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 § 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 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)(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, 4-9, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schultz et al. (US 2022/0225152).
Regarding claim 1, Schultz teaches a method for sensing and communication, comprising: receiving, by a first node, first information from a second node, the first information comprising at least one of: information of the second node (See Abstract; Claim 16; Paragraphs [0008 and 0092], especially paragraph [0092]…..the method 500 may include the first device performing wireless communications with the second device using the adaptive radio……. Paragraph [0008]…… One or more implementations may include operations that include obtaining, by a first device, second device information related to a capability of a second device with respect to operating in a first frequency band), information of a sensed object, constraint information of a sensing node, constraint information of a sensing signal, constraint information of a sensing signal transmission resource, or information of a sensing service.
Regarding claim 4, limitation is directed to one of the options presented in claim 1. In claim 1, option A (information of the second node) was selected so the other options (B-(information of a sensed object), C-(constraint information of a sensing node), D-(constraint information of a sensing signal), E-( constraint information of a sensing signal transmission resource), F-(information of a sensing service) did not have to be given weight. Therefore, the limitations further defining the other options also do not have to be given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 5, limitation is directed to one of the options presented in claim 1. In claim 1, option A (information of the second node) was selected so the other options (B-(information of a sensed object), C-(constraint information of a sensing node), D-(constraint information of a sensing signal), E-( constraint information of a sensing signal transmission resource), F-(information of a sensing service) did not have to be given weight. Therefore, the limitations further defining the other options also do not have to be given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 6, limitation is directed to one of the options presented in claim 1. In claim 1, option A (information of the second node) was selected so the other options (B-(information of a sensed object), C-(constraint information of a sensing node), D-(constraint information of a sensing signal), E-( constraint information of a sensing signal transmission resource), F-(information of a sensing service) did not have to be given weight. Therefore, the limitations further defining the other options also do not have to be given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 7, limitation is directed to one of the options presented in claim 1. In claim 1, option A (information of the second node) was selected so the other options (B-(information of a sensed object), C-(constraint information of a sensing node), D-(constraint information of a sensing signal), E-( constraint information of a sensing signal transmission resource), F-(information of a sensing service) did not have to be given weight. Therefore, the limitations further defining the other options also do not have to be given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 8, limitation is directed to one of the options presented in claim 1. In claim 1, option A (information of the second node) was selected so the other options (B-(information of a sensed object), C-(constraint information of a sensing node), D-(constraint information of a sensing signal), E-( constraint information of a sensing signal transmission resource), F-(information of a sensing service) did not have to be given weight. Therefore, the limitations further defining the other options also do not have to be given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 9, Schultz teaches an apparatus for sensing and communication, applied to a first node, the apparatus comprising: a transceiver; a processor; and a memory for storing a computer program that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to receive, through the transceiver, first information from a second node, the first information comprising at least one of: information of the second node (See Abstract; Claim 16; Paragraphs [0008 and 0092], especially paragraph [0092]…..the method 500 may include the first device performing wireless communications with the second device using the adaptive radio……. Paragraph [0008]…… One or more implementations may include operations that include obtaining, by a first device, second device information related to a capability of a second device with respect to operating in a first frequency band), information of a sensed object, constraint information of a sensing node, constraint information of a sensing signal, constraint information of a sensing signal transmission resource, or information of a sensing service.
Regarding claim 13, limitation is directed to one of the options presented in claim 9. In claim 9, option A (information of the second node) was selected so the other options (B-(information of a sensed object), C-(constraint information of a sensing node), D-(constraint information of a sensing signal), E-( constraint information of a sensing signal transmission resource), F-(information of a sensing service) did not have to be given weight. Therefore, the limitations further defining the other options also do not have to be given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 14, since the claim is depending on claim 13 and limitation is directed to one of the options presented in claim 9. In claim 9, option A (information of the second node) was selected so the other options (B-(information of a sensed object), C-(constraint information of a sensing node), D-(constraint information of a sensing signal), E-( constraint information of a sensing signal transmission resource), F-(information of a sensing service) did not have to be given weight. Therefore, the limitations further defining the other options also do not have to be given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 15, limitation is directed to one of the options presented in claim 9. In claim 9, option A (information of the second node) was selected so the other options (B-(information of a sensed object), C-(constraint information of a sensing node), D-(constraint information of a sensing signal), E-( constraint information of a sensing signal transmission resource), F-(information of a sensing service) did not have to be given weight. Therefore, the limitations further defining the other options also do not have to be given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 16, since the claim is depending on claim 15 and limitation is directed to one of the options presented in claim 9. In claim 9, option A (information of the second node) was selected so the other options (B-(information of a sensed object), C-(constraint information of a sensing node), D-(constraint information of a sensing signal), E-( constraint information of a sensing signal transmission resource), F-(information of a sensing service) did not have to be given weight. Therefore, the limitations further defining the other options also do not have to be given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 17, Schultz teaches an apparatus for sensing and communication, applied to a second node, the apparatus comprising: a transceiver; a processor; and a memory for storing a computer program that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to transmit, through the transceiver, first information to a first node, the first information comprising at least one of: information of the second node (See Abstract; Claim 16; Paragraphs [0008 and 0092], especially paragraph [0092]…..the method 500 may include the first device performing wireless communications with the second device using the adaptive radio……. Paragraph [0008]…… One or more implementations may include operations that include obtaining, by a first device, second device information related to a capability of a second device with respect to operating in a first frequency band), information of a sensed object, constraint information of a sensing node, constraint information of a sensing signal, constraint information of a sensing signal transmission resource, or information of a sensing service.
Regarding claim 18, limitation is directed to one of the options presented in claim 17. In claim 17, option A (information of the second node) was selected so the other options (B-(information of a sensed object), C-(constraint information of a sensing node), D-(constraint information of a sensing signal), E-( constraint information of a sensing signal transmission resource), F-(information of a sensing service) did not have to be given weight. Therefore, the limitations further defining the other options also do not have to be given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 19, since the claim is depending on claim 18 and limitation is directed to one of the options presented in claim 17. In claim 17, option A (information of the second node) was selected so the other options (B-(information of a sensed object), C-(constraint information of a sensing node), D-(constraint information of a sensing signal), E-( constraint information of a sensing signal transmission resource), F-(information of a sensing service) did not have to be given weight. Therefore, the limitations further defining the other options also do not have to be given patentable weight.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (US 2022/0225152) in view of Hamada (US Patent #10,728,938).
Regarding claim 2, Schultz fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the second node is a node for initiating the sensing service; or, the second node is a node for transmitting a sensing service request.
However, in related art, Hamada teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second node is a node for initiating the sensing service; or, the second node is a node for transmitting a sensing service request (Claims 7 and 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Hamada’s teaching about the second node is a node for transmitting a sensing service request with Schultz’s invention in order to select one or more data to be transferred and provide service to the requester.
Claims 3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (US 2022/0225152) in view of Venkatraman et al. (US 2024/0427800).
Regarding claims 3 and 10-12, Schultz fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the information of the second node comprises at least one of: a type of the second node, battery level information of the second node, position information of the second node, radio resource occupancy information of the second node, sensing capability information of the second node, or measurement capability information of the second node.
However, in related art, Venkatraman teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the information of the second node comprises at least one of: a type of the second node, battery level information of the second node (Claim 9), position information of the second node, radio resource occupancy information of the second node, sensing capability information of the second node, or measurement capability information of the second node. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Venkatraman’s teaching about wherein the information of the second node comprises at least one of: battery level information of the second node with Schultz’s invention in order for users to recognize battery levels.
Regarding claim 11, limitation is directed to one of the options presented in claim 10. In claim 10, option B (battery level information of the second node) was selected so the other options (A-( a type of the second node), C-( position information of the second node), D-( radio resource occupancy information of the second node), E-(sensing capability information of the second node), F-(measurement capability information of the second node) did not have to be given weight. Therefore, the limitations further defining the other options also do not have to be given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 12, limitation is directed to one of the options presented in claim 10. In claim 10, option B (battery level information of the second node) was selected so the other options (A-( a type of the second node), C-( position information of the second node), D-( radio resource occupancy information of the second node), E-(sensing capability information of the second node), F-(measurement capability information of the second node) did not have to be given weight. Therefore, the limitations further defining the other options also do not have to be given patentable weight.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (US 2022/0225152) in view of Wang et al. (US Patent #11,553,541).
Regarding claim 20, Schultz fails to teach the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the processor is configured to: before transmitting the first information to the first node, receive, through the transceiver, second information from the first node, wherein the second information is used for requesting the second node to report the first information to the first node and indicates information type(s) in the first information reported by the second node.
However, in related art, Wang teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the processor is configured to: before transmitting the first information to the first node, receive, through the transceiver, second information from the first node, wherein the second information is used for requesting the second node to report the first information to the first node and indicates information type(s) in the first information reported by the second node (……..receiving, by the first device, a connection request of a second device to start a process of connecting to the Wi-Fi access point of the first device; sending, by the first device, feedback information to the second device according to the connection request, wherein the feedback information indicates whether the Wi-Fi access point of the first device is of a portable Wi-Fi hotspot type, and wherein the feedback information triggers: a prompt to be displayed on the second device indicating the first device is of the portable Wi-Fi hotspot type (See Claim 1)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Wang’s teaching about wherein the processor is configured to: before transmitting the first information to the first node, receive, through the transceiver, second information from the first node, wherein the second information is used for requesting the second node to report the first information to the first node and indicates information type(s) in the first information reported by the second node with Schultz’s invention in order to utilize radio resource efficiently.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoon et al. (US Patent #11,724,111), Taghizadeh Motlagh et al. (US 2023/0171060), Abu Dagga et al. (US 2023/0135853), Yu et al. (US 2022/0248479), Cho et al. (US 2022/0224742), Liu et al. (US 2021/0289550), You et al. (US 2021/0195430), Shi (US 2021/0185675), Kabbinale et al. (US 2021/0175923), Lin (US 2021/0021384), Chen (US 2021/0007141), Wei et al. (US 2020/0413251), Cheng et al. (US 2020/0349078), Dong et al. (US 2020/0337085), Jiang et al. (US 2019/0253194), Hasegawa et al. (US 2019/0082464), Chai et al. (US 2018/0332479), Nabetani (US 2018/0262232), Hayashi (US 2018/0220483), Li et al. (US 2018/0145736), Wang et al. (US 2018/0102930), Zeng et al. (US 2017/0265208), Lu et al. (US 2016/0374114), Zhang et al. (US 2016/0338038), Uenoyama et al. (US 2016/0299902), Cao et al. (US 2016/0255507), Rottler et al. (US 2016/0105491), Wang et al. (US 2015/0147966), Agee et al. (US 2014/0376656), Shattil et al. (US 2014/0219449), Nieminen et al. (US 2014/0140254), Chen et al. (US 2012/0314681), Barbieri et al. (US 2012/0063383), Du et al. (US 2010/0311434), and Sawai et al. (US 2010/0202387).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC E REGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/DOMINIC E REGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 Tel 571-272-8132
