DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 1/8/2024.
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Claims 1-30 are rejected.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-7,10-12, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US Pub. 2025/0106605)(Y1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1 and 29, Y1 teaches a sensing node (i.e. UE)[refer Fig. 2; 104], comprising:
one or more memories [refer Fig. 2; 220]; one or more transceivers [refer Fig. 2; 212]; and
one or more processors [refer Fig. 2; 216] communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers [refer Fig. 2; 200], the one or more processors, either alone or in combination [paragraph 0046], configured to:
access a wireless channel according to a channel access rule (i.e. RACH protocol) for a radio frequency (RF) sensing session (i.e. communications)[paragraph 0028], the channel access rule is based on a channel access type (i.e. transmission and reception under 2G, 3G, BT, WiFi, etc.) for the RF sensing session [paragraph 0048], one or more channel access conditions for the RF sensing session [paragraph 0051], or both [paragraph 0052]; and
transmit, via the one or more transceivers, based on gaining access to the wireless channel, one or more RF sensing signals on the wireless channel for the RF sensing session [paragraph 0062].
Regarding claim 2, Y1 teaches the channel access type comprises: without a channel access procedure (LBT or CCA are not recited, therefore they are not used)[refer paragraph 0064].
Regarding claim 3, Y1 teaches the channel access procedure comprises: a listen before talk (LBT) procedure, or a clear channel assessment (CCA) procedure (LBT or CCA are not recited, therefore they are not used)[refer paragraph 0064].
Regarding claim 5, Y1 teaches the channel access rule is based on a combination of the channel access type and the one or more channel access conditions [paragraph 0051].
Regarding claim 6, Y1 teaches a single channel access configuration indicates a plurality of channel access rules (i.e. protocol settings)[paragraph 0043], including the channel access rule [paragraph 0048].
Regarding claim 7, Y1 teaches each of the plurality of channel access rules is expressed as a combination of channel access type and at least one channel access condition [paragraph 0051].
Regarding claim 10, Y1 teaches receiving, via the one or more transceivers, from a network entity, one or more channel access configurations indicating one or more channel access rules (i.e. protocol settings)[paragraph 0043], including the channel access rule [paragraph 0048].
Regarding claim 11, Y1 teaches the network entity is: a sensing management function (SnMF), or a base station [paragraph 0041].
Regarding claim 12, Y1 teaches the one or more channel access configurations are received: in assistance data for the RF sensing session (i.e. sensing assistant data)[paragraph 0079].
Claims 21-27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (US Pub. 2022/0408498)(C1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 21 and 30, C1 teaches a sensing node (i.e. UE)[refer Fig. 7; 705][paragraph 0152], comprising:
one or more memories [refer Fig. 7; 730]; one or more transceivers [refer Fig. 7; 715]; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers [refer Fig. 7; 740], the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to:
receive, via the one or more transceivers, from a network entity (i.e. base station)[refer Fig. 3; 105-b], a configuration [refer Fig. 3; 305] for prioritizing channel access attempts for a plurality of types of channel access (i.e. prioritization parameter sets for RACH procedure)[paragraph 0120]; and
perform one or more channel access operations for a highest priority type of channel access indicated in the configuration (the UE selects a set of RACH prioritization parameters with a given priority, such as a highest priority, to perform RACH procedure)[paragraph 0046].
Regarding claim 22, C1 teaches the sensing node is a user equipment (UE) (i.e. UE)[refer Fig. 7; 705][paragraph 0152].
Regarding claim 23, C1 teaches the plurality of types of channel access comprises: sidelink communication [paragraph 0074].
Regarding claim 24, C1 teaches the network entity is a base station [refer Fig. 3; 105-b][paragraph 0046].
Regarding claim 25, C1 teaches the configuration is received via: one or more system information blocks (SIBs) [paragraph 0098].
Regarding claim 26, C1 teaches the sensing node is a transmission-reception point (TRP) [paragraph 0076].
Regarding claim 27, C1 teaches the plurality of types of channel access comprises: SIB transmission [paragraph 0098], or radio resource control (RRC) configuration [paragraph 0087].
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pub. 2025/0106605)(Y1 hereafter) in view of Lin et al. (US Pub. 2025/0261215)(L1 hereafter).
Regarding claim 4, Y1 fails to disclose the one or more channel access conditions comprise: a transmit power for transmission of the one or more RF sensing signals satisfying a transmit power threshold, an RF sensing service level of transmission of the one or more RF sensing signals satisfying a threshold level, or any combination thereof.
L1 discloses that RACH parameters provided in a configuration message can be used to determine a transmit power of messages and indicate thresholds on which a UE is to determine at least one reference signal, such as SSB or CSI-RS [paragraph 0189], the UE is able to measure whether an RSRP (i.e. power) above an RSRP threshold for the reference signals [paragraph 0190].
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 teachings of Y1 to incorporate the determination of reference power for transmissions based upon received RACH parameters as taught by L1. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of identifying a received transmission using one or more thresholds configured for RACH [refer L1; paragraph 0191].
Claims 8,9,13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Y1 in view of Cheng et al. (US Pub. 2022/0408498)(C1 hereafter).
Regarding claim 8, Y1 doesn’t explicitly disclose a plurality of channel access configurations indicate a plurality of channel access rules, each of the plurality of channel access configurations indicates a single channel access rule of the plurality of channel access rules, and one of the plurality of channel access configurations indicates the channel access rule.
C1 discloses that a receiving device can try multiple receive configurations when receiving various signals from base stations, such as synchronization and reference signals, the configurations allowing for different directional listening set, and the receiving device can use a single receive configuration to receive a single beam direction for data signals accordingly [paragraph 0086].
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 teachings of Y1 to incorporate the reception of multiple configurations for RACH procedures as taught by C1. One would be motivated to do so to allow a receiving device, such as a UE, to apply a configuration with acceptable signal qualities [refer C1; paragraph 0086].
Regarding claim 9, Y1 doesn’t expressly disclose that each of the plurality of channel access rules is expressed as a combination of channel access type and at least one channel access condition.
C1 discloses that a receiving device can try multiple receive configurations when receiving various signals from base stations, such as synchronization and reference signals, the configurations allowing for different directional listening set, and the receiving device can use a single receive configuration to receive a single beam direction for data signals accordingly [paragraph 0086].
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 teachings of Y1 to incorporate the reception of multiple configurations for RACH procedures as taught by C1. One would be motivated to do so to allow a receiving device, such as a UE, to apply a configuration with acceptable signal qualities [refer C1; paragraph 0086].
Regarding claim 13, Y1 doesn’t expressly disclose that the one or more channel access configurations are received via: licensed spectrum, or unlicensed spectrum.
C1 discloses that devices can operate using an unlicensed spectrum [paragraph 0079].
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 teachings of Y1 to incorporate the implementation of operating using an unlicensed spectrum band as taught by C1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known process within the field of endeavor to yield predictable results [refer C1; paragraph 0079].
Regarding claim 19, Y1 teaches the sensing node is a user equipment (i.e. UE)[refer Fig. 2; 104].
However, Y1 fails to disclose that the one or more RF sensing signals are one or more uplink reference signals.
C1 discloses the transmission of reference signals that although disclosed with respect to the transmission from a base station can be performed by a UE employing similar techniques [paragraph 0085].
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 teachings of Y1 to incorporate the implementation of a UE providing uplink signaling as taught by C1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known process within the field of endeavor to yield predictable results [refer C1; paragraph 0085].
Regarding claim 20, Y1 fails to disclose that the sensing node is a transmission-reception point (TRP), and the one or more RF sensing signals are one or more downlink reference signals.
C1 discloses that network devices can be defined as transmission/reception points [paragraph 0076], some signals, such as synchronization signals, reference signals, or other control signals can be transmitted in different beam directions in order to identify a transmission device or a receive device such as a UE for later transmission or reception [paragraph 0083].
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 teachings of Y1 to incorporate the implementation of a transmission/reception point for providing reference signaling as taught by C1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known process within the field of endeavor to yield predictable results [refer C1; paragraph 0083].
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Y1 in view of Aygul et al. (US Pub. 2025/0142413)(A1 hereafter).
Regarding claim 14, Y1 fails to disclose transmitting, via the one or more transceivers, one or more capability messages to a network entity, the one or more capability messages indicate one or more channel access types supported by the sensing node, one or more channel access conditions supported by the sensing node, or both.
A1 discloses that the sensing capabilities of a wireless device can be stored within a device sensing capability registry (DSCR)[paragraph 0149], the shared information for registry include information such as application identifier, station IDs, sensing signal parameters, sensing and transmission capabilities can be stored within a DSCR [paragraph 0165].
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 teachings of Y1 to incorporate the sending and storing of capabilities of devices within a wireless network as taught by A1. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of controlling sensing transmissions and optimization between access points and stations [refer A1; paragraph 0166].
Regarding claim 15, Y1 fails to disclose the one or more capability messages further indicate one or more channel access conditions supported by the sensing node.
A1 discloses that the sensing capabilities of a wireless device can be stored within a device sensing capability registry (DSCR)[paragraph 0149], the shared information for registry include information such as application identifier, station IDs, sensing signal parameters, sensing and transmission capabilities can be stored within a DSCR [paragraph 0165].
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 teachings of Y1 to incorporate the sending and storing of capabilities of devices within a wireless network as taught by A1. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of controlling sensing transmissions and optimization between access points and stations [refer A1; paragraph 0166].
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Y1 in view of Freda et al. (US Pub. 2012/0113918)(F1 hereafter).
Regarding claim 16, Y1 fails to disclose transmission of the one or more RF sensing signals is based on a duty cycle of the one or more RF sensing signals.
F1, in the field of wireless detection in a wireless network [paragraph 0074], discloses that a duty cycle can be configured for each channel derived from requirements [paragraph 0087].
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 teachings of Y1 to incorporate the configuration of duty cycle requirements in a wireless setting as taught by F1. One would be motivated to do so to provide accurate sensing [refer F1; paragraph 0086].
Regarding claim 17, Y1 fails to disclose different effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) levels of the one or more RF sensing signals correspond to different duty cycle threshold values of the one or more RF signals.
F1, in the field of wireless detection in a wireless network [paragraph 0074], discloses that a duty cycle can be configured for each channel derived from requirements [paragraph 0087], in channel configurations, a list of maximum EIRPs that can be used on each channel is set [paragraph 0111][refer Table 1; Message Contents - EIRP] and silent period requirements (i.e. duty cycle) can be set [refer Table 1; SET_SILEN_PERIOD_REQUIRMENTS; Description].
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 teachings of Y1 to incorporate the configuration of maximum EIRP and duty cycle requirements in a wireless setting as taught by F1. One would be motivated to do so to provide means of utilizing the channels for determining presence of interference [refer F1; paragraph 0105].
Regarding claim 18, Y1 fails to disclose an EIRP level of the one or more RF sensing signals is fixed, the EIRP level of the one or more RF sensing signals is based on a class or category of the sensing node, the EIRP level of the one or more RF sensing signals is configured by a network entity, or any combination thereof.
F1, in the field of wireless detection in a wireless network [paragraph 0074], discloses that a duty cycle can be configured for each channel derived from requirements [paragraph 0087], in channel configurations, a list of maximum EIRPs that can be used on each channel is set [paragraph 0111][refer Table 1; Message Contents - EIRP] and silent period requirements (i.e. duty cycle) can be set [refer Table 1; SET_SILEN_PERIOD_REQUIRMENTS; Description].
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 teachings of Y1 to incorporate the configuration of maximum EIRP and duty cycle requirements in a wireless setting as taught by F1. One would be motivated to do so to provide means of utilizing the channels for determining presence of interference [refer F1; paragraph 0105].
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over C1 in view of Y1.
Regarding claim 28, C1 fails to disclose the network entity is: a sensing server, a location server, or an SnMF.
Y1 discloses that in various networks, an entity for controlling managing and coordinating sensing can be defined as a sensing session management function and can be used between multiple network nodes [paragraph 0041].
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 teachings of C1 to incorporate the implementation of a session management function within a network as taught by Y1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known process within the field of endeavor to yield predictable results [refer Y1; paragraph 0083].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C KAVLESKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3619. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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 C Jiang can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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.
/R. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412