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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-6, and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 03/11/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection of claim 5.
Applicant’s arguments provided for the 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections of claims 1-18 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 provided for the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection of claim 19 have been considered but are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues, “Regarding Claim 19, the same arguments set forth above regarding Claims 1 and 20 also apply for the ‘mode’ instead of the ‘node’,” (from remarks page 12).
As to point (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that the arguments of claim 1 apply to claim 19. However, due to the differences between the same method applied to a “plurality of nodes” in claim 1 and a “plurality of modes” in claim 19, the claims are rejected using different art. It is therefore not understood how the arguments regarding the rejection of claim 1 apply to the rejection of claim 19.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites in line 9 “determining a sensing accuracy of the several nodes” and in line 14 “selecting the node out of the plurality of nodes which has the highest sensing accuracy”. It appears that line 14 should read “selecting the node out of the several nodes which has the highest sensing accuracy” because the accuracy was evaluated for the several nodes, not the plurality of nodes.
For analogous reasons, it appears that in claim 19, on page 5, line 8, “selecting the mode out of the plurality of modes” should read “selecting the mode out of the several modes.” Likewise, it appears that in claim 20, on page 6, line 1, “selecting the node out of the plurality of nodes” should read “selecting the node out of the several nodes.”
Additionally, claim 19, line 5 recites “several nodes of the plurality of modes”. It appears this line should read “several modes of the plurality of modes”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the nodes of the joint communication and sensing system" on page 5, line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the JCAS system is taught in claim 19, line 2 to comprise “at least one node” and does not require a plurality of nodes. For purposes of examination, page 5, line 9 will be read as "the at least one node of the joint communication and sensing system".
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the joint communication and sensing reference object" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because a joint communication and sensing reference object has not previously been recited. It is unclear if the “object” recited in line 4 is intended to be the same or different as the joint communication and sensing reference object. For purposes of examination, the “joint communication and sensing reference object” will be read as referring to the previously-recited “object”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Zorgui et al. (US-20250219705-A1; hereinafter Zorgui).
A method of selecting a sensing mode (see at least Abs; “Based on the sensing-purpose beam measurement configuration, the sensing node measures sensing-purpose beams received from a transmitting entity and selects one or more of the sensing-purpose beams for sensing the target.”), comprising:
providing a joint communication and sensing (JCAS) system (see at least [0038]; “Integrated Sensing and Communication (ISAC) is an example of the use of RF signals to sense the environment. ISAC seeks to enable the combination of the sensing and communication systems to utilize resources efficiently…”) comprising at least one node and a plurality of modes (see at least [0040]; “Accordingly, as discussed herein, a sensing node, such as a UE or base station, supports beam selection for sensing based on a sensing-purpose beam measurement configuration, which may be received from a network node, such as a base station or sensing server.”),
sensing an object within a network associated with the joint communication and sensing system by several modes of the plurality of modes in order to provide an underlying sensing service such that the same object is sensed by each of the several modes, wherein the plurality of modes comprise the several modes (see at least [0086]; “At stage 2, the network node 602 transmits sensing signals using multiple resources (beams) that may be received by the sensing node 604. For example, for each indicated sensing signal resource in the sensing-purpose beam measurement configuration (e.g. beam 1 and beam 2 in FIG. 6) received at stage 1 of FIG. 7, the sensing node 604 may receive the sensing signal at stage 2 of FIG. 7. One or more of the sensing signals may be received along different beam paths. Beams, for example, may be received directly by the sensing node 604, e.g. along a line of sight (LOS) path, and beams may be reflected by the target object 601 (and other objects) and sensing node 604 may receive the reflected beams along a non-line of sight (NLOS) paths.” Examiner notes that multiple beams may be reflected off the target object.);
determining a sensing accuracy of the several modes (see at least [0087]; “The selection of the sensing-purpose beams for sensing the target object may include measuring one or more metrics of the sensing-purpose beams, such as signal strength information.”),
comparing the respective sensing accuracies of the several modes with each other in order to determine the mode that has the highest sensing accuracy (in [0087] quoted above, the signal strength information is calculated for multiple beams for the purpose of selecting one or more beams to sense the target object, showing that these metrics are used for comparison); and
selecting the mode out of the several modes, which has the highest sensing accuracy (see again at least [0087]; “At stage 3, the sensing node 604 selects one or more sensing-purpose beams for sensing the target object based on at least the sensing-purpose beam measurement configuration.”) as the sensing mode to provide sensing results for the nodes of the joint communication and sensing system (see at least [0088]; “At stage 4, the sensing node 604 sends a sensing-purpose beam measurement report to the network node 602 that includes at least an identification of each of the one or more selected sensing-purpose beams. The report may include additional information, such as the metrics, e.g. Signal strength measurements, as well as delays or other information related to receiving the selected sensing-purpose beams.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-6, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US-20250212079-A1; hereinafter Huang) in view of Kato et al. (US-20210403015-A1; hereinafter Kato).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches:
A method of selecting a sensing node (see at least [0032]; “Additionally, aspects of the present disclosure may utilize sensing handover schemes for different use cases, such as different types of sensing node switching.”), comprising the steps of:
providing a joint communication and sensing (JCAS) system (see at least [0032]; “Aspects of the present disclosure may also utilize schemes for a sensing handover (e.g., sensing UAVs that cross a cell border) in an integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) system.”) comprising a plurality of nodes (see at least Fig. 8, base stations 810 and 812);
sensing an object within a network associated with the joint communication and sensing system by several nodes of the plurality of nodes in order to provide an underlying sensing service (see at least [0090]; “One issue of using a communication network to sense a UAV (or other target object) is the short coverage distance when sensing with a single base station or UE…Based on the above, in order to support the wide-area coverage of UAV monitoring, it may be beneficial to utilize multi-cell sensing. That is, considering the movement of UAVs, it may be beneficial to utilize continuous sensing that relies on the consistent cooperation of multiple base stations/UEs in adjacent cells.”) such that each of the several nodes senses the same object (see at least Fig. 8 and [0094]; “FIG. 8 illustrates diagram 800 and diagram 850 including examples of a wireless communication system. More specifically, diagram 800 and diagram 850 in FIG. 8 show examples of a wireless communication system including a monostatic sensing node switching scheme…In the middle of the fly route, UAV 820 may receive sensing signal 830 from base station 810 or sensing signal 832 from base station 812.”) and provides the sensing service (see at least [0095]; “FIG. 8 depicts that as a UAV moves along a route/path, two monostatic sensing base stations/UEs may transmit and receive sensing signals in sequence. As such, the monostatic sensing node switching scheme in FIG. 8 may indicate a UAV position/speed/Doppler frequency profile that may accelerate beam acquisition/tracking and object recognition, and thus reduce sensing interruption.”), wherein the plurality of nodes comprise the several nodes (see Fig. 8);
determining a sensing accuracy (see at least [0058]; “Referring again to FIG. 1, in certain aspects, the UE 104 may include a sensing component 198 that may be configured to transmit or receive at least one sensing signal, where a first sensing reference signal received power (RSRP) is detected based on the transmitted at least one sensing signal or the received at least one sensing signal.”) of the several nodes;
comparing the respective sensing accuracies of the several nodes with a threshold in order to determine the node that has the highest sensing accuracy (see at least [0096]; “…diagram 900 in FIG. 9 shows an example of a communication flow for a monostatic sensing node switching scheme… At 920, base station/UE 902 may detect whether a sensing RSRP is less than a threshold… At 970, base station/UE 904 detect whether a sensing RSRP is greater than a threshold.”); and
selecting the node out of the plurality of nodes, which has the highest sensing accuracy as the sensing node that provides sensing results for the nodes of the joint communication and sensing system (see at least [0096]; “At 980, base station/UE 904 may transmit a monostatic sensing switch request acknowledgement (ACK) or negative ACK (NACK) that includes a number of parameters/measurements (e.g., sensing RSRP, etc.). Likewise, at 980, base station/UE 902 may receive a monostatic sensing switch request ACK or NACK that includes a number of parameters/measurements (e.g., sensing RSRP, etc.).”).
However, Huang does not explicitly teach comparing the respective sensing accuracies of the several nodes with each other.
Huang discloses sensing handover in the context of integrated sensing and communication, and Kato is directed to a vehicle system comprising multiple sensors. Kato teaches:
A method of selecting a sensor, comprising the steps of:
providing a system (see at least Fig. 24, vehicle system 202) comprising a plurality of sensors (see at least [0444]; “Next, referring to FIG. 24, an example of an operation for determining detection accuracies for the sensors (the camera 243a, the LiDAR unit 244a, the millimeter wave radar 245a) according to a third modified example of the third embodiment will be described.”);
sensing an area by several sensors (see at least [0444]; “(see at least [0444]; “Next, referring to FIG. 24, an example of an operation for determining detection accuracies for the sensors (the camera 243a, the LiDAR unit 244a, the millimeter wave radar 245a) according to a third modified example of the third embodiment will be described.” See also areas S1, S2 and S3 in Fig. 24, where S3 is the detection area of millimeter wave radar 245a.);
determining a sensing accuracy of the several sensors (see at least [0445]; “For example, assume that the detection accuracy in the partial area S11 ranks B, the detection accuracy in the partial area S12 ranks A, and the detection accuracy in the partial area S13 ranks B. Further, assume that the detection accuracy in the partial area S21 ranks A, the detection accuracy in the partial area S22 ranks B, and the detection accuracy in the partial area S23 ranks A. Furthermore, assume that the detection accuracy of the millimeter wave radar 245a ranks B.”);
comparing the respective sensing accuracies of the several sensors with each other in order to determine the sensor that has the highest sensing accuracy (see at least [0445]; “In addition, the detection accuracy determination module 2460a may determine surrounding environment information that is adopted in the overlapping area Sy by comparing the detection accuracy in the partial area S12, the detection accuracy in the partial area S22, and a detection accuracy for the millimeter wave radar 245a.”); and
selecting the sensor out of the several sensors, which has the highest sensing accuracy as the sensor that provides sensing results for the system (see at least [0445]; “In this case, since the detection accuracy in the partial area S12 is the highest, the detection accuracy determination module 2460a determines surrounding environment information that is adopted in the overlapping area Sy as surrounding environment information I1.”).
Both Huang and Kato teach sensing an area using multiple sensors and choosing the most accurate sensor to provide sensing results to the larger system. The system of Huang is a JCAS system that senses using reflected electromagnetic waves, and sensing results are ranked by comparing the RSRP quality metric from each node to a threshold. The system of Kato is an autonomous vehicle that employs multiple sensor types (or multiples of the same sensor type, see [0446]), and sensing results are ranked by comparing the quality metric from each sensor to each other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Huang directly compare sensor quality results when selecting which results to use for the system, as taught by Kato. Such a modification would have a reasonable chance of success because the nodes of Huang already share RSRP results with each other (see [0096]; “At 980, base station/UE 904 may transmit a monostatic sensing switch request acknowledgement (ACK) or negative ACK (NACK) that includes a number of parameters/measurements (e.g., sensing RSRP, etc.). Likewise, at 980, base station/UE 902 may receive a monostatic sensing switch request ACK or NACK that includes a number of parameters/measurements (e.g., sensing RSRP, etc.).”). One of ordinary skill would be motivated to directly compare the quality metrics of the sensing results from different sensors in order to provide the highest quality sensing results to the system, as taught by Kato (see Kato at least [0445]; “In this case, since the detection accuracy in the partial area S12 is the highest, the detection accuracy determination module 2460a determines surrounding environment information that is adopted in the overlapping area Sy as surrounding environment information I1. In this way, since the detection accuracies for the sensors can be determined in detail based on the partial areas, the recognition accuracy with which the surrounding environment of the vehicle 201 is recognized can be improved further.”).
Regarding claim 2, Huang in view of Kato teaches the method according to claim 1. Huang further discloses:
wherein the sensing accuracy depends on a feedback from a joint communication and sensing reference object (see at least [0091]; “Aspects of the present disclosure may also utilize schemes for a sensing handover (e.g., sensing UAVs that cross a cell border) in an ISAC system.”).
Regarding claim 3, Huang in view of Kato teaches the method according to claim 1. Huang further discloses:
wherein the accuracy is obtained by averaging the sensing results (see at least [0096]; “…diagram 900 in FIG. 9 shows an example of a communication flow for a monostatic sensing node switching scheme… At 920, base station/UE 902 may detect whether a sensing RSRP is less than a threshold… At 970, base station/UE 904 detect whether a sensing RSRP is greater than a threshold.” Examiner notes that RSRP is a metric that uses averaging in its computation, as explained in H. Xian, W. Muqing, M. Jiansong and Z. Cunyi, "The impact of channel environment on the RSRP and RSRQ measurement of handover performance," 2011 International Conference on Electronics, Communications and Control (ICECC), Ningbo, China, 2011, pp. 540-543: “RSRP is defined as the linear average over the power contributions (in [W]) of the resource elements that carry cell-specific reference signals within the considered measurement frequency bandwidth.”).
Regarding claim 4, Huang in view of Kato teaches the method according to claim 1. Huang further discloses:
wherein the accuracy is obtained based on timing (see at least [0095]; “Diagram 850 also depicts the fly route for UAV 870, which causes the monostatic sensing scheme to switch nodes as the UAV 870 moves along the fly route. For instance, at the beginning of the fly route, UE 860 transmits sensing signal 880 to UAV 870 and back to itself. As UAV 870 moves further along the fly route, such as in the middle of the fly route, the node is switched from UE 860 to UE 862. In the middle of the fly route, UAV 870 may receive sensing signal 880 from UE 860 or sensing signal 882 from UE 862. At the end of the fly route, UE 862 transmits sensing signal 882 to UAV 820 and back to itself.”).
Regarding claim 5, Huang in view of Kato teaches the method according to claim 1. Huang further discloses:
wherein the accuracy is obtained based on a distance from the respective node to the joint communication and sensing reference object (see at least [0096]; “At 930, base station/UE 902 may determine or identify a candidate target base station (e.g., second base station) based on a UAV position.”).
Regarding claim 6, Huang in view of Kato teaches the method according to claim 1. Huang further discloses:
wherein the accuracy is obtained based on a direction of travel (see at least [0095]; “Diagram 850 also depicts the fly route for UAV 870, which causes the monostatic sensing scheme to switch nodes as the UAV 870 moves along the fly route.”).
Regarding claim 18, Huang in view of Kato teaches the method according to claim 1. Huang further discloses:
wherein the nodes comprise base stations and/or user equipment (see at least [0096]; “As shown in FIG. 9, diagram 900 includes a communication flow diagram between base station/UE 902 (a base station or a UE) and base station/UE 904 (a base station or a UE).”).
Regarding claim 20, Huang discloses:
A method of selecting a sensing node (see at least [0032]; “Additionally, aspects of the present disclosure may utilize sensing handover schemes for different use cases, such as different types of sensing node switching.”), comprising:
providing a joint communication and sensing (JCAS) system comprising a plurality of nodes (see at least [0032]; “Aspects of the present disclosure may also utilize schemes for a sensing handover (e.g., sensing UAVs that cross a cell border) in an integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) system.”);
sensing an object within a network associated with the joint communication and sensing system by several nodes of the plurality of nodes in order to provide an underlying sensing service (see at least [0090]; “One issue of using a communication network to sense a UAV (or other target object) is the short coverage distance when sensing with a single base station or UE…Based on the above, in order to support the wide-area coverage of UAV monitoring, it may be beneficial to utilize multi-cell sensing. That is, considering the movement of UAVs, it may be beneficial to utilize continuous sensing that relies on the consistent cooperation of multiple base stations/UEs in adjacent cells.”) such that each of the several nodes senses the same object (see at least Fig. 8 and [0094]; “FIG. 8 illustrates diagram 800 and diagram 850 including examples of a wireless communication system. More specifically, diagram 800 and diagram 850 in FIG. 8 show examples of a wireless communication system including a monostatic sensing node switching scheme…In the middle of the fly route, UAV 820 may receive sensing signal 830 from base station 810 or sensing signal 832 from base station 812.”) and provides the sensing service (see at least [0095]; “FIG. 8 depicts that as a UAV moves along a route/path, two monostatic sensing base stations/UEs may transmit and receive sensing signals in sequence. As such, the monostatic sensing node switching scheme in FIG. 8 may indicate a UAV position/speed/Doppler frequency profile that may accelerate beam acquisition/tracking and object recognition, and thus reduce sensing interruption.”), wherein the plurality of nodes comprise the several nodes (see Fig. 8);
determining a sensing accuracy (see at least [0058]; “Referring again to FIG. 1, in certain aspects, the UE 104 may include a sensing component 198 that may be configured to transmit or receive at least one sensing signal, where a first sensing reference signal received power (RSRP) is detected based on the transmitted at least one sensing signal or the received at least one sensing signal.”) of the several nodes (see at least [0096]), wherein the sensing accuracy depends on a feedback from the joint communication and sensing reference object (see at least [0005]; “The apparatus may transmit or receive at least one sensing signal, where a first sensing reference signal received power (RSRP) is detected based on the transmitted at least one sensing signal or the received at least one sensing signal.”);
comparing the respective sensing accuracies of the several nodes with a threshold in order to determine the node that has the highest sensing accuracy (see at least [0096]; “…diagram 900 in FIG. 9 shows an example of a communication flow for a monostatic sensing node switching scheme… At 920, base station/UE 902 may detect whether a sensing RSRP is less than a threshold… At 970, base station/UE 904 detect whether a sensing RSRP is greater than a threshold.”); and
selecting the node out of the plurality of nodes, which has the highest sensing accuracy as the sensing node that provides sensing results such that the nodes of the joint communication and sensing system can rely on the sensing results obtained from the selected node (see at least [0096]; “At 980, base station/UE 904 may transmit a monostatic sensing switch request acknowledgement (ACK) or negative ACK (NACK) that includes a number of parameters/measurements (e.g., sensing RSRP, etc.). Likewise, at 980, base station/UE 902 may receive a monostatic sensing switch request ACK or NACK that includes a number of parameters/measurements (e.g., sensing RSRP, etc.).”).
Claims 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Kato, further in view of Edge et al. (US-20230421993-A1; hereinafter Edge).
Regarding claim 7, Huang in view of Kato discloses the method according to claim 1. However, Huang does not explicitly teach:
wherein, in case sensing results of a specific node are sensitive, at least one other node transmits its sensing results to the specific node.
Huang discloses sensing handover in the context of integrated sensing and communication, and Edge is directed to obtaining environmental information using one or more wireless devices. Edge teaches:
wherein, in case sensing results (see at least [0006]; “An example method of environment detection at a server using radio frequency sensing according to the disclosure includes providing radio frequency sensing assistance data to one or more wireless devices, receiving one or more radio frequency sensing reports from the one or more wireless devices, and determining one or more environmental characteristics based at least in part on the one or more radio frequency sensing reports.” Examiner interprets the determined environmental characteristics as the sensing results of the server.) of a specific node (see at least Fig. 4, server 400) are sensitive (see at least [0113]; “Therefore, by using multiple sensing wireless devices, a server may be able to obtain or infer attributes for target objects over both a larger area or volume and with greater accuracy and reliability.” Examiner under BRI interprets sensitive to mean sensitive to new informational inputs.), at least one other node transmits its sensing results to the specific node (see at least [0113]; “The diagram 800 illustrates how a server (e.g. server 400) may obtain RF sensing results from many wireless devices (in this case UEs 802, 804, 806, 808), which may enable RF sensing of a larger area or larger volume than can be sensed by any one wireless device by itself.”).
Huang teaches a sensing handover that allows the appropriate selection of a sensing node in a joint communication and sensing network. Edge similarly teaches directing sensing operations in view of the capabilities of the available sensing nodes in a joint communication and sensing network (see Edge at least [0115]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the capabilities of both Huang and Edge in a joint communication and sensing network.
Regarding claim 8, Huang in view of Kato and Edge discloses the method according to claim 7. Edge further teaches:
wherein the specific node compares the sensing results obtained from the at least one other node to its sensing results (see at least [0110]; “This observation may be generalized to RF sensing results provided by multiple UEs, where the RF sensing results from each UE indicate a number of stationary and moving target objects. A server may combine the indications for the stationary and moving target objects, e.g. by computing a geographic map of the stationary and moving target objects indicated by the RF sensing results provided by each UE. If the stationary target objects sensed by each UE generally align with the stationary target objects sensed by other UEs, then the server may use the locations of the stationary target objects as reference points to define and evaluate the locations of the moving target objects.”).
It would have been obvious to combine Huang and Edge for the reasons given regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Huang in view of Kato and Edge discloses the method according to claim 8. Edge further teaches:
wherein the specific node determines a comparison result when comparing the sensing results obtained from the at least one other node to its sensing results (see at least [0110]; “A server may combine the indications for the stationary and moving target objects, e.g. by computing a geographic map of the stationary and moving target objects indicated by the RF sensing results provided by each UE. If the stationary target objects sensed by each UE generally align with the stationary target objects sensed by other UEs, then the server may use the locations of the stationary target objects as reference points to define and evaluate the locations of the moving target objects. The server may assume that a moving target object sensed by different UEs is the same moving target object if the location of the moving target object is the approximately same relative to the stationary target objects for each UE.”).
It would have been obvious to combine Huang and Edge for the reasons given regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, Huang in view of Kato and Edge discloses the method according to claim 9. Edge further teaches:
wherein the specific node forwards the comparison result to the at least one other node (see at least Fig. 16, where after reporting sensing results to the server in 1606, the sensing node again receives sensing assistance data from the server. See also [0138]; “In an embodiment, the method 1600 may iterate back to stage 1602 and the wireless device may receive additional assistance data from the server. The server may be configured to update the additional assistance data based on the radio frequency results, thus the wireless device may receive updated signal and object tracking information with each iteration of the assistance data.”).
It would have been obvious to combine Huang and Edge for the reasons given regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 11, Huang in view of Kato discloses the method according to claim 1. However, Huang does not teach:
wherein multiple nodes of the plurality of nodes compare sensing results obtained from other nodes to their respective sensing results, and wherein the multiple nodes each determine a comparison result when comparing the sensing results obtained from the other nodes to their respective sensing results.
Edge, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein multiple nodes of the plurality of nodes compare sensing results obtained from other nodes (see at least [0114]; “At time T1, the pedestrian 830c is in area 802a and is being tracked by the UE 802. At time T2, the pedestrian 830c has moved into the area 806a and is being tracked by the UE 806. At or shortly after time T1, an LMF 120 or server 400 that has received RF sensing results from the UE 802 may send assistance data to the UE 806 indicating that the pedestrian 830c will shortly be visible in the area 806a and may provide an expected location, an expected time (e.g. time T2) and expected speed or velocity of the pedestrian 830c together with other attributes of the pedestrian 830c such as approximate height, size, type of clothing etc.”) to their respective sensing results (see at least [0114]; “At time T1, the pedestrian 830c is in area 802a and is being tracked by the UE 802. At time T2, the pedestrian 830c has moved into the area 806a and is being tracked by the UE 806.”), and wherein the multiple nodes each determine a comparison result when comparing the sensing results obtained from the other nodes to their respective sensing results (see at least [0114]; “At or shortly after time T1, an LMF 120 or server 400 that has received RF sensing results from the UE 802 may send assistance data to the UE 806… This may enable UE 806 to detect the pedestrian 830c from RF sensing results obtained by the UE 806 and to specifically track the pedestrian 830c and provide associated RF sensing results to the LMF 120 or server 400.”).
It would have been obvious to combine Huang and Edge for the reasons given regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 12, Huang in view of Kato discloses the method according to claim 1. However, Huang does not teach:
wherein, in case multiple sensing modes are available, it is defined which of the multiple sensing modes is selected.
Edge teaches:
wherein, in case multiple sensing modes are available (see at least [0136], which discusses monostatic and bistatic RF sensing operations for the wireless device), it is defined which of the multiple sensing modes is selected (see at least [0136]; “The server may configure the wireless device to perform monostatic RF sensing operations based on assigned geographic areas, time division, frequency division, and/or combinations of area, time and frequency… In an example, the wireless device may be configured for bistatic RF sensing such that RF signals transmitted by another nearby wireless device may be received by the wireless device to detect one or more target objects.”).
It would have been obvious to combine Huang and Edge for the reasons given regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 13, Huang in view of Kato in view of Edge discloses the method according to claim 12. Edge further teaches:
wherein it is defined how to handle the sensing results obtained in the selected sensing modes (see at least [0138]; “At stage 1606, the method includes reporting radio frequency sensing results to the server.”).
It would have been obvious to combine Huang and Edge for the reasons given regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 14, Huang in view of Kato in view of Edge discloses the method according to claim 12. Edge further teaches:
wherein a node asks the sensing node to feedback sensing results (see at least Fig. 16, where the server node in 1602 sends assistance data to request sensing, then the wireless device performs sensing in 1604, and feeds back the results in 1606) gathered in the multiple sensing modes (see at least [0136]; “At stage 1604, the method includes performing radio frequency sensing operations based at least in part on the radio frequency sensing assistance data… The radio frequency sensing operation may include transmitting one or more radio frequency (RF) signals (e.g. RF signals for IEEE 802.11 WiFi or 5G NR).”).
It would have been obvious to combine Huang and Edge for the reasons given regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, Huang in view of Kato and Edge discloses the method according to claim 14. Edge further teaches:
wherein the node (see at least [0110], “A server may combine the indications…”) compares the sensing results received from the sensing node (see at least [0109]; “The RF sensing results for the stationary target objects may be used to compare RF sensing results between different UEs.”).
It would have been obvious to combine Huang and Edge for the reasons given regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, Huang in view of Kato and Edge discloses the method according to claim 12. Edge further teaches:
wherein the sensing node only forwards the sensing results (see at least Fig. 16, stage 1606) of the sensing mode that has the best performance compared to the sensing results of the other sensing modes (see at least [0136], where the RF assistance data configures the sensing mode based on factors affecting the quality of the results: “At stage 1604, the method includes performing radio frequency sensing operations based at least in part on the radio frequency sensing assistance data. The UE 200, including the general-purpose processor 230 and the transceiver 215, is a means for performing RF sensing operations. In an example, the wireless device receiving the RF sensing assistance data at stage 1602 may configure transmitter and/or receiver settings based on the RF sensing assistance data. The server may configure the wireless device to perform monostatic RF sensing operations based on assigned geographic areas, time division, frequency division, and/or combinations of area, time and frequency. Other information elements in the RF sensing data may also be used to configure RF sensing operations.”).
It would have been obvious to combine Huang and Edge for the reasons given regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, Huang in view of Kato and Edge discloses the method according to claim 12. Edge further teaches:
wherein a node asks the sensing node to feedback (see at least Fig. 16 and [0138]: “At stage 1606, the method includes reporting radio frequency sensing results to the server.”) a result derived from the sensing results gathered by the sensing node rather than the sensing results themselves (see at least [0138]; “In an example, the wireless device may be configured to determine attributes associated with one or more target objects based on the radio frequency sensing operations. The attributes may include size, motion, range, bearing (e.g., boresight direction), elevation (e.g., in 3D implementations), velocity, direction of motion or combinations thereof based on received RF signals. The RF sensing results include data such as the attribute information. Reporting the radio frequency sensing results may include reporting the one or more attributes associated with the one or more target objects.”).
It would have been obvious to combine Huang and Edge for the reasons given regarding claim 7.
Conclusion
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 Ashley B. Raynal whose telephone number is (703)756-4546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 4 PM.
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 at (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 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.
/ASHLEY BROWN RAYNAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights