DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Claims 24-25 and 33-34 are 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.
For Claims 24 and 33, it is not clear that the claims further limit the independent claims.
For Claims 25 and 34, “a sensing space” may have antecedent basis in the claim.
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) 19-21, 23-25, 27-30, 32-34, and 36, as understood in light of any rejections under 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 2023/0221428) in view of Berglund et al. (US 2019/0364591), Du et al. (“Definitions and scenarios of the WLAN sensing”, provided in IDS), and Amini et al. (US 2019/0259270).
For Claims 19 and 28, Jang teaches a method for Wi-Fi sensing carried out by a sensing transmitter acting on behalf of a sensing initiator, the sensing transmitter including a transmitting antenna, a receiving antenna, and at least one processor configured to execute instructions, and a system for Wi-Fi sensing comprising a sensing transmitter acting on behalf of a sensing initiator (see Figure 9, paragraphs 72-75: transceiver and antenna, processor); the method comprising:
transmitting, via the transmitting antenna, a sensing transmission to a sensing receiver, wherein the sensing receiver is distinct from the sensing initiator (see paragraphs 126, 151-156);
receiving, via the receiving antenna and subsequent to transmitting the sensing transmission, a first sensing measurement report from the sensing receiver (see paragraphs 4, 156, abstract); and
wherein the first sensing measurement report comprises channel representation information obtained by the sensing receiver based on the sensing transmission (see paragraph 156).
Jang as applied above is not explicit as to, but Berglund teaches the first sensing measurement report is transmitted by the sensing receiver responsive to the sensing receiver identifying that a difference between the channel representation information and a sensing imprint exceeds the threshold (see paragraphs 43, 113, 127: provided when necessary), wherein the sensing imprint is representative of a previously obtained channel representation information at the sensing receiver (see paragraphs 43, 113, 127).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use a threshold comparison to determine whether to transmit a report as in Berglund when implementing the system of Jang. The motivation would be to save bandwidth by not transmitting a channel representation value that does not vary from a previously reported value.
The references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Du teaches transmitting, via the transmitting antenna of the sensing transmitter, a second sensing measurement report to the sensing initiator (see slides 12: middle figure, and 15: right figure); and
the second sensing measurement report comprises the first sensing measurement report (see slides 12 and 15).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to feed back the report as in Du when implementing the method of Jang. The motivation would be to ensure the report is directed through where necessary processing will be enacted.
The references as applied above are not explicit as to, but in a similar field of endeavor Amini teaches receiving, via the receiving antenna and from the sensing initiator, a threshold associated with motion in a sensing space (see paragraphs 34, 53, 55, 58).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide a threshold as in Amini when implementing the system of Jang and Berglund. The motivation would be to allow for sensitivity to be adjusted as needed.
For Claims 20 and 29, Jang further teaches the method, wherein the sensing imprint represents a propagation channel between the sensing transmitter and the sensing receiver (see paragraphs 62, 82).
For Claims 21 and 30, Jang further teaches the method, wherein the channel representation information includes one or more of Channel State Information (CSI), full time domain channel representation information (TD-CRI), and filtered TD-CRI (see paragraphs 58, 60, 117).
For Claims 23 and 32, Jang further teaches the method, wherein the sensing transmission includes a sensing transmission null data PPDU (NDP) (see paragraphs 4, 122).
For Claims 24 and 33, Jang further teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the first sensing measurement includes the channel representation information (see paragraphs 58, 60, 117).
Jang is not explicit as to, but Berglund teaches that the sensing measurement report includes the channel representation information (see paragraphs 43, 127).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include the collected channel information as in Berglund when implementing the method of Jang. The motivation would be to provide complete information to the sensing initiator.
For Claims 25 and 34, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Amini teaches the method, wherein the previously obtained channel representation information is associated with a lack of motion in a sensing space (see abstract).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide a threshold as in Amini when implementing the system of Jang and Berglund. The motivation would be to allow for sensitivity appropriate for the environment.
For Claims 27 and 36, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Amini teaches the method, further comprising transmitting, via the transmitting antenna, the threshold to the sensing receiver (see paragraphs 34, 53, 55, 58).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide a threshold as in Amini when implementing the system of Jang and Berglund. The motivation would be to allow for sensitivity to be adjusted as needed.
Claim(s) 26 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 2023/0221428), Berglund et al. (US 2019/0364591), Du et al. (“Definitions and scenarios of the WLAN sensing”, provided in IDS), and Amini et al. (US 2019/0259270) as applied to claims 19 and 28 above, and further in view of Lomayev et al. (US 2021/0044407).
For Claims 26 and 35, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Lomayev teaches the method, wherein the sensing receiver updates the sensing imprint responsive to a change in a semi-static nature of one or more propagation channels between the sensing receiver and the sensing transmitter (see abstract, paragraphs 124, 144-145: calibration).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to update the semi-static values as in Lomayev when determining a basis for comparison as in Jang and Berglund. The motivation would be to ensure that the sensing imprint reflects the actual state of the network.
Claim(s) 22 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 2023/0221428), Berglund et al. (US 2019/0364591), Du et al. (“Definitions and scenarios of the WLAN sensing”, provided in IDS), and Amini et al. (US 2019/0259270) as applied to claims 19 and 28 above, and further in view of Aboul-Magd et al. (US 2022/0322116).
For Claims 22 and 31, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Aboul-Magd teaches the method, wherein the threshold includes one or more of an amplitude threshold or a phase threshold, or a combination of both an amplitude threshold and a phase threshold (see paragraphs 59, 52-53: threshold, measurement types).
Thus it would have been obvious to use a threshold as in Aboul-Magd when implementing the system of Jang and Berglund. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of providing necessary and complete information to the sensing initiator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Elias et al. (US 2021/0356575) teaches a system for evaluating occupancy. Steiner (US 2016/0366606) teaches a system in which a threshold is provided in a fine timing measurement request.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSANDRA L DECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3946. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/CASSANDRA L DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2466 8/4/2026
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights