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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-30 remain pending in this application. Claims 1, 3-4, 12, 14-15, 18, 20-21, 26, and 28-29 have been amended. No claims are cancelled or are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/29/2026 regarding 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained below for the same or similar reasoning as provided in the previous action.
Further, the Applicant argues that the claims reflect an improvement in a technical field. While the Examiner agrees with the Applicant that the specification describes an improvement to a technical field, the Examiner argues that the claims do not reflect that improvement. While the described signal processing techniques represent improvements, the improvements are merely claimed as intended use as claim 12 and similarly claim 26 do not recite the performance of RF sensing, unlike claim 1 which clearly claims “performing an RF sensing function”. Merely “enabling” a function does not claim the occurrence of the function. Therefore, the claims as presented do not reflect an improvement in a technical field.
Regarding characterization of the claims 12 and 26 as a mental process, in consideration of the amendments, the Examiner agrees with the Applicant that the claims should not be characterized as a mental process. However, the Examiner now characterizes the claims as a mathematical process. Additional details are presented in the rejection below.
Applicant additionally argues that even if a judicial exception were found, the claims provide significantly more. In consideration of amendment, the claims overcome the Examiner’s well-understood, routine, or conventional (WURC) arguments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/29/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All previous prior art rejections are overcome in consideration of amendments, however additional prior art rejections are presented below.
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 a judicial exception 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.
Independent claim(s) 12 and 26:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 12 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 26 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. 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 respective frequency slope value based on a scrambling sequence for each chirp of a frequency- modulated continuous wave (FMCW) transmission sequence to be used by the sensing node for RF sensing wherein the one or more parameters include a chirp rate and the scrambling sequence”
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. These observations or evaluations are simply mathematical concepts (algorithms, spatial relationships, coordinate transformations, residual/ interpolation, geometry, etc.). When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, it is simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites a mathematical process.
Yes. Claim 26 recites the limitations of:
“determine a slope configuration for a sensing node, wherein the slope configuration includes one or more parameters indicative of a respective frequency slope value based on a scrambling sequence for each chirp of a frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) transmission sequence to be used by the sensing node for radio frequency (RF) sensing, wherein the one or more parameters include a chirp rate and the scrambling sequence”
The focus of the claim (i.e., determining a configuration) 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, “determine a slope configuration” is simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. These observations or evaluations are simply mathematical concepts (algorithms, spatial relationships, coordinate transformations, residual/ interpolation, geometry, etc.). When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, it is simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites a mathematical process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The 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.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception 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 “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, the claim 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 mathematical process of claims 12 and 26.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical process of claims 12 and 26 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 claims 12 and 26 (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.
Claim 13:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 13 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 12 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mathematical processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. 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. 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 are ineligible.
Claim 14:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 14 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 12 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mathematical processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. 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. 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) 14 are ineligible.
Claim 15:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 15 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 12 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mathematical processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. 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. 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) 15 are ineligible.
Claim 16:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 16 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 12 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mathematical processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. 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. 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) 16 are ineligible.
Claim 17:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 17 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 12 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mathematical processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. 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. 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) 17 are ineligible.
Claim 27:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 27 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 26 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mathematical processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. 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. 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) 27 are ineligible.
Claim 28:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 28 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 26 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mathematical processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. 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. 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) 28 are ineligible.
Claim 29:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 29 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 26 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mathematical processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. 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. 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) 29 are ineligible.
Claim 30:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 30 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 26 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mathematical processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. 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. 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) 30 are ineligible.
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 of this title, 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 1, 3-4, 9, 12, 14-18, 20-21, 23, 26, 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaban (US 20250294507 A1), hereinafter Shaban, in view of Noll (WO 2025031565 A1), hereinafter Noll.
Regarding claim 1, Shaban, as shown below, discloses a FMCW slope scrambling system comprising the following limitations:
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 respective frequency slope value based on a (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” […] A linear chirp signal is defined by an increase in frequency from a starting frequency, f.sub.chirp0, at an initial time, t.sub.chirp0, to a final frequency, f.sub.chirp1, at a final time, t.sub.chirp1 where the relation between the frequency (f) and time (t) can be expressed as a linear relation of f−f.sub.chirp0=α(t−t.sub.chirp0), […] is defined as the chirp rate.” While Shaban does not explicitly disclose a scrambling sequence, Shaban discloses signal parameters including chirp rate and sequence information)
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”)
Shaban does not explicitly disclose
(See at least Page 23 Lines 15-17 “The FMCW pulses 900 can be scrambled using a scrambling sequence that is known by authorized sensing nodes” Noll discloses scrambling of FMCW chirps)
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 scrambling system disclosed by Noll. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve security (See at least Page 15 Lines 6-7 “The scrambling method can be used to scramble sensing signals within the sensing group. The scrambling of the sensing signals can improve the security of the sensing signals and helps to prevent the signals being intercepted by unauthorized entities.”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Shaban and Noll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Shaban does not disclose the one or more parameters further include a scrambling identifier (ID) associated with the scrambling sequence. However, Noll further discloses
the one or more parameters further include a scrambling identifier (ID) associated with the scrambling sequence (See at least Page 24 Lines 23-24 “the random secret key can be used to generate the scrambling sequences”, Page 24 Lines 29-30 “The random secret keys can be distributed between the legitimate sensing nodes”).
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 scrambling system disclosed by Noll. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve security (See at least Page 15 Lines 6-7 “The scrambling method can be used to scramble sensing signals within the sensing group. The scrambling of the sensing signals can improve the security of the sensing signals and helps to prevent the signals being intercepted by unauthorized entities.”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Shaban and Noll, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Shaban does not disclose 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. However, Noll further discloses
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 Fig. 7, Page 24 Lines 23-24 “the random secret key can be used to generate the scrambling sequences”, Page 20 Lines 29-31“The random secret keys can be distributed between the legitimate sensing nodes using existing security mechanisms already in place between gNBs 120” Noll discloses the use of gNBs (wireless cells) of the sensing node for at least scrambling ID distribution).
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 scrambling system disclosed by Noll. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve security (See at least Page 15 Lines 6-7 “The scrambling method can be used to scramble sensing signals within the sensing group. The scrambling of the sensing signals can improve the security of the sensing signals and helps to prevent the signals being intercepted by unauthorized entities.”).
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Shaban and Noll, 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, The combination of Shaban and Noll, 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, The combination of Shaban and Noll, 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, Shaban, as shown below, discloses a sensing node system comprising the following limitations:
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”):
receive a slope configuration via the one or more transceivers from a configuring node of a wireless network, wherein the slope configuration includes one or more parameters indicative of a respective frequency slope value based on a (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” […] A linear chirp signal is defined by an increase in frequency from a starting frequency, f.sub.chirp0, at an initial time, t.sub.chirp0, to a final frequency, f.sub.chirp1, at a final time, t.sub.chirp1 where the relation between the frequency (f) and time (t) can be expressed as a linear relation of f−f.sub.chirp0=α(t−t.sub.chirp0), […] is defined as the chirp rate.” While Shaban does not explicitly disclose a scrambling sequence, Shaban discloses signal parameters including chirp rate and sequence information)
perform an RF sensing function 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”)
Shaban does not explicitly disclose
(See at least Page 23 Lines 15-17 “The FMCW pulses 900 can be scrambled using a scrambling sequence that is known by authorized sensing nodes” Noll discloses scrambling of FMCW chirps)
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 scrambling system disclosed by Noll. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve security (See at least Page 15 Lines 6-7 “The scrambling method can be used to scramble sensing signals within the sensing group. The scrambling of the sensing signals can improve the security of the sensing signals and helps to prevent the signals being intercepted by unauthorized entities.”).
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.
Claims 2, 13, 19, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaban, in view Noll, in further view of Shaban (US 20250193644 A1), hereinafter Shaban (‘644).
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Shaban and Noll, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Shaban and Noll 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 scrambling system disclosed by Noll 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.
Claims 5 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaban, in view of Noll, in further view of Zheng (CN 101267424 A), hereinafter Zheng.
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Shaban and Noll, 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 scrambling system disclosed by Noll 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 Noll, in futher view of Vameghestahbanati (US 20250380116 A1), hereinafter Vameghestahbanati.
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Shaban and Noll, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Shaban and Noll 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 scrambling system disclosed by Noll 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, Noll, and Vameghestahbanati, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 6. The combination of Shaban and Noll 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” The annotated figure below shows the positive frequency slope value chirp as the portions overlayed by red and blue arrows with an initial frequency of f0 – 0.5B.
PNG
media_image1.png
416
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), 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” The annotated figure below shows the negative frequency slope value chirp as the portions overlayed by red and blue arrows with an initial frequency of f0 – 0.5B.
PNG
media_image2.png
416
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
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 scrambling system disclosed by Noll 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, Noll, and Vameghestahbanati, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 6, and 7. The combination of Shaban and Noll 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 scrambling system disclosed by Noll 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 Noll, in further view of Arage (US 20160084943 A1), hereinafter Arage.
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Shaban and Noll, 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
The combination of Shaban and Noll 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 scrambling system disclosed by Noll 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, Noll, 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”)
The combination of Shaban and Noll 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 scrambling system disclosed by Noll 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
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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, Resha H 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights