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 .
Status of Claims
Pursuant of the previously filed restriction requirement, the Applicant has elected claims 1-17 and 24-27 for examination and has withdrawn claims 18-23 and 28-30.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/19/2025 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-4,12-13 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Regarding Claims 1, 5-11, 14-17 and 24, these claims do not recite a judicial exception and therefore are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, dependent claims 2-4,12-13 and 25-27 do recite judicial exceptions which are not integrated into a practical application and therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see rejection below). Note that MPEP 2106.07 states, “And conversely, even if an independent claim is determined to be eligible, a dependent claim may be ineligible because it adds a judicial exception without also adding limitations that integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more. Thus, each claim in an application should be considered separately based on the particular elements recited therein.".
Claim 2 recites:
The first sensing node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to:
obtain initial measurements of the one or more paths of the one or more first sensing reference signals during a first time period to obtain a reference state of the first wireless channel; and
determine that the first wireless channel is estimated to include reflections from the target based at least in part on a comparison of a measured state and the reference state, wherein:
the first CTI indicates that the first wireless channel is estimated to include reflections from the target based at least in part on the determining, and
the measured state is based at least in part on the obtaining measurements of one or more paths of one or more first sensing reference signals associated with the second sensing node over the first wireless channel during a second time period different from the first time period.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a system and therefore, is an apparatus and eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of:
“determine that the first wireless channel is estimated to include reflections from the target based at least in part on a comparison of a measured state and the reference state,”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind and is simply data comparison. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The recitation of the limitations of, “obtain initial measurements of the one or more paths of the one or more first sensing reference signals during a first time period to obtain a reference state of the first wireless channel” amounts to mere data gathering and is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, claim 1 from which claim 2 depends, also recites the mere data gathering limitation of “obtain measurements of one or more paths of one or more first sensing reference signals associated with a second sensing node over a first wireless channel;”.
Furthermore, claim 1 from which claim 2 depends recites, “ transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to a sensing entity, a first measurement report including a first channel target indicator (CTI) associated with the first wireless channel,” which is also an extra-solution activity as it is simply the transmission of the data.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 2.
For example, the use of the “one or more memories;”, “one or more transceivers;” and “one or more processors” (from claim 1) are elements which are well understood, routine, and conventional in the field to gather and process data.
Furthermore, the limitations of claim 2 of “ the first CTI indicates that the first wireless channel is estimated to include reflections from the target based at least in part on the determining, and the measured state is based at least in part on the obtaining measurements of one or more paths of one or more first sensing reference signals associated with the second sensing node over the first wireless channel during a second time period different from the first time period” are simply defining the data contents.
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 3-4,12-13 and 25-27 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claims only recite limitations further defining the mental process and recite further data gathering, definition the contents of the gathered data and the transmittal of the gathered data. These limitations are considered mental process steps and additional steps that amount to necessary data gathering and data output. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 2-4,12-13 and 25-27 are not patent eligible.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1,2,5-7,10,12-13,15-17 and 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GAO et al. (WO 2023133828 A1), hereinafter GAO.
Regarding claim 1, GAO discloses
A first sensing node (see Fig. 2, sensing node 220), comprising:
one or more memories (see Fig. 9, memory 920 implemented in each device, further see paragraph 0134, “The device 900 may be provided to implement the communication device, for example the initiator device 210, the responder device 220 and the sensing server as shown in FIG. 2. As shown, the device 800 includes one or more processors 910, one or more memories 920 coupled to the processor 910, and one or more transmitters and/or receivers (TX/RX) 940 coupled to the processor 910.”, further see paragraph 0006, “The second device comprises at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program codes;”);
one or more transceivers (see Fig. 9, communication module 940, further see paragraph 0134 “The device 900 may be provided to implement the communication device, for example the initiator device 210, the responder device 220 and the sensing server as shown in FIG. 2. As shown, the device 800 includes one or more processors 910, one or more memories 920 coupled to the processor 910, and one or more transmitters and/or receivers (TX/RX) 940 coupled to the processor 910.”); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers, the one or more processors, either alone or in combination (see Fig. 9, processor 910 coupled to 920 and 940), configured to:
obtain measurements of one or more paths of one or more first sensing reference signals associated with a second sensing node over a first wireless channel (see Fig. 2 where reference signals are transmitted from a second sensing node 210 over a first wireless channel 204 to node 220, further see paragraph 0069, “The initiator device 210 transmits 320 a first signal through a first beam towards the LOS path 204. Simultaneously, the initiator device 210 also transmits 325 a second set of signals through a plurality of second beams towards the sensing area. The first signal and the second set of signals may be any suitable reference signals.”); and
transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to a sensing entity, a first measurement report including a first channel target indicator (CTI) associated with the first wireless channel (see Fig. 2, node 110 transmits to sensing entity 230 via a wireless channel a report of arrival times of the signals, see paragraph 0056, “Accordingly, the assistant sensing devices perform measurements of the signals. For example, the assistant sensing devices may measure the arrival time of the signals, and report the measurement result to the sensing server 230. The sensing server 230 may be deployed in RAN.”), wherein the first CTI indicates that the first wireless channel is estimated to include reflections from a target or that the first wireless channel is estimated to include clutter reflections absent target reflections (see paragraphs 0070-0072, “As the first signal is transmitted along the LOS path, it is received by the responder device 220 without reflection. On the other hand, the second set of signals propagating in the sensing area may be first transmitted on the paths 206 and 216, and reflected by the target object 212 and the clutter 214. The second set of signals may be then transmitted on the paths 208 and 218, and arrived at the responder device 220…The responder device 220 then reports 335 the measurements of the first signal and the second set of signals to the sensing server 230. As the first signal and the second set of signals are transmitted at the same, the measurements can be used for the time offset calibration.The sensing server 230 determines 340 estimation parameters based on the measurements.”).
Regarding claim 2, GAO further discloses
The first sensing node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to:
obtain initial measurements of the one or more paths of the one or more first sensing reference signals during a first time period to obtain a reference state of the first wireless channel (see paragraph 0070, “As the first signal is transmitted along the LOS path, it is received by the responder device 220 without reflection. On the other hand, the second set of signals propagating in the sensing area may be first transmitted on the paths 206 and 216, and reflected by the target object 212 and the clutter 214. The second set of signals may be then transmitted on the paths 208 and 218, and arrived at the responder device 220.”, further see Fig. 3 which data transmission over different wireless paths: Note: “a first time period” and a “second time period” depends on whether the data is received via a LOS path or NLOS path); and
determine that the first wireless channel is estimated to include reflections from the target based at least in part on a comparison of a measured state and the reference state (see paragraph 0059, “In particular, the signals that are transmitted within the target area can be calibrated with the signal transmitted along the LOS path in a real-time manner based on the Tx and Rx's locations known in advance. Then, a relative delay associated with the reflection path between the initiator device 210 and responder device 220 can be derived to achieve a total distance from the Tx through reflections to the Rx. …”, further see paragraph 0072, “The responder device 220 then reports 335 the measurements of the first signal and the second set of signals to the sensing server 230. As the first signal and the second set of signals are transmitted at the same, the measurements can be used for the time offset calibration.”), wherein:
the first CTI indicates that the first wireless channel is estimated to include reflections from the target based at least in part on the determining (see paragraph 0059, further see paragraphs 0070-0072, “As the first signal is transmitted along the LOS path, it is received by the responder device 220 without reflection. On the other hand, the second set of signals propagating in the sensing area may be first transmitted on the paths 206 and 216, and reflected by the target object 212 and the clutter 214. The second set of signals may be then transmitted on the paths 208 and 218, and arrived at the responder device 220…The responder device 220 then reports 335 the measurements of the first signal and the second set of signals to the sensing server 230. As the first signal and the second set of signals are transmitted at the same, the measurements can be used for the time offset calibration.The sensing server 230 determines 340 estimation parameters based on the measurements.”), and
the measured state is based at least in part on the obtaining measurements of one or more paths of one or more first sensing reference signals associated with the second sensing node over the first wireless channel during a second time period different from the first time period (see paragraphs 0069-0073, “The initiator device 210 transmits 320 a first signal through a first beam towards the LOS path 204. Simultaneously, the initiator device 210 also transmits 325 a second set of signals through a plurality of second beams towards the sensing area. The first signal and the second set of signals may be any suitable reference signals. As the first signal is transmitted along the LOS path, it is received by the responder device 220 without reflection. On the other hand, the second set of signals propagating in the sensing area may be first transmitted on the paths 206 and 216, and reflected by the target object 212 and the clutter 214. The second set of signals may be then transmitted on the paths 208 and 218, and arrived at the responder device 220. Upon receipt of the first signal and the second set of signals, the responder device 220 may perform 330 measurements on the received signals…”; Note: where the signals received via the LOS path and NLOS path are both receives at different times as they are transmitted simultaneously).
Regarding claim 5, GAO further discloses
The first sensing node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to:
receive, via the one or more transceivers, from the sensing entity, a sensing configuration that includes first information and second information (see paragraph 0086, “The transmission of the first signal and the second set of signals may be triggered by a third device that may be, for example, the sensing server 230. In some example embodiments, the first device may receive, from the third device, a sensing command for triggering the transmissions of the first signal and the second set of signals.”), wherein:
the first information indicates that a first reference signal set including the one or more first sensing reference signals is associated with the second sensing node (see paragraphs 0086-0089, “The transmission of the first signal and the second set of signals may be triggered by a third device that may be, for example, the sensing server 230. In some example embodiments, the first device may receive, from the third device, a sensing command for triggering the transmissions of the first signal and the second set of signals…”, where the first and second set of signals are the reference signals transmitted by the nodes), and
the second information indicates that a second reference signal set including one or more second sensing reference signals is associated with a third sensing node different from the second sensing node (see Fig. 2, where a third sensing node 210 is a third sensing node, further see paragraphs 0086-0089, “The transmission of the first signal and the second set of signals may be triggered by a third device that may be, for example, the sensing server 230. In some example embodiments, the first device may receive, from the third device, a sensing command for triggering the transmissions of the first signal and the second set of signals…”, where the first and second set of signals are the reference signals transmitted by the nodes).
Regarding claim 6, GAO further discloses
The first sensing node of claim 5, wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to:
obtain measurements of one or more paths of the one or more second sensing reference signals associated with the third sensing node over a second wireless channel different from the first wireless channel (see Fig. 2, where a third sensing node 210 is a third sensing node, further see paragraphs 0086-0089, further see paragraph 0099-00100, “The method 700 can be implemented at a third device, for example, the third device may be the serving server 230 as shown in FIG. 2, or any other network devices or functions… At 710, the third device receives, from a second device, measurements of a first signal and a second set of signals.”), wherein the first measurement report includes a second CTI associated with the second wireless channel (see Fig. 2, where a third sensing node 210 is a third sensing node, further see paragraphs 0086-0089, “The transmission of the first signal and the second set of signals may be triggered by a third device that may be, for example, the sensing server 230. In some example embodiments, the first device may receive, from the third device, a sensing command for triggering the transmissions of the first signal and the second set of signals…”, where the first and second set of signals are the reference signals transmitted by the nodes).
Regarding claim 7, GAO further discloses
The first sensing node of claim 6, wherein the second CTI indicates that the second wireless channel is estimated to include reflections from the target or another target different from the target, or that the second wireless channel is estimated to include clutter reflections absent target reflections (see paragraphs 0099-00101, specifically, “At 710, the third device receives, from a second device, measurements of a first signal and a second set of signals. The first signal may be transmitted by a first device through a first beam towards a LOS path between the first device and the second device. In addition, the second set of signals may be simultaneously transmitted by the first device through a plurality of second beams towards a target area. The first device, the second device, and a target object are located within the target area. The second set of signals is transmitted to the second device through reflection by the target object.”).
Regarding claim 10, GAO further discloses
The first sensing node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to:
obtain measurements of one or more paths of one or more second sensing reference signals associated with the second sensing node over the first wireless channel (see Fig. 2, where the reference signals associated with nod 210 are obtained by node 220), wherein the obtaining of the one or more paths of the one or more second sensing reference signals associated with the second sensing node is based at least in part on the first CTI indicating that the first wireless channel is estimated to include reflections from the target (see paragraphs 0054-0057, where the data indicates that wireless channel includes target reflection data); and
transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to the sensing entity, a second measurement report including a second CTI associated with one or more sensing signals and the first wireless channel (see Fig. 2, where node 220 transmits measurement data to sensing server 230), wherein the second CTI indicates that the first wireless channel is estimated to include reflections from the target or that the first wireless channel is estimated to include clutter reflections absent target reflections (see paragraph 0057, “The sensing server 230 analyzes the measurement result to determine the position or the motion of the target objects 212 in the target area. Compared to the traditional bi-static radar based JCAS in which the signal is only targeted to the target object, in the enhanced JCAS mechanism provided herein, the signals are not only targeted to the sensing area but also to the sensing responders. Therefore, the measurements as well as the corresponding estimation parameters are associated with the LOS path distance measurement and the reflection path distance measurement. In this case, the sensing server can determine estimation parameters for the LOS path and each reflection path based on the measurements. The estimation parameters may be, for example, ToA (time of arrival), TDoA (time difference of arrival), AoA (angle of arrival), AoD (angle of departure), etc.”).
Regarding claim 12, GAO further discloses
The first sensing node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to:
determine that at least one additional path is associated with the target based at least in part on the measurements of the one or more paths of the one or more first sensing reference signals, wherein the first measurement report includes information indicating the at least one additional path (see Fig. 2, additional paths 206/208 and 216/218, where the measurements are obtained at sensing node 220 and the report includes information about those additional NLOS paths).
Regarding claim 13, GAO further discloses
The first sensing node of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to:
determine a reflection order corresponding to the at least one additional path associated with the target based at least in part on propagation information associated with the measurements of the one or more paths of the one or more first sensing reference signals, wherein the first measurement report includes information indicating the reflection order corresponding to the at least one additional path associated with the target (see paragraph 0061, where the distance determination for each path is “a reflection order” as it corresponds to each propagation path, further see for support paragraph 0057, “Therefore, the measurements as well as the corresponding estimation parameters are associated with the LOS path distance measurement and the reflection path distance measurement. In this case, the sensing server 230 can determine estimation parameters for the LOS path and each reflection path based on the measurements. The estimation parameters may be, for example, ToA (time of arrival), TDoA (time difference of arrival), AoA (angle of arrival), AoD (angle of departure), etc.”, furthermore, determining the time offsets for the reflection data in each path is indeed “a reflection order”).
Regarding claim 15, GAO further discloses
The first sensing node of claim 1, wherein the first sensing node is a user equipment (UE) or a transmission-reception point (TRP) (see Fig. 2, node 220, further see paragraph 0098, “In some example embodiments, the first device may be a first network device (e.g., a base station or an access point) , the second device may be a second network device (e.g., another base station or another access point) or a terminal device (e.g., a UE) , and the third device may be a sensing server.”).
Regarding claim 16, GAO further discloses
The first sensing node of claim 1, wherein the first sensing node is a transmitting sensing node or a receiving sensing node (see Fig. 2, where the first sensing node 220 is a receiving sensing node).
Regarding claim 17, GAO further discloses
The first sensing node of claim 1, wherein the sensing entity is a sensing server or a next generation radio access network (NG-RAN) node (see paragraph 0056, “Accordingly, the assistant sensing devices perform measurements of the signals. For example, the assistant sensing devices may measure the arrival time of the signals, and report the measurement result to the sensing server 230. The sensing server 230 may be deployed in RAN”).
Regarding claim 24, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 25, the same cited section and rationale as claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 26, the same cited section and rationale as claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 27, the same cited section and rationale as claim 4 is applied.
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.
Claim(s) 3,4,8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAO et al. (WO 2023133828 A1) in view of DWIVEDI et al. (US 20220229143 A1), hereinafter DWIVEDI.
Regarding claim 3, GAO discloses [Note: what GAO fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The first sensing node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to:
DWIVEDI discloses,
estimate a Doppler profile for each of the one or more paths (see paragraph 0048, “The fourth LOS detection method is the stability of the Doppler spread of the multipaths. The Doppler spread in the LOS path may be lesser than the Doppler spread in the NLOS path. The Doppler frequency is also more stable in the LOS path than in the NLOS path. The network may estimate the Doppler spread of all the peaks and may detect the LOS path from the Doppler spread. Estimating the Doppler frequency/spread may require frequent measurements and reporting from the UE to sample the Doppler frequency with at least the Nyquist rate of it. Thus, the UE should capture measurements within the coherence time to suffice the Nyquist rate of the Doppler spread. The measurements that may be required for the fourth LOS detection method is that UE should report complex impulse response with measurement/reporting rate fulfilling the Nyquist rate of the Doppler spread within coherence time.”); and
determine that the first wireless channel is estimated to include reflections from the target based at least in part on the estimating the Doppler profile for each of the one or more paths, wherein the first CTI indicates that the first wireless channel is estimated to include reflections from the target based at least in part on the determining (see paragraph 0048, “The fourth LOS detection method is the stability of the Doppler spread of the multipaths. The Doppler spread in the LOS path may be lesser than the Doppler spread in the NLOS path. The Doppler frequency is also more stable in the LOS path than in the NLOS path. The network may estimate the Doppler spread of all the peaks and may detect the LOS path from the Doppler spread. Estimating the Doppler frequency/spread may require frequent measurements and reporting from the UE to sample the Doppler frequency with at least the Nyquist rate of it. Thus, the UE should capture measurements within the coherence time to suffice the Nyquist rate of the Doppler spread. The measurements that may be required for the fourth LOS detection method is that UE should report complex impulse response with measurement/reporting rate fulfilling the Nyquist rate of the Doppler spread within coherence time.”, where the doppler spread indicates which path is a NLOS path and which is LOS path).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by DWIVEDI into the invention of GAO. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the use of a plurality of sensing nodes where line of sight and non-line of sight propagation paths are identified. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently track moving targets for calibration and configuration adjustments by the system.
Regarding claim 4, GAO discloses [Note: what GAO fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The first sensing node of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to:
DWIVEDI discloses,
determine that the target is estimated to be moving based at least in part on the estimating the Doppler profile for each of the one or more paths, wherein the first measurement report includes information indicating that the target is estimated to be moving (see paragraph 0048, “The fourth LOS detection method is the stability of the Doppler spread of the multipaths. The Doppler spread in the LOS path may be lesser than the Doppler spread in the NLOS path. The Doppler frequency is also more stable in the LOS path than in the NLOS path. The network may estimate the Doppler spread of all the peaks and may detect the LOS path from the Doppler spread. Estimating the Doppler frequency/spread may require frequent measurements and reporting from the UE to sample the Doppler frequency with at least the Nyquist rate of it. Thus, the UE should capture measurements within the coherence time to suffice the Nyquist rate of the Doppler spread. The measurements that may be required for the fourth LOS detection method is that UE should report complex impulse response with measurement/reporting rate fulfilling the Nyquist rate of the Doppler spread within coherence time.”, where determine the Doppler spread for the targets is indeed “determine that the target is estimated to be moving” as the doppler spread indicates motion data).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by DWIVEDI into the invention of GAO. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the use of a plurality of sensing nodes where line of sight and non-line of sight propagation paths are identified. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently track moving targets for calibration and configuration adjustments by the system.
Regarding claim 8, GAO discloses [Note: what GAO fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The first sensing node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to:
DWIVEDI discloses,
receive, via the one or more transceivers, from the sensing entity, an indication of a neural network model for estimating the first CTI (see paragraph 0056, “The first step in building an artificial neural network may be collecting data for a large number of UE positions in scenarios representative of the scenarios in which the LOS discriminator will be used. The data collected may be: [0057] A number of LOS indicator measurements (all of the indicators described in the first through tenth LOS detection methods or a subset of them and possibly also additional complementing indicators) [0058] Propagation delay between the TP (i.e., transmission points (e.g., base stations)) and the UE (based on TOA estimate) [0059] LOS distances between the TPs and the UE (e.g. based on GPS based positioning)”);
obtain the neural network model based at least in part on the received identification (see paragraph 0056, further see paragraph 0060, “The second step may be to train the neural network with the measurements. The neural network cost function could be based on if the UE was in LOS or not”); and
receive, via the one or more transceivers, assistance data associated with the neural network model (see paragraph 0064, “The third step is to use the trained neural network by the UE or the network to discriminate between LOS and NLOS. In one embodiment, the LOS measurements may be used as input for positioning.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by DWIVEDI into the invention of GAO. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the use of a plurality of sensing nodes where line of sight and non-line of sight propagation paths are identified. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to utilize a neural network system to efficiently identify sensing data for calibration and configuration adjustments by the system.
Regarding claim 9, GAO discloses [Note: what GAO fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The first sensing node of claim 8,
DWIVEDI discloses,
wherein the assistance data associated with the neural network model comprises information corresponding to a reference state of the first wireless channel (see paragraph 0056, “The first step in building an artificial neural network may be collecting data for a large number of UE positions in scenarios representative of the scenarios in which the LOS discriminator will be used. The data collected may be: [0057] A number of LOS indicator measurements (all of the indicators described in the first through tenth LOS detection methods or a subset of them and possibly also additional complementing indicators) [0058] Propagation delay between the TP (i.e., transmission points (e.g., base stations)) and the UE (based on TOA estimate) [0059] LOS distances between the TPs and the UE (e.g. based on GPS based positioning)” further see paragraph 0064, “The third step is to use the trained neural network by the UE or the network to discriminate between LOS and NLOS. In one embodiment, the LOS measurements may be used as input for positioning.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by DWIVEDI into the invention of GAO. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the use of a plurality of sensing nodes where line of sight and non-line of sight propagation paths are identified. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to utilize a neural network system to efficiently identify sensing data for calibration and configuration adjustments by the system.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAO et al. (WO 2023133828 A1) in view of Ling et al. (US 20220216907 A1), hereinafter Edge.
Regarding claim 11, GAO discloses [Note: what GAO fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The first sensing node of claim 10,
Ling discloses,
wherein the one or more second sensing reference signals are associated with a second frequency range different from a first frequency range of the one or more first sensing reference signals (see paragraphs 0072-0073, “For example, FIG. 1a is angular power spectra of different frequency bands in a line of sight (line of sight, LOS) scenario… FIG. 1b is angular power spectra of different frequency bands in a non-line of sight (non-line of sight, NLOS) scenario.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Ling into the invention of GAO. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the use of a plurality of sensing nodes where line of sight and non-line of sight propagation paths are identified. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently identify sensing data using different frequency ranges for calibration and configuration adjustments by the system.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAO et al. (WO 2023133828 A1) in view of KUDEKAR et al. (US 20160249316 A1), hereinafter KUDEKAR.
Regarding claim 14, GAO discloses [Note: what GAO fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The first sensing node of claim 1,
KUDEKAR discloses,
wherein the CTI is expressed as a hard value or a soft value (see paragraph 0022, “The RTT response can include an NLOS/LOS classification and may include a confidence value associated with the classification (for soft classifications). The receiving device can use the classification information in determining its position and/or combine the results from a classification made on the receiving device to increase classification accuracy.”, further see paragraph 0053, further see paragraph 0059, “In implementations where a response packet is received from the other wireless device, the response packet can include a classification of whether the signals received at the other wireless device were believed to be LOS or NLOS… The other wireless device can be configured to calculate the range estimate and hard or soft classification and to send the range estimate and the classification back to the mobile device 120.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by KUDEKAR into the invention of GAO. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the use of a plurality of sensing nodes where line of sight and non-line of sight propagation paths are identified. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to utilize less bits by the system when transferring data and therefore conserve storage space by the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 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, 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648