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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 02/20/2024.
Claim 1-30 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 12-17 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a system and a method and 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) 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
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 12 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 26 recites a node, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Independent claim(s) 26 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain sufficiently the same limitations as those noted for claim 12 below, except where noted below.
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. Claim 12 recites the limitations of:
“determining, at a configuring node of a wireless network, a slope configuration for a sensing node, wherein the slope configuration includes one or more parameters indicative of a frequency slope value for each chirp of a frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) transmission sequence to be used by the sensing node for RF sensing; and sending the slope configuration to the sensing node to enable the sensing node to perform an RF sensing function in accordance with the slope configuration”.
The focus of the claim (i.e., determining, at a configuring node) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are acts that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, and/or a general-purpose computer as indicated in Applicant’s disclosure. When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, “determining, at a configuring node” is simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract idea. See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a generically-recited analysis step is a mental process).
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Under the 2019 Guidance, concepts performed in the human mind, even with the aid of pen and paper, and concepts merely using a computer as a tool, fall within the “mental processes” grouping. Claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
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 limitation(s) of “a configuring node” and “sensing node” of claim 12 is recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely is used to perform the abstract idea, and is merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further recitation of limitation(s) of “sending the slope configuration to the sensing node” are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception.
The limitation(s) of “transceivers”, “memories”, “processors”, “a configuring node” and “sensing node” of claim 26 is recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely is used to perform the abstract idea, and is merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further recitation of limitation(s) of “send the slope configuration via the one or more transceivers” are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 12, and similarly claims 26, as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
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 12.
The limitation(s) of “a configuring node” and “sensing node” of claim 12 are recited in a manner that is well understood, generic and conventional. The additional recitation of “sending the slope configuration to the sensing node” does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
The limitation(s) of “transceivers”, “memories”, “processors”, “a configuring node” and “sensing node” of claim 26 are recited in a manner that is well understood, generic and conventional. The additional recitation of “send the slope configuration via the one or more transceivers” does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 12 and does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 12 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim(s) 12 and 26 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 13-17, and 27-30:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 13-17 recite a series of steps and therefore, fall under a process. Claims 27-30 recite a system, and therefore, fall under a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 13-17 and 27-30 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same or sufficiently similar defects as those noted for claim 13 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 12 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from the abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea and/or represent an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 13-17 and 27-30 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 12, 14-18, 20-21, 23, 26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shaban (US 20250294507 A1), hereinafter Shaban.
Regarding claim 1, Shaban discloses
receiving a slope configuration at the sensing node from a configuring node of a wireless network (See at least Figs. 8, 20, [0121] “The assigned TX/RX-AN node 602 initially receives (step 802), from the SMF 176, an assignment along with positioning signal configuration information.” Shaban discloses transmitting from a sensing management function (SMF) an assignment and configuration to be received by a transmitting node (TX)), wherein the slope configuration includes one or more parameters indicative of a frequency slope value for each chirp of an FMCW transmission sequence to be used by the sensing node for RF sensing (See at least Fig. 18, [0120] “The positioning signal configurations may include chirp-based positioning signal parameters, such as a chirp rate, a, a duration, T, and a starting frequency, f.sub.i”, [0090] “waveforms that can be used for a sensing signal include […] Frequency-Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) or “chirp””); and
performing an RF sensing function at the sensing node in accordance with the slope configuration (See at least Fig. 20, Items 804-808, [0128] “The TX/RX-AN 602 node then transmits (step 804) a first, or so-called “forward,” chirp-based positioning signal in accordance with the positioning signal configuration information.”, [0194] “Similarly, the TX-AN node 2002 may receive (step 806) the reverse chirp-based positioning signal and process (step 808) measurements of the reverse chirp-based positioning signal to obtain parameters”).
Regarding claim 3, Shaban, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Shaban additionally discloses
the one or more parameters include a chirp rate and a scrambling sequence (See at least Figs. 17, 19, [0120] “The positioning signal configurations may include chirp-based positioning signal parameters, such as a chirp rate, a, a duration, T, and a starting frequency, f.sub.i”, [0183] “SMF 176 may configure a TX-AN node to use a specific starting frequency, ft. In a resource defined, by a different frequency slot in combination with a different time slot” Shaban discloses a scrambling sequence as a sequence different from other different transmitting nodes, thereby based on at least a user equipment identifier)
Regarding claim 4, Shaban, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Shaban additionally discloses
the scrambling sequence is associated with a scrambling identifier (ID), and wherein the scrambling ID is a function of: a wireless cell of the sensing node, a user equipment (UE) ID of the sensing node, an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) frame number, an OFDM slot index, an OFDM symbol index, or any combination thereof (See at least [0183] “SMF 176 may configure a TX-AN node to use a specific starting frequency, ft. In a resource defined, by a different frequency slot in combination with a different time slot” Shaban discloses a scrambling sequence as a sequence different from other different transmitting nodes, thereby based on at least a user equipment identifier)
Regarding claim 9, Shaban, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Shaban additionally discloses
the sensing node comprises a transmit (Tx) sensing node, and wherein performing the RF sensing function in accordance with the slope configuration comprises transmitting the FMCW transmission sequence (See at least Fig. 20, Items 804-808, [0128] “The TX/RX-AN 602 node then transmits (step 804) a first, or so-called “forward,” chirp-based positioning signal in accordance with the positioning signal configuration information.”, [0090] “waveforms that can be used for a sensing signal include […] Frequency-Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) or “chirp””)
Regarding claim 12, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 14, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
Regarding claim 15, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4, shown above.
Regarding claim 16, Shaban, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Shaban additionally discloses
the sensing node comprises a transmit (Tx) sensing node, a receive (Rx) sensing node, or both (See at least [0120] “the SMF 176 will assign (step 704) the role of TX-AN node to a node that has a capability to receive chirp-based positioning signals in addition to having a capability to transmit chirp-based positioning signals”)
Regarding claim 17, Shaban, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Shaban additionally discloses
the configuring node comprises a base station or a server of the wireless network (See at least Fig. 3, [0073] “the SMF may be implemented as a logical entity co-located inside a BS 170 through logic carried out by the processor 260”)
Regarding claim 18, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above. Shaban additionally discloses
one or more transceivers (See at least [0120] “the SMF 176 will assign (step 704) the role of TX-AN node to a node that has a capability to receive chirp-based positioning signals in addition to having a capability to transmit chirp-based positioning signals”);
one or more memories (See at least [0041] “any module, component, or device disclosed herein that executes instructions may include, or otherwise have access to, a non-transitory computer/processor readable storage medium”); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more transceivers and the one or more memories, the one or more processors configured to (See at least [0197] “It should be appreciated that one or more steps of the embodiment methods provided herein may be performed by corresponding units or modules. […] where the modules are software, they may be retrieved by a processor, in whole or part as needed, individually or together for processing”)
Regarding claim 20, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
Regarding claim 21, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4, shown above.
Regarding claim 23, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 9. Accordingly, claim 23 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 9, shown above.
Regarding claim 26, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 12. Accordingly, claim 26 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 12, shown above. Shaban additionally discloses
one or more transceivers (See at least [0074] “As shown in FIG. 5, an SMF 176, […] includes at least one processor 290, at least one transmitter 282, at least one receiver 284, one or more antennas 286 and at least one memory 288. A transceiver, not shown, may be used instead of the transmitter 282 and the receiver 284”);
one or more memories (See at least [0041] “any module, component, or device disclosed herein that executes instructions may include, or otherwise have access to, a non-transitory computer/processor readable storage medium”); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more transceivers and the one or more memories, the one or more processors configured to (See at least [0197] “It should be appreciated that one or more steps of the embodiment methods provided herein may be performed by corresponding units or modules. […] where the modules are software, they may be retrieved by a processor, in whole or part as needed, individually or together for processing”)
Regarding claim 28, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 14. Accordingly, claim 28 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 14, shown above.
Regarding claim 29, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 15. Accordingly, claim 29 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 15, shown above.
Regarding claim 30, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 17. Accordingly, claim 30 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 17, shown above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 13, 19, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaban, in view of Shaban (US 20250193644 A1), hereinafter Shaban (‘644).
Regarding claim 2, Shaban, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Shaban does not explicitly disclose sending slope capability information from the sensing node to the configuring node, wherein the slope capability information is indicative of one or more frequency slopes with which the sensing node may perform the RF sensing function, and wherein receiving the slope configuration is responsive to the sending of the slope capability information. However, Shaban (‘644), in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
sending slope capability information from the sensing node to the configuring node, wherein the slope capability information is indicative of one or more frequency slopes with which the sensing node may perform the RF sensing function, and wherein receiving the slope configuration is responsive to the sending of the slope capability information (See at least Fig. 7, Item 702, [0151] “The method 700 may begin with the network device receiving, in step 702, first capability information from the first electronic device 604” [0153] “the functionality may indicate a bandwidth (e.g., a transmission bandwidth) of the respective electronic device” Shaban (‘644) discloses sending functionality/capabilities of a node including bandwidth and then a selection process based on capabilities which results in a selection response.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the FMCW slope scrambling system disclosed by Shaban with the capability reporting system disclosed by Shaban (‘644). One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously achieve high resolution based on limited device capabilities (See at least [0275] “Embodiments of the disclosure thus provide high-resolution sensing for electronic devices. This may be particularly advantageous for electronic devices that have limited capability to perform sensing, such as low-power or limited-functionality devices”).
Regarding claim 13, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2, shown above.
Regarding claim 19, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2, shown above.
Regarding claim 27, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 13. Accordingly, claim 27 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 13, shown above.
Claims 5 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaban, in view of Zheng (CN 101267424 A), hereinafter Zheng.
Regarding claim 5, Shaban, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Shaban further discloses
FMCW (See at least [0090] “waveforms that can be used for a sensing signal include […] Frequency-Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) or “chirp”)
Shaban does not explicitly disclose the respective frequency slope value for each chirp of the FMCW transmission sequence is either positive or negative, based on a binary phase-shift keying (BPSK) modulation of the FMCW transmission sequence. However, Zheng, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the respective frequency slope value for each chirp of the (See at least “binary system orthogonal keying modulation is generated at the transmitting end Up-Chirp and Down-Chirp signal to indicate input data, and direct modulation using one Chirp signal to express data symbol, the data symbol may be binary symbols,” Zheng discloses positive or negative slopes through up-chirps or down-chirps based on bpsk modulation.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the FMCW slope scrambling system disclosed by Shaban with the BPSK system disclosed by Zheng. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve data transmission (See at least “improves the data transmission rate”).
Regarding claim 22, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 22 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5, shown above.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaban, in view of Vameghestahbanati (US 20250380116 A1), hereinafter Vameghestahbanati.
Regarding claim 6, Shaban, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Shaban does not explicitly disclose the slope configuration is further indicative of a basis FMCW waveform for each chirp of the FMCW transmission sequence, the basis FMCW waveform comprising a saw waveform or a triangular waveform. However, Vameghestahbanati, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the slope configuration is further indicative of a basis FMCW waveform for each chirp of the FMCW transmission sequence, the basis FMCW waveform comprising a saw waveform or a triangular waveform (See at least Fig. 4B, [0171] “The symmetrical triangular chirp waveform comprises two chirps with opposite sign slopes, e.g., downchirp in the first symbol duration and upchirp in the second duration”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the FMCW slope scrambling system disclosed by Shaban with the waveform system disclosed by Vameghestahbanati. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously effectively and efficiently utilize the wireless system (See at least [0159] “Techniques for effectively and efficiently sharing the wireless channel”).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Shaban and Vameghestahbanati, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 6. Shaban does not explicitly disclose wherein a basis FMCW waveform of the FMCW transmission sequence comprises a triangular waveform such that: a chirp having a respective positive frequency slope value comprises an FMCW transmission starting at a first initial frequency and including a substantially linear increase in frequency followed by a substantially linear decrease in frequency back to the first initial frequency, and a chirp having a respective negative frequency slope value comprises an FMCW transmission starting at a second initial frequency and including a substantially linear decrease in frequency followed by a substantially linear increase in frequency back to the second initial frequency. However, Vameghestahbanati, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
wherein a basis FMCW waveform of the FMCW transmission sequence comprises a triangular waveform such that: a chirp having a respective positive frequency slope value comprises an FMCW transmission starting at a first initial frequency and including a substantially linear increase in frequency followed by a substantially linear decrease in frequency back to the first initial frequency (See at least Fig. 4B, [0171] “The symmetrical triangular chirp waveform comprises two chirps with opposite sign slopes, e.g., downchirp in the first symbol duration and upchirp in the second duration, or vice versa”), and
a chirp having a respective negative frequency slope value comprises an FMCW transmission starting at a second initial frequency and including a substantially linear decrease in frequency followed by a substantially linear increase in frequency back to the second initial frequency (See at least Fig. 4B, [0171] “The symmetrical triangular chirp waveform comprises two chirps with opposite sign slopes, e.g., downchirp in the first symbol duration and upchirp in the second duration, or vice versa”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the FMCW slope scrambling system disclosed by Shaban with the waveform system disclosed by Vameghestahbanati. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously effectively and efficiently utilize the wireless system (See at least [0159] “Techniques for effectively and efficiently sharing the wireless channel”).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Shaban and Vameghestahbanati, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 6, and 7. Shaban does not explicitly disclose the first initial frequency is the same as the second initial frequency, and wherein the chirp having the respective positive frequency slope value and the chirp having the respective negative frequency slope value each use substantially half of a bandwidth allocated for the transmission of the FMCW transmission sequence. However, Vameghestahbanati, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the first initial frequency is the same as the second initial frequency, and wherein the chirp having the respective positive frequency slope value and the chirp having the respective negative frequency slope value each use substantially half of a bandwidth allocated for the transmission of the FMCW transmission sequence (See at least Fig. 4B, [0171] “The symmetrical triangular chirp waveform comprises two chirps with opposite sign slopes, e.g., downchirp in the first symbol duration and upchirp in the second duration, or vice versa”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the FMCW slope scrambling system disclosed by Shaban with the waveform system disclosed by Vameghestahbanati. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously effectively and efficiently utilize the wireless system (See at least [0159] “Techniques for effectively and efficiently sharing the wireless channel”).
Claims 10-11 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaban, in view of Arage (US 20160084943 A1), hereinafter Arage.
Regarding claim 10, Shaban, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Shaban further discloses
the sensing node comprises a receive (Rx) sensing node, and wherein performing the RF sensing function in accordance with the slope configuration comprises: receiving the FMCW transmission sequence defined by the one or more parameters included in the slope configuration (See at least Fig. 20, Items 804-808, [0128] “The TX/RX-AN 602 node then transmits (step 804) a first, or so-called “forward,” chirp-based positioning signal in accordance with the positioning signal configuration information.”, [0090] “waveforms that can be used for a sensing signal include […] Frequency-Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) or “chirp”” Shaban discloses a combination TX/RX node which sends/receives signals according to the received configuration), and
Shaban does not explicitly disclose processing the received FMCW transmission sequence to extract a range-Doppler profile. However, Arage, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
processing the received FMCW transmission sequence to extract a range-Doppler profile (See at least [0031] “near target discrimination on the range profiles and/or Doppler profiles or range-Doppler images is advantageous to reliably track objects”, [0004] “The radio frequency signal is typically a pulse compressed waveform such as a series of waveform pulses commonly called ‘chirps’ or Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the FMCW slope scrambling system disclosed by Shaban with the range-doppler system disclosed by Arage. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reliably track objects (See at least [0031] “near target discrimination on the range profiles and/or Doppler profiles or range-Doppler images is advantageous to reliably track objects”).
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Shaban and Arage, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Shaban further discloses
reporting sensing results from the Rx sensing node to the configuring node, the sensing results indicative of the one or more targets (See at least Fig. 20, [0136] “Accordingly, it follows that the TX/RX-AN node 602 may, as part of the processing (step 808), directly estimate the distance, d.sub.1.sup.F, between the TX/RX-AN node 602 and the target UE 606.”, [0138] “SMF 176 may receive (step 706) the indication of the parameters, including an indication of the estimated distance, d.sub.1.sup.F”)
Shaban does not explicitly disclose detecting, with the Rx sensing node, one or more targets from the range-Doppler profile. However, Arage, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
detecting, with the Rx sensing node, one or more targets from the range-Doppler profile; (See at least [0031] “near target discrimination on the range profiles and/or Doppler profiles or range-Doppler images is advantageous to reliably track objects”); and
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the FMCW slope scrambling system disclosed by Shaban with the range-doppler system disclosed by Arage. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reliably track objects (See at least [0031] “near target discrimination on the range profiles and/or Doppler profiles or range-Doppler images is advantageous to reliably track objects”).
Regarding claim 24, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 10. Accordingly, claim 24 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 10, shown above.
Regarding claim 25, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 11. Accordingly, claim 25 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 11, shown above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Meier (US 20240103123 A1) - Systems and methods for providing a communications and relative positioning capability using frequency-modulated continuous-wave radar installed on multiple mobile and/or stationary objects, providing secure/reliable determination of signal origin from a select one of a plurality of geographically mobile machines, equipment, devices, or systems and subsequent selective establishment/facilitation of direct/deterministic/reliable communication therewith.
Servadei (US 20220082654 A1) - In an embodiment, a method for radar interference mitigation includes: transmitting a first plurality of radar signals having a first set of radar signal parameter values; receiving a first plurality of reflected radar signals; generating a radar image based on the first plurality of reflected radar signals; using a continuous reward function to generate a reward value based on the radar image; using a neural network to generate a second set of radar signal parameter values based on the reward value; and transmitting a second plurality of radar signals having the second set of radar signal parameter values.
Melodia (US 20200396010 A1) - Embodiments disclosed herein may be implemented in the form of a method or corresponding apparatus for receiving or transmitting network communications carried at acoustic wavelengths via an acoustic medium. The corresponding method or apparatus may include a gate-level digital hardware module communicatively coupled to a communications module and define therein logic blocks configured to perform respective primitive processing functions, sequences of the logic blocks being capable of processing data units in accordance with any of the multiple communications protocols on a data unit-by-data unit basis without reconfiguring. According to some embodiments, the gate-level digital hardware module may be configured to process a data unit in accordance with a first communications protocol by directing the data unit through a first sequence of logic blocks, and process a subsequent data unit in accordance with a second communications protocol by directing the subsequent data unit through a second of sequence logic blocks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 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, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights