DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the original application filed on 1/30/2024. Claims 7 and 20 have
been canceled. Claims 1-6, 8-19, and 21-22 are pending in the application.
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 .
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include
the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Fig. 6 has duplicated “2”, and “2a” is not shown. The application specification has "Figure 6 shows another example, where the network infrastructure, comprising servers 3, 3a and network node(s) 2, 2a," in page 10, lines 1 and 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 4, 6, 19, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 in line 5, “channel, with a network, NW, node” should be replaced by “channel, with a network (NW) node”
Claim 4 in line 4, “a radio resource control, RRC, layer;” should be replaced by “a radio resource control (RRC) layer;”
Claim 4 in line 5, “a media access, MAC, layer;” should be replaced by “a media access (MAC) layer;”
Claim 4 in line 6, “a physical, PHY, layer; and” should be replaced by “a physical (PHY) layer; and”
Claim 6 in line 1, “The control unit of claims 1,” should be replaced by “The control unit of claim 1,”
Claim 19 in line 3, “radio resource control, RRC, layer; a media access control, MAC, layer; a physical, Phy, layer;” should be replaced by “RRC layer; a MAC layer; a PHY layer;”
Claim 21 in line 5, “communication channel, with a network, NW, node;” should be replaced by “communication channel, with a network (NW) node;”
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “a control unit” in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b/f)
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 1-6 and 8-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "a control unit" in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitation "a control unit" in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim (e.g., the claims only recite certain functions and fail to set forth any structures involved in the functions). Without structural limitation, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of these claims would extend to all ways of performing the functions, those known and unknown to the inventor, and amounts to pure functional claiming without boundaries. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-6 and 8-19 depend from claim 1 and thus include the above limitations and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reasons similar to those stated above.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a/f)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph,
as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In particular, as noted above, claim limitation “a control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Further, as noted in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the specification describes the function of these modules, but does not provide the required structural support. Thus, in addition to being indefinite (because the scope of the claim is not clear as articulated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection), the claim is similarly rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. That is, the original disclosure does not provide a written description of the structure of the limitation “a control unit”. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-6 and 8-19 depend from claim 1 and thus include the above limitations and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for reasons similar to those stated above.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that
are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 8-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanuga et al.
(US 2022/0225121 Al, hereinafter “Wanuga”) in view of Stauffer et al. (US 2020/0107249 Al, hereinafter “Stauffer”).
Regarding claim 1, Wanuga discloses:
A control unit for a wireless device, the wireless device comprising a first and a second set of transceiver units being connectable to the control unit, the control unit being configured to control the first set of transceiver units to perform communication, utilizing a communication channel, with a network, NW, node and configured to control the second set of transceiver units to sense and/or localize a surrounding object, the control unit further being configured to (WTRU may have multi-mode capabilities. the transceiver may include multiple transceivers for enabling the WTRU to communicate via multiple RATs. WTRU may include a processor, a transceiver, a transmit/receive element. The RF sensing and radar capabilities may be built on an enhanced communication framework (e.g., antenna/processor/ memory/systems in infrastructure devices, base stations, UEs, WTRUs, stations, access points, or the like). WTRU may perform a JCS/radar-like measurement by transmitting a reference signal (e.g., SRS, DMRS, PTRS, similar signal) and estimating the associated backscatter channel, Wanuga: [0032]-[0033], [0037]-[0038], [0101], [0163]):
receive a sensing configuration from the NW node, the sensing configuration comprising a sensing measurement report configuration (WTRU may receive a measurement and reporting resource configuration from a gNB. the measurement and reporting configuration may include multiple sets of RS configurations for backscatter measurements along with multiple sets of reporting configurations, Wanuga: [0133]);
obtain a measurement result based on the sensing operation (WTRU may commence the backscatter measurement and blockage reporting following a time offset (e.g., 02) from receipt of the indication, Wanuga: [0133]-[0135]); and
transmit the measurement result to the NW node utilizing the sensing measurement report configuration (WTRU may send a measured value to the network. a measurement report containing the current measured value may be reported to the network (e.g., gNB/eNB/BS), Wanuga: [0142]).
Wanuga does not explicitly disclose:
cause the second set of transceiver units to perform a sensing operation for sensing and/or localizing the surrounding object in accordance with the received sensing configuration;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Stauffer teaches:
cause the second set of transceiver units to perform a sensing operation for sensing and/or localizing the surrounding object in accordance with the received sensing configuration (the radar system can transmit a radar signal using at least a portion of a licensed frequency band. By analyzing reflections from the radar signal, the radar system can detect and track an object, such as a user, a portion of the user (e.g., an appendage or body part), an animal, an inanimate object (e.g., a vehicle or an obstacle). The radar data can also be used by the radar system to improve probability of detection, improve location accuracy, improve object tracking, improve object orientation and shape estimation, Stauffer: [0026], [0061]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wanuga in view of Stauffer in order to further modify causing the second set of transceiver units to perform a sensing operation for sensing and/or localizing the surrounding object in accordance with the received sensing configuration from the teachings of Stauffer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the radar system is integrated within the UE and the radar system can transmit a radar signal. The radar data can also be used by the radar system to improve probability of detection, improve location accuracy, improve object tracking, improve object orientation and shape estimation (Stauffer: [0026], [0061).
Regarding claim 2, Wanuga in view of Stauffer teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Wanuga further discloses:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the sensing measurement report configuration comprises information about radio resources, such as time resources, frequency resources and/or channel resources, to utilize for transmitting the measurement result to the NW node (The reference signal (RS) configuration may include a periodicity and offset, a repetition (the number of symbols or beams on which the RS may be transmitted repeatedly), a starting symbol and symbol offset (in case of non-contiguous symbols are allocated), a starting physical resource block (PRB), a number of PRBs, a PRB offset, an RE offset and RE density (number of REs per RB per port), a number of ports, power control parameters, and parameters to derive a unique WTRU RS sequence (e.g., sequence ID, cyclic prefix, etc.), Wanuga: [0107]).
Regarding claim 3, Wanuga in view of Stauffer teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Wanuga further discloses:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the sensing measurement report configuration comprises information about which layer to utilize for transmitting the measurement result to the NW node (The gNB may signal the preferred/selected WTRU Tx beam using an appropriate downlink channel configuration (e.g., DCI) in the downlink common channel transmission (e.g., PDCCH), Wanuga: [0158]).
Regarding claim 4, Wanuga in view of Stauffer teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Wanuga further discloses:
The control unit of claim 3, wherein the sensing measurement report configuration specifies that the layer to utilize for transmitting the measurement result to the NW node is one or more of (reporting configuration may be communicated to the WTRU, for example, in RRC signaling (e.g., via an RRC configuration message) or system information, Wanuga: [0154]):
a radio resource control, RRC, layer (WTRU may send the measurement report using an uplink L3 message, for example, an RRC message, Wanuga: [0144]);
Regarding claim 5, Wanuga in view of Stauffer teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Wanuga further discloses:
The control unit of claim 4, wherein the sensing measurement report configuration specifies that the layer to utilize for transmitting the measurement result to the NW node is the RRC layer (The reporting configuration may be communicated to the WTRU (e.g., in an RRC configuration or system information). WTRU may send the measurement report using an uplink L3 message, for example, an RRC message, Wanuga: [0115], [0144]).
Regarding claim 8, Wanuga in view of Stauffer teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Wanuga further discloses:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the measurement result is transmitted to the NW node in a control message (RS configuration may be communicated to the WTRU in RRC signaling (e.g., in an RRC configuration message), Wanuga: [0108]).
Regarding claim 9, Wanuga in view of Stauffer teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Wanuga further discloses:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the sensing operation is a radar operation and the obtained measurement result is based on reception of a response signal, such as a radar signal reflection (target's bearing, or angular position relative to the radar, may be obtained from directional transmission of radar signals to isolate reflections from a limited direction of arrival, Wanuga: [0083]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 10, Wanuga in view of Stauffer teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Wanuga further discloses:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the sensing operation is a backscatter operation and the obtained measurement result is based on a response signal received from a backscatter device (WTRU may measure received power of the backscatter; measure phase of the backscatter; estimate the channel impulse response of the backscatter and/or relevant parameters of channel impulse response, Wanuga: [0110]-[0112]).
Regarding claim 11, Wanuga in view of Stauffer teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Wanuga further discloses:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the measurement result comprises a radio channel impulse response signal/message (WTRU may estimate the channel impulse response (h(t)) using an estimation algorithm, Wanuga: [0110], [0163]).
Regarding claim 12, Wanuga in view of Stauffer teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Wanuga further discloses:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the measurement result comprises a response signal time spread and amplitude variation measure (WTRU may measure received power of the backscatter; measure phase of the backscatter; estimate the channel impulse response of the backscatter and/or relevant parameters of channel impulse response (e.g., round-trip time, delay spread, path-loss, etc.), Wanuga: [0110], [0163]).
Regarding claim 13, Wanuga in view of Stauffer teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Wanuga further discloses:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the measurement result comprises a spatial direction of the response signal, such as a spatial direction of the radar signal reflection, preferably a spatial radio channel impulse response (beamforming may be used to transmit and/or receive signals in desired spatial directions, the sensing information including information indicating one or more blockage statistics associated with at least a portion of the plurality of spatial directions, Wanuga: [0022], Claim 21).
Regarding claim 14, Wanuga in view of Stauffer teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Wanuga further discloses:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the measurement result comprises doppler, velocity or direction information associated with the surrounding object (the ability to determine bearing, or angular position of a target with respect to the transmitter, has been made available through directional transmission of radar signals. the estimation of a target's velocity from the target's Doppler frequency has become a fundamental function of radar systems, Wanuga: [0079]).
Regarding claim 15, Wanuga in view of Stauffer teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Wanuga further discloses:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the measurement result comprises an object identifier, the object identifier determined based on a received response signal, such as a radar signal reflection (radar's ranging capability may refer to the radar system's ability to estimate the distance of the target to the radar receiver. WTRU may be configured to transmit reference signals (RSs) for the purpose of sensing (e.g., detection of objects in proximity). The measurements may indicate the detection of an object on beam, Wanuga: [0082], [0107], [0166]).
Regarding claim 16, Wanuga in view of Stauffer teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Wanuga further discloses:
The control unit of claim 1, wherein the measurement result comprises information related to a difference between a measurement from a previous radar operation and a corresponding measurement of the present radar operation (The measurement value change may refer to the absolute difference between the current measurement value (e.g., blockage rate or number of blocked beams measured based on the current measurement period) and the previously reported measurement value. WTRU may perform a JCS/radar-like measurement by transmitting a reference signal, Wanuga: [0128], [0163]).
Regarding claim 17, Wanuga in view of Stauffer teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Wanuga further discloses:
The control unit of claim 10, wherein the measurement result comprises one or more of an identifier for the backscatter device and a sensor value received from the backscatter device (WTRU may measure received power of the backscatter; measure phase of the backscatter; estimate the channel impulse response of the backscatter and/or relevant parameters of channel impulse response (e.g., round-trip time, delay spread, path-loss, etc.); and/or perform cross-correlation between the received backscatter and the sequence used to transmit the RSs, WTRU may be configured with an uplink RS configuration ( e.g., for the purpose of sensing only, or for the purpose of joint communication and sensing) for backscatter measurements corresponding to each of the Tx beams ( or SSB identifiers or indices), Wanuga: [0110], [0152] ).
Regarding claim 18, Wanuga in view of Stauffer teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Wanuga further discloses:
The control unit of claim 9, wherein the control unit is further configured to classify the object by comparing the received response signal with previously received response signals having assigned object identifiers to find a best match and wherein the object identifier corresponding to the best match is included in the measurement result (The underlying sensing modulation and waveform may be based on Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) technology, which may be used to separate RF reflections based on the distance of the reflecting objects. The micro-doppler and phase variation characteristics of the received signals may be detected by machine learning-based filtering methods, which may then be used to distinguish or detect the features of the objects, Wanuga: [0095]).
Regarding claim 19, Wanuga in view of Stauffer teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Wanuga further discloses:
The control unit of claim 8, wherein the control message is transmitted on one or more of a radio resource control, RRC, layer; a media access control, MAC, layer; a physical, Phy, layer; and an Application layer (reporting configuration may be communicated to the WTRU (e.g., in an RRC configuration or system information). initial or default selection of one set of resources for RS transmission and one set of resources for blockage reporting may be communicated to the WTRU, for example in an RRC configuration, via a downlink MAC-CE message, or via downlink control information (DCI) transmitted over a downlink control channel, Wanuga: [0115], [0126], [0144]).
Regarding claim 21, Wanuga discloses:
A method of a control unit for a wireless device, the wireless device comprising a first and a second set of transceiver units being connectable to the control unit, the method comprising (WTRU may have multi-mode capabilities. the transceiver may include multiple transceivers for enabling the WTRU to communicate via multiple RATs. WTRU may include a processor, a transceiver, a transmit/receive element, Wanuga: [0032]-[0033], [0037]-[0038]):
controlling the first set of transceiver units to perform communication, utilizing a communication channel, with a network, NW, node (the transceiver may include multiple transceivers for enabling the WTRU to communicate via multiple RATs, such as NR and IEEE 802.11, Wanuga: [0037]);
receiving a sensing configuration from the NW node, the sensing configuration comprising a sensing measurement report configuration (WTRU may receive a measurement and reporting resource configuration from a gNB. the measurement and reporting configuration may include multiple sets of RS configurations for backscatter measurements along with multiple sets of reporting configurations, Wanuga: [0133]);
obtaining a measurement result based on the sensing operation (WTRU may commence the backscatter measurement and blockage reporting following a time offset (e.g., 02) from receipt of the indication, Wanuga: [0133]-[0135]); and
transmitting the measurement result to the NW node utilizing the sensing measurement report configuration (WTRU may send a measured value to the network. a measurement report containing the current measured value may be reported to the network (e.g., gNB/eNB/BS), Wanuga: [0142]).
Wanuga does not explicitly disclose:
controlling the second set of transceivers to perform a sensing operation for sensing and/or localizing a surrounding object in accordance with the received sensing configuration;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Stauffer teaches:
controlling the second set of transceivers to perform a sensing operation for sensing and/or localizing a surrounding object in accordance with the received sensing configuration (the radar system can transmit a radar signal using at least a portion of a licensed frequency band. By analyzing reflections from the radar signal, the radar system can detect and track an object, such as a user, a portion of the user (e.g., an appendage or body part), an animal, an inanimate object (e.g., a vehicle or an obstacle). The radar data can also be used by the radar system to improve probability of detection, improve location accuracy, improve object tracking, improve object orientation and shape estimation, Stauffer: [0026], [0061]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wanuga in view of Stauffer in order to further modify controlling the second set of transceivers to perform a sensing operation for sensing and/or localizing a surrounding object in accordance with the received sensing configuration from the teachings of Stauffer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the radar system is integrated within the UE and the radar system can transmit a radar signal. The radar data can also be used by the radar system to improve probability of detection, improve location accuracy, improve object tracking, improve object orientation and shape estimation (Stauffer: [0026], [0061).
Regarding claim 22, Wanuga in view of Stauffer teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 21 above.
Wanuga further discloses:
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium , having thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a data processing unit configured to cause execution of the method of claim 21 when the computer program is run by the data processing unit (the methods described herein may be implemented in a computer program, software, or firmware incorporated in a computer-readable medium for execution by a computer or processor. Examples of computer-readable media include electronic signals (transmitted over wired or wireless connections) and computer-readable storage media, Wanuga: [0175]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanuga in view of Stauffer and in further view of Huang et al. (US 2021/0168762 Al, hereinafter “Huang”).
Regarding claim 6, Wanuga in view of Stauffer teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Wanuga in view of Stauffer does not explicitly disclose:
The control unit of claims 1, wherein the sensing measurement report configuration comprises information about a coding rule to apply to the measurement result for transmission, and wherein the coding rule specifies that the measurement result is coded as an index according to a code book.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Huang teaches:
wherein the sensing measurement report configuration comprises information about a coding rule to apply to the measurement result for transmission, and wherein the coding rule specifies that the measurement result is coded as an index according to a code book (UE shall determine the set of resources to be reported to higher layers in sensing measurement. TX data processor formats, codes, and interleaves the traffic data for each data stream based on a particular coding scheme selected for that data stream to provide coded data. sidelink HARQ-ACK codebook is determined based upon slot index and/or pool index, Huang: [0025], [0050], [0570]-[0571]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wanuga and Stauffer in view of Huang in order to further modify the sensing measurement report configuration which comprises information about a coding rule to apply to the measurement result for transmission, and wherein the coding rule specifies that the measurement result is coded as an index according to a code book from the teachings of Huang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the information of the sidelink HARQ-ACK codebook is arranged based upon the first sidelink assignment index and the second sidelink assignment index. The first UE determines (and/or derives) the order by ordering the plurality of occasions based upon slot indexes (Huang: [0577], [0636]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
References considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached “Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
Bhamri et al. (US 2024/0022386 Al); See Fig. 3, [0039], [0091].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be
directed to SANG C LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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, HASSAN PHILLIPS can be reached on (571)272-3940. 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.
/S.C.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 February 17, 2026