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 07/11/2024,
11/25/2024, 06/12/2025, 01/06/2026, 05/06/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-20) in the reply filed on 05/06/2026 is acknowledged.
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, 4-5, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al. (US 20250370087 hereinafter Nilsson) in view of Crouch (US 20100259447).
Regarding claim 1, Nilsson teaches A first network entity for wireless communications, the first network entity comprising (para 253 “The housing may include the one or more microprocessors, and the power source. In an embodiment, several transmitters may be managed by a single base station and a single microprocessor.”):
at least one memory (para 53 “mapping memory 117”); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to (para 11 “processor”):
transmit wide sensing signal beams in different directions to detect a target (para 9 “a system comprises a transmitter comprising a sensor configured to detect a sensitive object in a transmission field and generate sensor data indicating a location of the sensitive object,”; claim 11 “the sensing signalling of the first type is transmitted with a broader beam than the sensing signalling of the second type.”);
detect the target with one or more of the wide sensing signal beams (0020 “receiving sensing signalling may comprise receiving reflections of the sensing signalling”);
transmit a narrow sensing signal beam in a direction towards the target to track the target (claim 11 “the sensing signalling of the first type is transmitted with a broader beam than the sensing signalling of the second type.”),
Nilsson does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Crouch teaches after the target has been detected; and increase a power of the narrow sensing signal beam to provide energy to the target (0007 “The system sequentially illuminates a set of dispersed wireless power receivers with a single narrow beam of radio-frequency (RF) radiation at one frequency”; 0006 “wireless power transmission systems . . . Each element of the RDA radiates an amplified beam”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Crouch with the teachings of Nilsson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve beam utilization (Crouch 0003). 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, Crouch merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular beam processing features. Since both Nilsson and Crouch disclose radar systems using similar beamforming and phase processing, 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, Nilsson teaches The first network entity of claim 1, wherein each of the wide sensing signal beams has a larger beamwidth than a beamwidth of the narrow sensing signal beam (0018 “the sensing signalling of the first type may be transmitted with a broader beam than the sensing signalling of the second type.”).
Regarding claim 5, Nilsson teaches The first network entity of claim 1, wherein the first network entity is a base station (0029 “In some cases, a signalling radio node may be a network node or base station”).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim(s) 2-3, 15, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al. (US 20250370087 hereinafter Nilsson) in view of Crouch (US 20100259447) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Burgess et al. (US 20180072419 hereinafter Burgess).
Regarding claim 2, Nilsson teaches The first network entity of claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Burgess teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to tune hardware of the first network entity for impedance matching to provide the energy to the target (0055 “Further, the power supply antenna and the energy-harvesting antenna may be configured to enhance the efficiency of power transfer from the power supply antenna and the energy-harvesting antenna, such as by an impedance matching technique, for example.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Burgess with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Burgess 0168). 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, Burgess merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular beam processing features. Since both the cited prior art and Burgess disclose radar systems using similar harvesting 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, Nilsson teaches The first network entity of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to tune the hardware based on a carrier frequency of at least one of the wide sensing signal beams or the narrow sensing signal beam (0003 “The approaches described may be utilised for one or more different frequencies ranges. For example, they may be implemented for frequency ranges (of sensing signalling and/or communication signalling) of 1 GHz or more, 2 GHz or more, 5 GHz or more, or 10 GHz or more. and/or for millimeter wave communication, in particular for radio carrier frequencies around and/or above 52.6 GHz, which may be considered high radio frequencies (high frequency) and/or millimeter waves.”).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 31, claim 31 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim(s) 6-9, 17-18, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al. (US 20250370087 hereinafter Nilsson) in view of Crouch (US 20100259447) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Naguib et al. (US 20170234966 hereinafter Naguib).
Regarding claim 6, Nilsson teaches The first network entity of claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Naguib teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to identify the target as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (title “DEVICE FOR UAV DETECTION AND IDENTIFICATION”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Naguib with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Naguib 0126). 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, Naguib merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular target detection/identification. Since both the cited prior art and Naguib disclose radar 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 7, Nilsson teaches The first network entity of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to output, for transmission to a second network entity, a report (0034 “Determining the reception beam/s may comprise transmitting a measurement report (in particular, a first measurement report), e.g. to the second radio node,”).
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Naguib teaches a report including location information for the target (0007 “According to some examples, a method for managing detection and identification of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) includes determining, by a first detection device configured to detect the UAV in a first detection area, information related to the UAV, and sending, by the first detection device, the information to a second detection device configured to detect the UAV in a second detection area for determining an identity of the UAV.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Naguib with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Naguib 0126). 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, Naguib merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular target detection/identification. Since both the cited prior art and Naguib disclose radar 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 8, Nilsson teaches The first network entity of claim 7, wherein the location information comprises at least one of a range, speed, angle, coordinates, or altitude of the target (0010 “The second sensing signalling may be associated to more accurate detection of position and/or distance, and/or detection of speed and/or velocity, and/or tracking.”).
Regarding claim 9, Nilsson teaches The first network entity of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to output, for transmission to a second network entity, a report (0034 “Determining the reception beam/s may comprise transmitting a measurement report (in particular, a first measurement report), e.g. to the second radio node,”).
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Naguib teaches including a target identification (ID) for the target (0013 “In some examples, the information includes at least one of (1) sensor data outputted by at least one sensor of the first detection device, (2) identity data indicating a determined identity based on the sensor data, (3) characteristic data of the UAV, wherein the characteristic data includes at least one of speed, direction, range, or altitude of the UAV”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Naguib with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Naguib 0126). 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, Naguib merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular target detection/identification. Since both the cited prior art and Naguib disclose radar 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 17, claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 32, claim 32 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim(s) 10-13, 19-20, 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al. (US 20250370087 hereinafter Nilsson) in view of Crouch (US 20100259447) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chowdhury et al. (US 20200403459 hereinafter Chowdhury).
Regarding claim 10, Nilsson teaches The first network entity of claim 1, (0075 “Thus, object detection may be reliable, and base for a tracking mode with other sensing signalling.”).
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Chowdhury teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive, from a second network entity, a request to track and provide energy to another target (0067 “The query manager in the ET can be used for passing the energy updates from the target device to the controller and also process tracking requests from the controller.”; 0081 “These embodiments can further include localizing and tracking the locations of devices for reliable and continuous energy transfer in the applications with mobility such as health-care and also in dynamic environments with user traffic, such as office/commercial buildings”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Chowdhury with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve beamforming techniques (Chowdhury 0047). 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, Chowdhury merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular beamforming features. Since both the cited prior art and Chowdhury disclose similar harvesting 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 11, Nilsson teaches The first network entity of claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Chowdhury teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive, from a second network entity, a request for power control for the narrow sensing signal beam (claim 4 “the instructions transmitted by the controller include one or more of a power level to be transmitted, a duration of transmission, an identification of the energy receiving target device, and a schedule of transmission.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Chowdhury with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve beamforming techniques (Chowdhury 0047). 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, Chowdhury merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular beamforming features. Since both the cited prior art and Chowdhury disclose similar harvesting 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, Nilsson teaches The first network entity of claim 11,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Chowdhury teaches wherein the request for power control includes information requesting one of an increase or a decrease in the power of the narrow sensing signal beam (claim 5 “controller include one or more of switching the energy transmitters on and off, changing a power level transmitted by each of the energy transmitters, and changing a duration of energy transmission of each of the energy transmitters.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Chowdhury with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve beamforming techniques (Chowdhury 0047). 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, Chowdhury merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular beamforming features. Since both the cited prior art and Chowdhury disclose similar harvesting 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 13, Nilsson teaches The first network entity of claim 11,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Chowdhury teaches wherein the request for power control includes information requesting a minimum duration of time for transmission of the power of the narrow sensing signal beam (claim 5 “controller include one or more of switching the energy transmitters on and off, changing a power level transmitted by each of the energy transmitters, and changing a duration of energy transmission of each of the energy transmitters.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Chowdhury with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve beamforming techniques (Chowdhury 0047). 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, Chowdhury merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular beamforming features. Since both the cited prior art and Chowdhury disclose similar harvesting 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, claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 10 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 11 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 33, claim 33 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 12 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 34, claim 34 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 13 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Jeon et al. (US 20230076874) discloses “Methods and apparatuses for power control and beam management to enable coexistence of radar sensing and wireless communication. A method for a UE includes determining a sensing category or characteristics for a sensing application, and selecting a spatial filter for radar sensing transmission or reception based on determined sensing category or characteristics. (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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on (571) 270-5144. 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
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights