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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 15 of the Remarks that Liu does not disclose or suggest "obtain[ing] a location of the object relative to the initiator network node and the responder network node based at least in part on interactions of the first signal and the second signal with the object". The argument is not persuasive as the “bidirectional sensing measurement” referenced in paragraph [0064] of Liu indicated in the Remarks refers to an object location measurement based at least in part on interactions (i.e. reflections) of the first and second signals with the object. This is described throughout the disclosure, see e.g. ([0076]-[0077], [0150]-[0151], [0210]-[0212]).
The amendments to independent claims 1, 29, 31, and 38 remove reference to “ultra wideband sensing” to address an issue under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). As such, the prior art of Ninnemann et al. is no longer applied and the claims are instead anticipated by Liu.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 29, 31, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (WO 2022/001713 A1). As Liu et al. is not published in English, references are made to corresponding application publication US 2023/0132850.
Regarding claims 1, 29, 31, and 38, Liu (See Figure 1) discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at an initiator network node (101) and corresponding method, the apparatus comprising:
One or more transceivers ([0239])
one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories ([0239]), configured to:
transmit via the one or more transceivers to a responder network node (102) a first signal (“first sounding frame”), wherein the first signal interacts with an object (103) and enables the responder network node to sense the object ([0140]);
receive, via the one or more transceivers from the responder network node, a second signal (“second sounding frame”), that is based at least in part on the first signal ([0140], [0141]: “after receiving the first sounding frame, the second station 102 sends the second sounding frame to the first station 101 when a preset interval elapses”), wherein the second signal interacts with the object and enables the initiator network node to sense the object; and
obtain a location of the object relative to the initiator network node and the responder network node based at least in part on interactions of the first signal and the second signal with the object ([0064], [0076]-[0077], [0150]-[0151], [0210]-[0212]).
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.
Claim(s) 10, 15, 34, 36, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 1, 31, and 38 above, and further in view of Satrasala et al. (10,623,121).
Liu discloses receiving from the responder a sensing measurement report including measurement results in order to obtain the object location ([0007]). Liu does not specify that channel impulse responses associated with the first and second signals be interpolated in the time domain and employed for this purpose.
Satrasala is directed to time delay estimation for ranging and localization in wireless communication and discloses interpolating channel impulse response in the time domain (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed with a reasonable expectation of success to interpolate and provide the channel impulse responses of the signals at the respective initiator and responder nodes of Liu in order to provide a more accurate estimation of the delay experienced by the received signals through the receivers as described by Satrasala, in turn enabling a more accurate location determination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9, 11-14, 16-19, 32-33, 35, 37, and 39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on a part time schedule, typically M-Fri 8:00 AM-4:30 PM Eastern Time, but having off alternating Monday-Tuesdays and Fridays.
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 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights