DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9, 11-13, 17, 20-22, and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lauridsen et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0397458 (hereinafter Lauridsen).
Regarding claims 1, 11, 20, and 26, Lauridsen discloses a method of operating a sensing node device, the method comprising: transmitting, to a managing device, clock drift information corresponding to clock drift of the sensing node device [fig. 4A: ref. 408; paragraph 0075]; receiving, from the managing device, a sensing signal configuration for a sensing session based on the clock drift information [fig. 4A: ref. 412; paragraph 0077]; and transmitting or receiving one or more sensing signals during a sensing window of the sensing session based on the sensing signal configuration [fig. 4A: refs. 414, 418; paragraph 0079].
Regarding claims 2, 12, 21, and 27, Lauridsen discloses wherein the sensing signal configuration indicates one or more parameters based at least in part on the clock drift information, the one or more parameters comprising: a numerology of the one or more sensing signals; an operating frequency of the one or more sensing signals; an inter-symbol duration of the one or more sensing signals; a duration of the sensing window; or a combination thereof [paragraph 0077 wherein the measurement gap reds on the duration of the sensing window].
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Lauridsen discloses receiving, from the managing device, a configuration to participate in the sensing session based on the clock drift information [paragraph 0077].
Regarding claims 4 and 22, Lauridsen discloses receiving, from the managing device, a measurement configuration for the sensing session based on the clock drift information [paragraph 0124]; and transmitting, to the managing device, sensing measurements based on the one or more sensing signals received by the sensing node device and the measurement configuration [paragraph 0125].
Regarding claims 7, 17, and 25, Lauridsen discloses wherein the clock drift information indicates: a maximum value of the clock drift of the sensing node device, a median value of the clock drift of the sensing node device, a statistical description of the clock drift of the sensing node device, variability of the clock drift as a function of one or more environmental parameters, a maximum duration of the sensing window supported by the sensing node device, or a combination thereof [paragraph 0081].
Regarding claim 9, it is inherent in the art that the clock drift information is transmitted as:
a solicited transmission in response to a request from the managing device; or an unsolicited transmission initiated by the sensing node device as the transmission is either solicited or unsolicited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauridsen in view of Sun et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0057002 (hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Lauridsen discloses wherein: the sensing node device is a user equipment (UE) [fig. 4A; ref. 400] and that clock drift information is transmitted [paragraph 0077]. However, Lauridsen does not specifically disclose wherein the clock drift information is transmitted based on: long term evolution (LTE) positioning protocol (LPP) signaling in a case that the managing device is a location server, radio resource control (RRC) signaling, medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC CE) signaling, or downlink control information (DCI) signaling in a case that the managing device is a base station or a transmission/reception point (TRP), or sidelink LPP singling, sidelink RRC singling, sidelink MAC CE signaling, or sidelink control information (SCI) signaling in a case that the managing device is another UE. However, Sun teaches this limitation [paragraph 0138 (RRC signaling and DCI signaling)]. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lauridsen to include the teaching of Sun. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Further, the type of signaling utilized is a matter of design choice which lacks criticality to the overall function of the invention.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Lauridsen does not specifically disclose transmitting a request to a base station or a transmission/reception point (TRP) requesting resource allocation for the one or more sensing signals, wherein the request includes the clock drift information. However, Sun teaches this limitation [paragraphs 0136, 0140]. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lauridsen to include the teaching of Sun. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 14-16, 23, 24, and 28-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kido et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0033465, disclose a positioning device and positioning method.
Ren et al., CN 101466142, disclose hierarchical time comparison clock synchronizing method in wireless sensor networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIKA WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/EAW/
February 5, 2026
/ERIKA A WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644