DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 58-59,61-62,64-66,69,71 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble for claims 58-59,61-62,64-66,69,71 should be "the non-transitory computer-readable medium."
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. The support for hardware structures can be found in the original applicant disclosure pars [0101]-[0107].
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) 1-3,6,8-10,29-31,34,36-38,57-59,62,64-66,85-87,90,92-94 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Cooperative game-theoretic power allocation algorithm for target detection in radar network" in view of DUNWORTH to (US20190222326A1)
Regarding claims 1,29,57,85 "Cooperative game-theoretic power allocation algorithm for target detection in radar network" teaches a method of generating a sensing headroom report (HR) by a first device in a wireless network, comprising: transmitting a radio detection and ranging (radar) wireless signal on a wireless medium (Section 2, page 1, lines 2-4, "The ith radar receives the echoes from the target due to its transmitted signals") at a first transmit power from one or more transmit chains of the first device; (section 2, page 2, formula “3” discloses transmission power of radar signal) sensing the radar wireless signal; (Section 2, page 1, lines 2-4, "The ith radar receives the echoes from the target due to its transmitted signals")
generating a sensing HR based on sensing the radar wireless signal; (Section 2,
page 2, left-hand column, formula “3” discloses calculating SINR received at ith radar, Section 2, page 2, left-hand column, lines 5-6, "Each radar can independently detect the
target and send its received signals to the fusion center which takes a
decision")
"Cooperative game-theoretic power allocation algorithm for target detection in radar network" does not explicitly teach providing the sensing HR to a network entity in the wireless network
However, DUNWORTH teaches providing the sensing HR to a network entity in the wireless network( [0106] discloses an MPE measurement may be made using a frequency modulated continuous wave radar measurement.. the radar signal may sweep the signal in frequency over a wide bandwidth and may radiate in the band in which the UE will communicate with a base station. [0089] discloses the UE transmits, to a base station, a request to perform a power amplifier characterization… This request may be indicated via power headroom (PHR) reporting by the UE)
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the system of "Cooperative game-theoretic power allocation algorithm for target detection in radar network" include providing the sensing HR to a network entity in the wireless network, as suggested by DUNWORTH. This modification would benefit the system to reduce signal interference (see, DUNWORTH ,[0134]).
Regarding claims 2,30,58,86 "Cooperative game-theoretic power allocation algorithm for target detection in radar network" does not explicitly teach wherein sensing the radar wireless signal includes sensing the radar wireless signal directly from at least one of the one or more transmit chains of the first device, wherein a measured self-interference (SI) power of the sensed radar wireless signal corresponds to the radar wireless signal sensed directly from the at least one of the one or more transmit chains of the first device
However, DUNWORTH teaches wherein sensing the radar wireless signal includes sensing the radar wireless signal directly from at least one of the one or more transmit chains of the first device, wherein a measured self-interference (SI) power of the sensed radar wireless signal corresponds to the radar wireless signal sensed directly from the at least one of the one or more transmit chains of the first device([0134] discloses UEs to perform MPE measurement in a particular resource in order to reduce a level of interference to the MPE measurement of each UE)
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the system of "Cooperative game-theoretic power allocation algorithm for target detection in radar network" include wherein sensing the radar wireless signal includes sensing the radar wireless signal directly from at least one of the one or more transmit chains of the first device, wherein a measured self-interference (SI) power of the sensed radar wireless signal corresponds to the radar wireless signal sensed directly from the at least one of the one or more transmit chains of the first device, as suggested by DUNWORTH. This modification would benefit the system to reduce signal interference (see, DUNWORTH, [0134]).
Regarding claims 3,31,59,87 the combination of "Cooperative game-theoretic power allocation algorithm for target detection in radar network" and teaches DUNWORTH teaches wherein the sensing HR includes an indication of a sensing headroom, wherein the sensing headroom is a difference between the SI power and a maximum SI power for sensing(DUNWORTH,[0089] discloses The UE may then request that the base station schedule a calibration gap for the UE to perform the power amplifier characterization. This request may be included in information transmitted to the base station, such as in a control message. This request may be indicated via power headroom (PHR) reporting by the UE as further described herein with respect to …[0091] discloses the UE may receive control information indicating to perform power amplifier characterization).
Regarding claims 6,34,62,90 the combination of "Cooperative game-theoretic power allocation algorithm for target detection in radar network" and teaches DUNWORTH teaches wherein the sensing HR includes an indication of a power headroom (PH) for sensing, (DUNWORTH,[0089] …indicated via power headroom (PHR) reporting by the UE ) wherein the PH for sensing is a difference between a maximum transmit power for sensing and a desired transmit power for sensing; an aggregate report indicating a plurality of power measurements over multiple sensing attempts; or a combination thereof(DUNWORTH,[0167] discloses transmitting a rise-over-thermal threshold for the MPE measurement, means for transmitting a maximum receiving power at which an MPE use may be received at the base station, means for transmitting a scheduled period for the MPE measurement to a user equipment, and means for grouping a plurality of UEs to perform the MPE measurement in the system gap).
Regarding claims 8,36,64,92 the combination of "Cooperative game-theoretic power allocation algorithm for target detection in radar network" and teaches DUNWORTH teaches The method of claim 6, wherein the desired transmit power for sensing is one of: a transmit power for sensing determined by the first device; or a requested transmit power, (DUNWORTH,[0089] discloses The UE may then request that the base station schedule a calibration gap for the UE to perform the power amplifier characterization. This request may be included in information transmitted to the base station, such as in a control message. This request may be indicated via power headroom (PHR) reporting by the UE as further described herein with respect to …[0091] discloses the UE may receive control information indicating to perform power amplifier characterization)wherein an indication of the requested transmit power is obtained from one of: a radar server of the wireless network, wherein the first device is a base station; a base station serving the first device, wherein the first device is a user equipment (UE); or a relay UE, wherein the first device is a UE within range of the relay UE(DUNWORTH,[0089] discloses The UE may then request that the base station schedule a calibration gap for the UE to perform the power amplifier characterization).
Regarding claims 9,37,65,93 the combination of "Cooperative game-theoretic power allocation algorithm for target detection in radar network" and teaches DUNWORTH teaches obtaining a request by a radar server of the wireless network to adjust a present transmit power for sensing, wherein the adjustment is based on the sensing HR([0146] discloses the UE adjusts a transmission characteristic of the user equipment when the measurement meets the threshold. The UE may reduce a transmission power and/or switch antenna elements for transmission in order to comply with MPE limits. In another example, the threshold may indicate that there is no potential problematic exposure condition for a person. In this example, the UE may adjust the transmission characteristic at 1918 by increasing the transmission power and/or switching to a more preferred antenna element) .
Regarding claims 10,38,66,94 the combination of "Cooperative game-theoretic power allocation algorithm for target detection in radar network" and teaches DUNWORTH teaches wherein providing the sensing HR to the network entity includes one of: unicasting the sensing HR to a second device in the wireless network; broadcasting the sensing HR to the second device; ([0126] Discloses a unicast RRC message may be used to indicate to MPE-measuring devices when the devices can or cannot make a measurement in the cell specific resource. In one example, the indication may limit, or otherwise reduce, the use of the resource for MPE measurement).
Claim(s) 13, 15,41,43,69,71,97, and 99 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Cooperative game-theoretic power allocation algorithm for target detection in radar network" in view of DUNWORTH to (US 20190222326 A1) further in view of Yi to (US20210045070)
Regarding claims 13,41,69,97 the combination of "Cooperative game-theoretic power allocation algorithm for target detection in radar network" and teaches DUNWORTH does not explicitly teach further comprising obtaining a trigger to provide the sensing HR, wherein: the trigger is obtained in one of: downlink control information (DCI) on a NR-Uu interface to a base station serving the first device; or sidelink control information (SCI) on a NR-based sidelink; the sensing HR is provided to the network entity in response to obtaining the trigger; and the trigger is based on a request from a radar server of the wireless network for the sensing HR from the first device
However, Yi teaches obtaining a trigger to provide the sensing HR, wherein: the trigger is obtained in one of: downlink control information (DCI) on a NR-Uu interface to a base station serving the first device; ([0351] Discloses when a wireless device supports more than one power control processes for a cell, the wireless device may report an actual PH value of the cell based on a power control process determined based on a scheduling DCI or parameters of a configured grant) the sensing HR is provided to the network entity in response to obtaining the trigger; ([0358] discloses …in response to a triggering of a power headroom report (PHR), a wireless device may determine a PH value for each activated cell of both a first CG and a second CG ) and the trigger is based on a request from a radar server of the wireless network for the sensing HR from the first device([0333] discloses … if a PHR procedure determines that at least one PHR has been triggered and not cancelled and/or if allocated UL resources accommodate at least one PHR (e.g., a MAC CE for the PHR which the MAC entity is configured to transmit, plus its subheader, as a result of logical channel prioritization), at least one PHR to a base station)
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the system of "Cooperative game-theoretic power allocation algorithm for target detection in radar network" and DUNWORTH include obtaining a trigger to provide the sensing HR, wherein: the trigger is obtained in one of: downlink control information (DCI) on a NR-Uu interface to a base station serving the first device; or sidelink control information (SCI) on a NR-based sidelink; the sensing HR is provided to the network entity in response to obtaining the trigger; and the trigger is based on a request from a radar server of the wireless network for the sensing HR from the first device, as suggested by Yi. This modification would benefit the system to reduce signal interference.
Regarding claims 15,43,71,99 the combination of "Cooperative game-theoretic power allocation algorithm for target detection in radar network" and teaches DUNWORTH does not explicitly teach further comprising obtaining an indication of one or more parameters for generating the sensing HR; wherein: the indication is obtained in a media access control layer control element (MAC-CE) on a NR-Uu interface to a base station serving the first device or on a NR-based sidelink; and configuration of the one or more parameters is persisted for one or more sensing HRs until another indication of the one or more parameters is obtained
However, Yi teaches obtaining an indication of one or more parameters for generating the sensing HR; ([0368] discloses based on slot formation information and/or other configuration parameters, a wireless device may transmit a PUSCH to the second cell at a same time where a PUSCH with the PHR to the first base station may overlap. Fifth, a previous PUSCH may occur with a certain duration from a time u (e.g., within twice of a duration D). The wireless device may utilize a previous PUSCH of the second cell in determining an actual PH value) wherein: the indication is obtained in a media access control layer control element (MAC-CE) on a NR-Uu interface to a base station serving the first device ([0333] discloses … if a PHR procedure determines that at least one PHR has been triggered and not cancelled and/or if allocated UL resources accommodate at least one PHR (e.g., a MAC CE for the PHR which the MAC entity is configured to transmit, plus its subheader, as a result of logical channel prioritization), at least one PHR to a base station) and configuration of the one or more parameters is persisted for one or more sensing HRs until another indication of the one or more parameters is obtained([0370] discloses a wireless device may provide additional information to a first base station (for a first CG) in response to transmission of a PHR reporting, to the first base station, comprising one or more PH values of one or more cells of a second CG associated with a second base station)
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the system of "Cooperative game-theoretic power allocation algorithm for target detection in radar network" and DUNWORTH include obtaining an indication of one or more parameters for generating the sensing HR; wherein: the indication is obtained in a media access control layer control element (MAC-CE) on a NR-Uu interface to a base station serving the first device or on a NR-based sidelink; and configuration of the one or more parameters is persisted for one or more sensing HRs until another indication of the one or more parameters is obtained, as suggested by Yi. This modification would benefit the system to reduce signal interference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5,33,61,89 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEWDU A BEYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/ZEWDU A BEYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461