding up perception discovery and configuration process, and improving performance of perception capability discovery and configuration (Zhou ¶ 6). Known work in one field of endeavor (Zhou prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Wang prior art) based on design incentives (speeding up perception discovery and configuration process, and improving performance of perception capability discovery and configuration) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Although the combination teaches the apparatus (Wang fig. 1b, non-access point multi-link device 120a) and at least one processor configured to perform radio frequency sensing and the second radio link, the combination does not explicitly disclose at least one processor configured to perform radio frequency sensing with the second radio link.
Ko in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a MLD comprising at least one processor configured to perform radio frequency sensing with a second radio link (fig. 9, shows a non-AP MLD comprising 3 non-AP STAs where non-AP STA1-3 transmits and receives over link1-3, respectively; ¶ 71; ¶ 120, the plurality of stations included in the multi-link device may operate on a plurality of different links or on a plurality of different channels. For example, a plurality of stations included in the multi-link device may operate on a plurality of different channels of 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz; ¶ 152, the first link 1 and the second link 2 operate in different bands; ¶ 127, channels of the plurality of links on which the multi-link device operates; ¶ 192, station may perform channel sensing on channels; ¶ 208, The station may determine…to be used for sensing the channel of the multi-link). By modifying the combination’s teachings of the apparatus and at least one processor configured to perform radio frequency sensing and the second radio link, with Ko’s teachings of a MLD comprising at least one processor configured to perform radio frequency sensing with a second radio link, the modification results in apparatus/MLD comprising at least one processor configured to perform radio frequency sensing with the second radio link.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Ko’s above teachings. The motivation is solving inefficiency of channel access (Ko ¶ 151). Known work in one field of endeavor (Ko prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Wang prior art) based on design incentives (solving inefficiency of channel access) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recite similar limitations of claim 11 except for “with multi-link device” and claim 11 has the apparatus performing the receiving and performing features instead. However, Examiner correspond the apparatus (which the Examiner mapped to non-access point multi-link device 120a of Wang as shown above) of claim 11 to the multi-link device of claim 1 and as shown above, Wang in view of at least Ko teaches a multi-link device performing radio frequency sensing with a second radio link.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recite similar limitations of claim 11 except for four “means for”. However, Examiner corresponds “at least one processor” of claim 11 (which the Examiner mapped to Wang’s processor 210 as shown above) to the four “means for” of claim 20.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Zhou and Ko and in further view of US 20210168722 by Reshef (IDS filed 8/21/24).
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the method of claim 1.
Although the combination teaches detecting the latency sensitive event and the multi-link device (Wang fig. 1b, non-access point multi-link device 120a), the combination does not explicitly disclose detecting the latency sensitive event includes detecting a motion with the multi-link device.
Reshef in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches detecting a latency sensitive event includes detecting a motion with a device (¶ 87, wireless sensing device, e.g., device 102, may detect variations in the received wireless packets, which may indicate a change in the environment, for example, a motion in the environment; ¶ 90, wireless sensing processor 110 may be configured to detect the one or more changes in the environment of device 102, for example, to detect a motion in the environment of device 102; ¶ 91, a wireless sensing component, e.g., wireless sensing processor 110, configured to perform measurements for motion detection; ¶ 55, controller 124…to cause, trigger and/or control a wireless device, e.g., device 102, and/or a wireless station, e.g., a wireless STA implemented by device 102, to perform one or more operations, communications and/or functionalities, e.g., as described herein; fig. 1, wireless communication device 102 having wireless sensing 110 and controller 124). By modifying the combination’s teachings of detecting the latency sensitive event and the multi-link device with Reshef’s teachings of detecting a latency sensitive event includes detecting a motion with a device, the modification results in detecting the latency sensitive event includes detecting a motion with the multi-link device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Reshef’s above teachings. The motivation is providing accurate and/or efficient detection of user proximity based on wireless sensing (Reshef ¶ 112). Known work in one field of endeavor (Reshef prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Wang prior art) based on design incentives (accurate and/or efficient detection of user proximity based on wireless sensing) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the method of claim 1.
Although the combination teaches detecting the latency sensitive event and the radio frequency sensing, the combination does not explicitly disclose detecting the latency sensitive event includes detecting an object with the radio frequency sensing.
Reshef in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches detecting a latency sensitive event includes detecting an object with a radio frequency sensing (¶ 90, wireless sensing processor 110 may be configured to detect the one or more changes in the environment of device 102, for example, to detect a motion in the environment of device 102; ¶ 91, a wireless sensing component, e.g., wireless sensing processor 110, configured to perform measurements for motion detection. However, in other aspects, the wireless sensor may be configured to perform any other additional or alternative type of wireless sensing, e.g., to detect any other changes in the environment and/or for any other suitable wireless sensing applications; ¶ 145, wireless proximity sensing may be based on one or more channel estimation measurements, e.g., CSI measurements and/or any other measurements, which may be utilized to detect a person in close proximity, for example, based on detected changes in the channel estimation measurements. For example, it may be determined based on the changes in the channel estimation measurements that a person is close to, or has moved towards, the computing device 102; ¶ 76, wireless sensing may be used to detect motion in a room, for example, to detect when a person approaches a target device). By modifying the combination’s teachings of detecting the latency sensitive event and the radio frequency sensing with Reshef’s teachings of detecting a latency sensitive event includes detecting an object with a radio frequency sensing, the modification results in detecting the latency sensitive event includes detecting an object with the radio frequency sensing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Reshef’s above teachings. The motivation is providing accurate and/or efficient detection of user proximity based on wireless sensing (Reshef ¶ 112). Known work in one field of endeavor (Reshef prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Wang prior art) based on design incentives (accurate and/or efficient detection of user proximity based on wireless sensing) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding 12, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Although the combination teaches the apparatus, the at least one processor and the motion is the latency sensitive event (Zhou ¶ 56, detection of indoor intrusion, movement, fall, etc., gesture recognition and three-dimensional space Image creation), the combination does not explicitly disclose the apparatus further comprising an inertial measurement unit communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, and the at least one processor is further configured to detect a motion with the inertial measurement unit.
Reshef in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches an apparatus comprising an inertial measurement unit communicatively coupled to at least one processor, and the at least one processor is further configured to detect a motion with the inertial measurement unit (¶ 87, wireless sensing device, e.g., device 102, may detect variations in the received wireless packets, which may indicate a change in the environment, for example, a motion in the environment; ¶ 90, wireless sensing processor 110 may be configured to detect the one or more changes in the environment of device 102, for example, to detect a motion in the environment of device 102; ¶ 91, a wireless sensing component, e.g., wireless sensing processor 110, configured to perform measurements for motion detection; ¶ 55, controller 124…to cause, trigger and/or control a wireless device, e.g., device 102, and/or a wireless station, e.g., a wireless STA implemented by device 102, to perform one or more operations, communications and/or functionalities, e.g., as described herein; fig. 1, wireless communication device 102 having wireless sensing 110 and controller 124). By modifying the combination’s teachings of the apparatus and the at least one processor with Reshef’s teachings of an apparatus comprising an inertial measurement unit communicatively coupled to at least one processor, and the at least one processor is further configured to detect a motion with the inertial measurement unit, the modification results in the apparatus further comprising an inertial measurement unit communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, and the at least one processor is further configured to detect a motion with the inertial measurement unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Reshef’s above teachings. The motivation is providing accurate and/or efficient detection of user proximity based on wireless sensing (Reshef ¶ 112). Known work in one field of endeavor (Reshef prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Wang prior art) based on design incentives (accurate and/or efficient detection of user proximity based on wireless sensing) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Although the combination teaches the at least one processor, the radio frequency sensing and the latency sensitive event, the combination does not explicitly disclose the at least one processor is further configured to detect an object with the radio frequency sensing as the latency sensitive event.
Reshef in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches at least one processor is configured to detect an object with radio frequency sensing as a latency sensitive event (¶ 90, wireless sensing processor 110 may be configured to detect the one or more changes in the environment of device 102, for example, to detect a motion in the environment of device 102; ¶ 91, a wireless sensing component, e.g., wireless sensing processor 110, configured to perform measurements for motion detection. However, in other aspects, the wireless sensor may be configured to perform any other additional or alternative type of wireless sensing, e.g., to detect any other changes in the environment and/or for any other suitable wireless sensing applications; ¶ 145, wireless proximity sensing may be based on one or more channel estimation measurements, e.g., CSI measurements and/or any other measurements, which may be utilized to detect a person in close proximity, for example, based on detected changes in the channel estimation measurements. For example, it may be determined based on the changes in the channel estimation measurements that a person is close to, or has moved towards, the computing device 102; ¶ 76, wireless sensing may be used to detect motion in a room, for example, to detect when a person approaches a target device). By modifying the combination’s teachings of the at least one processor, the radio frequency sensing and the latency sensitive event with Reshef’s teachings of at least one processor is configured to detect an object with radio frequency sensing as a latency sensitive event, the modification results in the at least one processor is further configured to detect an object with the radio frequency sensing as the latency sensitive event.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Reshef’s above teachings. The motivation is providing accurate and/or efficient detection of user proximity based on wireless sensing (Reshef ¶ 112). Known work in one field of endeavor (Reshef prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Wang prior art) based on design incentives (accurate and/or efficient detection of user proximity based on wireless sensing) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Zhou and Ko and in further view of JP 6788530 (hereinafter ‘530) (IDS filed 8/21/24).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the method of claim 1.
Although the combination teaches detecting the latency sensitive event, the radio frequency sensing and the multi-link device (Wang fig. 1b, non-access point multi-link device 120a), the combination does not explicitly disclose detecting the latency sensitive event includes detecting a change in a periodicity of the radio frequency sensing performed by the multi-link device.
‘530 in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches detecting the latency sensitive event includes detecting a change in a periodicity of a radio frequency sensing performed by a device (page 7 of 12, the determination unit 13 determines that the mobile terminal 20 changes the scan interval for detecting the wireless tag from the set first interval to the second interval shorter than the first interval; fig. 6, processor 1001). By modifying the combination’s teachings of detecting the latency sensitive event, the radio frequency sensing and the multi-link device with ‘530 teachings of detecting the latency sensitive event includes detecting a change in a periodicity of a radio frequency sensing performed by a device, the modification results in detecting the latency sensitive event includes detecting a change in a periodicity of the radio frequency sensing performed by the multi-link device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with ‘530 above teachings. The motivation is appropriately controlling a wireless signal scanning interval (‘530 page 2 of 12). Known work in one field of endeavor (‘530 prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Wang prior art) based on design incentives (appropriately controlling a wireless signal scanning interval) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Although the combination teaches the at least one processor, the radio frequency sensing and the latency sensitive event, the combination does not explicitly disclose the at least one processor is further configured to detect a change in a periodicity of the radio frequency sensing as the latency sensitive event.
‘530 in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches at least one processor configured to detect a change in a periodicity of a radio frequency sensing as a latency sensitive event (page 7 of 12, the determination unit 13 determines that the mobile terminal 20 changes the scan interval for detecting the wireless tag from the set first interval to the second interval shorter than the first interval; fig. 6, processor 1001). By modifying the combination’s teachings of the at least one processor, the radio frequency sensing and the latency sensitive event with ‘530 teachings of at least one processor configured to detect a change in a periodicity of a radio frequency sensing as a latency sensitive event, the modification results in the at least one processor is further configured to detect a change in a periodicity of the radio frequency sensing as the latency sensitive event.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with ‘530 above teachings. The motivation is appropriately controlling a wireless signal scanning interval (‘530 page 2 of 12). Known work in one field of endeavor (‘530 prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Wang prior art) based on design incentives (appropriately controlling a wireless signal scanning interval) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Zhou and Ko and in further view of US 20110083132 by Laor et al. (hereinafter Laor) (IDS filed 8/21/24).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the method of claim 1.
Although the combination teaches detecting the latency sensitive event and the multi-link device (Wang fig. 1b, non-access point multi-link device 120a), the combination does not explicitly disclose detecting the latency sensitive event includes receiving a user input with the multi-link device.
Laor in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches detecting a latency sensitive event includes receiving a user input with a device (fig. 1, shows an end user on client terminal 110; ¶ 23, client terminal 110 used by an end user 115; ¶ 7, latency-sensitive tasks of an interactive user, such as those associated with the direct input of a user, including typing on a keyboard or using a mouse; fig. 4, computer system 400 including a processor 402 with bidirectional communication with units 412 and 414; ¶ an alphanumeric input device 412 (e.g., a keyboard), a cursor control device 414 (e.g., a mouse); ¶ 47, a machine in the exemplary form of a computer system 400 within which a set of instructions, for causing the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies discussed herein, may be executed…The machine may be…a cellular telephone). By modifying the combination’s teachings of detecting the latency sensitive event and the multi-link device with Laor’s teachings of detecting a latency sensitive event includes receiving a user input with a device, the modification results in detecting the latency sensitive event includes receiving a user input with the multi-link device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Laor’s above teachings. The motivation is providing an end user smoother interaction and feedback (Laor ¶ 8). Known work in one field of endeavor (Laor prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Wang prior art) based on design incentives (providing an end user smoother interaction and feedback) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Although the combination teaches the at least one processor, the apparatus and the latency sensitive event, the combination does not explicitly disclose the at least one processor is further configured to receive a user input with the apparatus as the latency sensitive event.
Laor in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches at least one processor is further configured to receive a user input with an apparatus as a latency sensitive event (fig. 1, shows an end user on client terminal 110; ¶ 23, client terminal 110 used by an end user 115; ¶ 7, latency-sensitive tasks of an interactive user, such as those associated with the direct input of a user, including typing on a keyboard or using a mouse; fig. 4, computer system 400 including a processor 402 with bidirectional communication with units 412 and 414; ¶ an alphanumeric input device 412 (e.g., a keyboard), a cursor control device 414 (e.g., a mouse); ¶ 47, a machine in the exemplary form of a computer system 400 within which a set of instructions, for causing the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies discussed herein, may be executed…The machine may be…a cellular telephone). By modifying the combination’s teachings of the at least one processor, the apparatus and the latency sensitive event with Laor’s teachings of at least one processor is further configured to receive a user input with an apparatus as a latency sensitive event, the modification results in the at least one processor is further configured to receive a user input with the apparatus as the latency sensitive event.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Laor’s above teachings. The motivation is providing an end user smoother interaction and feedback (Laor ¶ 8). Known work in one field of endeavor (Laor prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Wang prior art) based on design incentives (providing an end user smoother interaction and feedback) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Zhou and Ko and in further view of US 20210385644 by Lumbatis et al. (hereinafter Lumbatis) (IDS filed 8/21/24).
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Although the combination teaches the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the indication of the latency sensitive event and the second radio link, the combination does not explicitly disclose the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the indication of the latency sensitive event as uplink data on the second radio link.
Lumbatis in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches at least one processor is configured to transmit reported measurements or information as uplink data on a radio link (¶ 118, communicate the reported measurements or information within the Block Ack frame; fig. 2, APD 102 receiving block ack frame from client device 104; ¶ 122, client device 104 transmits Block Ack frame 206 containing channel condition measurements to APD 102 over wireless channel 106; ¶ 126). By modifying the combination’s teachings of the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the indication of the latency sensitive event and the second radio link with Lumbatis’s teachings of at least one processor is configured to transmit reported measurements or information as uplink data on a radio link, the modification results in the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the indication of the latency sensitive event as uplink data on the second radio link.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Lumbatis’ above teachings. The motivation is providing an ability to easily and efficiently identify and communicate information (Lumbatis ¶ 118). Known work in one field of endeavor (Lumbatis prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Wang prior art) based on design incentives (providing an ability to easily and efficiently identify and communicate information) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Although the combination teaches the at least one processor, the indication of the latency sensitive event and the first radio link, the combination does not explicitly disclose the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the indication of the latency sensitive event in a block acknowledgment on the first radio link.
Lumbatis in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches at least one processor is configured to transmit reported measurements or information in a block acknowledgement on a radio link (¶ 118, communicate the reported measurements or information within the Block Ack frame; fig. 2, APD 102 receiving block ack frame from client device 104; ¶ 122, client device 104 transmits Block Ack frame 206 containing channel condition measurements to APD 102 over wireless channel 106; ¶ 126). By modifying the combination’s teachings of the at least one processor, the indication of the latency sensitive event and the first radio link with Lumbatis’ teachings of at least one processor is configured to transmit reported measurements or information in a block acknowledgement on a radio link, the modification results in the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the indication of the latency sensitive event in a block acknowledgment on the first radio link.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Lumbatis’ above teachings. The motivation is providing an ability to easily and efficiently identify and communicate information (Lumbatis ¶ 118). Known work in one field of endeavor (Lumbatis prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Wang prior art) based on design incentives (providing an ability to easily and efficiently identify and communicate information) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Although the combination teaches the at least one processor, the indication of the latency sensitive event and the second radio link, the combination does not explicitly disclose the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the indication of the latency sensitive event in a block acknowledgment on the second radio link.
Lumbatis in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches at least one processor is configured to transmit reported measurements or information in a block acknowledgement on a radio link (¶ 118, communicate the reported measurements or information within the Block Ack frame; fig. 2, APD 102 receiving block ack frame from client device 104; ¶ 122, client device 104 transmits Block Ack frame 206 containing channel condition measurements to APD 102 over wireless channel 106; ¶ 126). By modifying the combination’s teachings of the at least one processor, the indication of the latency sensitive event and the second radio link with Lumbatis’ teachings of at least one processor is configured to transmit reported measurements or information in a block acknowledgement on a radio link, the modification results in the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the indication of the latency sensitive event in a block acknowledgment on the second radio link.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Lumbatis’ above teachings. The motivation is providing an ability to easily and efficiently identify and communicate information (Lumbatis ¶ 118). Known work in one field of endeavor (Lumbatis prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Wang prior art) based on design incentives (providing an ability to easily and efficiently identify and communicate information) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 6-8 recite similar limitations of claims 16-18, respectively and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Zhou and Ko and in further view of US 20220116192 by Noh et al. (hereinafter Noh) (IDS filed 8/21/24).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the method of claim 1.
Although the combination teaches the multi-link device (Wang fig. 1b, non-access point multi-link device 120a), the first radio link and the second radio link, the combination does not explicitly disclose the multi-link device is configured for synchronous communication with the first radio link and the second radio link.
Noh in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a multi-link device is configured for synchronous communication with a first radio link and a second radio link (¶ 126, via links A and B, AP1 and AP2 as AP MLD and STA1 and STA2 as non-AP MLD synchronously or asynchronously transmit and receive RTS/CTS and data/acknowledgement through sub-channels 1, 2, 3, and 4; fig. 11). By modifying the combination’s teachings of the multi-link device, the first radio link and the second radio link with Noh’s teachings of a multi-link device is configured for synchronous communication with a first radio link and a second radio link, the modification results in the multi-link device is configured for synchronous communication with the first radio link and the second radio link.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Noh’s above teachings. The motivation is improving multi-link operations in a wireless network (Noh ¶ 2). Known work in one field of endeavor (Noh prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Wang prior art) based on design incentives (improving multi-link operations in a wireless network) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the method of claim 1.
Although the combination teaches the multi-link device (Wang fig. 1b, non-access point multi-link device 120a), the first radio link and the second radio link, the combination does not explicitly disclose the multi-link device is configured for asynchronous communication with the first radio link and the second radio link.
Noh in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a multi-link device is configured for asynchronous communication with a first radio link and a second radio link (¶ 126, via links A and B, AP1 and AP2 as AP MLD and STA1 and STA2 as non-AP MLD synchronously or asynchronously transmit and receive RTS/CTS and data/acknowledgement through sub-channels 1, 2, 3, and 4; fig. 11). By modifying the combination’s teachings of the multi-link device, the first radio link and the second radio link with Noh’s teachings of a multi-link device is configured for asynchronous communication with a first radio link and a second radio link, the modification results in the multi-link device is configured for asynchronous communication with the first radio link and the second radio link.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Noh’s above teachings. The motivation is improving multi-link operations in a wireless network (Noh ¶ 2). Known work in one field of endeavor (Noh prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Wang prior art) based on design incentives (improving multi-link operations in a wireless network) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Although the combination teaches the apparatus, the first radio link and the second radio link, the combination does not explicitly disclose the apparatus is configured for synchronous communication with the first radio link and the second radio link.
Noh in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches an apparatus is configured for synchronous communication with a first radio link and a second radio link (¶ 126, via links A and B, AP1 and AP2 as AP MLD and STA1 and STA2 as non-AP MLD synchronously or asynchronously transmit and receive RTS/CTS and data/acknowledgement through sub-channels 1, 2, 3, and 4; fig. 11). By modifying the combination’s teachings of the apparatus, the first radio link and the second radio link with Noh’s teachings of an apparatus is configured for synchronous communication with a first radio link and a second radio link, the modification results in the apparatus is configured for synchronous communication with the first radio link and the second radio link.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Noh’s above teachings. The motivation is improving multi-link operations in a wireless network (Noh ¶ 2). Known work in one field of endeavor (Noh prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Wang prior art) based on design incentives (improving multi-link operations in a wireless network) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230060492 discloses MLD system, which comprises a MLD with links, detecting human/motion using RF sensing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER P CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7152. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 A.M - 6 P.M. ET 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/PETER P CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights