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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/14/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 9, 13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 15 of copending Application No. 18920052 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as set forth in the tables and description below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
While the instant application covers additional elements compared to the reference application, the reference application substantially covers the contents of the instant application. The difference between the instant claims and the reference claims is that while the reference application discloses a ‘sensing result’ and ‘frame set’ the instant application discloses a ‘sensing measurement’ and ‘frame’.
While a result v. measurement and frame v. frame set are not identical, given the generality and similarity to which a ‘sensing result’ and ‘sensing measurement’, and similarly ‘frame’ and ‘frame set’ are claimed, the instant and reference claims are substantially similar to each other.
Instant Application
reference application
1. A sensing measurement method, applicable to a sensing-by-proxy initiator, the method comprising:
transmitting a sensing-by-proxy request frame to a sensing-by-proxy responder, wherein the sensing-by-proxy request frame is for requesting the sensing-by-proxy responder to perform sensing measurement on behalf of the sensing-by-proxy initiator; and
receiving a sensing-by-proxy response frame from the sensing-by-proxy responder.
1. A method for reporting a sensing result, applicable to a sensing-by-proxy initiator, the method comprising:
receiving a sensing-by-proxy report frame or a sensing-by-proxy report frame set from a sensing-by-proxy responder,
wherein the sensing-by-proxy report frame or the sensing-by-proxy report frame set carries the sensing result.
9. A wireless local area network (WLAN) device, comprising: a processor and a memory storing one or more computer programs, which when executed by the processor, cause the WLAN device to: transmit a sensing-by-proxy request frame to a sensing-by-proxy responder, wherein the sensing-by-proxy request frame is for requesting the sensing-by-proxy responder to perform sensing measurement on behalf of the WLAN device; and receive a sensing-by-proxy response frame from the sensing-by-proxy responder.
8. A sensing-by-proxy initiator, comprising:
a processor and a memory storing at least one program, which when executed by the processor, causes the sensing-by-proxy initiator to:
receive a sensing-by-proxy report frame or a sensing-by-proxy report frame set from a sensing-by-proxy responder, wherein the sensing-by-proxy report frame or the sensing-by-proxy report frame set carries a sensing result.
13. A wireless local area network (WLAN) device, comprising: a processor and a memory storing one or more computer programs, which when executed by the processor, cause the WLAN device to: receive a sensing-by-proxy request frame from a sensing-by-proxy initiator, wherein the sensing-by-proxy request frame is for requesting a sensing-by-proxy responder to perform sensing measurement on behalf of the sensing-by-proxy initiator; and transmit a sensing-by-proxy response frame to the sensing-by-proxy initiator.
15. A sensing-by-proxy responder, comprising:
a processor and a memory storing at least one program, which when executed by the processor, causes the sensing-by-proxy responder to:
transmit a sensing-by-proxy report frame or a sensing-by-proxy report frame set to a sensing-by-proxy initiator, wherein the sensing-by-proxy report frame or the sensing-by-proxy report frame set carries a sensing result.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dong (US 20250175837).
Regarding claim 1, Dong teaches A sensing measurement method, applicable to a sensing-by-proxy initiator, the method comprising (title “SENSING BY PROXY COMMUNICATION METHOD AND COMMUNICATION DEVICE”):
transmitting a sensing-by-proxy request frame to a sensing-by-proxy responder (Abstract “sending, by the AP, a first message frame to the SBP requesting station, wherein the first message frame carries a sensing measurement setup identifier.”), wherein the sensing-by-proxy request frame is for requesting the sensing-by-proxy responder to perform sensing measurement on behalf of the sensing-by-proxy initiator (Abstract “A communication method for sensing by proxy (SBP), includes: receiving, by an access point (AP), a first SBP request frame from an SBP requesting station, wherein the first SBP request frame comprises a requirement for requesting the AP to initiate a first sensing measurement as a proxy AP; and sending, by the AP, a first message frame to the SBP requesting station, wherein the first message frame carries a sensing measurement setup identifier.”); and
receiving a sensing-by-proxy response frame from the sensing-by-proxy responder (0005 “receiving, by the SBP requesting station, a first message frame from the AP, where the first message frame carries a sensing measurement setup identifier.”).
Regarding claim 2, Dong teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the sensing-by-proxy request frame carries information indicating at least one of:
whether to require the sensing-by-proxy responder to obtain a sensing measurement report of the sensing measurement;
an accuracy requirement of a sensing measurement result (0043 “the requirement of sensing measurement may include accuracy of sensing measurement (e.g., how many responders need to participate in the sensing measurement to achieve the accuracy),”);
a role of the sensing-by-proxy initiator in the sensing measurement;
whether to require sensing signal transmitters and sensing signal receivers in different sensing measurement instances to be consistent;
whether to require to use a protected management frame in the sensing measurement;
a type of a sensing measurement report;
a measurement periodicity of the sensing measurement;
a periodicity of reporting a sensing measurement report by the sensing-by-proxy responder;
a measurement duration of the sensing measurement;
information of a number of sensing participants participating in the sensing measurement;
device information of sensing participants specified to participate in the sensing measurement;
an indication of roles of at least one sensing participant participating in the sensing measurement in the sensing measurement; or
time information of a sensing-by-proxy requester for performing a service related to the sensing measurement ([Examiner notes only one of the members in this list is required to be taught]).
Regarding claim 3, Dong teaches The method according to claim 2, wherein the role of the sensing-by-proxy initiator in the sensing measurement comprises any one of:
a sensing signal transmitter;
a sensing signal receiver;
a sensing signal transmitter and a sensing signal receiver;
an unspecified role; or
not participating in the sensing measurement (0038 “the SBP requesting STA may not act as a responder, That is, it does not participate in the WLAN sensing measurement.”).
Regarding claim 4, Dong teaches The method according to claim 2, wherein the information of the number of sensing participants participating in the sensing measurement comprises any one of:
a minimum number of sensing participants participating in the sensing measurement (0043 “the requirement of sensing measurement may include accuracy of sensing measurement (e.g., how many responders need to participate in the sensing measurement to achieve the accuracy)” [an indication of the number of responders needed to participate in the sensing measurement corresponds to a ‘minimum number of sensing participants participating in the sensing measurement’]); or
a specific number of sensing participants participating in the sensing measurement.
Regarding claim 7, Dong teaches The method according to claim 2, wherein the sensing-by-proxy request frame comprises at least one of following fields:
a Sensing Measurement Parameters Element field, indicating a common measurement configuration effective for at least one sensing participant;
an Availability Window Element field, indicating time information of a sensing-by-proxy requester for performing a service related to the sensing measurement;
an SBP Specific Parameters Element field, indicating information related to establishing the sensing measurement (0038 “In addition, the AP STA receiving the “SBP request” may send an SBP response frame to the SBP requesting STA to indicate whether to reject or accept the request. The AP STA accepting the request can initiate WLAN sensing process (SBP sensing process) with one or more non-AP STAs by using operating parameters derived from the parameters indicated in the SBP request frame.”);
a Minimum Sensing Participants Number field, indicating a specific number or a minimum number of sensing participants participating in the sensing measurement;
a Sensing-by-Proxy Responder Determined Role field, indicating whether roles of at least one sensing participant in the sensing measurement are determined by the sensing-by-proxy responder; or
a Determined Sensing Responder Number field, indicating that a number of sensing participants participating in the sensing measurement indicated in a Minimum Sensing Participants Number field is a specific number or a minimum number of sensing participants participating in the sensing measurement.
Regarding claim 8, Dong teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the sensing-by-proxy response frame carries at least one of:
a measurement setup identifier of the sensing measurement (0045 “According to an embodiment of this disclosure, the AP may allocate the sensing measurement setup ID to the SBP requesting STA and/or the responder in a pre-allocation mode or a post-allocation mode.”); or
measurement start time of the sensing measurement.
Regarding claim 9, Dong teaches A wireless local area network (WLAN) device, comprising (0012 “FIG. 1 illustrates manners of WLAN sensing according to an exemplary embodiment”):
a processor and a memory (0104 “a processor and a memory.”) storing one or more computer programs, which when executed by the processor, cause the WLAN device to:
transmit a sensing-by-proxy request frame to a sensing-by-proxy responder (0005 “The communication method may include: sending, by an SBP requesting station, a first SBP request frame to an AP, where the first SBP request frame includes a requirement for requesting the AP to initiate a first sensing measurement as a proxy AP”), wherein the sensing-by-proxy request frame is for requesting the sensing-by-proxy responder to perform sensing measurement on behalf of the WLAN device (0043 “Referring to FIG. 2, in step 210, the AP may receive an SBP request frame from the SBP requesting STA, where the SBP request frame may include a requirement for requesting the AP to initiate a sensing measurement as a proxy AP”); and
receive a sensing-by-proxy response frame from the sensing-by-proxy responder (claim 8 “receiving, by the SBP requesting station, a first message frame from the AP, wherein the first message frame carries a sensing measurement setup identifier.”).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2 and is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3 and is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4 and is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 13, Dong teaches A wireless local area network (WLAN) device, comprising (0012 “FIG. 1 illustrates manners of WLAN sensing according to an exemplary embodiment;”):
a processor and a memory (0008 “The electronic device includes a memory, a processor”) storing one or more computer programs, which when executed by the processor, cause the WLAN device to (0012 “FIG. 1 illustrates manners of WLAN sensing according to an exemplary embodiment;”):
receive a sensing-by-proxy request frame from a sensing-by-proxy initiator (claim 18 “the processor is configured to: receive a first sensing by proxy (SBP) request frame from an SBP requesting station”; 0037 “The AP STA supporting SBP may refer to an AP capable of initiating SBP sensing measurements as a proxy AP responding to an SBP requesting STA, and may be referred to as “proxy AP”, “AP”, “SBP AP”, “Proxy AP” hereinafter.”), wherein the sensing-by-proxy request frame is for requesting a sensing-by-proxy responder to perform sensing measurement on behalf of the sensing-by-proxy initiator (claim 18 “wherein the first SBP request frame comprises a requirement for requesting the AP to initiate a first sensing measurement as a proxy AP; and send a first message frame to the SBP requesting station, wherein the first message frame carries a sensing measurement setup identifier.”); and
transmit a sensing-by-proxy response frame to the sensing-by-proxy initiator (claim 18 “and send a first message frame to the SBP requesting station, wherein the first message frame carries a sensing measurement setup identifier.”).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2 and is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3 and is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4 and is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 7 and is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 8 and is therefore similarly rejected.
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 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.
Claim(s) 5-6, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (US 20250175837) in view of Lim et al. (US 12250631 hereinafter Lim).
Regarding claim 5, Dong teaches The method according to claim 2,
Dong does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Lim teaches
wherein the indication of the roles of at least one sensing participant participating in the sensing measurement in the sensing measurement comprises any one of:
an indication, by the sensing-by-proxy responder, of the roles of the at least one sensing participant in the sensing measurement;
an indication that the at least one sensing participant plays a same role in the sensing measurement; or
an indication of roles of various sensing participants in the sensing measurement (claim 1 “the sensing request frame includes sensing role information comprising a 2-bit value for each sensing responder, and wherein the 2-bit value is related to a sensing transmitter role and/or a sensing receiver role, wherein the 2-bit value is set to ‘01’ for a sensing receiver and is set to ‘10’ for a sensing transmitter.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Lim with the teachings of Dong. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve sensing performance (Lim para 6). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Lim merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensing features. Since both Dong and Lim disclose similar WLAN systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Dong teaches The method according to claim 2,
Dong does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Lim teaches
wherein the time information of the sensing-by-proxy requester for performing the service related to the sensing measurement comprises at least one of:
a duration of participating in the sensing measurement by the sensing-by-proxy initiator (para 131 “The sensing request frame transmitted by the initiator may comprise the following information: 1. A. TXOP information 1. A. i. The information may be information about the duration for which sensing is performed based on the initiator's TXOP information. 1”);
a duration of receiving the sensing measurement report by the sensing-by-proxy initiator; or
a periodicity for the sensing-by-proxy initiator to request the sensing-by-proxy responder to perform the sensing measurement on behalf of the sensing-by-proxy initiator.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Lim with the teachings of Dong. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve sensing performance (Lim para 6). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Lim merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensing features. Since both Dong and Lim disclose similar WLAN systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5 and is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 6 and is therefore similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
da Silva et al. (US 20200400778) discloses “This disclosure describes systems, methods, and devices related to receiver diversity for Wi-Fi sensing. A device may identify first packets received from a second device during a time period, the first packets received using a first communication link between the device and the second device, and may identify second packets received from a third device during the time period (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on (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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights