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 12-9-2025 have been fully considered. As the arguments are directed towards the claims as amended, please see below.
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 Li, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0249339, published August 6, 2020 in view of Aksu, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0053463, filed August 14, 2020.
As per claims 1 and 12, Li discloses a base station for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (Li, Fig. 10) and configured to cause the base station to:
configure time-frequency resources for radar-sensing in a Radio Access Network ("RAN"), the time-frequency resources comprising a radar-sensing slot (Li, ¶50);
receive radar-sensing information (Li, ¶53);
and determine an obstacle in a cell based on the radar-sensing information (¶54).
Li fails to expressly disclose determining an area of interest, configuring time slots for radar and receiving backscatter.
Aksu teaches determining an area of interest (¶13), configuring communication slots for radar sensing and receive the reflected signal (¶10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an area of interest and receive radar returns in order to gain the benefit of detecting information about the obstacle and its location to avoid signal blockages.
As per claim 2, Li as modified by Aksu discloses the base station of claim 1, further comprising a full-duplex transceiver, wherein the backscatter signal comprises a backscattered signal of a dedicated downlink ("DL") reference signal ("RS") for radar sensing, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to: transmit the dedicated DL RS on the configured time- frequency resources, wherein a periodicity of the dedicated DL RS is based on one or more of: a frequency range containing the DL RS, a beam width of the DL RS, long-term beam failure statistics, or a combination thereof (Li, Fig. 10, ¶9 and 50-53 where OFDM is used).
As per claim 3, Li as modified by Aksu further discloses he base station of claim 1, further comprising a full-duplex transceiver, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to:the transmitted physical downlink channel transmission and the received backscattered signal (Li, Fig. 10 and ¶49-55 where the leaky signal is a copy of the transmitted signal).
As per claim 4, Li as modified by Aksu further discloses The base station of claim 1, further comprising wherein to configure the time-frequency resources, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to configure a specific Bandwidth Part ("BWP") for transmission and measurement of a radar-sensing reference signal ("RS") and to configure a different BWP for data transmission (Li, ¶50 where the PRS is the BWP).
As per claim 5, Li as modified by Aksu further discloses the base station of claim 1, further comprising wherein to configure the time-frequency resources, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to indicate an area of interest and to configure a plurality of half-duplex Transmit-Receive Points ("TRPs") with resources for transmission, measurement and reporting of orthogonal radar-sensing reference signal ("RS") in radar-sensing specific resources (Li, ¶50 resource blocks).
As per claim 6, Li as modified by Aksu further discloses the base station of claim 5, wherein to configure the plurality of TRPs, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to configure each TRP to: transmit radar-sensing RS in one or more downlink ("DL") slots; measure the RS signals from at least one other TRP on configured one or more uplink ("UL") slots; and report measurements of the radar-sensing RS from the at least one other TRP (Li, ¶54).
As per claim 7, Li as modified by Aksu further discloses the base station of claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to receive a measurement report from a TRP, wherein the measurement report combines multiple measurements from multiple TRPs (Li, ¶50 where it is understood that the signal is transmitted more than once).
As per claim 8, Li as modified by Aksu further discloses the base station of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to select a set of full-duplex User Equipments ("UEs") based on a location relative to an area of interest (Li, ¶67 and 72 and Fig. 11 showing the coverage area as the area of interest).
As per claim 9, Li as modified by Aksu further discloses The base station of claim 1, wherein to configure the time- frequency resources, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to configure a set of User Equipments ("UEs") with resources for measurement and reporting of at least one radar-sensing reference signal (Li, ¶69).
As per claim 10, Li as modified by Aksu further discloses The base station of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to select a group of User Equipments ("UEs") to transmit orthogonal radar-sensing reference signals ("RSs") in radar-sensing specific resources (Li, ¶50 and 69).
As per claim 11, Li as modified by Aksu further discloses The base station of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to select a group of User Equipments ("UEs") to transmit radar- sensing reference signals ("RSs") in orthogonal Sidelink ("SL") resources (Li, ¶50 and 69).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use sidelink, 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 Li in providing for obstacle detection.
Claims 13-15 are disclosed by Lee as modified by Aksu as they are the UE side of the communications system presented (Fig. 11 and ¶72).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use UEs instead of the base station for transmission or measurement 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 Li in providing for obstacle detection. It is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine what data should be communicated or processed within each unit of a system.
As per claim 16, Li as modified by Aksu further discloses the base station of claim 5, wherein to receive the radar-sensing information, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to receive, from the plurality of half-duplex TRPs, reporting containing measurements of the radar-sensing RS performed by each TRP (Li, ¶50).
As per claim 17, Li as modified by Aksu further discloses the base station of claim 8, wherein to configure the time-frequency resources, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to configure the set of full-duplex UEs with resources for a transmission, a measurement and a reporting of at least one radar-sensing reference signal ("RS") (Li, ¶50).
As per claim 18, Li as modified by Aksu further discloses the base station of claim 9, wherein to receive the radar-sensing information, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to receive a report from the set of UE, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to configure a UE with area-of-interest information (Li, ¶50 and Fig. 11 where the operating region is the area of interest).
As per claim 19, Li as modified by Aksu further discloses the base station of claim 10, wherein to configure the time-frequency resources, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to configure the group of UEs with the radar-sensing RSs to be transmitted on radar-sensing specific uplink ("UL") slots (Li, ¶50).
As per claim 20, Li as modified by Aksu further discloses the base station of claim 11, wherein to configure the time-frequency resources, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to configure the group of UEs with radar-sensing RS to be transmitted on radar-sensing specific SL slots, wherein each UE of the group of UEs is configured with a SL transmit resource to transmit a radar-sensing RS and configured with one or more SL receive resources to measure radar sensing RS from at least one other UE (Li, ¶50 and 72).
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.
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 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