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 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)(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. Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nammi (US 20 120314588 A1 ”). Regarding claim 1 , Nammi discloses a n apparatus (see para. 0046, eNB36) , comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing indications that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: receive from one or more antennas of a user apparatus, one or more antenna signals respectively (see para. 0047 , SRS) ; determine one or more frequency shifts of the one or more antenna signals respectively (see para.0046-0047, Doppler frequency shift based on the SRS transmitted from UE to base station) ; determine an orientation of the user apparatus using the determined one or more frequency shifts (see para. 0047, estimate UE’s doppler frequency or frequency variation can determine location or movement or orientation of UE ) . Regarding claim 4 , Name discloses wherein the apparatus is caused at least to repeatedly perform the receiving of one or more antenna signals, the determining of the frequency shifts and the determining of the orientation (see para.0046-0047, Doppler frequency shift based on the SRS transmitted from UE to base station and UE movement or orientation is determined) Regarding claim 7, Nammi discloses wherein the one or more antennas being multiple antennas, and wherein the apparatus is caused at least to receive the antenna signals simultaneously, concurrently or quasi concurrently. ( see para. 0050, consecutive or simultaneously TTIs). Regarding claim 10 , Nammi discloses wherein the apparatus is caused at least to receive the antenna signals through a radio interface or a direct link interface (see Figure 3, eNodeB and UE). Regarding claim 11 , Nammi discloses a user apparatus (see para. 0035, UE), comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing indications that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the user apparatus at least to: receive a signal from another apparatus at one or more antennas of the user apparatus, resulting in one or more antenna signals (see para. 0047, SRS signal); determine one or more frequency shifts of the one or more antenna signals respectively (see para.0046-0047, Doppler frequency shift based on the SRS transmitted from UE to base station); determine an orientation of the user apparatus using the determined one or more frequency shifts (see para. 0047 -0050 , estimate UE’s doppler frequency or frequency variation can determine location or movement or orientation of UE). 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 . Claim (s) 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nammi in view of Bush et al. (US 2020/0285926 A1, hereinafter “Bush”). Regarding claim s 2 and 12 , Nammi discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention the frequency shift being a micro-Doppler frequency shift . However, Bush from a similar field of endeavor discloses the frequency shift being a micro-Doppler frequency shift (see para. 0057). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Bush micro-doppler scheme into Nammi doppler scheme. The method ca ne be implemented in a Base Station. The motivation of doing this is to determine the movement/orientation of user device. Regarding claim s 3 and 13 , Nammi discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention the frequency shift being a micro-Doppler frequency shift that is caused by a micro-motion of the user apparatus, wherein the micro- motion comprises a rotation motion. However, Bush from a similar field of endeavor discloses the frequency shift being a micro-Doppler frequency shift that is caused by a micro-motion of the user apparatus, wherein the micro- motion comprises a rotation motion (see para, 0057, movement toward/away). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Bush micro-doppler scheme into Nammi doppler scheme. The method ca n be implemented in a Base Station. The motivation of doing this is to determine the movement/orientation of user device. Claim (s) 5 -6 , 14 , 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nammi in view of Mendolia et al. (US 2003/0174096 A1, hereinafter “ Mendolia ”). Regarding claim 5 , Nammi discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein the apparatus is caused at least to determine the one or more frequency shifts using a configuration of the user apparatus, the configuration indicating at least one of the following: a body frame of the user apparatus or positions of the antennas with respect to a center point of rotation of the user apparatus. However, Mendolia from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the apparatus is caused at least to determine the one or more frequency shifts using a configuration of the user apparatus, the configuration indicating at least one of the following: a body frame of the user apparatus or positions of the antennas with respect to a center point of rotation of the user apparatus (see para. 0023, frequency shift with body frame). Thus, it would have been obvious to include Mendolia configuration scheme into Nammi signal scheme. The method can be implemented in a Base Station. The motivation of doing this is to reduce antenna cost. Regarding claim 6 , Nammi discloses wherein the apparatus is caused at least to receive the configuration from the user apparatus (see para. 0048, rate of frequency change location over TTIs ) . Regarding claim 14 , Nammi discloses a user apparatus at least one processor; and at least one memory storing indications that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the user apparatus at least to: transmit, from one or more antennas of the user apparatus, one or more antenna signals respectively (see para. 0047, transmitting an SRS); transmit a configuration of the user apparatus to another apparatus for the another apparatus to determine one or more frequency shifts and an orientation of the user apparatus (see para. 0047-0049, rate of frequency location or movement or orientation of the UEs), Nammi discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein the configuration indicating at least one of the following: a body frame of the user apparatus or positions of the antennas with respect to a center point of rotation of the user apparatus. However, Mendolia from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the configuration indicating at least one of the following: a body frame of the user apparatus or positions of the antennas with respect to a center point of rotation of the user apparatus (see para. 0023, frequency shift with body frame). Thus, it would have been obvious to include Mendolia configuration scheme into Nammi signal scheme. The method can be implemented in a Base Station. The motivation of doing this is to reduce antenna cost. Regarding claim 1 7, Nammi discloses wherein the one or more antennas being multiple antennas, and wherein the apparatus is caused at least to receive the antenna signals simultaneously, concurrently or quasi concurrently. ( see para. 0050, consecutive or simultaneously TTIs). Regarding claim 20 , Nammi discloses wherein the apparatus is caused at least to receive the antenna signals through a radio interface or a direct link interface (see Figure 3, eNodeB and UE). Claim (s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nammi in view of Partridge et al. (US 2011 /0054834 A1, hereinafter “Partridge”). Regarding claim 8 , Nammi discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein the apparatus is caused at least to send the determined orientation to the user apparatus or to another apparatus that provides based on the orientation content to the user apparatus . However, Partridge from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the apparatus is caused at least to send the determined orientation to the user apparatus or to another apparatus that provides based on the orientation content to the user apparatus (see para. 0027-0028, orientation of the user). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Partridge user position scheme into Nammi movement/orientation scheme. The method can be implemented in a Base Station. The motivation of doing this is to determine the location of the device. Regarding claim 9 , Nammi discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention the orientation being a relative orientation or absolute orientation. However, Partridge from a similar field of endeavor discloses the orientation being a relative orientation or absolute orientation (see para. 0027-0028, orientation of the user). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Partridge user position scheme into Nammi movement/orientation scheme. The method can be implemented in a Base Station. The motivation of doing this is to determine the location of the device. Claim( s) 15 -16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nammi in view of Mendolia as applied to clai m 14 above, and further in view of Bush et al. (US 2020/0285926 A1, hereinafter “Bush”). Regarding claim 15 , Nammi and Mendolia disclose all the subject matter but fails to mention the frequency shift being a micro-Doppler frequency shift. However, Bush from a similar field of endeavor discloses the frequency shift being a micro-Doppler frequency shift (see para. 0057). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Bush micro-doppler scheme into Nammi and Mendolia doppler scheme. The method ca ne be implemented in a Base Station. The motivation of doing this is to determine the movement/orientation of user device. Regarding claim 16 , Nammi and Mendolia disclose all the subject matter but fails to mention the frequency shift being a micro-Doppler frequency shift that is caused by a micro-motion of the user apparatus, wherein the micro-motion comprises a rotation motion. . However, Bush from a similar field of endeavor discloses the frequency shift being a micro-Doppler frequency shift that is caused by a micro-motion of the user apparatus, wherein the micro-motion comprises a rotation motio n (see para, 0057, movement toward/away). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Bush micro-doppler scheme into Nammi and Mendolia doppler scheme. The method ca ne be implemented in a Base Station. The motivation of doing this is to determine the movement/orientation of user device. Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nammi in view of Mendolia as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Partridge et al. (US 2011/0054834 A1, hereinafter “Partridge”). Regarding claim 18 , Nammi and Mendolia disclose all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein the apparatus is caused at least to send the determined orientation to the user apparatus or to another apparatus that provides based on the orientation content to the user apparatus. However, Partridge from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the apparatus is caused at least to send the determined orientation to the user apparatus or to another apparatus that provides based on the orientation content to the user apparatus (see para. 0027-0028, orientation of the user). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Partridge user position scheme into Nammi and Mendolia movement/orientation scheme. The method can be implemented in a Base Station. The motivation of doing this is to determine the location of the device. Regarding claim 19 , Nammi and Mendolia disclose all the subject matter but fails to mention the orientation being a relative orientation or absolute orientation. However, Partridge from a similar field of endeavor discloses the orientation being a relative orientation or absolute orientation (see para. 0027-0028, orientation of the user). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Partridge user position scheme into Nammi and Mendolia movement/orientation scheme. The method can be implemented in a Base Station. The motivation of doing this is to determine the location of the device. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MOHAMMAD S ANWAR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5641 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 6-5 EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Asad Nawaz can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3988 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT MOHAMMAD S. ANWAR Primary Examiner Art Unit 2463 /MOHAMMAD S ANWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463