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 .
Claim Interpretation
During examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. The focus of the inquiry regarding the meaning of a claim should be what would be reasonable from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111 for a full discussion of broadest reasonable interpretation. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification—the greatest
clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the
claim terms. The presumption that a term is given its ordinary and customary meaning may be rebutted by the applicant by clearly setting forth a different definition of the term in the specification. When the specification sets a clear path to the claim language, the scope of the claims is more easily determined and the public notice function of the claims is best served. During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, "[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim." See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTVEnterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).See MPEP § 2111.01 for a full discussion of the plain meaning of claim language.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the “or” language, the condition would also not occur and the step or function claimed would never be realized, hence the claim does not require to perform the step or function. See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, at 4-5 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2011, 2011 WL 1211248 at 2 (BPAI Mar. 25, 2011); see also In re Johnston, 435 f.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006)( "optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted”). “Or” conditions are not limitations against which prior art must be found. Under the broadest scenario, the steps or functions dependent on the “or” condition would not be invoked, and such, the Examiner is not required to find these limitations in the prior art in order to render the claim anticipated. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 f.3d 1359, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
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 3-10 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.
Claims 3-10 are dependent on a cancelled claim 2. Because these claims depend on a cancelled claim, no art can be applied.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The sensing radio link and the communication radio link are independent of a RRC state of the UE for communication purpose is stated in claim 11. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0076417 (Bayesteh, et al).
Bayesteh, et al discloses method for wireless sensing (figure 4, ¶61, 68) comprising transmitting a sensing signal for providing a sensing purpose (#460, 464, ¶61, 75, 114) and providing a sensing radio link for a wireless sensing operation (figures 1 and 4, #402-466, ¶61, 68, 114, 115). The wireless sensing operation, wherein the providing is by a radio access network ("RAN") node and the sensing radio link is configured with a user equipment ("UE"), and the transmitting and the providing are independent of a radio resource channel ("RRC") state of the UE for a communication purpose (¶24-25, 30-32. 66-68, 113-115, 157, 164, claims 19, 20, 25, 26, figure 4).
Regarding claim 10, receiving an echo signal in response to the sensing signal, note ¶118-120, 122-125.
Regarding claim 11, Bayesteh, et al shows a method for wireless sensing (figure 4) comprising receiving a sensing signal for a sensing purpose #460, 464 ¶161, 75, 114). Transmitting an echo signal in response to receipt of the sensing signal (¶118, 122, #404, 460,410, 406, 462) and establishing a sensing radio link for the wireless sensing operation (figures 1 and 4, #402-466, ¶61, 68, 114, 115). The receiving and the transmitting is by a user equipment ("UE") and the sensing radio link is established with a base station, and the sensing radio link is independent of a radio resource channel ("RRC") state of the UE for communication purpose, (¶24-25, 30-32. 66-68, 113-115, 157, 164, claims 19, 20, 25, 26, figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, note #110a, #170a. Regarding “wherein the UE is subject to preconfiguration by the basestation” this limitation stating something that may or could happen and hence, it is optional and not a patentable limitation.
Regarding claim 13, the UE is configured by the basestation with dual functions of wireless communication via a communication radio link ("RL") and wireless sensing via a sensing radio link ("S-RL"), wherein the RL and the S-RL are simultaneous, note figure 5, #530, 532. 550.
Regarding claim 15, the communication radio link and sensing radio link utilize different physical resources, such that the sensing and/or echo signal are physically separated from a parallel communication signal, note figure 5, #530, 532. 550.
Regarding claim 16, note ¶24-25, 30-32. 66-68, 113-115, 157, 164, claims 19, 20, 25, 26, figure 4.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 17 and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose or make obvious the sensing radio link is configured by base station for providing target UE's environmental or context details to the base station for improving the ongoing or upcoming wireless communication between the UE and the base station. Also, processing, after receiving the sensing signal, the sensing signal by either being reflected immediately, or identifying and then reflecting the sensing signal, or by identifying, evaluating and then reflecting the sensing signal subject to a preconfiguration by the base station. In combination with a method for wireless sensing comprising receiving a sensing signal for a sensing purpose; transmitting an echo signal in response to receipt of the sensing signal and establishing a sensing radio link for a wireless sensing operation. The receiving and the transmitting is by a user equipment ("UE") and the sensing radio link is established with a base station, and the sensing radio link is independent of a radio resource channel ("RRC") state of the UE for communication purpose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Anticipatory reference need not duplicate, word for word, what is in claims; anticipation can occur when claimed limitation is "inherent" or otherwise implicit in relevant reference (Standard Havens Products Incorporated v. Gencor Industries Incorporated, 21 USPQ2d 1321). “...a reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘d[oes] not expressly spell out’ all of the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, (Fed. Cir. 2015). Thus, “a reference may still anticipate if that reference teaches that the disclosed components or functionalities may be combined and one of skill in the art would be able to implement the combination.” This was an anticipation, without resort to obviousness, because the reference sufficiently disclosed making the combination, though not expressed a single embodiment or example, Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2016). During examination before the Patent and Trademark Office, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation and limitations from the specification may not be imputed to the claims (Ex parte Akamatsu, 22 USPQ2d, 1918; In re Zletz, 13 USPQ2d 1320, In re Priest, 199 USPQ 11). During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, "[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim." See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTVEnterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In response to Applicant's argument, the law of anticipation requires that a distinction be made between the invention described or taught and the invention claimed. It does not require that the reference "teach" what the subject patent teaches. Assuming that a reference is properly "prior art," it is only necessary that the claims under consideration "read on" something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or "fully met" by it. It was held in In re Donohue, 226 USPQ 619, that, "It is well settled that prior art under 35 USC §102(b) must sufficiently describe the claimed invention to have placed the public in possession of it...Such possession is effected if one of ordinary skill in the art could have combine the description of the invention with his own knowledge to make the claimed invention." Clear inference to the artisan must be considered, In re Preda, 159 USPQ 342. A prior art reference must be considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, In re Samour, 197 USPQ 1. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” Claim term is not limited to single embodiment disclosed in specification, since number of embodiments disclosed does not determine meaning of the claim term, and applicant cannot overcome "heavy presumption" that term takes on its ordinary meaning simply by pointing to preferred embodiment (Teleflex Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp., CA FC, 6/21/02, 63 USPQ2d 1374). Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA1969). “Arguments that the alleged anticipatory prior art is nonanalogous art’ or teaches away from the invention’ or is not recognized as solving the problem solved by the claimed invention, [are] not germane’ to a rejection under section 102.” Twin Disc, Inc. v. United States, 231 USPQ 417, 424 (Cl. Ct. 1986) (quoting In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982)). A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it. The question whether a reference “teaches away” from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir.1998).
From Applicant’s attorney remarks, it is very clear that the attorney does not understand the meaning of the word “or”. “Or” is a conjunction which is used to link alternative. Applicant’s attorney states that the reference discloses “In particular, the UE can be configured by the corresponding TRP to perform the passive sensing by sensing a passive sensing through L1 signaling or higher layer signaling including RRC or MAC CE. Id. at [0157]” Yes, the reference’s UE can be configured by the corresponding TRP to perform the passive sensing by sensing a passive sensing through L1 signaling or higher layer signaling including RRC, but the attorney willfully ignores that the reference also states that the UE can be configured by the corresponding TRP to perform the passive sensing by sensing a passive sensing through L1 signaling or higher layer signaling including MAC CE. This is intentionally misleading and not taking the reference as a whole. The attorney purposely misleading statements is noticed by the Examiner. The attorney and Applicant cannot pick and choose what they wish to see in the reference and willfully ignore other parts of the reference.
The Examiner on his own and fairness to Applicant, even though the attorney totally fails to address these claims, has withdrawn the rejection on claim 17 and 18.
Applicants have not presented any substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in each group, except as will be noted in this action. In the absence of a separate argument with respect to those claims, they now stand or fall with the representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The Examiner wishes he can issue a Notice of Allowance. But because of the above and attorney’s remark, this application is not in any condition of allowance and no patent monopoly shall be granted at this time.
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.
The USPTO will not accept requests for consideration under the AFCP 2.0 filed after December 14, 2024.
If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant's representative.
If applicants request an interview after this final rejection, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search will be denied.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm.
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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
WILLIAM D. CUMMING
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2645
/WILLIAM D CUMMING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights