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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Use is noted in claims 38-40.
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 1-19, 29 and 31-40 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 29, 31, and 38 require transmission of “a first sensing signal for sensing an object using ultra-wideband sensing” and reception of a “second sensing signal…for sensing the object using the ultra-wideband sensing”. The limitation imposed by the language on these “sensing signals” is not clear. As a first matter, at least per claim 1 it is the “processor” itself which is configured to transmit the sensing signal, whereas in context if the “sensing signals” are to be interpreted as illustrated in Figure 4, transmission is the function of a modem/antenna (e.g. per Fig. 2) and not a processor. This raises doubt as to whether a “sensing signal” encompasses an actual transmission through space as illustrated in Fig. 4 or instead signals internal to the network node. On the presumption the former is intended, it is not clear what limitation is imposed by “for sensing an object using ultra-wideband sensing”. The second sensing signal is “for sensing the object” using “the” (i.e. the same) “ultra-wideband sensing”. Is “ultra-wideband sensing” a structural component? Is it an algorithm? What limitation is imposed on the sensing signals? Further complicating interpretation, the claims make no reference to any interaction of the signals with the object, also as illustrated in Figure 4. If it is the intent to establish that that ultra-wideband signals are transmitted, reflected by the object, and received as illustrated in Figure 4, amendment to establish such, including the corresponding structural components, is suggested.
Claims 2-19, 32-37, and 39-40 depend on one of claims 1, 31, and 38 and are likewise indefinite.
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) 1, 29, 31, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (WO 2022/001713 A1) in view of Ninnemann et al. (“Multipath-assisted Radio Sensing and Occupancy Detection for Smart In-house Parking in ITS”). As Liu et al. is not published in English, references below 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 memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories ([0239]), configured to:
transmit a first sensing signal (“first sounding frame”) for sensing an object (103);
receive, from a responder network node (102), a second sensing signal (“second sounding frame”), that is based at least in part on the first sensing signal ([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”), for sensing the object (see paragraphs [0150]-[0151]); and
obtain a location of the object relative to the initiator network node and the responder network node based at least in part on the first sensing signal and the second sensing signal ([0064]).
Liu discloses the 802.11ax communication standard for the transmitted sensing signals and while the scope of the claimed “ultra-wideband sensing” is unclear, Liu is not found to disclose employing signals for sensing “ultra-wideband sensing”, as 802.11 instead employs narrowband or wideband signals.
However, Ninnemann discloses joint communication, localization, and sensing technology employing ultra-wideband for locating reflecting objects (e.g. Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to modify the method and apparatus of Liu to employ ultrawideband signals/sensing with a reasonable expectation of success, as it provides a significant resolution improvement (e.g. Ninnemann Table 1) and is particularly suited to improving detection in multipath environments (section 2.1).
Claim(s) 10, 15, 34, 36, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Ninnemann 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 ([0007]). While Liu as modified for UWB technology in view of the referenced teaching of Ninnemann would determine the channel impulse responses of the sensing signals for inclusion in such a report, the combination does not require that the channel impulse responses associated with the sensing signals be interpolated in the time domain. Satrasala is directed to time delay estimation 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 the channel impulse responses of the sensing signals at the respective initiator and responder nodes 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 11-14, 16-19, 32-33, 35, 37, and 39 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action as suggested and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tertinek discloses object position determining using UWB.
Oscar discloses distributed localization methods to determine the position of a target using two sensing devices and corresponding reflected sensing signals.
Wu discloses CIR interpolation in UWB sensing.
Troutman discloses passive object locating using UWB sensing.
Li discloses bidirectional channel sounding where each of multiple devices transmit signals to reflect off an object and be received at the other.
Kang discloses at least one processor is configured to: transmit a UWB signal including a first data frame, receive, based on the transmitted first data frame, a reflected first data frame, obtain a first channel impulse response by using the reflected first data frame, acquire information by using the channel impulse response, and receive a UWB signal including a second data frame from an external electronic device in response to the transmitted first data frame.
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 M-Th, 8:00 AM-4:30 PM; Fri 8 AM-12 PM Eastern Time.
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