DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed 11/10/2025, have been entered into the record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies at least in part upon new art, as necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims, to reject the limitations discussed in applicant’s argument.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zorgui et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0324541 A1), hereinafter Zorgui, in view of Steinmetz (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0204414 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zorgui teaches (note: what Zorgui does not teach is struck through),
A method (abs., “An RF sensing method”) comprising: receiving, by a user equipment (UE), a synchronization parameter (para. 0111, “para. 0111, “The AD 600 (e.g., the RF sensing unit 650) may be configured to produce the RF sensing request 812 to include one or more parameters/criteria regarding the requested RF sensing.”); (para. 0111, “The AD 600 (e.g., the RF sensing unit 650) may be configured to produce the RF sensing request 812 to include one or more parameters/criteria regarding the requested RF sensing. For example, the RF sensing request 812 may include an indication of a time limit for the RF sensing, e.g., a length of time for the RF sensing to be performed, a future time for the RF sensing to terminate, etc. As another example, the RF sensing request 812 may include a frequency of the RF sensing (how often RS sensing signaling is sent/measured) and/or a frequency of reporting RF sensing results (how often RF sensing results, e.g., measurements, are reported).” The examiner notes that, per para. 0116, “The RS configuration messages 822, 824 contain at least the parameters of the RS to be sent by the transmitter(s) 805,” indicating that the time limit or sensing frequency, as needed, are sent on to the RF receivers 806)); receiving, by the UE and based on the timing information, a reflection of the sensing signal as part of carrying out an environment sensing operation (fig. 8, stage 834. See also para. 0117, “The RS 832 is(are) received by the receiver(s) 806 directly and is(are) reflected by the target object/environment and reflected RS 834 is(are) received by the receiver(s) 806.” The examiner notes that the RS configuration containing timing information is sent to both the transmitter and receiver, and further notes that the signal received by the receiver is based on the timing information, since said timing information determines when the sensing signal is sent and thus when it is received); and transmitting, to a processing node, an indication of the received reflection (fig. 8, arrow 842 shows RF sensing results being sent from the RCVR 806 to the SnMF 700. See also para. 0118, “At stage 840, the receiver(s) 806 report RF sensing results in an RF sensing results message 842 to the SnMF 700).
Steinmetz teaches,
…receiving, by a user equipment (UE), a synchronization parameter (para. 0186, “The data which are required to perform the synchronization can be transmitted to the processing unit which performs the synchronization.” The examiner notes that the processing unit is part of radar device 200, see para. 0104); responsive to the receiving, adjusting, at the UE, a clock, internal to the UE, based on the synchronization parameter (para. 0184, “The method can further comprise synchronizing (operation 740) a clock of the active radar with a clock (or clock(s)) of the receiving radar(s). The synchronization can be performed by a processing unit, such as a processing unit associated with one of the radars, or the processing unit of the device, or another processing unit.”)…
Zorgui and Steinmetz are analogous to the claimed invention because they both teach cooperative radar sensing. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Steinmetz with the clock synchronization of Zorgui because the clock synchronization of Zorgui ensures that data processing is consistent across different elements of the radar system by minimizing clock errors.
Regarding claim 2, Zorgui in view of Steinmetz teaches the method of claim 1. Zorgui further teaches,
…transmitting, by the UE, a capability message to the processing node (para. 0119, “As another example, the RF sensing report 852 may include one or more location indications of one or more of the transmitter(s) 805 and/or the receiver(s) 806. For example, the transmitter location(s) and/or receiver location(s) may be reported if desired information (e.g., heart rate, location, etc.) was not obtained due to the location(s) of the transmitter(s) 805 and/or the receiver(s) 806 (e.g., if a transmitter 805 and a receiver 806 were too far apart to obtain heart rate information, at least with a desired accuracy). The RF sensing report 852 may include other information such as an indication of whether the RF sensing was successful or not (i.e., a positive or negative outcome of the requested RF sensing), e.g., whether a location of an object was detected within a requested threshold accuracy, or whether a heart rate was able to be determined, etc.” The Examiner notes that “capability report,” by its broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonably includes whether RF sensing was successful, i.e. whether the transmitter(s) and/or receiver(s) are capable of performing the requested sensing. The Examiner further notes that the applicant, in para. 0075 of the instant application, the applicant indicates that a report of the positions of the transmitters relative to one another is also one type of capability report).
Regarding claim 3, Zorgui in view of Steinmetz teaches the method of claim 1. Zorgui further teaches,
…receiving, by the UE, control signaling indicating that the UE is part of a cluster of sensing devices (0109, “For environment mapping, the RF sensing coordination unit 750 may coordinate measurement (e.g., schedule signaling and request measurement) of one or more characteristics (e.g., path loss, fading, interference, Doppler shift, etc.) of one or more RF channels by one or more entities (e.g., one or more base stations and/or one or more UEs)” The Examiner notes that coordinating measurement between more than one entity is an indication that the UE is part of a cluster of sensing devices.).
Regarding claim 4, Zorgui discloses the method of claim 1. Zorgui does not further disclose,
…wherein the synchronization parameter comprises at least one of a clock skew parameter and a clock bias parameter.
Steinmetz discloses,
…wherein the synchronization parameter comprises at least one of a clock skew parameter and a clock bias parameter (para. 0185, “Since the position of the aerial vehicle is known (using a localization device, as a GPS embedded in the aerial vehicle, INS, or other devices, etc.), and since the time of emission of the electromagnetic signals from the active radar(s) and the time of reception of the electromagnetic signals by the receiving radar(s) are known, the bias between the clocks can be estimated, for synchronizing these clocks.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the collaborative sensing protocol of Zorgui to include the clock bias parameter of Steinmetz because using clock bias to synchronize clocks in a ranging system is a well-known technique in the art to ensure collaborative sensing systems are calibrated correctly.
Regarding claim 6, Zorgui in view of Steinmetz teaches the method of claim 1. Zorgui further teaches,
…wherein the sensing signal is a radio frequency waveform for performing a sensing operation (para. 0019, “FIG. 8 is a signaling and process flow for radio frequency sensing.”).
Regarding claim 9, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied. The Examiner notes that Zorgui further discloses,
An apparatus (fig. 2, UE 200) comprising at least one processor configured to execute instructions to cause the apparatus to perform operations (fig. 2, processor 210. The examiner notes that para. 0117 lists examples of transmitters and receivers, including UEs such as the one described in fig. 2 as both transmitters and receivers. For example, smartwatches are suggested as a potential transmitter and smartphones as potential receivers)
Regarding claim 10, the same cited section and rationale as claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 11, the same cited section and rationale as claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 12, the same cited section and rationale as claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 14, the same cited rationale as claim 6 is applied.
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied. The Examiner notes that Zorgui further discloses,
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing programming, the programming including instructions (fig. 2, memory 211 contains software 212, noting that the memory, per para. 0059, is a non-transitory storage medium that contains processor-readable (i.e. computer-readable) software. The examiner notes that para. 0117 lists examples of transmitters and receivers, including UEs such as the one described in fig. 2 as both transmitters and receivers. For example, smartwatches are suggested as a potential transmitter and smartphones as potential receivers)
Regarding claim 16, the same cited section and rationale as claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 17, the same cited section and rationale as claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 18, the same cited section and rationale as claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 20, the same cited section and rationale as claim 6 is applied.
Claims 5, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zorgui et al. as applied to claims 1, 9, and 15, respectively, above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0091227 A1), hereinafter Zhang. The Examiner notes that the filing date for Zhang is based on a provisional patent application. Although paragraphs are cited in reference to the PGPub, the Examiner has confirmed that cited teachings in the PGPub of Zhang are present in the provisional patent application.
Regarding claim 5, Zorgui discloses the method of claim 1. Zorgui does not further disclose,
…transmitting, by the UE, the sensing signal for carrying out the environment sensing operation
Zhang discloses,
…transmitting, by the UE, the sensing signal for carrying out the environment sensing operation (fig. 8, step 826).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zorgui, in which one device transmits a signal and another device receives the reflected signal, for a system like that of Zhang, in which an individual UE can both transmit and receive a sensing signal. The UEs of Zorgui have architecture for both transmitting and receiving sensing signals (see Zorgui, fig. 2). Allowing a device to both transmit and receive sensing signals increases the efficiency of the system by increasing the number of receivers per transmitted signal, which is particularly useful for the mapping and sensing operations described by Zorgui in reference to figs. 9 and 10.
Regarding claim 13, the same cited section and rationale as claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 19, the same cited section and rationale as claim 5 is applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yokev et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0209378 A1) discloses a WLAN sensing system.
Agardh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0349984 A1) discloses a radar sensing device in communication with a base station
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 Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
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.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights