DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment of November 6, 2024.
The drawings of September 27, 2024 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
Prior Art Rejections
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 1-2 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al (CN 112218328 A), hereinafter Liu et al (‘328).
Looking, first, to independent claim 1, line 1 of the claim presents the claim as being directed to “A measurement method.” The beginning of the first claim in Liu et al (‘328) starts of “A method of perceptual measurement.”
The first claim 1 method step of “generating, by a first device, a sensing measurement setup request frame … first ranging indication information used to request a second device to perform a ranging measurement in a sensing measurement process” is met in Liu et al (‘328) by the generating of the request frame that is sent to the responding site, noting, for example, the fifth paragraph under the heading, “Disclosure of Invention” (“In yet another implementation, the further comprises the initiating site sends a request frame to the responding site …”). The request frame contains a ranging parameter element field and a ranging parameters field. Also, please note Figure 9 and the illustrations immediately above paragraph [0085] on page 13 of Liu et al (‘328). The responding site in Liu et al (‘328) is the “second device” of claim 1.
The second claim 1 method step of “sending, by the first device, the sensing measurement setup request frame to the second device” is met in Liu et al (‘328) by the first sentence of the fifth paragraph under the heading, “Disclosure of Invention,” noting, for example, “the initiating site sends a request frame to the responding site.”
Since each and every claimed feature recited in independent claim 1 as newly-amended is plainly disclosed in Liu et al (‘328), independent claim 1 as newly-amended is anticipated by Liu et al (‘328).
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 2, the claimed “sensing measurement parameters element” is met, at least, by the “ranging parameter element field” Liu et al (‘328) that has been noted above in the rejection of independent claim 1 (second paragraph of that rejection). So, the further limitations of dependent claim 2 are anticipated by Liu et al (‘328).
The remarks with respect to independent claim 3 as newly-amended are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 1 in that claim 3 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method of claim 1. In addition, the claim 3 claimed feature of “at least one processor” (line 2) is met by “a processor” in the first sentence of paragraph [0022] of Liu et al (‘328). The claim 3 claimed feature of “a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor to generate a sensing measurement setup request frame … in a sensing measurement process” (lines 3-10) is met in Liu et al (‘328) by the “memory” storing “a set of program codes” to perform the listed operations as mentioned in paragraph [0022]. The claim 3, “communication apparatus” (line 1) is met in Liu et al (‘328), at least, by the “transceiver” mentioned in the first sentence of paragraph [0022] of Liu et al (‘328). In that each and every recited claim feature in independent claim 3 is plainly disclosed in Liu et al (‘328), claim 3 is anticipated by Liu et al (‘328).
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 4 as newly-amended are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 2 in that claim 4 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method of claim 2. The further limitations of dependent claim 4 are anticipated by Liu et al (‘328).
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.
Claims 5, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (‘328).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of electronic measurement systems.
Regarding dependent claim 5, as indicated above in the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1), the request frame in Liu et al (‘328) contains a ranging parameter element field and a ranging parameters field, thus meeting the claim 5 limitations recited on lines 2-3 of the claim (i.e., “the sensing measurement setup frame further comprises a ranging measurement parameter”). However, the further limitations of “and the ranging measurement parameter is in at least one of: a ranging measurement parameters element newly added to the sensing measurement setup request frame; or a ranging measurement parameters subfield newly added to a sensing measurement parameters element of the sensing measurement setup request frame” (lines 4-9), in that the initiating node and/or the responding node could be in relative motion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a newly added “ranging measurement parameters element” or a newly-added “ranging measurement parameters subfield” could be added to the “setup request frame” as subsequent setup requests are made during the relative motion in order to optimize the practice of the claimed method, with a reasonable likelihood of success. So, the further limitations of dependent claim 5 are obvious over Liu et al (‘328) as applied above..
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 14 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 5 in that claim 14 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method of claim 5. So, the further limitations of dependent claim 14 are obvious over Liu et al (‘328) as applied above.
Next, as for independent claim 12 as newly-amended, the remarks are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 3. The claim 12 “sensing measurement setup response frame …” as claimed on lines 7-8 of the claim is met in Liu et al (‘328) by the “response frame” sent by the “responding station” as disclosed in Liu et al (‘328), noting, for example, paragraph [0014] (i.e., the paragraph starting, “In one implementation, the method further comprises: the response site receives a request frame …”). However, Liu et al (‘328) does not disclose “the sensing measurement setup response frame comprises second ranging indication information used to request a first device a first device to perform ranging measurement in a sensing measurement process” (lines 9-11). In Liu et al (‘328), there is a teaching of having the “response site” send a “trigger frame” to the “initiating site” in order to have the “initiating site” perform a measurement, noting, paragraphs [0015] and [0019]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention from the Liu et al (‘328) teaching that the “trigger frame” could be included as part of the “sensing measurement setup response frame” for the advantage of eliminating a separate “trigger frame,” reducing the amount of transmitted frames. That is to say, instead of sending a “sensing measurement setup response frame” and a “trigger frame,” a combined frame would be sent including the “trigger frame” content in the “sensing measurement setup response frame.”
The final claim 12 limitation “send the sensing measurement response frame to the first device” (line 12) is met by Liu et al (‘328) as modified above in that Liu et al (‘328) discloses that “the responding station sends a response frame to the initiating station,” noting, for example, paragraph [0014]. So, independent claim 12 is obvious over Liu et al (‘328) as modified above in this rejection of claim 12.
The further limitations of dependent claim 13 are met by Liu et al (‘328) as applied above to independent claim 12.
Potentially-Allowably Subject Matter
Claims 6-11 and 15-20 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.
The text of 37 CFR 1.75(c) is as follows:
“(c) One or more claims may be presented in dependent form, referring back to and further limiting another claim or claims in the same application. Any dependent claim which refers to more than one other claim ("multiple dependent claim") shall refer to such other claims in the alternative only. A multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. For fee calculation purposes under § 1.16, a multiple dependent claim will be considered to be that number of claims to which direct reference is made therein. For fee calculation purposes also, any claim depending from a multiple dependent claim will be considered to be that number of claims to which direct reference is made in that multiple dependent claim. In addition to the other filing fees, any original application which is filed with, or is amended to include, multiple dependent claims must have paid therein the fee set forth in § 1.16(j). Claims in dependent form shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim. A multiple dependent claim shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of each of the particular claims in relation to which it is being considered.” (Bold added).
Regarding dependent claim 6, none of the prior art of record discloses the claimed subject matter in dependent claim 6. So, independent claim 3 combined with dependent claim 3 would be allowable over the prior art of record. 37 CFR 1.75(c). Similarly, dependent claims 7-11 are potentially-allowable in that each of them depends from potentially-allowable dependent claim 6.
Regarding dependent claim 15, none of the prior art of record discloses the claimed subject matter in dependent claim 15. So, independent claim 12 combined with dependent claim 15 would be allowable over the prior art of record. 37 CFR 1.75(c). Similarly, dependent claims 16-20 are potentially-allowable in that each of them depends from potentially-allowable dependent claim 15.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The article, “802.11 Frame Types and Formats” is made of record merely to put general information of the record about frame formats. It in no way discloses any claimed subject matter in this application.
Lim et al (WO 2022/124869 A1) is of interest for disclosing the subject matter of independent claim 1 except that it does not disclose claimed features related to the “sensing measurement setup request frame,” although a “request” is transmitted. Likewise, Lim et al (WO 2022/124869 A1) does not disclose claimed features related to the “sensing measurement setup request frame” as recited in independent claims 3 and 12.
Lim et al (‘135) is cited as being an English-language equivalent of Lim et al (WO 2022/124869 A1).
Luo et al (‘380) is of interest for disclosing the subject matter of independent claim 1 except that it does not disclose claimed features related to the “sensing measurement setup request frame,” although a “request” is transmitted. Likewise, Luo et al (‘380) does not disclose claimed features related to the “sensing measurement setup request frame” as recited in independent claims 3 and 12.
Neither Lim et al (WO 2022/124869 A1) nor Lim et al (‘135) nor Luo et al (‘380) could be combined to supply the lacked claimed features as noted above in this section of the office action in that none of these references discloses these lacked claimed features. Lacking these lacked claimed features, there would be no motivation to combine these references in any possible combination.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights