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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The submitted claims/recitations are not well supported in the submitted disclosure as filed, for instance:
the wording of the feature "a transmitter, which, in operation, transmits a sensing measurement report frame to the second communication apparatus wherein the sensing measurement report frame includes sending measurement result information according to a subcarrier grouping parameter (Ng) which is set based on bandwidth information" i) implies that the sensing measurement report frame includes arbitrary measurement result information, contrary to the description as filed, which only disclose that the sensing measurement report frame includes the CSI feedback (for subcarriers that are selected based on Ng values for different segments of a channel), ii) implies that the Ng parameter is set by an arbitrary entity (including the first apparatus) and based on bandwidth information, contrary to the description as filed, which only discloses that the initiator STA indicates different values of Ng for different segments of a channel in the sensing NDPA frame; it is furthermore noted that no parts of the application as filed discloses that the Ng (used for CSI measurements that are reported in the sensing measurement report frame) is set based on the bandwidth information, but only that the initiator STA specifies different Ng values for different segments of the channel, segments with many subcarriers of interest have small(er) value of Ng, and segments with few subcarriers of interest have large(r) value of Ng.
the recitation of “a range of the Ng is set based on whether the bandwidth information of the NDP is wider than a determined value or not” is not supported by the disclosure.
The recitation of “the circuitry selects subcarriers for the sensing measurement based on a combination of the Ng and the bandwidth information notified by the second communication apparatus”. It is noted that the description as filed does not disclose any selection of the subcarriers for sensing measurements based on the Ng, but only selection of subcarriers for which the CSI feedback is reported (i.e. included in the sensing measurement report frame).
The recitation of “the circuitry selects an empty segment in a frequency domain wherein the sensing measurement report frame does not contain a result of the sensing measurement corresponding to the selected empty segment”. It is noted that the description as filed generally does not disclose any selection of an empty segment in a frequency domain.
The recitation of “the circuitry selects the empty segment based on puncturing information notified by the second communication apparatus”. It is noted that the description as filed generally does not disclose any "puncturing information".
The recitation of “the puncturing information is indicated by a bitmap field”. It is noted that the description as filed generally does not disclose any "puncturing information".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 18-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katla et al (Sensing-Specific feedback using NDPA and trigger frames) in view of Sutskover et al (US 2017/0118764). Hereinafter referred to as Katla and Sutskover.
Regarding claims 18 and 24, Katla discloses a first communication apparatus, comprising: a receiver, which, in operation, receives a Null Data Physical Protocol Data Unit (NDP) Announcement frame and a NDP from a second communication apparatus (see figure 5); circuitry, which, in operation, perform sensing measurement (see at least figure 5); and a transmitter, which, in operation, transmits a sensing measurement report frame to the second communication apparatus wherein the sensing measurement report frame includes sensing measurement result information according to a subcarrier grouping parameter (Ng) (see at least slides 5 and 9).
Katla discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception which is set based on bandwidth information. However, Sutskover, from the same field of endeavor, teaches subcarrier grouping parameter is set based on bandwidth information (see at least paragraph [0043]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Sutskover, as indicated, into the communication method of Katla for the purpose of accommodating legacy protocols and new protocols.
Regarding claims 19 and 25, Katla in view of Sutskover discloses a first communication apparatus wherein a range of the Ng is set based on whether the bandwidth information of the NDP is wider than a determined value or not (see at least paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claims 20 and 26. Katla in view of Sutskover discloses a first communication apparatus wherein the circuitry selects subcarriers for the sensing measurement based on a combination of the Ng and the bandwidth information notified by the second communication apparatus (see at least slide 9).
Regarding claims 21. Katla in view of Sutskover discloses a first communication apparatus wherein the circuitry selects an empty segment in a frequency domain wherein the sensing measurement report frame does not contain a result of the sensing measurement corresponding to the selected empty segment (see at least slide 9).
Regarding claims 22. Katla in view of Sutskover discloses a first communication apparatus wherein the circuitry selects the empty segment based on puncturing information notified by the second communication apparatus (see at least slide 9).
Regarding claims 23. Katla in view of Sutskover discloses a first communication apparatus according to claim 22, wherein the puncturing information is indicated by a bitmap field (see at least slide 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM EST.
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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights