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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent clams 1, 10 and 14, recite “wherein the first granularity is greater than the second granularity”. It is unclear whether the comparative term “greater” refers to a greater amount of capability information, a greater number of capability categories, a broader hierarchical category, a finer level of detail or a number of granularity value.
The specification ([0120]-[0121] characterizes the first -granularity capability as a coarser granularity capability and the second granularity as finer while the claims merely state that the first granularity is greater than the second granularity without explaining how a coarser granularity is considered greater. Consequently, more than one reasonable interpretation exists, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed granularity relationship. For examining purposes, the claim limitation “wherein the first granularity is greater than the second granularity” is interpreted as the “wherein the first granularity is broader than the second granularity”.
Regarding claim 17, the occurrence of “the at least one frame” in line 2 has no antecedent basis.
Claims 2-9 and 11-13 and 15-20 are rejected as being dependent of rejected claim(s).
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 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 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.
Claims 1-7 and 10 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al(US 2021/0211973 A1) in view of Katla et al(US 2024/0291536 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Chen ‘973 teaches, a device for sensing measurement( [0156]-[0157] and Fig. 11, communication station 1100), comprising: a processor; a transceiver, communicably connected to the processor; and a memory, configured to store one or more executable instructions([0157], [0158], [0166] an Figs. 11-12, the communication station comprising processing circuitry 1106, transceiver 1110, and memory 1108 for string instructions), wherein the processor, when loading and executing the one or more executable instructions, causes the device for sensing measurement to perform([0157], [0158], [0166] an Figs. 11-12, when instructions stored in memory executed by processor 1106):
transmitting, by a first wireless device, capability information related to a sensing measurement to a second wireless device([0099], [0101] and Fig. 11, a device (STA) indicating its support for sensing withing its capabilities, which are transmitted to and decoded by STAs to determine sensing support across the network), wherein the capability information related to the sensing measurement comprises at least one of capability information of a first granularity or capability information of a second granularity([0050], [0099], [0104] and Fig. 2b, indicating general sensing capacities, such as supporting opportunistic sensing while also using a parameter bitmap to indicate specific PHY parameters such as transmit power lever or antenna set( i.e. sensing capability and parameter information provided at two different structural level of detail)).
Chen ‘973 does not explicitly teach, wherein the first granularity is greater than the second granularity.
Katla ‘536 teaches, wherein the first granularity is greater than the second granularity( [0097], [0132], [0133] and Figs. 4B, 4C, Katla ‘536 contrasts metrics that provide a coarse measure against finer granularity and structures the capability exchange to include broad capability indicators followed by highly specific operation parameters which teaches a framework where a first broader granularity encompasses a second finer granularity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Chen ‘973 by incorporating the teaching of Katla ‘536, since such modification would provide improved sensing with high fidelity, by enabling sensing measurements specific feedback, as suggested by Katla ‘536([0002], [0003]).
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 15, the combination of Chen ‘973 and Katla ‘536 teaches all of the claim limitations, Chen ‘973 further teaches, wherein the capability information of the first granularity comprises at least one of: an information item indicating whether to support a sensing measurement procedure; an information item indicating whether to support a sensing-by-proxy measurement procedure; an information item indicating whether to support a sensing constraint; or an information item indicating whether to support a sensing compensation([0099] and Fig. 6, a STA indicating its support for opportunistic or passive sensing within its capacities. Which serves as an information item indicating whether the device supports a sensing measurement procedure, notice the claim limitation is written in alternative form thus examiner is required show only one of the alternative claim limitations).
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 16, the combination of Chen ‘973 and Katla ‘536 teaches all of the claim limitations, Chen ‘973 further teaches, wherein the capability information of the first granularity is carried over at least one of: a beacon frame; a probe request frame; a probe response frame; an association request frame; an association response frame; a reassociation request frame; a reassociation response frame; or a measurement setup query frame([0053], [0101], a non AP STA can determine if desired sensing capacities are supported by surrounding STA through the transmission of probe request. Sensing elements and capability information can also be carried within beacon frames).
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 17, the combination of Chen ‘973 and Katla ‘536 teaches all of the claim limitations, Chen ‘973 further teaches, wherein the capability information of the first granularity is carried over a first type element of the at least one frame, and each of the at least one information item occupies one field in the first type element([0046], [0048], [0050] and Fig. 2a, 2b, defines a specific information element (IE) WLAN sensing element , to carry sensing information within the management frame, which teaches a specific element structure where individual sensing parameters and indicators occupy dedicated fields (e.g. element ID, length and parameter bitmap).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, the combination of Chen ‘973 and Katla ‘536 teaches all of the claim limitations, Katla ‘536 further teaches, wherein the first type element is an Extended Capabilities element([0130] and Fig. 4A, capabilities element 400 that includes an element ID extension field, which is an extended capability element in wireless protocols).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Chen ‘973 by incorporating the teaching of Katla ‘536, since such modification would provide improved sensing with high fidelity, by enabling sensing measurements specific feedback, as suggested by Katla ‘536([0002], [0003]).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, the combination of Chen ‘973 and Katla ‘536 teaches all of the claim limitations, Katla ‘536 further teaches, wherein the capability information of the second granularity comprises at least one of: an information item indicating whether the first wireless device supports a trigger-based sensing measurement type; an information item indicating whether the first wireless device supports an optional trigger-based sensing measurement role; an information item indicating whether the first wireless device supports a non-trigger-based sensing measurement type; an information item indicating whether the first wireless device supports an optional non-trigger-based sensing measurement role; an information item indicating whether the first wireless device supports a first threshold-based sensing measurement and sensing reporting procedure; an information item indicating whether the first wireless device, in a case of functioning as a sensing receiver, supports transmitting a sensing measurement reporting frame to report a sensing measurement result; an information item indicating whether the first wireless device supports reporting an aggregated sensing measurement result as a sensing initiator; an information item indicating whether the first wireless device supports reporting an aggregated sensing measurement result as a sensing receiver; an information item indicating whether the first wireless device supports maintaining a power for transmitting a measurement frame unchanged or undergoing a change less than a second threshold in a sensing measurement setup; an information item indicating whether the first wireless device supports maintaining an AGC gain of receiving the measurement frame unchanged or undergoing a change less than a third threshold in a sensing measurement setup; an information item indicating whether the first wireless device supports maintaining an antenna radiation pattern for transmitting the measurement frame unchanged or undergoing a change less than a fourth threshold in a sensing measurement setup; an information item indicating whether the first wireless device supports maintaining an antenna radiation pattern for receiving the measurement frame unchanged or undergoing a change less than a fifth threshold in a sensing measurement setup; an information item indicating whether the first wireless device supports compensating for a channel state information (CSI) report received by the first wireless device based on a power for transmitting the measurement frame by the first wireless device; an information item indicating whether the first wireless device supports compensating for CSI calculated by the first wireless device based on a power for transmitting the measurement frame by the second wireless device; an information item indicating whether the first wireless device supports compensating for CSI report received by the first wireless device based on an AGC gain fed back by the second wireless device; an information item indicating whether the first wireless device supports compensating for CSI calculated by the first wireless device based on an AGC gain from receiving the measurement frame by the first wireless device; or an information item indicating whether the first wireless device supports feeding back an AGC gain from receiving the measurement frame by the first wireless device to the second wireless device([0116], [0285], the sensing responders or receivers can signal an information item(a specific bit) to indicate whether they are capable of performing threshold-based sensing, notice the claim limitation is written in alternative form thus examiner is required show only one of the alternative claim limitations ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Chen ‘973 by incorporating the teaching of Katla ‘536, since such modification would provide improved sensing with high fidelity, by enabling sensing measurements specific feedback, as suggested by Katla ‘536([0002], [0003]).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, the combination of Chen ‘973 and Katla ‘536 teaches all of the claim limitations, Katla ‘536 further teaches, wherein the capability information of the second granularity is carried over at least one of: a beacon frame; a probe request frame; a probe response frame; an association request frame; an association response frame; a reassociation request frame; a reassociation response frame; or a measurement setup query frame([0133], [0134], [0285] and Fig. 5, the threshold-based sensing capability is indicated in the MAC capabilities information filed during the associating or reassociation procedure, which inherently uses association or reassociation request/response frames, furthermore Katla ‘536 teaches, exchanging specific PHY sensing capabilities over request and probe response frames).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Chen ‘973 by incorporating the teaching of Katla ‘536, since such modification would provide improved sensing with high fidelity, by enabling sensing measurements specific feedback, as suggested by Katla ‘536([0002], [0003]).
Regarding claim 14, Chen ‘973 teaches, a device for sensing measurement, ( [0156]-[0157] and Fig. 11, communication station 1100) comprising: a processor; a transceiver, communicably connected to the processor; and a memory, configured to store one or more executable instructions([0157], [0158], [0166] an Figs. 11-12, the communication station comprising processing circuitry 1106, transceiver 1110, and memory 1108 for string instructions), wherein the processor, when loading and executing the one or more executable instructions; causes the device for sensing measurement to perform([0157], [0158], [0166] an Figs. 11-12, when instructions stored in memory executed by processor 1106):
receiving, by a second wireless device, capability information related to a sensing measurement from a first wireless device([099], [0101], [0113] and Fig.6, receiving device(second wireless device) decoding a capability message received from a transmitting WLAN device(first wireless device) indicating its support for WLAN sensing), wherein the capability information related to the sensing measurement comprises at least one of capability information of a first granularity or capability information of a second granularity([0050], [0099], [0104] and Fig. 2b, indicating general sensing capacities, such as supporting opportunistic sensing while also using a parameter bitmap to indicate specific PHY parameters such as transmit power lever or antenna set( i.e. sensing capability and parameter information provided at two different structural level of detail)).
Chen ‘973 does not explicitly teach, wherein the first granularity is greater than the second granularity.
Katla ‘536 teaches, wherein the first granularity is greater than the second granularity( [0097], [0132], [0133] and Figs. 4B, 4C, Katla ‘536 contrasts metrics that provide a coarse measure against finer granularity and structures the capability exchange to include broad capability indicators followed by highly specific operation parameters which teaches a framework where a first broader granularity encompasses a second finer granularity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Chen ‘973 by incorporating the teaching of Katla ‘536, since such modification would provide improved sensing with high fidelity, by enabling sensing measurements specific feedback, as suggested by Katla ‘536([0002], [0003]).
Claims 8 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen ‘973 and Katla ‘536 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Pushkarna et al(US 2024/0406990 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Chen ‘973 and Katla ‘536 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the capability information of the second granularity is carried over a second type element of the at least one frame, and each of the at least one information item occupies one field in the second type element.
Pushkarna ‘990 teaches, wherein the capability information of the second granularity is carried over a second type element of the at least one frame, and each of the at least one information item occupies one field in the second type element([0067], [0068] and Fig. 7, fine-grained sensing capabilities, such as whether a device supports solicited measurements or requires a response delay, are carried within a specific structural element inside management frames. This element is structured so that each specific capability parameter occupies its own dedicated field (e.g. Sensing STA type filed, solicited measurements field, response delay field) within the element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined communication system of Chen ‘973 and Katla ‘536, by incorporating the teaching of Pushkarna ‘990, since such modification would provide communication apparatuses and communication methods for opportunistic WLAN sensing, as suggested by Pushkarna ‘990([0013]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chen ‘973 and Katla ‘536 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the second type element is a Sensing Capabilities element.
Pushkarna ‘990 teaches, wherein the second type element is a Sensing Capabilities element ([0067], [0068] and Fig. 7, the dedicated structural container used to advertise the specific capability fields as a WALN sensing capabilities element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined communication system of Chen ‘973 and Katla ‘536, by incorporating the teaching of Pushkarna ‘990, since such modification would provide communication apparatuses and communication methods for opportunistic WLAN sensing, as suggested by Pushkarna ‘990([0013]).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, which can be found: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; or (3) EFS WEB. Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AWET A HAILE whose telephone number is (571)270-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571)272-2832. 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.
/AWET HAILE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights