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 .
Previous Action Withdrawn/Superseded
The previous action dated 10/28/2025 is superseded by this current action.
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 or italics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. An explanation is provided below.
Applicant alleges on p.6:
The Applicant submits that neither Choi nor Eitan suggest or disclose a request for sensing assistance, where the request for sensing assistance is distinct from an instruction to carry out the environment sensing operation. Since neither Choi, nor Eitan, nor a combination of Choi and Eitan suggests or discloses a method comprising "receiving, by the UE, a request for sensing assistance, the request for sensing assistance indicating details of the environment sensing operation," as recited in claim 1, as amended, the Applicant submits that claim 1, as amended, may not be properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choi and Eitan. The Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the rejection
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Choi teaches “[0120] the UE 504 may send the environment information in response to a request from the NE 506.” Thus, a request is received by the UE for environmental sensing, which is performed in operation 510 of fig 5 of Choi.
The rejections for claims 7, 13, 5, 7, 11, 14, and 18 are maintained for similar reasons above and with regards to the rejections found below.
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) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US-20220069958 hereinafter Choi) in view of Eitan et al. (US-20200371220 hereinafter Eitan).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches A method of assisting sensing of an environment, the method comprising: receiving, by a user equipment (UE) (fig 5),
receiving, by the UE, a request for sensing assistance (0120 “For example, the UE 504 may send the environment information in response to a request from the NE 506.”),
the request for sensing assistance indicating details of the environment sensing operation (0128 “In other aspects, determining the second BW to be used by the UE for receiving PRSs comprises receiving the environment information about the environment in which the UE is operating, and determining the second BW to be used by the UE for receiving PRSs based on the environment information.”);
receiving, by the UE, a request to carry out the environment sensing operation (0120 “the UE 504 may send the environment information in response to a request from the NE 506.”);
responsive to the receiving the request to carry out the environment sensing operation, carrying out the environment sensing operation (0149 “In some aspects, the determining and sending steps are performed in response to a trigger . . . In some aspects, the trigger is an external trigger received by the UE. In some aspects, the trigger is a request from a core network entity.”),
where carrying out the environment sensing operation includes receiving, by the UE, reflections of radio frequency signals according to the details indicated in the request for sensing assistance (0034 “As used herein, a transmitter may transmit a single “RF signal” or multiple “RF signals” to a receiver.”); and
transmitting, by the UE, sensing results obtained by processing the received reflections (Choi fig 5; 0106 “The UE 504 detects an environmental condition, e.g., the UE 504 determines information about the environment in which it is operating (block 510).”).
While Choi discloses “[0069] measurement configuration for UE measurement reporting”, Choi does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Eitan teaches
a configuration message, the configuration message indicating a type for an environment sensing operation (Eitan 0007 “The method generally includes outputting, for transmission to at least one wireless node, at least one first frame with parameters for performing wireless sensing based on at least one reflection of at least one second frame off at least one object and participating in the wireless sensing with the at least one wireless node in accordance with the parameters.”; 0009 “participate in the wireless sensing with the at least one wireless node in accordance with the parameters.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to modify the environment aware PRS system and method of Choi to include the wireless sensing system and method of Eitan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously acquire more accurate sensing results (Eitan 0043). 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, Eitan merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular configuration message. Since both Choi and Eitan disclose similar sensing 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 3, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the configuration message indicates an active sensing type for the environment sensing operation and the active sensing includes: transmitting, by the UE, a first radio frequency signal (Choi fig 5 [UE is transmitting environmental information]); and wherein the receiving the reflections of radio frequency signals comprises receiving reflections of the first radio frequency signal (Eitan 0059 “WiFi sensing may operate in a full-duplex mode, allowing one antenna(s) to transmit while the other antenna(s) are receiving (such as AP1 and AP2 also can monitor for reflections of their own transmissions).”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to modify the environment aware PRS system and method of Choi to include the wireless sensing system and method of Eitan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously acquire more accurate sensing results (Eitan 0043). 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, Eitan merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular configuration message. Since both Choi and Eitan disclose similar sensing 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 4, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the configuration message indicates a passive sensing type for the environment sensing operation (Eitan 0092 “Scenarios where the initiating devices do not transmit, but only monitor for reflections may be referred to as passive WiFi sensing.”) and, in the passive sensing the receiving the reflections of radio frequency signals includes receiving reflections of radio frequency signals existing in the environment (Eitan fig 3 [STA devices are receiving existing reflections from the environment]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to modify the environment aware PRS system and method of Choi to include the wireless sensing system and method of Eitan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously acquire more accurate sensing results (Eitan 0043). 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, Eitan merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular configuration message. Since both Choi and Eitan disclose similar sensing 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, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising, responsive to the receiving the request for sensing assistance, transmitting, by the UE, an indication of availability for the environment sensing operation (Choi 0039 “The communication links 120 between the base stations 102 and the UEs 104 may include uplink (also referred to as reverse link) transmissions from a UE 104 to a base station 102, downlink (also referred to as forward link) transmissions from a base station 102 to a UE 104, or both.”).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and therefore is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art teaches The device of claim 7, wherein the configuration message indicates an active sensing type for the environment sensing operation (Eitan 0007 “The method generally includes outputting, for transmission to at least one wireless node, at least one first frame with parameters for performing wireless sensing based on at least one reflection of at least one second frame off at least one object and participating in the wireless sensing with the at least one wireless node in accordance with the parameters.”) and the processor is further configured, by executing the instructions, to transmit a first radio frequency signal (Choi fig 5 [UE is transmitting environmental information]) and wherein the receiving the reflections of radio frequency signals comprises receiving reflections of the first radio frequency signal (Eitan 0059 “WiFi sensing may operate in a full-duplex mode, allowing one antenna(s) to transmit while the other antenna(s) are receiving (such as AP1 and AP2 also can monitor for reflections of their own transmissions).”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to modify the environment aware PRS system and method of Choi to include the wireless sensing system and method of Eitan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously acquire more accurate sensing results (Eitan 0043). 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, Eitan merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular configuration message. Since both Choi and Eitan disclose similar sensing 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 10, the cited prior art teaches The device of claim 7, wherein the configuration message indicates a passive sensing type for the environment sensing operation (Eitan 0011 “In some implementations, the method, apparatuses and computer-readable medium can include participating in the wireless sensing and further may include operations, features, means, or instructions for outputting the at least one second frame for transmission or for monitoring for reflections of the at least one second frame.”; 0013 “In further implementations, the method, apparatuses, and computer-readable medium may include operations, features, means, or instructions for selecting the parameters, in which the request indicates desired parameters for the wireless sensing and the selection of the parameters is, at least in part, based on the desired parameters indicated in the request.”) and, in the passive sensing the receiving the reflections of radio frequency signals includes receiving reflections of radio frequency signals existing in the environment (Eitan fig 3 [STA devices are receiving existing reflections from the environment]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to modify the environment aware PRS system and method of Choi to include the wireless sensing system and method of Eitan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously acquire more accurate sensing results (Eitan 0043). 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, Eitan merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular configuration message. Since both Choi and Eitan disclose similar sensing 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 12, the cited prior art teaches The device of claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured, by executing the instructions, to respond to receiving the request for sensing assistance by transmitting an indication of availability for the environment sensing operation (Choi 0039 “The communication links 120 between the base stations 102 and the UEs 104 may include uplink (also referred to as reverse link) transmissions from a UE 104 to a base station 102, downlink (also referred to as forward link) transmissions from a base station 102 to a UE 104, or both.”).
Regarding claim 13, Choi teaches A method of controlling sensing of an environment, the method comprising: transmitting, by a requesting device (fig 5a [requesting device 502 is transmitting PRS 508 to UE 504]), (0120 “For example, the UE 504 may send the environment information in response to a request from the NE 506.”), the request for sensing assistance indicating details of the on-demand environment sensing operation (0128 “In other aspects, determining the second BW to be used by the UE for receiving PRSs comprises receiving the environment information about the environment in which the UE is operating, and determining the second BW to be used by the UE for receiving PRSs based on the environment information.”), the on-demand environment sensing operation including receiving reflections of radio frequency signals according to the details indicated in the request for sensing assistance (0034 “As used herein, a transmitter may transmit a single “RF signal” or multiple “RF signals” to a receiver.”); transmitting, by the requesting device, a request to carry out the on-demand environment sensing operation (0149 “In some aspects, the determining and sending steps are performed in response to a trigger . . . In some aspects, the trigger is an external trigger received by the UE. In some aspects, the trigger is a request from a core network entity.”); and receiving, by the requesting device, sensing results obtained by processing the received reflections as part of carrying out the on-demand environment sensing operation responsive to receiving the request (Choi fig 5; 0106 “The UE 504 detects an environmental condition, e.g., the UE 504 determines information about the environment in which it is operating (block 510).”).
While Choi discloses “[0069] measurement configuration for UE measurement reporting”, Choi does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Eitan teaches
a configuration message, the configuration message indicating a type for an on-demand environment sensing operation (Eitan 0007 “The method generally includes outputting, for transmission to at least one wireless node, at least one first frame with parameters for performing wireless sensing based on at least one reflection of at least one second frame off at least one object and participating in the wireless sensing with the at least one wireless node in accordance with the parameters.”; 0009 “participate in the wireless sensing with the at least one wireless node in accordance with the parameters.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to modify the environment aware PRS system and method of Choi to include the wireless sensing system and method of Eitan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously acquire more accurate sensing results (Eitan 0043). 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, Eitan merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular configuration message. Since both Choi and Eitan disclose similar sensing 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 15, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 13, further comprising receiving, by the requesting device, an indication of availability for the environment sensing operation (Choi 0039 “The communication links 120 between the base stations 102 and the UEs 104 may include uplink (also referred to as reverse link) transmissions from a UE 104 to a base station 102, downlink (also referred to as forward link) transmissions from a base station 102 to a UE 104, or both.”). .
Regarding claim 16, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 13, wherein the request for sensing assistance further indicates resources to use when transmitting the sensing results results (Eitan 0042 “WiFi sensing setup parameters (such as a schedule that indicates when various participants are to transmit, details about a transmitted waveform, repetition, and the like).”) and the method further comprises employing the resources when receiving the sensing results (Choi 0107 “UE forwards the environmental information to the TE 502 in message 514, and at block 516, the TE 502 determines BW2 based on the environment information that it received in message 514.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to modify the environment aware PRS system and method of Choi to include the wireless sensing system and method of Eitan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously acquire more accurate sensing results (Eitan 0043). 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, Eitan merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular configuration message. Since both Choi and Eitan disclose similar sensing 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 19, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 13, wherein the request to carry out the on-demand environment sensing operation indicates at least one of a sensing timing allocation, a sensing period, or a sensing report timeline (Eitan 0071 “As noted above, the parameters may indicate when the sensing starts, a duration of the sensing, definitions of the waveform(s) used, and an indication of scheduling between stations (such as in this example AP1 and AP2 both transmit)” [duration of the sensing corresponds to a sensing period]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to modify the environment aware PRS system and method of Choi to include the wireless sensing system and method of Eitan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously acquire more accurate sensing results (Eitan 0043). 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, Eitan merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular configuration message. Since both Choi and Eitan disclose similar sensing 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 20, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 13, further comprising receiving a response message (Eitan fig 7 “obtain, from at least one wireless node, a request to initiate wireless sensing”) responding to the request for sensing assistance (Eitan fig 7 “obtain, from at least one wireless node, a request to initiate wireless sensing”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to modify the environment aware PRS system and method of Choi to include the wireless sensing system and method of Eitan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously acquire more accurate sensing results (Eitan 0043). 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, Eitan merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular configuration message. Since both Choi and Eitan disclose similar sensing 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 21, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 13, wherein the request to carry out the on-demand environment sensing operation comprises an indication of at least one of a sensing signal bandwidth, a sensing signal duration, a sensing timing allocation, or a sensing period (Eitan 0071 “As noted above, the parameters may indicate when the sensing starts, a duration of the sensing, definitions of the waveform(s) used, and an indication of scheduling between stations (such as in this example AP1 and AP2 both transmit)” [duration of the sensing corresponds to a sensing period]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to modify the environment aware PRS system and method of Choi to include the wireless sensing system and method of Eitan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously acquire more accurate sensing results (Eitan 0043). 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, Eitan merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular configuration message. Since both Choi and Eitan disclose similar sensing 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.
Claim(s) 5, 11 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US-20220069958 hereinafter Choi) in view of Eitan et al. (US-20200371220 hereinafter Eitan) and in further view of Guo (US-20160029275).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1,
Choi in view of Eitan does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Guo teaches a UE transmitting sensing capabilities (fig 2 “A UE sends first UE capability information”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to modify the environment aware PRS system and method of Choi and the wireless sensing system and method of Eitan to include the system and method of acquiring UE capability of Guo. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce signaling overhead and ensure the system is operating normally (Guo 0092). 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, Guo merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensing capabilities. Since both Choi in view of Eitan and Guo disclose similar communication systems between a UE and BS, 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 11, the cited prior art teaches The device of claim 7,
Choi in view of Eitan does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Guo teaches a UE transmitting sensing capabilities (fig 2 “A UE sends first UE capability information”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to modify the environment aware PRS system and method of Choi and the wireless sensing system and method of Eitan to include the system and method of acquiring UE capability of Guo. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce signaling overhead and ensure the system is operating normally (Guo 0092). 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, Guo merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensing capabilities. Since both Choi in view of Eitan and Guo disclose similar communication systems between a UE and BS, 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 14, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 13,
Choi in view of Eitan does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Guo teaches a UE transmitting sensing capabilities (fig 2 “A UE sends first UE capability information”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to modify the environment aware PRS system and method of Choi and the wireless sensing system and method of Eitan to include the system and method of acquiring UE capability of Guo. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce signaling overhead and ensure the system is operating normally (Guo 0092). 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, Guo merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensing capabilities. Since both Choi in view of Eitan and Guo disclose similar communication systems between a UE and BS, 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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US-20220069958 hereinafter Choi) in view of Eitan et al. (US-20200371220 hereinafter Eitan) and in further view of Slobodyanyuk et al. (US PAT 20210096215 hereinafter Slobodyanyuk).
Regarding claim 18, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 13,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a similar field of interest, Slobodyanyuk further teaches wherein the request for sensing assistance indicates one of a radio frequency sensing type, a LIDAR sensing type, or a camera-based sensing type (Slobodyanyuk 0104 “the calibration request message may carry or convey information identifying one or more sensors installed on vehicle UE 305; 0016 “the calibration procedure may include operations, features, means, or instructions for transmitting a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) signal to the calibration object, where the sensor includes a radio frequency (RF)-based proximity and ranging sensor”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to modify the environment aware PRS system and method of Choi and the wireless sensing system and method of Eitan and the system and method of acquiring UE capability of Guo to include the calibration system and method of Slobodyanyuk. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce system complexity/costs (Slobodyanyuk 0035). 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, Slobodyanyuk merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensing capabilities. Since both Choi in view of Eitan and Slobodyanyuk disclose similar wireless communication systems regarding UEs, 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.
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US-20220069958 hereinafter Choi) in view of Eitan et al. (US-20200371220 hereinafter Eitan) and in further view of He et al. (US-20230284251 hereinafter He).
Regarding claim 22, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a similar field of interest, Slobodyanyuk further teaches wherein the request for sensing assistance includes an indication of a key performance indicator (KPI) for target detection, wherein the KPI comprises at least one of a KPI related to range estimation, a Doppler indicator related to velocity estimation, a KPI related to sensing resolution and a KPI related to sensing accuracy (0007 “A terminal device sends a first message to a network device, where the first message includes information for requesting the network device to allocate a sensing resource to the terminal device”; 0078 “Resources (referred to as communication and sensing resources below) shared by the different integrated communication and sensing nodes correspond to different sensing performance, and the sensing performance includes one or more of key performance indexes (KPI) such as a sensing angle, a sensing range, and sensing accuracy. The sensing performance reflects different service requirements corresponding to different sensing service types”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to modify the teachings of He with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection probability (He 0010). 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, He merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular sensing capabilities. Since both the cited prior art and He disclose similar/sensing 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 23, claim 23 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 22 and therefore is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 22.
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 22 and therefore is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Chen et al. (US-20130029705) discloses “The present invention discloses a method and an apparatus for implementing network cognition. The method includes: determining a type of a received network task; according to the type of the received network task, selecting at least one cognitive capability identifier corresponding to the type of the network task; using network devices with the at least one cognitive capability identifier as alternative network devices; determining an alternative network device that is among the alternative network devices and has a cognitive capability that meets a condition for performing the network task is a target network device; and controlling the target network device to perform the network task (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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
