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 amendments filed July 20, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-15 and 17-20 remain pending in this application. Claims 1, 5, 9, 11, 17, and 20 have been amended. Claim 16 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-13, filed Ju, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Shreevastav et al. (US 20260281969 A1), hereinafter Shreevastav.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 5-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shreevastav et al. (US 20260281969 A1), hereinafter Shreevastav.
Regarding claim 1, Shreevastav teaches a wireless device, comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories (see paras. 208-209; Examiner is construing a UE as a wireless device) and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:
receive, from a network entity, a system information block (SIB) comprising a configuration for sensing and reporting information of a target entity in a wireless communication system, wherein the SIB comprises a position SIB (posSIB) or a sensing SIB (senseSIB) (see paras. 139-144 and Fig. 6 for a UE receiving, from an LMF/SeMF which is part of a 5G network, a SIB comprising multiple configurations for sensing and reporting information of a target entity; see the table in para. 150 for evidence of a SIB being a posSIB),
obtain geometric information associated with the target entity in the wireless communication system based at least in part on a radio frequency sensing procedure according to the configuration, and transmit, to the network entity, a report including the geometric information associated with the target entity (Fig. 6, message including geometric measurements of target is sent to LMF/SeMF; paras. 118-122, “These various measurements can be processed to obtain information about the target and its surroundings that affected the transmitted sensing signals, including one or more of the following: Characteristics [shape, size, number, etc.] of target and/or obstacles; Velocity of target and/or obstacles; Weather conditions [e.g., rain]; Recognition of objects [e.g., wall, blocker, scatterer, etc.].”; and 139-144).
Regarding claim 5, Shreevastav teaches the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:
identify at least one report format of the report including the geometric information associated with the target entity based at least in part on the configuration, the report including the geometric information associated with the target entity is based at least in part on the at least one report format (see paras. 118-122; the geometric data is stored in a format that must be appropriately identified to read or process; also see para. 88 of O’Keeffe).
Regarding claim 6, Shreevastav teaches the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:
receive, from the network entity, a first request message for first geometric information associated with the target entity, obtain the first geometric information associated with the target entity based at least in part on the radio frequency sensing procedure and a first set of parameters associated with the configuration (see paras. 118-123), and
transmit, to the network entity, a first response message comprising the first geometric information associated with the target entity based at least in part on the first request message for the first geometric information associated with the target entity (see paras. 118 and 126).
Regarding claim 7, Shreevastav teaches the wireless device of claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:
receive, from the network entity, a second request message for second geometric information associated with the target entity based at least in part on the first response message comprising the first geometric information associated with the target entity, obtain the second geometric information associated with the target entity based at least in part on the radio frequency sensing procedure and a second set of parameters associated with the configuration, wherein the second set of parameters is different than the first set of parameters (see paras. 118-124; there may be multiple nodes to which each receive a sensing request, where the reflected signals may be processed for at least one of multiple geometric characteristics), and
transmit, to the network entity, a second response message comprising the second geometric information associated with the target entity based at least in part on the second request message for the second geometric information associated with the target entity (Fig. 6, message including measurements of target is sent to LMF/SeMF; see paras. 139-144).
Regarding claim 8, Shreevastav teaches the wireless device of claim 7,
wherein the geometric information comprises one or more of the first geometric information associated with the target entity or the second geometric information associated with the target entity (see paras. 118-124 and rejection of claim 7; also see para. 88 of O’Keeffe).
Regarding claim 9, Shreevastav teaches the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:
receive, from the network entity, the SIB comprising a plurality of hypotheses configurations for sensing the target entity, wherein each hypothesis configuration of the plurality of hypotheses configurations for sensing the target entity comprises a set of parameters, and wherein the set of parameters indicates one or more of a sensing procedure for sensing the target entity (see paras. 139-144 and Fig. 6 for a UE receiving, from an LMF/SeMF which is part of a 5G network, a SIB comprising multiple configurations, which Examiner is construing as hypotheses configurations, for sensing a target entity),
a center frequency associated with sensing the target entity (see paras. 111-116, where a received Doppler frequency requires a center frequency to be known), or a bandwidth associated with sensing the target entity,
obtain geometric information associated with the target entity based at least in part on the plurality of hypotheses configurations for sensing the target entity (Fig. 6, message including geometric measurements of target is sent to LMF/SeMF; paras. 118-122, “These various measurements can be processed to obtain information about the target and its surroundings that affected the transmitted sensing signals, including one or more of the following: Characteristics [shape, size, number, etc.] of target and/or obstacles; Velocity of target and/or obstacles; Weather conditions [e.g., rain]; Recognition of objects [e.g., wall, blocker, scatterer, etc.].”; and 139-144),
assign a corresponding quality score for each of the geometric information (see paras. 111-122, where signal quality is associated with a reflected signal which is processed to obtain geometric information), and
transmit, to the network entity, the report comprising the geometric information associated with the target entity and the corresponding quality score for each of the geometric information (see paras. 111-122 and 126, where information of the target obtained by the SeMF includes that which is mentioned in para. 118).
Regarding claim 11, Shreevastav teaches the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:
transmit, to the network entity, capability information associated with the wireless device for sensing the target entity, wherein to receive, from the network entity, the SIB comprising the configuration is based at least in part on transmitting, to the network entity, the capability information associated with the wireless device for sensing the target entity (see paras. 92, 135, and 145).
Regarding claim 12, Shreevastav teaches the wireless device of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:
receive, from the network entity, a request message for the capability information associated with the wireless device for sensing the target entity, wherein to transmit, to the network entity, the capability information is based at least in part on receiving, from the network entity, the request message for the capability information associated with the wireless device for sensing the target entity (see para. 92).
Regarding claim 14, Shreevastav teaches the wireless device of claim 1,
wherein the wireless device comprises a user equipment (UE) (see para. 1) or a transmission-reception point (TRP) (see para. 82; Fig. 6, gNBs/RAN Nodes which contain TRPs relay information from LMF/SeMF to UEs).
Regarding claim 15, Shreevastav teaches the wireless device of claim 1,
wherein the network entity comprises a network entity comprising one or more of a location management function (LMF) or a sensing management function (SnMF) (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17, Shreevastav teaches a network entity, comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code, and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories (see para. 85) and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to:
transmit, to a wireless device, a system information block (SIB) comprising a configuration for sensing and reporting information of a target entity in a wireless communication system, wherein the SIB comprises a position SIB (posSIB) or a sensing SIB (senseSIB) (see paras. 139-144 and Fig. 6 for a UE receiving, from an LMF/SeMF which is part of a 5G network, a SIB comprising multiple configurations for sensing and reporting information of a target entity; see the table in para. 150 for evidence of a SIB being a posSIB), and
receive, from the wireless device, a report including geometric information associated with the target entity based at least in part on the configuration for sensing and reporting information of the target entity (Fig. 6, message including geometric measurements of target is sent to LMF/SeMF; paras. 118-122, “These various measurements can be processed to obtain information about the target and its surroundings that affected the transmitted sensing signals, including one or more of the following: Characteristics [shape, size, number, etc.] of target and/or obstacles; Velocity of target and/or obstacles; Weather conditions [e.g., rain]; Recognition of objects [e.g., wall, blocker, scatterer, etc.].”; and 139-144).
Regarding claim 20, Shreevastav teaches a method for wireless communications at a wireless device, comprising:
receiving, from a network entity, a system information block (SIB) comprising a configuration for sensing and reporting information of a target entity in a wireless communication system, wherein the SIB comprises a position SIB (posSIB) or a sensing SIB (senseSIB) (see paras. 139-144 and Fig. 6 for a UE receiving, from an LMF/SeMF which is part of a 5G network, a SIB comprising multiple configurations for sensing and reporting information of a target entity; see the table in para. 150 for evidence of a SIB being a posSIB),
obtaining geometric information associated with the target entity in the wireless communication system based at least in part on a radio frequency sensing procedure according to the configuration, and transmitting, to the network entity, a report including the geometric information associated with the target entity (Fig. 6, message including geometric measurements of target is sent to LMF/SeMF; paras. 118-122, “These various measurements can be processed to obtain information about the target and its surroundings that affected the transmitted sensing signals, including one or more of the following: Characteristics [shape, size, number, etc.] of target and/or obstacles; Velocity of target and/or obstacles; Weather conditions [e.g., rain]; Recognition of objects [e.g., wall, blocker, scatterer, etc.].”; and 139-144).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4, 10, 13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shreevastav in view of O'Keeffe (US 20190324124 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Shreevastav teaches the wireless device of claim 1 and the network entity of claim 17 respectively, but fails to teach wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:
identify expected geometric information associated with the target entity based at least in part on the configuration, the expected geometric information comprising one or more of an expected shape associated with the target entity or an expected dimension associated with the target entity, wherein the radio frequency sensing procedure is based at least in part on the expected geometric information associated with the target entity.
However, O’Keeffe teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:
identify expected geometric information associated with the target entity based at least in part on the configuration, the expected geometric information comprising one or more of an expected shape associated with the target entity or an expected dimension associated with the target entity, wherein the light frequency sensing procedure is based at least in part on the expected geometric information associated with the target entity (para. 89, “The LIDAR can process one or more locations in the set of boundary locations [e.g., locations 1162a and 1162b] to predict an estimated boundary location 1163a, located outside the first search region. The LIDAR can generate a set of laser steering parameters, based on the estimated boundary location and dynamically steer a laser 1106 based on the laser steering parameters to generate a second plurality of laser pulses [e.g., including laser pulse 1170] in a second search region. In this way a LIDAR scan can be guided by identifying and adding directions in a FOV [e.g., locations in a FOV] that lie on a TOF boundary, predicting and estimated boundary location outside a first search region and scanning a second search regions with laser pulses based on the predicted trajectory of the TOF boundary.”), where Shreevastav teaches a radio frequency sensing procedure (Shreevastav; see para. 1).
Shreevastav and O’Keeffe are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ranged sensing-based target detection and processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shreevastav with the teachings of O’Keeffe with the motivation of being able to verify a target’s dimensions.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Shreevastav in view of O’Keeffe teaches the wireless device of claim 2 and the network entity of claim 18, but Shreevastav fails to teach wherein:
the expected geometric information corresponds to at least one format of indicating one or more of the expected shape associated with the target entity or the expected dimension associated with the target entity, and
the expected geometric information comprises one or more of bounding box information or bounding sphere information indicative of one or more of the expected shape associated with the target entity or the expected dimension associated with the target entity.
However, O’Keeffe teaches wherein:
the expected geometric information corresponds to at least one format of indicating one or more of the expected shape associated with the target entity or the expected dimension associated with the target entity, and the expected geometric information comprises one or more of bounding box information or bounding sphere information indicative of one or more of the expected shape associated with the target entity or the expected dimension associated with the target entity (para. 89, “The LIDAR can process one or more locations in the set of boundary locations [e.g., locations 1162a and 1162b] to predict an estimated boundary location 1163a, located outside the first search region. The LIDAR can generate a set of laser steering parameters, based on the estimated boundary location and dynamically steer a laser 1106 based on the laser steering parameters to generate a second plurality of laser pulses [e.g., including laser pulse 1170] in a second search region. In this way a LIDAR scan can be guided by identifying and adding directions in a FOV [e.g., locations in a FOV] that lie on a TOF boundary, predicting and estimated boundary location outside a first search region and scanning a second search regions with laser pulses based on the predicted trajectory of the TOF boundary.”).
Shreevastav and O’Keeffe are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ranged sensing-based target detection and processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shreevastav with the teachings of O’Keeffe with the motivation of being able to verify a target’s dimensions.
Regarding claim 4, Shreevastav teaches the wireless device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:
identify resolution information for sensing the target entity based at least in part on the configuration, the resolution information comprises a preferred beam-range resolution indicating one or more of a preferred beam range or a preferred beam azimuth, wherein the light frequency sensing procedure is based at least in part on the resolution information for sensing the target entity.
However, O’Keeffe teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:
identify resolution information for sensing the target entity based at least in part on the configuration, the resolution information comprises a preferred beam-range resolution indicating one or more of a preferred beam range or a preferred beam azimuth, wherein the light frequency sensing procedure is based at least in part on the resolution information for sensing the target entity (para. 4, “However reconfiguring the micromirror array to increase the resolution of a portion of a FOV can have the drawback of reducing the total angular range [FOV] measured by the photodetector array [i.e., zooming in on the scene can have the effect of increasing the resolution while decreasing the total FOV or 2D angular range sensed]. While micromirror arrays can be configured into microlens, thereby enhancing image resolution, there are many times when a wide FOV [i.e., maintaining an original 2D angular range of the scene detected by photodetector array] is also desirable.”; para. 53, “FIG. 1A illustrates a laser range finder system 105 [e.g., a LIDAR] that comprises a steerable laser assembly 115. Steerable laser assembly 115 scans one or more a lasers [e.g., steerable laser 121] within a field of view FOV 130. The field of view 130 can be defined by an azimuthal [e.g., horizontal] angular range 140 and an elevation [e.g., vertical] angular range 145.”), where Shreevastav teaches a radio frequency sensing procedure (Shreevastav; see para. 1).
Shreevastav and O’Keeffe are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ranged sensing-based target detection and processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shreevastav with the teachings of O’Keeffe with the motivation of optimizing for processing power and necessary sensing quality.
Regarding claim 10, Shreevastav teaches the wireless device of claim 9, but fails to teach
wherein the corresponding quality score indicates a probability of each of the geometric information associated with the target entity or a confidence of each of the geometric information associated with the target entity.
However, O’Keeffe teaches
wherein the corresponding quality score indicates a probability of each of the geometric information associated with the target entity or a confidence of each of the geometric information associated with the target entity (para. 91, “FIG. 12 illustrated an embodiment wherein an angular range 1230 is associated with a vector 1225 extrapolated from a set of boundary locations 1211a and 1211b. This angular range or confidence value can be based on how well the boundary locations fit a particular shape. For example, the angular range or confidence value can be based on the mean square error of line or curve fit to the set of boundary location used to generate vector 1225 or estimated boundary location 1212a.”).
Shreevastav and O’Keeffe are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ranged sensing-based target detection and processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shreevastav with the teachings of O’Keeffe with the motivation of increasing target identification accuracy.
Regarding claim 13, Shreevastav teaches the wireless device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:
obtain one or more measurement values associated with the target entity based at least in part on the radio frequency sensing procedure,
determine assistance information based at least in part on the one or more measurement values associated with the target entity, wherein the assistance information comprises one or more of an expected shape associated with the target entity or an expected dimension associated with the target entity, and
transmit, to the network entity, an indication of at least one of the one or more measurement values or the assistance information associated with the target entity.
However, O’Keeffe teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to:
obtain one or more measurement values associated with the target entity based at least in part on the radio frequency sensing procedure, determine assistance information based at least in part on the one or more measurement values associated with the target entity, wherein the assistance information comprises one or more of an expected shape associated with the target entity or an expected dimension associated with the target entity, and transmit, to the network entity, an indication of at least one of the one or more measurement values or the assistance information associated with the target entity (para. 19, “In another advantage the boundaries of objects in the FOV can be progressively localized by refining laser steering parameters in regions of the FOV. The disclosed techniques can improve speed detection for objects in the FOV. The accuracy of speed detection in a laser range finding scan is related to the ability to accurately determine the object boundary during each scan. The disclosed techniques can estimate the boundary location and dynamically steer the laser to investigate the boundary location.”; para. 62, “Laser range finder 405 can contain a steerable laser assembly 120 or a steerable laser transmitter comprising a laser generator 420 and a laser positioner 430. Laser range finder 405 can contain a laser steering parameter generator 410 to generate laser steering parameters based on processed sensor data from sensor data processor 475. Laser steering parameter generator 200 can function to generate laser steering parameters [e.g., instructions] and transmit the parameters to the steerable laser assembly 120. Laser steering parameter generator 200 can transmit the parameters in a timed manner, such that upon receiving each laser steering parameter the steerable laser assembly 120 executes or reacts to the laser steering parameter. Alternatively, laser steering parameters can be transmitted in a batch or instruction file that is executed over a period of time by the steerable laser assembly 120.”; para. 73, “A laser steering parameter can be a region width 504 or a region height 506. The width and height can be expressed in degrees within the FOV. One exemplary set of laser steering parameters could include a start location, region width and region height thereby defining a four sided region in the FOV. Other laser steering parameters in the exemplary set of laser steering parameters can indicate how to tailor a scan within this region, such as laser scan speed 514, laser pulse size 516 or number of laser pulses 518.”; the dynamic refining of laser steering parameters is construed as depending on assistance information which depends on measured values of the target).
Shreevastav and O’Keeffe are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ranged sensing-based target detection and processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shreevastav with the teachings of O’Keeffe with the motivation of increasing target identification accuracy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K HODAC whose telephone number is (571) 270-0123. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6.
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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/ERIC K HODAC/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
