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 12-31-2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)).
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 is directed towards a series of mathematical steps and is therefore a process.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 1 is directed to a method of, and computer system for, signal communication that is accomplished through a series of mathematical operations performed by a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claim elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the mathematical manipulation of data by a general purpose computer.
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Claims 2-7 disclose further processing and timing steps. These additional steps are all extraneous pre-solution activity. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. See Memorandum.
The method recited in claims 1-7 merely uses a computer system including generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The application of the abstract idea using generic computer components does not transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea and does not result in an improvement in the functioning of the computer or another technology.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0070710, filed September 2, 2021.
As per claims 1, 8 and 15, Lim discloses a method for sensing measurement, applicable to a sensing initiator, the method comprising:
transmitting a sensing request frame to at least one sensing responder using a first modulation and coding scheme (MCS) in a parallel coordinated monostatic measurement (Lim, ¶109 and 116);
and receiving a sensing response frame transmitted by the at least one sensing responder using the first MCS, wherein the first MCS is an MCS specified in a protocol (Lim, ¶124-125).
Lim fails to expressly disclose coordinated monostatic measurement but provides multiple scenarios (Fig. 1, 2 and 6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a monostatic measurement in order to gain the benefit of adapting the sensors to the desired situation.
As per claims 2, 9 and 16, Lim further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein transmitting the sensing request frame to the at least one sensing responder using the first MCS comprises: transmitting an ith sensing request frame at an ith time after a transmission end time of an (i- 1)th sensing request frame in response to a frame transmission error, wherein a duration between the ith time and the transmission end time is a duration specified in the protocol, i is a positive integer greater than 1, and the (i-1)th sensing request frame and the ith sensing request frame are transmitted using the first MCS (Lim, ¶121).
As per claims 3, 10 and 17, Lim further discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the duration between the ith time and the transmission end time comprises two first intervals and a reserved transmission duration of the sensing response frame (Lim, ¶126 using predetermined intervals).
As per claims 4, 11 and 18, Lim further discloses the method according to claim 2, further comprising: upon transmitting the sensing request frame to one of the at least one sensing responder, starting, in response to not receiving the sensing response frame within a first duration, to transmit a next sensing request frame to another of the at least one sensing responder within a second duration after transmission end of the sensing request frame (Lim, ¶134).
Lim fails to expressly disclose the case of receiving no response however it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to transmit a next frame in order to gain the benefit of not shutting down the system over a single non-response.
As per claims 5, 12 and 19, Lim further discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the first duration is a Short Interframe Space (SIFS) or a point coordination function (PCF) interframe space (PIFS) duration, and the second duration comprises two SIFS durations and a reserved transmission duration of the sensing response frame (Lim, ¶132).
As per claims 6, 13 and 20, Lim further discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein interaction times between the sensing initiator and the at least one sensing responder are the same (Lim, ¶115 using specific timings).
As per claims 7 and 14, Lim further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein in a case that the sensing responder is an enhanced directional multi-gigabit (EDMG) station (STA), an EDMG physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) carrying the sensing request frame and the sensing response frame meets one or more of the following: the EDMG PPDU is a non-EDMG single carrier (SC) mode PPDU or a non-EDMG control mode PPDU; the EDMG PPDU occupies a contiguous 2.16 GHz channel; and the EDMG PPDU uses a normal guard interval (Lim, ¶128).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use one of many various known protocols, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Lim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights