CTFR 18/521,932 CTFR 100361 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment The amendment filed 3/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-30 are pending Response to Arguments 07-38-02 AIA Applicant’s arguments, see ‘Sections I, II, and III’ , filed 3/16/2026 , with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 16, 21, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kovacs (WO 2023135097 A1) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 16, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kovacs (WO 2023135097 A1) . Regarding claim 1 Kovacs discloses A method for on-demand joint positioning and sensing a User Equipment (UE), the method performed by the UE and comprising: determining a triggering event for radio frequency (RF) sensing of a target, wherein the RF sensing of the target comprises detecting the target from reflections of RF signals off of the target (Page 12 lines 32-33(34), "In operation 56, the UE performs the radar sensing procedure and/ or Remote ID reception. (A reception report is generated containing UAV remote ID and respective UAV radar sensing information and is provided to the NG- RAN in message 57."); Page 3 lines 1-5, "The said location report may be provided to said management system in response to a trigger, wherein said trigger comprises one or more of: a request for location data received from said management system; a location estimate not being in compliance with location data broadcast by the respective object; and an object approaching a restricted area" where the UE radar senses a UAV with a UE, which is triggered by the UAV being in a restricted location and begins the process of requesting the positioning procedure ) ; responsive to the triggering event, determining a first request for the RF sensing of the target (Page 11 lines 33-Page 12 lines 2, "As discussed further below, the message flow sequence 50 may be triggered by a request from a 3GPP UE (or its human user), which enables one or more UEs to perform radar sensing/ ranging combined with remote ID reception from one or more UAVs in the visual line-of-sight (VLOS) of the UE, and provide a UAV detection report to the NG-RAN/CN; the report might be forwarded to the UTM/USS") ; determining identification information of the target (Page 12 lines 32-33(34), "In operation 56, the UE performs the radar sensing procedure and/ or Remote ID reception. (A reception report is generated containing UAV remote ID and respective UAV radar sensing information and is provided to the NG- RAN in message 57") where the UAV will have an ID associated with its UE ) ; and transmitting to a server, the first request along with the identification information of the target (Page 12 lines 12-14, "In response to the signal 52, a relevant CN entity, e.g. location management function (LMF) or network data analytics function (NWDAF), handles the request and initiates activation of the radar sensing procedure"; Page 13 lines 2-5, "The radar measurement report from the UE (including in the message 57) contains the UAV Remote ID. Thus, the CN (LMF or NWDAF) may combine reports from multiple UEs for the same UAV to provide a better estimation of the UAVs location" where CN is the core network and lmf is the location management function which his tantamount to a location server ) . Regarding claim 2 Kovacs discloses The method of claim 1. Kovacs further discloses wherein the server comprises a location server, a sensing server, or both (Page 13 lines 2-5, "The radar measurement report from the UE (including in the message 57) contains the UAV Remote ID. Thus, the CN (LMF or NWDAF) may combine reports from multiple UEs for the same UAV to provide a better estimation of the UAVs location" where CN is the core network and lmf is the location management function which his tantamount to a location server ) . Regarding claim 5 Kovacs discloses The method of claim 1. Kovacs further discloses further comprising: obtaining a first location of the UE determined using a sensing result of the target (Page 13 lines 2-5, "The radar measurement report from the UE (including in the message 57) contains the UAV Remote ID. Thus, the CN (LMF or NWDAF) may combine reports from multiple UEs for the same UAV to provide a better estimation of the UAVs location") . Regarding claim 6 Kovacs discloses The method of claim 5. Kovacs further discloses wherein the sensing result of the target is determined by another UE (Page 13 lines 2-5, "The radar measurement report from the UE (including in the message 57) contains the UAV Remote ID. Thus, the CN (LMF or NWDAF) may combine reports from multiple UEs for the same UAV to provide a better estimation of the UAVs location") . Regarding claim 7 Kovacs discloses The method of claim 5. Kovacs further discloses wherein the sensing result of the target is determined by a base station (Page 10 lines 6-7, "The second node 27 (which may, for example, be a 3GPP RAN node) may also be equipped with mmWave radio that can be used for radar sensing") . Regarding claim 16 Kovacs discloses A method for on-demand joint positioning and sensing a User Equipment (UE), the method performed by a server and comprising: receiving a first request for radio frequency (RF) sensing of a target and identification information of the target ( Page 12 lines 12-14, "In response to the signal 52, a relevant CN entity, e.g. location management function (LMF) or network data analytics function (NWDAF), handles the request and initiates activation of the radar sensing procedure"; Page 13 lines 2-5, "The radar measurement report from the UE (including in the message 57) contains the UAV Remote ID. Thus, the CN (LMF or NWDAF) may combine reports from multiple UEs for the same UAV to provide a better estimation of the UAVs location") , wherein the target is co-located with the UE (Page 11 lines 33-Page 12 lines 2, "As discussed further below, the message flow sequence 50 may be triggered by a request from a 3GPP UE (or its human user), which enables one or more UEs to perform radar sensing/ ranging combined with remote ID reception from one or more UAVs in the visual line-of-sight (VLOS) of the UE, and provide a UAV detection report to the NG-RAN/CN; the report might be forwarded to the UTM/USS" where the UAV or vehicle has a UE ) , and wherein the first request is transmitted responsive to a triggering event determined by the UE (Page 3 lines 1-5, "The said location report may be provided to said management system in response to a trigger, wherein said trigger comprises one or more of: a request for location data received from said management system; a location estimate not being in compliance with location data broadcast by the respective object; and an object approaching a restricted area" where the UE would determine the location of the object ) ; determining a RF sensing configuration for RF sensing the target, wherein the RF sensing of the target comprises detecting the target from reflections of RF signals off of the target (Page 12 lines 17-18, "The CN (e.g. the AMF) send a message 53 configuring the UE serving gNB for UE radar sensing operation") ; and transmitting to one or more base stations the RF sensing configuration for sensing the target (Page 12 lines 17-19, "The CN (e.g. the AMF) send a message 53 configuring the UE serving gNB for UE radar sensing operation. Note that the CN (e.g. AMF) may also configure other gNBs for radar sensing in addition to the UE serving gNB") . Regarding claim 18 Kovacs discloses The method of claim 16. Kovacs further discloses further comprising obtaining a first location of the UE determined using a sensing result of the target (Page 13 lines 2-5, "The radar measurement report from the UE (including in the message 57) contains the UAV Remote ID. Thus, the CN (LMF or NWDAF) may combine reports from multiple UEs for the same UAV to provide a better estimation of the UAVs location") . Regarding claim 19 Kovacs discloses The method of claim 18, wherein the sensing result of the target is determined by another UE or at least one base station of the one or more base stations (Page 13 lines 2-5, "The radar measurement report from the UE (including in the message 57) contains the UAV Remote ID. Thus, the CN (LMF or NWDAF) may combine reports from multiple UEs for the same UAV to provide a better estimation of the UAVs location") . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs (WO 2023135097 A1) in view of Gargi (US 8725113 B2) . Regarding claim 3 Kovacs discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining the identification information of the target ((Page 12 lines 32-33(34), "In operation 56, the UE performs the radar sensing procedure and/ or Remote ID reception. (A reception report is generated containing UAV remote ID and respective UAV radar sensing information and is provided to the NG- RAN in message 57"). Kovacs does not specifically disclose comprises determining that the target is co-located with the UE. Gargi discloses Determining that the target is co-located with the UE (Column 2 lines 4-5, "evaluating a physical relationship between the primary user and the electronic device with respect to a threshold distance") . Kovacs discloses gathering the target identification information of an object but it does not disclose determining if the UE is with the target. Kovacs assumes the UE is attached to the object (e.g. a UAV) but determining if they are co-located would be an advantageous safety feature, where a tracking process can determine if the system is being manipulated by using a UE with an improper object. Reporting the distance, or whether it is co-located, to a location server (along with the ID information) would be useful for determining if there is some sort of breach. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs to provide safety features, and guarantee that the right vehicle is associated with the right UE or identification . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s, 9, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs (WO 2023135097 A1) in view of Masal (US 20240089893 A1) . Regarding claim 9 Kovacs discloses The method of claim 5. Kovacs does not disclose further comprising: communicating with one or more network nodes, position reference signals (PRSs). Masal discloses Further comprising: communicating with one or more network nodes, position reference signals (PRSs) (Paragraph 0131, “For Uu link positioning, the DL-PRS resource allocation is demonstrated with COMB-12 multiplexing six base station s”) . Kovacs discloses positioning but not positioning with position reference signals PRS. Kovacs using position reference signals can be advantageous in that the PRS is able to localize a target without needing line-of-sight and is not entirely dependent on transmit power. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs with Masal to have a localization method not dependent on line-of-sight. Regarding claim 15 Kovacs discloses The method of claim 1. Kovacs does not disclose further comprising: receiving from the server assistance information, wherein the assistance information comprises: whether the RF sensing is supported; coverage of the RF sensing supported; coverage per target range of the RF sensing; target RCS of the RF sensing; quality of service (QoS) of the RF sensing; types of sensing result supported; whether RF sensing-based target localization is supported; a time window for the RF sensing; periodicity of the RF sensing; a speed of the target; or any combination thereof. Masal discloses Further comprising: receiving from the server assistance information, wherein the assistance information comprises: whether the RF sensing is supported (Paragraph 0158, “In scenario of partial coverage when the target UE 102-4 may be out of network coverage but may connect to the BS via a UE relay, the anchor UE or the reference node 102-6 may provide the list of assisting UEs 102-1 to 102-3 to the connected BS or positioning server in the network 100. The positioning server may provide this information to the BS connected.”) ; coverage of the RF sensing supported; coverage per target range of the RF sensing; target RCS of the RF sensing; quality of service (QoS) of the RF sensing; types of sensing result supported; whether RF sensing-based target localization is supported; a time window for the RF sensing; periodicity of the RF sensing (Paragraph 0006, “The resource configurations may be provided to the transmitter to indicate the parameters for generation and transmission of reference signals (RS), repetition/ periodic ity of RS resource sets”) ; a speed of the target; or any combination thereof. Kovacs has an assistance server but it does not specify if it discloses if RF sensing is supported. As Kovacs uses multiple UE for the triangulation of a target it would be advantageous for the system to inventory which UE are to be used for the triangulation and if the triangulation is possible. Additionally, it would be advantageous to set a periodicity to control the use of energy of the UE. Therefore, the system can make relevant changes or warnings. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs with Masal to determine if the triangulation process is possible . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s, 4, 8, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs (WO 2023135097 A1) in view of Hester (US 20230306213 A1) . Regarding claim 4 Kovacs discloses The method of claim 1. Kovacs does not disclose wherein the identification information comprises: a location of the target; a speed of the target; a radar cross-section (RCS) of the target; one or more physical characteristics of the target; or any combination thereof. Hester discloses Wherein the identification information comprises: a location of the target; a speed of the target; a radar cross-section (RCS) of the target (Paragraph 0067, "the electronic device may comprise at least one display, at least one processing unit, and at least one radar unit. The processing unit may be operable communication with the radar unit and configured to process signals from the radar unit to enable localization of the tags"; Paragraph 0178, “Position, angle, displacement, distance, speed, and acceleration sensors such as, but not limited to, accelerometer, displacement sensor, … ultra-wideband radar”; Paragraph 0078, "In further aspects, the modulation of the switches can allow wireless tag to modulate its radar cross section (RCS) and to create a recognizable synthetic signature for the radar unit of the mobile device 104") ; one or more physical characteristics of the target; or any combination thereof. Kovacs discloses calculating the location the UE and recognizing an identifier but it does not specify using a RCS. The UE RCS of a user, or target, would be advantageous in facilitating distinguishing the target amongst different vehicles (e.g. UAV versus a truck) and determining if the right UE identifier is associated with the correct vehicle. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs with Hester to mitigate malicious manipulation of the system by making sure the UE identifier is associated with the correct vehicle. Regarding claim 8 Kovacs discloses The method of claim 5. Kovacs further discloses wherein a sensing result of the RF sensing of the target comprises: a range estimation; an angle estimation; a speed estimation; a location estimation (Page 13 lines 2-5, "The radar measurement report from the UE (including in the message 57) contains the UAV Remote ID. Thus, the CN (LMF or NWDAF) may combine reports from multiple UEs for the same UAV to provide a better estimation of the UAVs location") ; or any combination thereof. Regarding claim 17 Kovacs discloses The method of claim 16. Kovacs does not disclose wherein the identification information comprises: a location of the target; a speed of the target; a radar cross-section (RCS) of the target; one or more physical characteristics of the target; or any combination thereof. Hester discloses Wherein the identification information comprises: a location of the target; a speed of the target; a radar cross-section (RCS) of the target (Paragraph 0067, "the electronic device may comprise at least one display, at least one processing unit, and at least one radar unit. The processing unit may be operable communication with the radar unit and configured to process signals from the radar unit to enable localization of the tags"; Paragraph 0178, “Position, angle, displacement, distance, speed, and acceleration sensors such as, but not limited to, accelerometer, displacement sensor, … ultra-wideband radar”; Paragraph 0078, "In further aspects, the modulation of the switches can allow wireless tag to modulate its radar cross section (RCS) and to create a recognizable synthetic signature for the radar unit of the mobile device 104") ; one or more physical characteristics of the target; or any combination thereof. Kovacs discloses calculating the location the UE and recognizing an identifier but it does not specify using a RCS. The UE RCS of a user, or target, would be advantageous in facilitating distinguishing the target amongst different vehicles (e.g. UAV versus a truck) and determining if the right UE identifier is associated with the correct vehicle. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs with Hester to mitigate malicious manipulation of the system by making sure the UE identifier is associated with the correct vehicle . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10, 11, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs (WO 2023135097 A1) in view of Masal (US 20240089893 A1) further in view of Hasegawa (US 20250151011 A1) . Regarding claim 10 the combination of Kovacs and Masal discloses The method of claim 9. The combination of Kovacs and Masal does not disclose further comprising: obtaining a second location of the UE using measurements of the PRSs. Hasegawa discloses Further comprising: obtaining a second location of the UE using measurements of the PRSs (Abstract, “The method also includes determining a first location of the WTRU using a first PRS configuration, selecting a cluster that encompasses the first location and is associated with a second PRS configuration, determining a second location of the WTRU based on the second PRS configuration”) . Kovacs discloses multiple measurements and with Masal it uses PRS for positioning as well, but it doesn’t disclose obtaining a second location of the UE. A base station obtaining a second location would be advantageous for tracking the UE when it is near base stations, and for determining direction and speed of the UE if nearby UE are sparse or are malfunctioning. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs with Hasegawa to add in determining a second location of the UE with PRS to track the UE and/or act as a failsafe when other UEs in the communication system are too sparse or malfunction. Regarding claim 11 the combination of Kovacs, Masal, and Hasegawa discloses The method of claim 10. The combination of Kovacs and Masal do not disclose wherein the second location of the UE is determined at a predetermined periodicity. Hasegawa discloses Wherein the second location of the UE is determined at a predetermined periodicity (Abstract, “The method also includes determining a first location of the WTRU using a first PRS configuration, selecting a cluster that encompasses the first location and is associated with a second PRS configuration, determining a second location of the WTRU based on the second PRS configuration”; Paragraph 0130, "a PRS configuration may contain at least one of the following parameters: number of symbols, transmission power, number of PRS resources included in PRS resource set, muting pattern for PRS (for example, the muting pattern may be expressed via a bitmap), periodicity, type of PRS (e.g., periodic, semi-persistent, or aperiodic)"; Paragraph 0094, "“Measurement gap pattern” may include parameters such as measurement gap duration, measurement gap repetition period, and measurement gap periodicity" where the periodicity of the PRS must be predetermined in order for it to be periodic ) . Kovacs, with Masal, discloses multiple measurements, using PRS for positioning, and using the PRS periodically but it doesn’t disclose obtaining a second location of the UE nor does it disclose doing this periodically. A base station periodically obtaining another location of the UE would be advantageous for tracking the UE when it is near base stations, and for determining direction and speed of the UE if nearby UE are sparse or are malfunctioning. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs with Hasegawa to add in periodic location finding of the UE with PRS to track the UE and/or act as a failsafe when other UEs in the communication system are too sparse or malfunction. Regarding claim 29 the combination of Kovacs, Masal, and Hasegawa discloses The UE of claim 25. Kovacs does not disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to communicate with one or more network nodes, position reference signals (PRSs). Masal discloses Wherein the one or more processors are further configured to communicate with one or more network nodes, position reference signals (PRSs) (Paragraph 0131, “For Uu link positioning, the DL-PRS resource allocation is demonstrated with COMB-12 multiplexing six base station s”) . Kovacs discloses positioning but not positioning with position reference signals PRS. Kovacs using position reference signals can be advantageous in that the PRS is able to localize a target without needing line-of-sight and is not entirely dependent on transmit power. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs with Masal to have a localization method not dependent on line-of-sight . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs (WO 2023135097 A1) in view of Hasegawa (US 20250151011 A1) . Regarding claim 20 Kovacs discloses The method of claim 18. Kovacs does not disclose further comprising: configuring the UE to communicate position reference signals (PRSs); and obtaining a second location of the UE based on measurements of the PRSs. Hasegawa discloses Further comprising: configuring the UE to communicate position reference signals (PRSs); and obtaining a second location of the UE based on measurements of the PRSs (Abstract, “The method also includes determining a first location of the WTRU using a first PRS configuration, selecting a cluster that encompasses the first location and is associated with a second PRS configuration, determining a second location of the WTRU based on the second PRS configuration”) . Kovacs discloses multiple measurements but it doesn’t disclose obtaining a first or second location of the UE using PRS. A base station obtaining a second location would be advantageous for tracking the UE when it is near base stations, and for determining direction and speed of the UE if nearby UE are sparse or are malfunctioning. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs with Hasegawa to add in determining a second location of the UE with PRS to track the UE and/or act as a failsafe when other UEs in the communication system are too sparse or malfunction. Regarding claim 21 Kovacs discloses A User Equipment (UE) for on-demand joint positioning and sensing the UE comprising: one or more memories (Page 16 lines 4-5, "The processing system 300 may have a processor 302, a memory 304 coupled to the processor and comprised of a random access memory (RAM) ") ; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more memories, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: determine a triggering event for radio frequency (RF) sensing of a target, wherein the RF sensing of the target comprises detecting the target from reflections of RF signals off of the target (Page 16 lines 4-5, "The processing system 300 may have a processor 302, a memory 304 coupled to the processor and comprised of a random access memory (RAM) "; Page 3 lines 1-5, "The said location report may be provided to said management system in response to a trigger, wherein said trigger comprises one or more of: a request for location data received from said management system; a location estimate not being in compliance with location data broadcast by the respective object; and an object approaching a restricted area") ; responsive to the triggering event, determine a first request for the RF sensing of the target (Page 11 lines 33-Page 12 lines 2, "As discussed further below, the message flow sequence 50 may be triggered by a request from a 3GPP UE (or its human user), which enables one or more UEs to perform radar sensing/ ranging combined with remote ID reception from one or more UAVs in the visual line-of-sight (VLOS) of the UE, and provide a UAV detection report to the NG-RAN/CN; the report might be forwarded to the UTM/USS") ; determine identification information of the target (Page 12 lines 32-33(34), "In operation 56, the UE performs the radar sensing procedure and/ or Remote ID reception. (A reception report is generated containing UAV remote ID and respective UAV radar sensing information and is provided to the NG- RAN in message 57.")) ; and transmit to a server, the first request along with the identification information of the target (Page 12 lines 12-14, "In response to the signal 52, a relevant CN entity, e.g. location management function (LMF) or network data analytics function (NWDAF), handles the request and initiates activation of the radar sensing procedure"; Page 13 lines 2-5, "The radar measurement report from the UE (including in the message 57) contains the UAV Remote ID. Thus, the CN (LMF or NWDAF) may combine reports from multiple UEs for the same UAV to provide a better estimation of the UAVs location") . Kovacs does not disclose one or more transceivers. Hasegawa discloses Comprising: one or more transceivers (Figure 1b elements 120, 118, 130, 132) ; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more transceivers and the one or more memories, one or more processors (Figure 1b elements 120, 118, 130, 132) Kovacs discloses the execution of different processes and transmitting and receiving signals but does not specify antenna or a transceiver. Including these components would be advantageous for helping to implement Kovacs’ invention, with Hasegawa, the reader would know to use the processor and memories with the transceivers for compact instrumentation. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs with Hasegawa to help implement the processes of Kovacs by informing the reader of which components to use. Regarding claim 22 the combination of Kovacs and Hasegawa discloses The UE of claim 21. Kovacs further discloses wherein the server comprises a location server, a sensing server, or both (Page 13 lines 2-5, "The radar measurement report from the UE (including in the message 57) contains the UAV Remote ID. Thus, the CN (LMF or NWDAF) may combine reports from multiple UEs for the same UAV to provide a better estimation of the UAVs location" where CN is the core network and lmf is the location management function which his tantamount to a location server ) . Regarding claim 25 the combination of Kovacs and Hasegawa discloses The UE of claim 21. Kovacs further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to obtain a first location of the UE determined using a sensing result of the target ((Page 13 lines 2-5, "The radar measurement report from the UE (including in the message 57) contains the UAV Remote ID. Thus, the CN (LMF or NWDAF) may combine reports from multiple UEs for the same UAV to provide a better estimation of the UAVs location")) . Regarding claim 26 the combination of Kovacs and Hasegawa discloses The UE of claim 25. Kovacs further discloses wherein the sensing result of the target is determined by another UE ((Page 13 lines 2-5, "The radar measurement report from the UE (including in the message 57) contains the UAV Remote ID. Thus, the CN (LMF or NWDAF) may combine reports from multiple UEs for the same UAV to provide a better estimation of the UAVs location")) . Regarding claim 27 the combination of Kovacs and Hasegawa discloses The UE of claim 25. Kovacs further discloses wherein the sensing result of the target is determined by a base station (Page 10 lines 6-7, "The second node 27 (which may, for example, be a 3GPP RAN node) may also be equipped with mmWave radio that can be used for radar sensing") . Regarding claim 30 Kovacs discloses A server for on-demand joint positioning and sensing a User Equipment (UE) comprising: one or more memories (Page 16 lines 4-5, "The processing system 300 may have a processor 302, a memory 304 coupled to the processor and comprised of a random access memory (RAM) ") ; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more memories (Page 16 lines 4-5, "The processing system 300 may have a processor 302, a memory 304 coupled to the processor and comprised of a random access memory (RAM) ") , wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a first request for radio frequency (RF) sensing of a target and identification information of the target (Page 11 lines 33-Page 12 lines 2, "As discussed further below, the message flow sequence 50 may be triggered by a request from a 3GPP UE (or its human user), which enables one or more UEs to perform radar sensing/ ranging combined with remote ID reception from one or more UAVs in the visual line-of-sight (VLOS) of the UE, and provide a UAV detection report to the NG-RAN/CN; the report might be forwarded to the UTM/USS") , wherein the target is co-located with the UE (Page 11 lines 33-Page 12 lines 2, "As discussed further below, the message flow sequence 50 may be triggered by a request from a 3GPP UE (or its human user), which enables one or more UEs to perform radar sensing/ ranging combined with remote ID reception from one or more UAVs in the visual line-of-sight (VLOS) of the UE, and provide a UAV detection report to the NG-RAN/CN; the report might be forwarded to the UTM/USS" where the UAV or vehicle has a UE ) , and wherein the first request is transmitted responsive to a triggering event determined by the UE (Page 3 lines 1-5, "The said location report may be provided to said management system in response to a trigger, wherein said trigger comprises one or more of: a request for location data received from said management system; a location estimate not being in compliance with location data broadcast by the respective object; and an object approaching a restricted area" where the UE would determine the location of the object ) ; determine a RF sensing configuration for RF sensing the target, wherein the RF sensing of the target comprises detecting the target from reflections of RF signals off of the target; and transmit to one or more base stations the RF sensing configuration for sensing the target (Page 12 lines 17-19, "The CN (e.g. the AMF) send a message 53 configuring the UE serving gNB for UE radar sensing operation. Note that the CN (e.g. AMF) may also configure other gNBs for radar sensing in addition to the UE serving gNB") . Kovacs does not disclose one or more transceivers; Hasegawa discloses Comprising: one or more transceivers (Figure 1b elements 120, 118, 130, 132) ; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more transceivers and the one or more memories, one or more processors (Figure 1b elements 120, 118, 130, 132) Kovacs discloses the execution of different processes and transmitting and receiving signals but does not specify antenna or a transceiver. Including these components would be advantageous for helping to implement Kovacs’ invention, with Hasegawa, the reader would know to use the processor and memories with the transceivers for compact instrumentation. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs with Hasegawa to help implement the processes of Kovacs by informing the reader of which components to use . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs (WO 2023135097 A1) in view of Masal (US 20240089893 A1) further in view of Hasegawa (US 20250151011 A1) further in view of TSAI (US 20210099885 A1) . Regarding claim 12 the combination of Kovacs, Masal, and Hasegawa discloses The method of claim 10. Kovacs does not disclose wherein the second location of the UE is determined in response to a second request from the server. Tsai discloses Wherein the second location of the UE is determined in response to a second request from the server (Paragraph 0046, “Under such circumstance, the threat detection apparatus 1 can further request the UE 2 to perform the positioning measurement again when determining the difference between the first distance and the second distance is smaller than or equal to the threshold. In the meantime, the threat detection apparatus 1 transmits a control message to the serving BS 3 (i.e., the authorized BS 103 or the authorized BS 104) to make the serving BS 3 to stop transmitting the PRS 302 within a time interval” where the threat detection apparatus acts as a server as it controls if a UE connects to a base station [Paragraph 0007-0008]] ) . Kovacs discloses initiating a positioning process based off a request but it does not specifically disclose a server requesting/initiating a measurement of a second location. As mentioned in claim 10 and 11 obtaining a second location for comparison would be useful for tracking the UE when UE are spare. Additionally, as in Tsai, the server requesting a second location can be used as a means of a security check on whether a UE connects with a base station. Tsai states, Paragraph 0008, “ The threat detection method is executed by the processor and comprises the following steps:… determining that the UE connects to a false BS when the identity of the serving BS is not on the identity list.” As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs with Tsai to add in the server requesting a second location measurement of the UE to facilitate tracking the UE through multiple locations and as a security measure to make sure the UE is connected to legitimate base stations . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs (WO 2023135097 A1) in view of Masal (US 20240089893 A1) further in view of Hasegawa (US 20250151011 A1) further in view of Sharma (US 20130130718 A1) . Regarding claim 13 the combination of Kovacs, Masal, and Hasegawa discloses The method of claim 10. Kovacs does not disclose wherein responsive to a difference between the first location and the second location being larger than a predetermined threshold, the method further comprises: transmitting a second request for terminating the RF sensing of the target. Sharma discloses Wherein responsive to a difference between the first location and the second location being larger than a predetermined threshold, the method further comprises: transmitting a second request for terminating the RF sensing of the target (Paragraph 0054, "If the distance is greater than the second threshold value 2R+D, then the GPS tracking system is terminated and the system switches in step 909 to the alternate positioning method") . Kovacs discloses the use of triggers for the communication system and it discloses the use of positioning in the absence of base stations but it does not specify the details of how the system would know when to cancel a positioning procedure. Sharma describes a system where if the distance between two locations is too great it terminates that positioning system to switch to another. This would be useful for the implementation of Kovacs as it describes the conditions for the switch from using base stations to using a UE, which can optimize the use of resources. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs with Sharma to better implement the scenario of switching from base station positioning to UE positioning . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs (WO 2023135097 A1) in view of Masal (US 20240089893 A1) further in view of Hasegawa (US 20250151011 A1) further in view of Kumar (US 20230239829 A1) . Regarding claim 14 the combination of Kovacs, Masal, and Hasegawa discloses The method of claim 10. Kovacs does not disclose wherein responsive to a difference between the first location and the second location being larger than a predetermined threshold, the method further comprises: determining a third location of the UE using the sensing result of the target and the measurements of the PRSs. Kumar discloses Wherein responsive to a difference between the first location and the second location being larger than a predetermined threshold, the method further comprises: determining a third location of the UE using the sensing result of the target and the measurements of the PRSs (Abstract, "the method comprising: obtaining a first measurement data associated with a determined position of the UE and second measurement data, the first and second measurement data obtained by performing measurements by the UE; obtaining a difference value indicative of a difference between at least one measurement value of the first measurement data and at least one measurement value of the second measurement data; comparing the difference value with at least one repositioning threshold value provided by the wireless communication network to the UE; and if the difference value exceeds the at least one repositioning threshold value, triggering a transmission of a repositioning request to a network node of the wireless communication network."; Paragraph 0039, “the UE performs reference signal time difference (RSTD) measurements based on the transmission of positioning reference signal (PRS) from multiple transmission points/neighbouring cells”) . Kovacs, with Masal, discloses the use of PRS, triggers and tracking the UE but not obtaining two locations and then a third in response to a threshold. Obtaining a third location would be advantageous in checking if the location 1 and location 2 comparison is correct. For instance, as with claim 13, if the distances between location 1 and location 2 determine if a different positioning method is implemented a check on the distance would be prudent before engaging in an unnecessary or energy wasting switch. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs with Kumar to include finding a third location to check the distance measurement between the first and second location to see if the distance was truly greater than a threshold value . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs (WO 2023135097 A1) in view of Gargi (US 8725113 B2) further in view of Hasegawa (US 20250151011 A1) . Regarding claim 23 the combination of Kovacs and Hasegawa discloses The UE of claim 21. Kovacs discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine the identification information of the target (Page 12 lines 32-33(34), "In operation 56, the UE performs the radar sensing procedure and/ or Remote ID reception. (A reception report is generated containing UAV remote ID and respective UAV radar sensing information and is provided to the NG- RAN in message 57"). Kovacs does not specifically disclose comprises determining that the target is co-located with the UE. Gargi discloses Determining that the target is co-located with the UE (Column 2 lines 4-5, "evaluating a physical relationship between the primary user and the electronic device with respect to a threshold distance") . Kovacs discloses gathering the target identification information of an object but it does not disclose determining if the UE is with the target. Kovacs assumes the UE is attached to the object (e.g. a UAV) but determining if they are co-located would be an advantageous safety feature, where a tracking process can determine if the system is being manipulated by using a UE with an improper object. Reporting the distance, or whether it is co-located, to a location server (along with the ID information) would be useful for determining if there is some sort of breach. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs to provide safety features, and guarantee that the right vehicle is associated with the right UE or identification . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 24, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs (WO 2023135097 A1) in view of Hasegawa (US 20250151011 A1) further in view of Hester (US 20230306213 A1) . Regarding claim 24 the combination of Kovacs and Hasegawa discloses The UE of claim 21. Kovacs does not disclose wherein the identification information comprises: a location of the target; a speed of the target; a radar cross-section (RCS) of the target; one or more physical characteristics of the target; or any combination thereof. Hester discloses Wherein the identification information comprises: a location of the target; a speed of the target; a radar cross-section (RCS) of the target (Paragraph 0067, "the electronic device may comprise at least one display, at least one processing unit, and at least one radar unit. The processing unit may be operable communication with the radar unit and configured to process signals from the radar unit to enable localization of the tags"; Paragraph 0178, “Position, angle, displacement, distance, speed, and acceleration sensors such as, but not limited to, accelerometer, displacement sensor, … ultra-wideband radar”; Paragraph 0078, "In further aspects, the modulation of the switches can allow wireless tag to modulate its radar cross section (RCS) and to create a recognizable synthetic signature for the radar unit of the mobile device 104") ; one or more physical characteristics of the target; or any combination thereof. Kovacs discloses calculating the location the UE and recognizing an identifier but it does not specify using a RCS. The UE RCS of a user, or target, would be advantageous in facilitating distinguishing the target amongst different vehicles (e.g. UAV versus a truck) and determining if the right UE identifier is associated with the correct vehicle. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kovacs with Hester to mitigate malicious manipulation of the system by making sure the UE identifier is associated with the correct vehicle. Regarding claim 28 the combination of Kovacs and Hasegawa discloses The UE of claim 25. Kovacs further discloses wherein a sensing result of the RF sensing of the target comprises: a range estimation; an angle estimation; a speed estimation; a location estimation (Page 13 lines 2-5, "The radar measurement report from the UE (including in the message 57) contains the UAV Remote ID. Thus, the CN (LMF or NWDAF) may combine reports from multiple UEs for the same UAV to provide a better estimation of the UAVs location") ; or any combination thereof. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D DOZE whose telephone number is (571)272-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 6:00pm ET. 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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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. /PETER DAVON DOZE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 /VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 2 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 3 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 4 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 5 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 6 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 7 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 8 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 9 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 10 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 11 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 12 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 13 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 14 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 15 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 16 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 17 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 18 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 19 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 20 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 21 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 22 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 23 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 24 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 26 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 27 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 28 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 30 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 31 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/521,932 Page 32 Art Unit: 3648
Prosecution Insights