DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/837,840 filed on 08/12/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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
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.
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.
Claims 1, 9 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (WO 2023/212082 A1 hereinafter Lin) in view of IEEE P802.11 (“IEEE 802.11bf - January 2022 Interim Meeting Minutes”; doc.: IEEE 802.11-22/0191r1; January 2022, hereinafter NPL1).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches “a method for communication, comprising: receiving, by an initiator, a request frame from a responder,” as [(Para. 0180), In this example shown in FIG. 35, a sensing initiator 3501 may transmit a Sensing Measurement Setup Request frame 3510 to a sensing responder 3502.] “and sending, by the initiator, a response frame to the responder” [(Para. 0138), The SBP Response frame may be transmitted by a STA (e.g., by an AP-STA or a non-AP STA) to accept or reject a request for a SBP procedure, e.g., a request received via the SBP Request frame].
However, Lin does not specifically disclose wherein the request frame comprises information about a beacon frame used for passive sensing measurement; wherein the response frame comprises the information about the beacon frame.
In an analogous art, NPL1 teaches “wherein the request frame comprises information about a beacon frame used for passive sensing measurement” as [(Page 4), DMG passive sensing is enabled by… Sensing information request and response that will provide information about the beacon] “wherein the response frame comprises the information about the beacon frame” [(Page 11), Sensing information request and response that will provide information about the beacon].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings as in Lin to provide an effective technique as taught by NPL1 for define both public and protected action frames, which include sensing measurement setup request/response, sensing measurement report, sensing measurement setup termination, and SBP request/response frames [NPL1: Page 10].
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including “comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor” as [(Lin: Para. 0076), the processor 118 may access information from, and store data in, any type of suitable memory, such as the non-removable memory 130 and/or the removable memory 132.].
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9, including “comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor” as [(Lin: Para. 0076), the processor 118 may access information from, and store data in, any type of suitable memory, such as the non-removable memory 130 and/or the removable memory 132.].
Regarding claim 22, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of NPL1, and further in view of IEEE P802.11 (“Proposed Draft Text for DMG sensing procedure”; doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0; January 2022, hereinafter NPL2).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lin and NPL1, specifically NPL1 teaches “wherein the information of the beacon frame comprises: a sending direction of the beacon frame” as [(Page 4), DMG passive sensing is enabled by… Sensing information may include: azimuth and elevation for each sector id (of beacons)].
However, the combination of Lin and NPL1 do not specifically disclose a sending period.
In an analogous art, NPL2 teaches “a sending period” as [(Page 11), Passive DMG Sensing allows a STA to use beacon transmission by enabling a STA to acquire information about the transmit settings of the transmitted DMG Beacon frames and the AP location. A PCP/AP advertises the capability to perform passive sensing in the DMG Sensing Short Capabilities element. The PCP/AP shall set the Passive Sensing Support subfield to 1 if it supports DMG passive sensing. The PCP/AP shall set the Accurate Timing of Beacons to 1 if the SBIFS between beacon transmission in the BTI is exactly 1760T_C±T_C/2 where T_C is defined in Table 20-4 (Timing related parameters). The PCP/AP shall set the Location Available subfield to 1 if it can provide an LCI field in a DMG Passive Sensing Beacon Info element].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings as in Lin and NPL1 to provide an effective technique as taught by NPL2 to improve the DMG sensing procedure by allowing DMG sensing burst scheduling of the multiple link accesses to collect measurements for the Doppler frequency shift computation [NPL2: Page 2].
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Claims 3, 6-7, 11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of NPL1, further in view of NPL2, and further in view of Abouelseoud (Pub. No. 2022/0353791 A1 hereinafter Abouelseoud).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lin, NPL1 and NPL2 does not specifically disclose wherein the information of the beacon frame further comprises: starting sending direction information of the beacon frame.
In an analogous art, Abouelseoud teaches “wherein the information of the beacon frame further comprises: starting sending direction information of the beacon frame” as [(Para. 0133), Once an announcement frame is found, the new node switches to the mmW band to connect with the discovered node. The discovered nodes start transmitting beacons in the mmW band to beamform with the new node. The node can use directionality information from the sub-6 GHz band, like the direction of the LOS or the strongest reflecting ray, to only send beacons through some of the beams in the mmW band].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings as in Lin, NPL1 and NPL2 to provide an effective technique as taught by Abouelseoud for establishing and maintaining mmWave communications in a mesh topology network without inducing significant signaling overhead or network discovery delay [Abouelseoud: Para. 0012].
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lin, NPL1, NPL2 and Abouelseoud, specifically Abouelseoud teaches “wherein the beacon frame is a lightweight beacon frame that is only configured for the passive sensing measurement or a conventional beacon frame” as [(Para. 0190), Many element of the 802.11 DMG beacon can be removed or considered optional if it is not needed by the new node discovery. Once the node is connected to the mesh network it can receive all omitted information through peer beacons. This is a very light beacon and has the basic information for a node to discover the mesh node, form a connection and start receiving peer beacons.].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lin, NPL1, NPL2 and Abouelseoud, specifically Abouelseoud teaches “wherein, in a case that the beacon frame is the lightweight beacon frame, the response frame further comprises: a sending time interval for the lightweight beacon frame.” as [(Para. 0021), BTI: Beacon Transmission Interval, is the interval between successive beacon transmissions.].
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Claims 4-5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of NPL1, further in view of NPL2, and further in view of Trainin et al. (Pub. No. 2022/0312212 A1 hereinafter Trainin).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lin, NPL1 and NPL2 does not specifically disclose wherein the response frame further comprises: timestamp information configured for time synchronization.
In an analogous art, Trainin teaches “wherein the response frame further comprises: timestamp information configured for time synchronization” as [(Para. 0035), A first wireless communication device may verify the integrity of a frame received for wireless sensing purposes. For example, the first wireless communication device may verify the integrity of at least a timestamp of the received frame using a message integrity code (MIC) in the received frame.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings as in Lin, NPL1 and NPL2 to provide an effective technique as taught by Trainin for enable increased reliability and accuracy of wireless sensing by providing techniques for verifying the integrity of frames transmitted for wireless sensing measurements [Trainin: Para. 0058].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lin, NPL1, NPL2 and Trainin, specifically Trainin teaches “wherein the request frame further comprises: timestamp information configured for time synchronization” as [(Para. 0064), The frame 610 may include a timestamp 620].
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of NPL1, further in view of NPL2, and further in view of Abouelseoud (Pub. No. 2020/0077326 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lin, NPL1 and NPL2 does not specifically disclose further comprising: broadcasting, by the initiator, a conventional beacon frame, before receiving the request frame, wherein the conventional beacon frame comprises: identification information configured to identify that the beacon frame supports to be used for passive sensing measurement signaling.
In an analogous art, Abouelseoud teaches “further comprising: broadcasting, by the initiator, a conventional beacon frame, before receiving the request frame,” as [(Para. 0253), This assistance is in the form of transmitting messages to this node and waiting for its acknowledgement without the need to wait for the next beacon. A beacon is defined in 802.11 as a packet broadcast by the AP or the mesh node to announce the existence of the BSS, its capabilities and to help in synchronization and management of the transmission and reception.] “wherein the conventional beacon frame comprises: identification information configured to identify that the beacon frame supports to be used for passive sensing measurement signaling” [(Para. 0064), The identification of the mesh network is given by the Mesh ID element contained in the Beacon and the Probe Response frames.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings as in Lin, NPL1 and NPL2 to provide an effective technique as taught by Abouelseoud for provide Directional mesh networks in dense deployment environments and mmW band in an efficient way to achieve reliable communication between nodes (stations) and overcome line-of-sight channel restrictions. [Abouelseoud: Para. 0010].
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALI N PASCUAL PEGUERO whose telephone number is (571)272-4691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11AM-9PM.
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, ASAD M NAWAZ can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/NATALI PASCUAL PEGUERO/Examiner, Art Unit 2463
/ASAD M NAWAZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights