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 .
Examiner’s Note
Claim 1 includes alternative language “the sensing request carries at least one of the following: a sensing data type, sensing configuration information, access network device identifier information, a sensing requirement, and or a sensing service identifier”. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the prior art is required to teach only one of the above limitations. In this Office action, the claim is treated with the interpretation “the sensing request carries at least one of the following: a sensing service identifier”.
Regarding claims 2-20, they are discussed for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu (US 2022/0304081).
As to claim 1, Wu discloses a communication method comprising: sending a sensing signal in response to a sensing request from a first device NSCS (see at least figure 1; paragraphs [0076], [0077], [0078], [0079]), wherein the sensing request carries at least one of the following: a sensing service identifier (see paragraphs [0074], [0076]); receiving an echo signal of the sensing signal (see paragraph [0079]); and sending a sensing result to the first device, wherein the sensing result comprises sensing data determined based on the echo signal (see paragraph [0079]).
As to claims 2, 10, 17, they include other limitations of the sensing request, namely, “sensing data type”. As discussed above the claim is treated with the broadest reasonable interpretation “the sensing request carries at least one of the following: a sensing service identifier”. Therefore, Wu reads on the claimed limitations.
As to claims 3, 11, 18, they include other limitations of the sensing request, namely, “sensing configuration information”. As discussed above the claim is treated with the broadest reasonable interpretation “the sensing request carries at least one of the following: a sensing service identifier”. Therefore, Wu reads on the claimed limitations.
As to claims 4, 12, 19, they include other limitations of the sensing request, namely, “sensing requirement”. As discussed above the claim is treated with the broadest reasonable interpretation “the sensing request carries at least one of the following: a sensing service identifier”. Therefore, Wu reads on the claimed limitations.
As to claims 5, 20, Wu discloses that the sensing result further comprises at least one of the following: the sensing service identifier, an identifier of a first access network device (see paragraph [0079] which discloses sending the sensing result back to the first access network device NSCS; therefore, the sensing result must inherently include an identifier of the first access network device NSCS), a timestamp, a sensing signal distribution of the first access network device, a beam direction, a scanning periodicity, or a quantity of sampling points.
As to claim 6, Wu discloses sending at least one of the following to the first device: location information of a first access network device (see paragraph [0075]), sensing range information of the first access network device, or sensing capability information of the first access network device.
As to claim 7, Wu discloses sending the sensing capability information to the first device NSCS (see paragraphs [0074], [0077]), and the sensing capability information comprises at least one of the following: a sensing precision, an echo signal processing support flag, a sensing signal scanning periodicity, a sensing signal bandwidth, a sensing function support flag (see paragraph [0077]), or an echo signal processing capability, wherein the echo signal processing support flag indicates that echo signal processing is supported, and the sensing function support flag indicates that a sensing operation is supported (see paragraph [0077]).
As to claim 9, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above. It is noted that the claimed “a first access network device” reads on CSC in at least figure 1.
As to claim 13, Wu discloses receiving first information of N access network devices, wherein the first information comprises at least one of the following: location information of a corresponding access network device, sensing range information of the corresponding access network device, or sensing capability information of the corresponding access network device (see paragraphs [0073], [0074], [0077]), the N access network devices comprise the first access network device SCS, and N is an integer greater than 0; and determining, based on the first information of the N access network devices, that an access network device performing a sensing operation comprises the first access network device SCS (see paragraphs [0074], [0076], [0077]).
As to claim 14, Wu discloses before the sending of the sensing request to the first access network device CSC, the method further comprises: receiving a service request from a device NCSC (see at least figure 1), wherein the service request is used to request a sensing service, and the service request carries at least one of the following: a service type, a sensing target, a second sensing service identifier (see paragraphs [0074], [0076]), a service precision, sensing configuration information, or a service requirement; and after the receiving of the sensing result from the first access network device CSC, the method further comprises: sending a sensing processing result to the device NCSC, wherein the sensing processing result is determined based on the sensing result (see paragraph [0079]).
As to claim 15, Wu discloses receiving a service request from a device NSCS (see figure 1), wherein the service request carries a service type and the service type is one or more of the following types: an area sensing map, assisted automatic driving, specific event detection, obstacle detection (see paragraph [0075], lane detection, traffic violation detection, or abnormal object detection (see paragraph [0075]).
As to claim 16, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above. In addition, Wu further discloses a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor in communication with the memory. See paragraphs [0112], [0116].
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.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu.
As to claim 8, Wu discloses that the sensing capability information comprises information relating to a processing capability (see paragraphs [0073], [0074], [0077]); but fails to disclose various capabilities as claimed. Those skilled in the art would recognize that these claimed limitations do not involve any inventive concept. They merely depend on arbitrary capabilities of the second device. The examiner takes Official Notice that such capabilities are known in the art (for example, determining a range/Doppler spectrum or a range/Doppler/angle spectrum based on an echo signal). In addition, the specification of the instant application fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained from such capabilities. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wu as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as providing more service to the users.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (US 2020/0292661), Anantha (US 2019/0362508), You (US 2022/0390551), Duan (US 2022/0252709) disclose sensing operations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646