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 .
This office action is in response to RCE filed 04/02/2026.
Claims 1-8 and 21-32 are pending. Claims 9-20 are cancelled.
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, 21-26, 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2024/0397474 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0275513 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 22, Wu discloses a method or a base station (BS), comprising:
a radio frequency (RF) transceiver and one or more processors configured to, when executing instructions stored in a memory, cause the BS to:
transmit a sensing message based on a sensing service request, wherein the sensing service request is associated with a sensing procedure (see fig. 8, step 1-2, discloses receiving a request and sending a sensing service request, see also para. 0159-0172);
receive a request for sensing in response to transmitting the sensing message (see fig. 8, step 8, discloses start sensing service as a request for sensing, see also para. 0159-0172); and
transmit sensing data based on the sensing procedure associated with the sensing message, wherein the sensing data is transmitted through a base station / sensing function (BS/SF) interface (see fig. 8, step 12, discloses sending sensing result, see also para. 0159-0172).
Although, Wu discloses separate BS and SF and as such indirectly transmits a sensing message based on a sensing service request, Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein the SF is integrated or is part of base station.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include integrating SF within the base station or making SF part of BS, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
The motivation for doing so would be to allow reducing the overhead in communication by integrating the sensing function.
Although, Wu discloses sending service request, it fails to disclose but Park discloses wherein the sensing service request comprises an extended protocol discriminator, a security header type, a spare half octet, a serving temporary mobile subscription identifier (S-TMSI), a message identifier, and a service type (para. 00633-0639 and 0663-0664, discloses a message with each of the above components).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include a service message as described by Park.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow performing service request according to well defined protocol in the art.
Regarding claim 31, Wu discloses one or more processors (see fig. 12, para. 0244-0245) configured to, when executing instructions stored in memory, perform operations as described with respect to claim 1 (rejected based on same rationale as claim 1).
Regarding claims 2, 23, Wu fails to disclose the BS wherein a sensing function (SF) is located within the BS.
Although, Wu discloses separate BS and SF and as such indirectly transmits a sensing message based on a sensing service request, Wu does not explicitly disclose the BS wherein a sensing function (SF) is located within the BS.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include integrating SF within the base station or making SF part of BS, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
The motivation for doing so would be to allow reducing the overhead in communication by integrating the sensing function.
Regarding claims 3, 24, Wu discloses the BS wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the BS to: receive a paging request or a notification message comprising the sensing service request from a core network (CN) network function (NF), and wherein the sensing service request is generated by the CN NF (see par. 0167, fig. 8, step 8).
Regarding claims 4, 25, Wu discloses the BS wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the BS to: receive the sensing service request, wherein the sensing service request is generated by a user equipment (UE), and the sensing message includes the sensing service request (see fig. 8, step 1, para. 0160).
Regarding claims 5, 26, Wu discloses the BS wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the BS to: perform a sensing procedure based on the request for sensing (see fig. 8, step 9, para. 0168); and generate the sensing data based on the performed sensing procedure (see Id.).
Regarding claims 21, 30, 32, the combination of Wu and Park discloses the BS wherein the sensing message comprises a public land mobile network (PLMN) ID, S-TMSI, location information, establishment cause and UE context request (see Wu: para. 0065-0068, fig. 8, step 2 discloses message including at least location information and context request such as location, Park table 3 and 10, discloses S-TMSI, para. 0342, discloses service request including PLMN ID and establishment cause).
Claims 7-8, 28, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. in view of Park et al. and Liu et al. (US 2024/0406690 A1).
Regarding claims 7, 28, Wu fails to disclose but Liu discloses the BS of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the BS to: receive a sensing response associated with the transmitted sensing data (see fig. 9, sensing parameters sent from SF to UE and in response sensing data is received, see para. 0311-0327), wherein the sensing response includes one or more of a sensing processing report or sensing commands (see fig. 9, deliver sensing data, see para. 0311-0327).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include receiving a response associated with transmitted data as described by Liu.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow collecting sensing data.
Regarding claims 8, 29, the combination of Wu and Liu discloses the BS wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the BS to: transmit the sensing response to a UE (see Liu, para. sending sensing parameter from SF to UE).
Claims 6, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. in view of Park et al. and Roy et al. (US 2023/0086144 A1).
Regarding claim 6, 27, Wu fails to disclose but Roy discloses the BS wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the BS to: transmit a radio resource control (RRC) sensing reconfiguration comprising the request for sensing to a UE (see fig. 2, 206, fig. 3, 308, para. 0264-0275, response message as request for sensing, see also para. 0200, describes the message can be sent in RRC reconfig. message); and receive the sensing data based on the sensing procedure performed by the UE in response to receiving the RRC sensing reconfiguration (see fig. 2, 3, para. 0117, 0120-0123, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to include a request and response sequence as described by Roy.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow configuration and implementation of multiple sensing as described by Roy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 21-32 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NISHANT B DIVECHA whose telephone number is (571)270-3125. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-6:00 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, Deborah J. Reynolds can be reached at 571-272-0734. 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.
NISHANT B. DIVECHA
Supervisory Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights