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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1 - 3, 7 - 8, 14, 17 - 19, 23 - 24, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sadeghi et al. (US 20200305231 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sadeghi discloses a method for Wi-Fi sensing carried out by a networking device configured to operate as a sensing initiator (Abstract discloses “an access point (AP) configured for wireless local area network (WLAN) sensing is configured to encode a trigger frame (TF) for transmission”; [0010]; [0017]; wherein the networking device is the AP) and including at least one processor configured to execute instructions (Fig. 4, element 406; [0029]), the method comprising:
transmitting, via a transmitting antenna of the networking device, a multiway sensing trigger message (Fig. 4, antennas 401; [0030] discloses “…a transceiver 410 for transmitting and receiving signals to and from other communication stations using one or more antennas 401..”; [0010] discloses “…an access point (AP) configured for wireless local area network (WLAN) sensing is configured to encode a trigger frame (TF) for transmission … . The trigger frame allocates resource units (RUs) for receiving high-efficiency (HE) trigger-based (TB) physical-layer protocol data units (PPDUs) (HE TB PPDUs) from a plurality of client devices (non-AP STAs).”; multiway is inherent since the trigger frame is sent to a plurality of client devices; [0017]);
receiving simultaneously, via a receiving antenna of the networking device (Fig. 4, antennas 401; [0030]), a plurality of sensing transmissions from a plurality of sensing responders responsive to the multiway sensing trigger message ([0018]; [0017]; [0010] discloses “…The trigger frame allocates resource units (RUs) for receiving high-efficiency (HE) trigger-based (TB) physical-layer protocol data units (PPDUs) (HE TB PPDUs) from a plurality of client devices (non-AP STAs). The trigger frame may solicit each of the client devices to transmit an HE TB PPDU in accordance with an UL OFDMA technique or an UL MU-MIMO technique. The AP may decode the HE TB PPDUs received from the client devices, and may estimate channel state information (CSI) for a radio link associated with each of the client devices based on an HE-long-training field (LTF) (HE-LTF) of an associated one of the HE-TB PPDUs received from one of the client devices…”; wherein the sensing responders are the client devices);
performing, by the at least one processor, a sensing measurement on at least one of the plurality of sensing transmissions ([0010] discloses “..The AP may decode the HE TB PPDUs received from the client devices, and may estimate channel state information (CSI) for a radio link associated with each of the client devices…”; [0009] discloses “WLAN sensing relies on observing the Channel State Information (CSI) obtained with multiple WLAN packets over time and detecting changes that indicate an event of interest, such as motion in a room or a person approaching a device.”; [0025] also discloses detecting motion).
Regarding claim 2, Sadeghi discloses the multiway sensing trigger message includes an indication of bandwidth allocation for use by the respective plurality of sensing responders ([0023] discloses “…partial and full bandwidth UL MU-MIMO .. Specifically, the Trigger frame indicates whether the UL MU transmission following it uses …. The appropriate MU-MIMO LTF mode indicated by the Trigger frame is used for full bandwidth UL MU-MIMO transmission…”).
Regarding claim 3, Sadeghi discloses a first bandwidth allocation of a first sensing responder from the plurality of sensing responders is greater than a second bandwidth allocation of a second sensing responder from the plurality of sensing responders ([0040] discloses “full bandwidth” and “partial bandwidth “ modes; wherein full bandwidth will be greater than partial bandwidth).
Regarding claim 7, Sadeghi discloses the multiway sensing trigger message includes requested sensing configuration parameters ([0038] discloses “…the trigger frame may be encoded to allocate each client device a different subchannel within a resource unit (i.e., channel), each subchannel of the resource unit comprising a plurality of subcarrier. For the UL OFDMA technique, each client device may set values of an HE-LTF sequence to zero for unassigned subcarriers within the resource unit and may set values for assigned subcarriers …. (i.e., the allocated or assigned subchannel) ….”; wherein the sensing configuration parameters would be the allocated or assigned subchannels).
Regarding claim 8, Sadeghi discloses the sensing configuration parameters include a plurality of specific sensing configuration parameter sets, each associated with a respective one of the plurality of sensing responders ([0038] discloses “…the trigger frame may be encoded to allocate each client device a different subchannel within a resource unit (i.e., channel), each subchannel of the resource unit comprising a plurality of subcarrier. For the UL OFDMA technique, each client device may set values of an HE-LTF sequence to zero for unassigned subcarriers within the resource unit and may set values for assigned subcarriers …. (i.e., the allocated or assigned subchannel) ….”; wherein, as stated above, the trigger frame is encoded so that each client device gets its configuration parameters [subchannels]).
Regarding claim 14, Sadeghi discloses receiving simultaneously the plurality of sensing transmissions includes receiving the plurality of sensing transmissions within a time interval of defined length ([0013] discloses “Process is repeated with a given periodicity”; [0014] also discloses “..periodicity”; [0018] discloses “In UL OFDMA embodiments, devices transmit at the same time on different subchannels within the same channel (RUs). UL MU transmission allows an AP to simultaneously receive information from more than one non-AP STA.“; [0027] discloses “… the magnitude of the change in CSI for each device can be used to quantify how much the amplitude of the CSI estimated with approximately 20 packets changed in the time interval when they were received …”; wherein since received simultaneously, the time interval is inherently defined as being limited by the periodicity or less).
Claim 17 is similarly analyzed as claim 1, with claim 17 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations.
Claim 18 is similarly analyzed as claim 2.
Claim 19 is similarly analyzed as claim 3.
Claim 23 is similarly analyzed as claim 7.
Claim 24 is similarly analyzed as claim 8.
Claim 30 is similarly analyzed as claim 14.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 4 - 6, 11, 20 - 22, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadeghi et al. (US 20200305231 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Sadeghi doesn’t explicitly disclose the first bandwidth allocation is allotted for detection mode sensing transmissions and the second bandwidth allocation is allotted for scanning mode sensing transmissions.
As per Applicant’s specification ([0070] – [0071]):
A term "scanning mode" may refer to an operational mode having a purpose to identify motion or movement. The resolution in scanning mode is low …
A term "detection mode" may refer to an operational mode having a purpose to detect motion or movement (for example, of an object that was previously identified) at a high resolution ….
As is well, known in the art, low resolution doesn’t need a high bandwidth and high resolution needs a higher bandwidth for transmission. Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art can assign the first bandwidth (i.e. full bandwidth; detection mode) for high resolution and assign the second bandwidth (partial bandwidth; scanning mode) for low resolution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to allocate bandwidth as above, as this would optimize the use of bandwidth for low- and high-resolution motion detection.
Claim 5 is similarly analyzed as in claim 4. Bandwidth for responders with high resolution (detection mode) is larger than bandwidth for responders with low resolution (scanning mode).
Claim 6 is similarly analyzed as in claim 4. Bandwidth sizes would be full-bandwidth and partial-bandwidth.
Regarding claim 11, Sadeghi does not explicitly disclose the multiway sensing trigger message is a Sensing Polling Trigger Frame.
However, Sadeghi’s trigger frame could be interpreted as a Sensing Polling Trigger Frame since it does the above functions (e.g. sensing: Abstract, 1st sentence; polling: [0010] discloses “The trigger frame may solicit each of the client devices to transmit an HE TB PPDU in accordance with an UL OFDMA technique or an UL MU-MIMO technique….”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to interpret the trigger frame as a Sensing Polling Trigger Frame as it does the above functions.
Claim 20 is similarly analyzed as claim 4.
Claim 21 is similarly analyzed as claim 5.
Claim 22 is similarly analyzed as claim 6.
Claim 27 is similarly analyzed as claim 11.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to Wi-Fi sensing:
Suh et al. (US 20220399923 A1) discloses methods and systems for wi-fi sensing announcement.
Aboul-Magd et al. (US 20220304051 A1) discloses method and system for Wi-Fi sensing.
da Silva et al. (US 20200400778 A1) discloses receiver diversity for Wi-Fi sensing.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights