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 .
This Office Action is a response to communications dated 05/12/2026. Claims 1-30 are still pending in the application.
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 1-4, 8-12, 16-20, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (US 2023/0309144).
Regarding claim 1, in accordance with Zhu reference entirety, Zhu teaches a method performed by a user equipment to configure the user equipment (Abstract: “… A device on the network … .” Or FIG. 31; UE 4110)) for sensing functions (Abstract and thereinafter: “Systems and method of integrated sensing and communication are provided), the method comprising:
transmitting (FIG. 31; step 4502), to a configuring node (FIG. 31; BASE STATION 4170), capability information (FIG. 31; SENSING CAPABILITY REPORT) comprising a radio frequency (RF) bandwidth supported by the user equipment (FIG. 31; UE 4110) for sensing functions (FIG. 31; SENSING CAPABILITY REPORT) (para 0479: “… The UE 4110 transmits (step 4502), to the BS 4170, a sensing capability report indicating the sensing capability of the UE 4110 … the sensing capability report may indicate a supported frequency bands and bandwidth, supported sensing signals and supported duplexing mode … upon connecting to the BS 4170.” Furthermore; para [0529]: “… the capability report may include separate indications of communications capability and sensing capability … .”);
receiving (FIG. 31; step 4520), from the configuring node (FIG. 31; BASE STATION 4170), configuration information (FIG. 31; SENSING INSTRUCTION) comprising a message (new message/instruct_to_sense indication) indicating allocation of a first RF bandwidth part (BWP) (sensing signal bandwidth) to the user equipment (FIG. 31; UE 4110) by the configuring node (FIG. 31; BASE STATION 4170) (para [0489]: “… the BS 4170 may transmit (step 4518) an even further new message may include a “instruct_to_sense” indication. The instruct_to_sense indication received (step 4520) by the UE 4110, may specify details of the sensing signal … including sensing signal bandwidth … .” Moreover; sensing BWPs and communication BWPs are also discussed in para [0251]. Furthermore; supported bandwidth to include partial BWP or full BWP is also discussed in para [0529]. From such discussion, we can safely and properly conclude that the sensing signal bandwidth described in para [0489] may refer to sensing BWP in a manner as claimed); and
utilizing (FIG. 31; step 4522) the first RF BWP (sensing signal bandwidth) for performing sensing functions (para [0489: “… The instruct_to_sense indication received (step 4520) by the UE 4110, may specify details of the sensing signal that is to be used by the UE 4110 when carrying out (step 4522) a sensing operation … the sensing signal may include an indication of a particular sensing type along with indication of various sensing signal parameters, including sensing signal bandwidth, sensing signal duration, etc.”).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Zhu also teaches wherein the first RF BWP (sensing BWP) is larger than a baseband BWP (communication BWP) allocated to the user equipment (FIG. 31; UE 4110) for communication operations (para [0251]: "The configuration for sensing BWPs can be different from that of communication BWPs." From such discussion, we can conclude that the sensing BWPs can be smaller, larger, or equal the communication BWPs for allocating to the user equipment as discussed in para [048] as discussed above and in a manner as claimed.).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to features recited in base claim 2 (see rationales discussed above), Zhu also teaches wherein the baseband BWP (communication BWP) is used by the user equipment (FIG. 31; UE 4110) for communication operations that are based, at least in part, on orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) (OFDM is discussed in para [0272]) and wherein the sensing functions are based, at least in part, on using frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) operations (FMCW is discussed in para [0282]. Moreover; para [0251]: "The configuration for sensing BWPs can be different from that of communication BWPs." Moreover, Zhu’s communication BWPs are equated to correspond to claimed “baseband BWP” and Zhu’s sensing BWPs are equated to correspond to claimed “sensing BWP”).
