Detailed Action
The office action is in response to the communications filed on 09/19/2024.
Notice of 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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zorgui et al. (Publication No. US 2022/0400445), the prior art disclose receiving, from a base station at least in part in response to the first sensing signal, a power control message for sensing signals of the RF sensing procedure, and transmitting, at a second transmit power based on the received power control message, a second sensing signal of the RF sensing procedure; see ¶ 3.
Ma et al. (Publication No. WO 2022/036541), the prior art disclose a base station (BS) [first device] receive, from the user equipment, a report of interference measurement taken during the sensing occasions; see figure 11 step 1102. Determine, based on the report, to allow the UE to perform RF sensing, wherein the determination comprises in determining whether interference was detected during the measurement; see figure 11 step 1104, figure 12 step 1200, & ¶ 110. NOTE: figure 12 shows the process of step 1104 of figure 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP §2111.04(II) recites:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.
The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
Claim 6 is a process claim that includes at least one contingent limitation.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim comprises a first limitation that recite “wherein in the case that the first device transmits the DMG measurement setup request frame and the coordinated monostatic/bistatic instance request frame to the second device, …”. The limitation is considered a contingent limitation based in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). When analyzing the limitation, it discloses a step that only occurs after the condition (i.e. “wherein in the case”), but it fails to explicitly disclose a step when the condition does not occur. Therefore, the contingent limitation is not included in the BRI of the claim based on the interpretation that the condition does not occur. Any prior art rejection below might address the identified limitation in prior art rejections, but the limitation cannot be relied upon to overcome prior art rejections because they are not required in the BRI of the claims.
Regarding Claims 7-8, the claims inherited the deficiencies of the parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are interpreted based on the same rationale as applied to the parent claim above.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 2 and 10, the claim recites:
(first limitation) “assigning a transmit beam/sector/channel that causes no interference to the other devices to each of a plurality of second devices; and/or”;
(second limitation) “assigning a receive beam/sector/channel that suffers no interference from the other devices to each of the plurality of second devices”. Based on the context of the claim, it is contradictory that the parent claim disclose a single second device while this claim discloses a plurality of second devices. In addition, it is confusing whether the transmission avoids interfering with the other devices or the plurality of second devices. As a result, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding Claims 3 and 11, the claim recites:
(first limitation) “assigning a transmit beam/sector/channel that causes no interference to the first device and/or the other devices to each of one or more second devices; and/or”;
(second limitation) “assigning a receive beam/sector/channel that suffers no interference from the first device and/or the other devices to each of the one or more second devices”. Based on the context of the claim, it is contradictory that the parent claim disclose a single second device while this claim discloses a plurality of second devices. In addition, it is confusing whether the transmission avoids interfering with the other devices or the plurality of second devices. As a result, the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Duan et al. (Publication No. US 20240426972, hereinafter referred as “Duan”).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 20, Duan discloses a communication method, applicable to a first device, the method comprising:
assigning a beam/sector/channel that causes no interference to other devices to a second device (A network entity (e.g., the coordination unit) [first device] determines assistance for the sensing apparatus [second device] based one or more of the factor(s) indicated by one or more of the RF sensing signal requests and/or one or more of the capabilities indicated by one or more of the capability messages, wherein the network entity take into consideration SNR/interference of other signals when determining the configuration; see figure 8 step 820 & ¶¶ 86-87.), and
scheduling the second device to transmit sensing information on the beam/sector/channel, wherein transmission of the sensing information causes no interference to the other devices (The assistance data comprises one or more sensing signal configurations [scheduling] and/or reference signal information, wherein the network entity take into consideration SNR/interference of other signals when determining the configuration; see figure 8 step 820 & ¶¶ 86-87.).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Duan discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein assigning a transmit beam/sector/channel that causes no interference to the other devices to each of a plurality of second devices; and/or
assigning a receive beam/sector/channel that suffers no interference from the other devices to each of the plurality of second devices (The coordination unit of the network entity using signal measurements to coordinate the radio frequency (RF) sensing operation; see ¶ 98. In specific, the coordination unit may adjust the frequency of the RF sensing signal; see ¶ 98).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Duan discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein assigning a transmit beam/sector/channel that causes no interference to the first device and/or the other devices to each of one or more second devices; and/or
assigning a receive beam/sector/channel that suffers no interference from the first device and/or the other devices to each of the one or more second devices (the coordination unit of the network entity using signal measurements to coordinate the radio frequency (RF) sensing operation; see ¶ 98. In specific, the coordination unit may adjust the frequency of the RF sensing signal; see ¶ 98.).
Regarding claims 6-8, the claims are not considered as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation because it includes contingent limitations; see claim interpretation. As result, the claim is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Duan discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein transmitting a directed multi-gigabit (DMG) measurement setup request frame to the second device, wherein the DMG measurement setup request frame indicates the beam/sector/channel that causes no interference to the other devices; and/or
transmitting a coordinated monostatic/bistatic instance request frame to the second device, wherein the coordinated monostatic/bistatic instance request frame indicates the beam/sector/channel that causes no interference to the other devices (The first apparatus transmitting one or more requested signal characteristics, for mono-static radio frequency sensing, and based on the request determining the first configuration of the one or more requested signal characteristics while helping to avoid interference; see ¶ 103).
Regarding claim 15, Duan discloses a processor (It is inherent that the device includes a processor in order to transmit the sensing information.); and
a memory storing one or more computer programs (It is inherent that the device includes a memory storing one or more computer programs in order to transmit the sensing information.);
which, when executed by the processor, cause the communication device to:
transmit sensing information on a beam/sector/channel assigned by a first device, wherein the beam/sector/channel causes no interference to other devices, and transmission of the sensing information causes no interference to other devices (The sensing apparatus transmit the reference signals based on the configuration received from the network entity, wherein the network entity take into consideration SNR/interference of other signals when determining the configuration; see figure 8 steps 833-834 & ¶¶ 86-87.).
Regarding claim 16, Duan discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein receive a DMG measurement setup request frame from the first device, wherein the DMG measurement setup request frame indicates the beam/sector/channel that causes no interference to the other devices; and/or
receive a coordinated monostatic/bistatic instance request frame from the first device, wherein the coordinated monostatic/bistatic instance request frame indicates the beam/sector/channel causes no interference to the other devices (The first apparatus transmitting one or more requested signal characteristics, for mono-static radio frequency sensing, and based on the request determining the first configuration of the one or more requested signal characteristics while helping to avoid interference; see ¶ 103.).
Regarding claim 18, the parent claim has been presented in the alternative form because the language “and/or”. Therefore, it enables the selection of a single limitation as the basis of the rejection such as “receive a coordinated monostatic/bistatic instance request frame”. As a result, this claim has not been considered as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under AIA 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.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (Publication No. US 20240426972, hereinafter referred as “Duan”) in view of Eitan et al. (Publication No. US 2020/0371220, hereinafter referred as “Eitan”).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Duan discloses, the method of claim 1, scheduling the sensing operations, but fails to explicitly disclose scheduling the second device and the other devices to transmit the sensing information simultaneously; or
scheduling the second device and the other devices to transmit the sensing information sequentially; wherein the second device transmits the sensing information on the beam/sector/channel that causes no interference to the other devices. However, in analogous art, Eitan discloses techniques to coordinate devices involved in multi-static WiFi sensing, wherein the multi-static WiFi sensing refers to the case when at least two devices are simultaneously involved (such as one or more transmitting and one or more receiving); see ¶ 98. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Duan with the simultaneous mechanism of Eitan in order to help enhance sensing based on WiFi signals; see ¶ 42.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (Publication No. US 20240426972, hereinafter referred as “Duan”) in view of Li et al. (Publication No. US 2016/0316375, hereinafter referred as “Li”).
Regarding claim 16, Duan discloses, the method of claim 1, scheduling the sensing operations, but fails to explicitly disclose receiving a DMG measurement setup request frame from the first device, wherein the DMG measurement setup request frame indicates the beam/sector/channel that causes no interference to the other devices; and/or
receive a coordinated monostatic/bistatic instance request frame from the first device, wherein the coordinated monostatic/bistatic instance request frame indicates the beam/sector/channel causes no interference to the other devices. However, in analogous art, Li discloses that the network controller [first device] send the directional channel quality measurement request elements to the first pair of stations and the second pair of stations respectively; see ¶ 195. The directional channel quality measurement request enable establishing the guard periods and data communication (e.g. DMG) within the guard periods so it do not cause interference to an SP of another pair of stations; see ¶ 196. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Duan with the request of Li in order to avoid interference during the measurement.
Regarding claim 19, the parent claim has been presented in the alternative form because the language “and/or”. Therefore, it enables the selection of a single limitation as the basis of the rejection such as “receive a DMG measurement setup request frame from the first device”. As a result, this claim has not been considered as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hector Reyes (Hector.Reyes@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 270-0239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5.
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, Kevin Bates (Kevin.Bates@uspto.gov) can be reached on (571) 270-0239. 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.
/H.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
