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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 14, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed January 5, 2026, with respect to Claim 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of Claims 12-19 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 12-19 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 written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 12 recites the limitation “wherein the set of objects in the sensing environment includes at least one target object and at least one unintended object, wherein the at least one target object is intended for a sensing operation and the at least one unintended object is unintended for the sensing operation; and receive, from the UE, a sensing indication that corresponds to the sensing operation, wherein the sensing indication includes sensing information associated with the at least one target object of the set of objects in the sensing environment based on the at least one target object.” The claim limitation suggests that sensing information associated with at least one of the intended and unintended target objects are received by the network node from the UE. However, the applicant’s disclosure and figures (paragraphs [0089]-[0090] and figure 6, step 614 of US publication no. 20240345219) teaches excluding data for the unintended object in the set of objects from being sent to the network node via the sensing indication. Therefore, the current claim contradicts the applicant’s specification and is not taught, suggested, or made obvious by the specification and thus constitute new matter. Claims 13-19 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 written description requirement by virtue of being dependent on claim 12.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al US 20240004049 (hereinafter Wang) in view of Brunel US 20200076488.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (see fig. 2, [0038]), comprising:
memory (fig. 2, [0042]); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory (see fig. 2, [0042]) and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to:
receive, from a network node (UE_1 102-2, see fig. 4), environmental information associated with a sensing environment (416, location information, see [0081], [0083]);
detect, during a sensing operation, a set of objects in the sensing environment (418, 420, see fig. 4, [0022]-[0023], [0036], [0081], [0085]); and
process data for at least one target object in the set of objects or filter data for at least one unintended object in the set of objects based on the environmental information (422, 424, see figs. 4-5, [0083]-[0085]), wherein the environmental information indicates at least one characteristic associated with the set of objects in the sensing environment (416, location information, see [0022]-[0023], [0036], [0081], [0083]).
Wang does not disclose wherein the network node is a non-UE wireless device that is included as a component of a wireless network that serves the UE.
In a similar field of endeavor, Brunel discloses a non-UE wireless device (base station, see [0166]) that is included as a component of a wireless network that serves a UE (UEs 2a-2g, wireless network 10, see fig. 1, [0111]), sending environmental information associated with a sensing environment to the UE (base station provides local map data to the UE, see [0005], [0011]-[0021], [0161], [0166]-[0167]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Brunel with Wang with a reasonable expectation of success by sending 3D map data of from the base station to the UE so that the UE identifies obstacles in the environment in order to accurately process acquired sensor data to determine position.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1, Wang further discloses wherein the environmental information is associated with at least one of a previous sensing operation result, a priori information for the at least one unintended object, or a sensor of the network node (radar RX signal samples, see fig. 1, [0069], [0081], [0083]).
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1, Wang further discloses wherein the at least one characteristic associated with the set of objects includes at least one of a location, a shape, a material, material information, or an expected signaling path power of at least one signaling path of one or more objects of the set of objects (see [0069], [0081], [0083]).
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 3, Wang further discloses wherein the location of the one or more objects includes at least one of ground, a wall, a floor, a ceiling, a building, a non-building structure, a parked vehicle, furniture, a pedestrian, an automated guided vehicle (AGV), or a drone (see [0021], [0036]);
wherein the shape of the one or more objects includes at least one of a volume, a size, an orientation, a projected shape, or a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) cross- section (RCS) (see [0021], [0036]);
wherein the material of the one or more objects includes at least one of metal, brick, concrete, glass, wood, plastic, or flesh (see [0021], [0036]);
wherein the material information of the one or more objects includes at least one of humidity, conductivity, or reflectivity; or
wherein the expected signaling path power of the one or more objects includes at least one of a relative power to noise level or a relative power to line of sight (LOS) peak level.
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1, Wang further discloses wherein the sensing operation is a monostatic sensing operation or a bistatic sensing operation (see fig. 4, [0081]-[0083], [0085]).
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1, Wang further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
sense the at least one target object during the sensing operation in the sensing environment (see [0022]);
process the at least one target object based on the sensing operation (see [0083]-[0084]); and
transmit, for a network node, a sensing indication that includes sensing information associated with the at least one target object based on the processed at least one target object (see [0087]).
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1, Wang further discloses wherein the filtered data for the at least one unintended object in the set of objects is at least one of a time of arrival (ToA), an angle of arrival (AoA), a velocity, a Doppler shift, a micro-Doppler shift, or a signaling path power (see [0083] Also note, process data for at least one target object is selected in claim 1).
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1, Wang further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
output an indication of the processed data for the at least one target object or the filtered data for the at least one unintended object (422, 424, [0087], [0090]);
wherein to output the indication, the at least one processor is configured to perform at least one of:
store the indication of the processed data for the at least one target object or the filtered data for the at least one unintended object; or
transmit the indication of the processed data for the at least one target object or the filtered data for the at least one unintended object (422, 424, [0087], [0090]).
Regarding claim 20, Wang discloses a method of wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (see fig. 2, [0038]), comprising:
receiving, from a network node (UE_1 102-2, see fig. 4), environmental information associated with a sensing environment (416, location information, see [0081], [0083]);
detecting, during a sensing operation, a set of objects in the sensing environment (418, 420, see fig. 4, [0022]-[0023], [0036], [0081], [0085]); and
processing data for at least one target object in the set of objects or filtering data for at least one unintended object in the set of objects based on the environmental information (422, 424, see figs. 4-5, [0083]-[0085]), wherein the environmental information indicates at least one characteristic associated with the set of objects in the sensing environment (416, location information, see [0022]-[0023], [0036], [0081], [0083]).
Wang does not disclose wherein the network node is a non-UE wireless device that is included as a component of a wireless network that serves the UE.
In a similar field of endeavor, Brunel discloses a non-UE wireless device (base station, see [0166]) that is included as a component of a wireless network that serves a UE (UEs 2a-2g, wireless network 10, see fig. 1, [0111]), sending environmental information associated with a sensing environment to the UE (base station provides local map data to the UE, see [0005], [0011]-[0021], [0161], [0166]-[0167]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Brunel with Wang with a reasonable expectation of success by sending 3D map data of from the base station to the UE so that the UE identifies obstacles in the environment in order to accurately process acquired sensor data to determine position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7 and 9 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Srivastav US 12,352,850 discloses geo-localization using 3D sensor data.
Kassir et al US 20230146061 discloses a in some aspects of wireless communication, radar-based sensing may provide information about obstacles and/or objects in an environment. For example, a base station or a road side unit (RSU) may have a radar component that transmits a radar signal and monitors for reflections of the radar signal that indicate the presence of a physical object or other information about the surrounding environment.
Landis et al US 20220182161 discloses interference management techniques.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUMIDE T AJIBADE AKONAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES N APPIAH can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645