Regarding claim 4, in addition to features recited in base claim 3 (see rationales discussed above), Zhu also teaches wherein transmitting the capability information to the configuring node (FIG. 31; BASE STATION 4170) is based on a radio resource control protocol (higher layer signaling/RRC) (RRC or MAC-CE is discussed in para [0117] or [0397] and thereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, in addition to features recited in base claim 2 (see rationales discussed above), Zhu also teaches utilizing the baseband BWP (communication BWP) for performing communication operations concurrently (simultaneously) with utilizing the first RF BWP (sensing BWP) for performing sensing functions (Zhu: para [0384]: “... performing both functionalities of communications and sensing simultaneously ... .").
Regarding claim 9, in accordance with Zhu reference entirety, Zhu teaches a method performed by a configuring node (FIG. 31; BASE STATION 4170) to support a user equipment (FIG. 31; UE 4110) for performing sensing functions (Abstract and thereinafter: “Systems and method of integrated sensing and communication are provided), the method comprising:
receiving, from the user equipment (FIG. 31; UE 4110), capability information (FIG. 31; SENSING CAPABILITY REPORT) comprising a radio frequency (RF) bandwidth supported by the user equipment (FIG. 31; UE 4110) for sensing functions (FIG. 31; SENSING CAPABILITY REPORT) (para 0479: “… The UE 4110 transmits (step 4502), to the BS 4170, a sensing capability report indicating the sensing capability of the UE 4110 … the sensing capability report may indicate a supported frequency bands and bandwidth, supported sensing signals and supported duplexing mode … upon connecting to the BS 4170.” Furthermore; para [0529]: “… the capability report may include separate indications of communications capability and sensing capability … .”);
allocating, to the user equipment, a first RF bandwidth part (BWP) that is based, at least in part, on the RF bandwidth supported by the user equipment for sensing functions (para [0489]: “… the BS 4170 may transmit (step 4518) an even further new message may include a “instruct_to_sense” indication. The instruct_to_sense indication received (step 4520) by the UE 4110, may specify details of the sensing signal … including sensing signal bandwidth … .” Moreover; sensing BWPs and communication BWPs are also discussed in para [0251]. Furthermore; supported width to include partial BWP or full BWP is also discussed in para [0529]. From such discussion, we can safely and properly conclude that the sensing signal bandwidth described in para [0489] may refer to sensing BWP in a manner as claimed); and
transmitting, to the user equipment (FIG. 31; UE 4110), information about the first RF BWP allocated to the user equipment (FIG. 31; UE 4110) (para [0489: “… The instruct_to_sense indication received (step 4520) by the UE 4110, may specify details of the sensing signal that is to be used by the UE 4110 when carrying out (step 4522) a sensing operation … the sensing signal may include an indication of a particular sensing type along with indication of various sensing signal parameters, including sensing signal bandwidth, sensing signal duration, etc.”).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to features recited in base claim 9 (see rationales discussed above), Zhu also teaches wherein the first RF BWP (sensing BWP) is larger than a baseband BWP (communication BWP) allocated to the user equipment for communication purposes (para [0251]: "The configuration for sensing BWPs can be different from that of communication BWPs." From such discussion, we can conclude that the sensing BWPs can be smaller, larger, or equal the communication BWPs for allocating to the user equipment as discussed in para [048] as discussed above and in a manner as claimed.).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to features recited in base claim 10 (see rationales discussed above), Zhu also teaches wherein the baseband BWP is used for communication operations that are based, at least in part, on orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) (OFDM is discussed in para [0272]) and wherein the sensing functions are based, at least in part, on using frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) operations (FMCW is discussed in para [0282]. Moreover; para [0251]: "The configuration for sensing BWPs can be different from that of communication BWPs." Moreover, Zhu’s communication BWPs are equated to correspond to claimed “baseband BWP” and Zhu’s sensing BWPs are equated to correspond to claimed “sensing BWP”).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to features recited in base claim 11 (see rationales discussed above), Zhu also teaches wherein receiving the capability information from the user equipment (FIG. 31; UE 4110) is based on a radio resource control protocol (higher layer signaling/RRC) (RRC or MAC-CE is discussed in para [0117] or [0397] and thereinafter).
Regarding claim 16, in addition to features recited in base claim 9 (see rationales discussed above), Zhu also teaches wherein the information transmitted to the user equipment (FIG. 31; UE 4110) about the first RF BWP (sensing BWP) comprises a message formatted in a radio resource control protocol (higher layer signaling/RRC) (RRC or MAC-CE is discussed in para [0117] or [0397] and thereinafter).
As per group claims 17-20, the claims appear to call for a user equipment having limitations variously and essentially mirrored functional limitations of method claims 1-4, respectively. Thus, they are anticipated by Zhu for the same rationales applied to method claims 1-4 as above discussed.
As per group claims 24-27, the claims appear to call for a configuring node having limitations variously and essentially mirrored functional limitations of method claims 9-12, respectively. Thus, they are anticipated by Zhu for the same rationales applied to method claims 9-12 as above discussed.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-7, 13-15, 21-23, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Jeon et al. (US 2023/0362898) (hereinafter “Jeon”).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to features recited in base claim 2 (see rationales discussed above), Zhu also teaches wherein the capability information further comprises a first switching time (timing adjusting, and so on) supported by the user equipment for switching (para [0122]: “information required for performing sensing (such as time/frequency resources of the sensing signal, location of an object to be sensed, possible beam direction of the reflected sensing echo, possible beam direction of the reflected sensing echo, timing adjusting, and so on”) between the baseband BWP (communication BWPs) and the first RF BWP (sensing BWPs) (Moreover; para [0251]: "The configuration for sensing BWPs can be different from that of communication BWPs.").
For argument’s sake, let’s say that Zhu fails to explicitly teach the claim limitation of “wherein the capability information further comprises a first switching time supported by the user equipment for switching between the baseband BWP and the first RF BWP.” Nevertheless, such limitation lacks thereof from Zhu’s teaching is well-known in the art and taught by Jeon.
In an analogous art in the same field of endeavor, Jeon teaches sensing configuration/operations (Jeon; Abstract and thereinafter) comprising, among other things, the limitation of “wherein the capability information further comprises a first switching time supported by the user equipment for switching between the baseband BWP and the first RF BWP” (Jeon; FIG. 14 and para [0302]: “… example of BWP switching for joint communication and sensing operation … the BWP configuration can be separate for communication 1401, 1402 and sensing 1403, 1404. The activated BWP for sensing can be different or the same from that for communication … Sensing BWP(s) may not overlap (1403) or overlap (1404) with communication BWP. Sensing BWP(s) may include communication BWP(s) or may be included within communication BWP(s). With the given slot format indication, there can be an association of a certain BWP with a certain time slot. In that case, the BWP switching for communication and sensing can be implicitly assumed at the UE ... there could be a separate indication on the BWP switching between communication and sensing.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Jeon’s teaching of BWP’s switching into Zhu’s teaching to arrive the claim invention. A motivation for doing so would be to overcome the shortfalls of the prior art in allocating resource configuration for sensing operations as well as communication operations.
Regarding claim 6, in addition to features recited in base claim 5 (see rationales discussed above), Zhu in view of Jeon also renders obvious the claim limitation of wherein the capability information further comprises a second switching time supported by the user equipment for switching between the first RF BWP and a second RF BWP (Jeon; see para [0302]: “… the BWP configuration can be separate for communication 1401, 1402 and sensing 1403, 1404 … .” And FIG. 14 depicts first switching time (between BWP 1401 and BWP 1403), second switching time (between BWP 1403 and BWP 1402), and third switching time (between BWP 1402 and BWP 1404)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Jeon’s teaching of BWP’s switching into Zhu’s teaching to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to features recited in base claim 6 (see rationales discussed above), Zhu also teaches wherein the second switching time is defined, at least in part, on at least one of a first symbol duration in an FMCW format or a first sensing slot in the FMCW format (Jeon; para [0302]: “... With the given slot format indication, there can be an association of a certain BWP with a certain time slot ... .”. Moreover; sensing signal is discussed by Jeon in para [0014]: “… a sensing signal configuration including waveform, cyclic shift, frequency tones, tone spacing, directionality, and time gap between successive sensing signal transmission may be received by the UE.” On the other hand; Zhu, FMCW waveforms are discussed in para [0282] and thereinafter.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Jeon’s teaching of BWP’s switching into Zhu’s teaching to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed).
Regarding claim 13, in addition to features recited in base claim 10 (see rationales discussed above), Zhu also teaches wherein the capability information further comprises a first switching time (timing adjusting, and so on) supported by the user equipment for switching between the baseband BWP (communication BWP) and a RF BWP (sensing BWP) (para [0122]: “information required for performing sensing (such as time/frequency resources of the sensing signal, location of an object to be sensed, possible beam direction of the reflected sensing echo, possible beam direction of the reflected sensing echo, timing adjusting, and so on”) between the baseband BWP (communication BWPs) and the first RF BWP (sensing BWPs) (Moreover; para [0251]: "The configuration for sensing BWPs can be different from that of communication BWPs.").
For argument’s sake, let’s say that Zhu fails to explicitly teach the claim limitation of “wherein the capability information further comprises a first switching time supported by the user equipment for switching between the baseband BWP and the first RF BWP.” Nevertheless, such limitation lacks thereof from Zhu’s teaching is well-known in the art and taught by Jeon.
In an analogous art in the same field of endeavor, Jeon teaches sensing configuration/operations (Jeon; Abstract and thereinafter) comprising, among other things, the limitation of “wherein the capability information further comprises a first switching time supported by the user equipment for switching between the baseband BWP and the first RF BWP” (Jeon; FIG. 14 and para [0302]: “… example of BWP switching for joint communication and sensing operation … the BWP configuration can be separate for communication 1401, 1402 and sensing 1403, 1404. The activated BWP for sensing can be different or the same from that for communication … Sensing BWP(s) may not overlap (1403) or overlap (1404) with communication BWP. Sensing BWP(s) may include communication BWP(s) or may be included within communication BWP(s). With the given slot format indication, there can be an association of a certain BWP with a certain time slot. In that case, the BWP switching for communication and sensing can be implicitly assumed at the UE ... there could be a separate indication on the BWP switching between communication and sensing.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Jeon’s teaching of BWP’s switching into Zhu’s teaching to arrive the claim invention. A motivation for doing so would be to overcome the shortfalls of the prior art in allocating resource configuration for sensing operations as well as communication operations.
Regarding claim 14, in addition to features recited in base claim 13 (see rationales discussed above), Zhu in view of Jeon also renders obvious the claim limitation of wherein the capability information further comprises a second switching time supported by the user equipment for switching between the first RF BWP and a second RF BWP (Jeon; see para [0302]: “… the BWP configuration can be separate for communication 1401, 1402 and sensing 1403, 1404 … .” And FIG. 14 depicts first switching time (between BWP 1401 and BWP 1403), second switching time (between BWP 1403 and BWP 1402), and third switching time (between BWP 1402 and BWP 1404)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Jeon’s teaching of BWP’s switching into Zhu’s teaching to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed).
Regarding claim 15, in addition to features recited in base claim 14 (see rationales discussed above), Zhu also teaches wherein the second switching time is defined, at least in part, on at least one of a first symbol duration in an FMCW format or a first sensing slot in the FMCW format (Jeon; para [0302]: “... With the given slot format indication, there can be an association of a certain BWP with a certain time slot ... .”. Moreover; sensing signal is discussed by Jeon in para [0014]: “… a sensing signal configuration including waveform, cyclic shift, frequency tones, tone spacing, directionality, and time gap between successive sensing signal transmission may be received by the UE.” On the other hand; Zhu, FMCW waveforms are discussed in para [0282] and thereinafter.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Jeon’s teaching of BWP’s switching into Zhu’s teaching to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed).
As per group claims 21-23, the claims appear to call for a user equipment having limitations variously and essentially mirrored functional limitations of method claims 5-7, respectively. Thus, they are rendered obvious by Zhu in view of Jeon for the same rationales applied to method claims 5-7 as above discussed.
As per group claims 28-30, the claims appear to call for a configuring node having limitations variously and essentially mirrored functional limitations of method claims 13-15, respectively. Thus, they are rendered obvious by Zhu in view of Jeon for the same rationales applied to method claims 13-15 as above discussed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed on 05/12/2026.
Pertaining the rejection of claims 1-4, 8-12, 16-20, and 24-27 under 35 U.S.C.§102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0309144 to Zhu et al. (hereinafter “Zhu”), on page 7, bullet A. of the response filed 05/12/2026, the Applicant appears to argue “Zhu paragraph [0479] addresses what a sensing capability report may indicate. Zhu paragraph [0489] addresses what parameters an instruct_to_sense indication may specify. Zhu paragraph [0251] addresses, in general terms, that sensing and communication BWP configurations "can be different." Zhu paragraph [0529] addresses granularity of supported bandwidths in a capability report. Nowhere does Zhu arrange these disparate teachings so as to recite, as claim 1 does, capability information comprising "a radio frequency (RF) bandwidth supported by the user equipment for sensing functions," followed by configuration information "indicating allocation of a first RF bandwidth part (BWP) to the user equipment," followed by "utilizing the first RF BWP for performing sensing functions".
The argument is noted but not persuasive because, in contradistinction to the Applicant’s argument and as clearly pointed out in the Office Action dated 02/19/2026, Zhu does teach all recitations in claim 1 in the present condition.
Let’s revisit Zhu and pertaining claim 1. Pertaining the recitation of “transmitting, to a configuring node, capability information comprising a radio frequency (RF) bandwidth supported by the user equipment for sensing functions” is disclosed by Zhu verbatim in paragraph [0479]: "Initially, the UE 4110 transmits (step 4502), to the BS 4170, a sensing capability report indicating the sensing capability of the UE 4110. The sensing capability report may include an indication of supported sensing types (including RF, imaging, LIDAR and camera) and the details of capability for each of supported sensing types. For example, for RF sensing, the sensing capability report may indicate a supported frequency bands and bandwidth, supported sensing signals and supported duplexing mode (full duplex or half duplex). The sensing capability report can be transmitted together with a known UE capability report. The known UE capability report is usually transmitted, to the BS 4170 and by the UE 4110, upon connecting to the BS 4170."). In addition and pertaining the recitation of “receiving, from the configuring node, configuration information comprising a message indicating allocation of a first RF bandwidth part (BWP) to the user equipment by the configuring node” is disclosed by Zhu verbatim in paragraph [0480]: "Subsequent to receiving (step 4504) the sensing capability report, the BS 4170 may transmit (step 4506), to the UE 4110, a sensing configuration.” In addition, paragraph [0489], Zhu further discloses in verbatim: "... the BS 4170 may transmit (step 4518) an even further new message to the UE 4110. The even further new message may include a "instruct_to_sense" indication. The instruct_to_sense indication received (step 4520) by the UE 4110, may specify details of the sensing signal that is to be used by the UE 4110 when carrying out (step 4522) a sensing operation. The details of the sensing signal may include an indication of a particular sensing type along with indications of various sensing signal parameters, including sensing signal bandwidth, sensing signal duration, etc." Moreover; sensing BWPs and communication BWPs are also discussed in para [0251]. Furthermore; supported bandwidth to include partial BWP or full BWP is also discussed in para [0529]. From such discussion, we can safely and properly conclude that the sensing signal bandwidth described in para [0489] may refer to sensing BWP in a manner as claimed. Furthermore and pertaining the recitation of “utilizing the first RF BWP for performing sensing functions” is disclosed by Zhu in paragraph [0489: “… The instruct_to_sense indication received (step 4520) by the UE 4110, may specify details of the sensing signal that is to be used by the UE 4110 when carrying out (step 4522) a sensing operation … the sensing signal may include an indication of a particular sensing type along with indication of various sensing signal parameters, including sensing signal bandwidth, sensing signal duration, etc.” In contradistinction to the Applicant’s argument, Zhu, as clearly pointed out in the Office Action, anticipates all recitations in claim 1 in the present condition. Moreover; on page 7, bullet A. of the response filed 05/12/2026, the Applicant appears to also argue “Nowhere does Zhu arrange these disparate teachings so as to recited, as claim 1 does, capability information … Stitching together the four paragraphs cited in the Office Action does not satisfy this standard.”
The argument is noted but also not persuasive because the recitations in claim 1 are not structurally and functionally interconnected in the manner as argued. For example, the claimed “capability information” in the transmitting step is not structurally and functionally interconnected with the “configuration information” in the receiving step nor “the first RF BWP” in the utilizing step as argued by the Applicant. As a result, the interpretation of Zhu’s teaching to read on all recitations of claim 1 in a manner as clearly pointed out in the Office Action is proper.
On page 8, bullet B. of the response filed 05/12/2026, pertaining the recitation of “message indication allocation of a first RF bandwidth part (BWP),” the Applicant appears to disagree with the examiner’s position on the reading of Zhu’s teaching to anticipate such limitation.
The argument is noted but not persuasive because the Applicant is reminded that it is well settled that, during examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367,1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed. With that in mind, let’s revisit the analysis of such recitation in the Office Action dated 02/19/2026. Pertaining the recitation of “configuration information comprising a message indicating allocation of a first RF bandwidth part (BWP),” the Office Action does point to the teaching of Zhu in paragraph [0489]: “… the BS 4170 may transmit (step 4518) an even further new message may include a “instruct_to_sense” indication. The instruct_to_sense indication received (step 4520) by the UE 4110, may specify details of the sensing signal … including sensing signal bandwidth … .” Moreover; sensing BWPs and communication BWPs are also discussed in para [0251]. Furthermore; supported bandwidth to include partial BWP or full BWP is also discussed in para [0529]. From such discussion, we can safely and properly conclude that the sensing signal bandwidth described in para [0489] may refer to sensing BWP in a manner as claimed.” Contradistinction to the Applicant’s argument, Zhu does indeed anticipate the recitation in the present condition.
On pages 8-10, bullets II, A., B., and C. of the response filed 05/12/2026, pertaining the recitations in claims 9 and 24, the Applicant appears to argue that the recitations in claims 9 and 24 are different from the recitations in claims 1 and 17 because the functional limitations recited in the claims happening in a configuring node while the functional limitations recited in claims 1 and 17 happening in a user equipment.
The argument is noted but not persuasive because in a method process, the functional limitations recited in the UE are similar to the functional limitations in the configuring node. As a result, the Office Action is proper in interpreting the teaching of Zhu to anticipate the recitations of claims 9 and 24 in a manner as pointed out in the Office Action.
On page 10, bullet III. of the response filed 05/12/2026, pertaining claims 4, 12, 16, 20, and 27, the Applicant appears to argue that the claims are allowable because they depend from their allowable base claims 1, 9, 17, and 24.
The argument is noted but not persuasive because base claims 1, 9, 17, and 24 are anticipated by Zhu as above discussed.
On page 10, bullet IV. of the response filed 05/12/2026, pertaining claims 2, 10, 18, and 25, the Applicant appears to argue that the applied art of Zhu does not disclose “Larger than” feature.
The argument is noted but not persuasive because the Applicant is reminded that it is well settled that, during examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367,1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed. The Office Action is proper in interpreting Zhu’s teaching the recitation as above discussed.
On page 11, bullet V. of the response filed 05/12/2026, pertaining claims 3, 11, 19, and 26, the Applicant appears to argue that the applied art of Zhu does not disclose “the OFDM + FMCW” features.
The argument is noted but not persuasive because the Applicant is reminded that it is well settled that, during examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367,1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed. The Office Action is proper in interpreting Zhu’s teaching the recitation as above discussed.
On page 11, bullet VI. of the response filed 05/12/2026, pertaining claim 8, the Applicant appears to argue that the applied art of Zhu does not disclose “concurrently” features.
The argument is noted but not persuasive because the Applicant is reminded that it is well settled that, during examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367,1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed. The Office Action is proper in interpreting Zhu’s teaching the recitation as above discussed.
Pertaining the rejection of claims 5-7, 13-25, 21-23, and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C.§103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0362898 to Jeon et al. (hereinafter “Jeon”), on page 13, bullet VII. of the response filed 05/12/2026 and pertaining the claim 5, the Applicant appears to disagree with the examiner’s position in reading Jeon’s teaching to read on the recitation of “wherein the capability information further comprises a first switching time supported by the user equipment for switching between the baseband BWP and the first RF BWP.”
The argument is noted but not persuasive because Jeon, as clearly pointed out does indeed render obvious the disputed limitation in the present condition as referencing to FIG. 14 and describing in para [0302]: “… example of BWP switching for joint communication and sensing operation … the BWP configuration can be separate for communication 1401, 1402 and sensing 1403, 1404. The activated BWP for sensing can be different or the same from that for communication … Sensing BWP(s) may not overlap (1403) or overlap (1404) with communication BWP. Sensing BWP(s) may include communication BWP(s) or may be included within communication BWP(s). With the given slot format indication, there can be an association of a certain BWP with a certain time slot. In that case, the BWP switching for communication and sensing can be implicitly assumed at the UE ... there could be a separate indication on the BWP switching between communication and sensing.”
Pertaining the rejection of claims 5-7, 13-25, 21-23, and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C.§103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0362898 to Jeon et al. (hereinafter “Jeon”), on page 13, bullet VIII. of the response filed 05/12/2026 and pertaining the claim 6, the Applicant appears to disagree with the examiner’s position in reading Jeon’s teaching to read on the recitation of “wherein the capability information further comprises a second switching time supported by the user equipment for switching between the first RF BWP and a second RF BWP.”
The argument is noted but not persuasive because Jeon, as clearly pointed out does indeed render obvious the disputed limitation in the present condition as referencing to FIG. 14 and describing in paragraph [0302]: “… the BWP configuration can be separate for communication 1401, 1402 and sensing 1403, 1404 … .” And FIG. 14 depicts first switching time (between BWP 1401 and BWP 1403), second switching time (between BWP 1403 and BWP 1402), and third switching time (between BWP 1402 and BWP 1404.”
Pertaining the rejection of claims 5-7, 13-25, 21-23, and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C.§103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0362898 to Jeon et al. (hereinafter “Jeon”), on page 14, bullet IX. of the response filed 05/12/2026 and pertaining the claim 7, the Applicant appears to disagree with the examiner’s position in reading Jeon’s teaching to read on the recitation of “wherein the second switching time is defined, at least in part, on at least one of a first symbol duration in an FMCW format or a first sensing slot in the FMCW format.”
The argument is noted but not persuasive because Jeon, as clearly pointed out does indeed render obvious the disputed limitation in the present condition as describing in paragraph [0302]: “... With the given slot format indication, there can be an association of a certain BWP with a certain time slot ... .”. Moreover; sensing signal is discussed by Jeon in para [0014]: “… a sensing signal configuration including waveform, cyclic shift, frequency tones, tone spacing, directionality, and time gap between successive sensing signal transmission may be received by the UE.” On the other hand; Zhu, FMCW waveforms are discussed in para [0282] and thereinafter.”
Examiner believes an earnest attempt has been made in addressing all of the Applicant’s argument. Due to the response fails to place the instant application in a favorable condition for allowance, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bayesteh et al. (US 2025/0234368).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3164. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, MICHAEL THIER can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
/FRANK DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights