DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 8, applicant asserts that:
“However, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office Action's allegations. For example, the specification teaches that the features of claim 8 provide unexpected results such as helping a first device further learn of a sensing capability of an access network device, so that an appropriate access network device and an access network device with an appropriate capability can be further selected based on an access network capability, thereby improving rationality and flexibility of selecting an access network device, and thus the features of claim 8 are not merely "arbitrary capabilities" as alleged by the Office Action:
"In a possible design, the processing capability is one of the following capabilities: determining a range/Doppler spectrum or a range/Doppler/angle spectrum based on an echo signal; determining a range/Doppler spectrum or a range/Doppler/angle spectrum based on an echo signal, and determining a DV spectrum, a DVA spectrum, an RV spectrum, or an RVA spectrum based on the range/Doppler spectrum or the range/Doppler/angle spectrum; and determining a range/Doppler spectrum or a range/Doppler/angle spectrum based on an echo signal, determining a DV spectrum, a DVA spectrum, an RV spectrum, or an RVA spectrum based on the range/Doppler spectrum or the range/Doppler/angle spectrum, and determining a point cloud based on the DV spectrum, the DVA spectrum, the RV spectrum, or the RVA spectrum, where the point cloud includes a plurality of data points, and each data point indicates a relative location relative to the first access network device or an absolute location. The foregoing design helps the first device further learn of a sensing capability of an access network device, so that an appropriate access network device and an access network device with an appropriate capability can be further selected based on an access network capability, thereby improving rationality and flexibility of selecting an access network device." (Para.[0021]; Emphasis added).”
The examiner, however, disagrees.
Applicant’s statement “Helping a first device further learn of a sensing capability of an access network device, so that an appropriate access network device and an access network device with an appropriate capability can be further selected based on an access network capability, thereby improving rationality and flexibility of selecting an access network device” are apparently predictable results of sending sensing capability of an access network device to a first device, not unexpected results as alleged by applicant.
In addition, in order to support the examiner’s taken Official Notice, Zorgui is now relied upon for the teaching of determining a range/Doppler spectrum or a range/Doppler/angle spectrum based on an echo signal (see paragraphs [0109], [0115]).
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner contends that the rejections to claims 1-20 are proper.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2022/0304081 A1) in view of Zorgui (US 2023/0324541 A1).
As to claim 1, Wu discloses a communication method performed in a first access network device (see access point AP SCS in at least figure 1; paragraph [0073]) 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]); 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]).
Wu fails to disclose that the sensing request carries at least access network device identifier information, the access network device identifier information includes identifiers of M access network devices, and the M access network devices include the first access network device, where M is an integer greater than 0. Zorgui discloses that a sensing request carries at least access network device identifier information (see paragraph [0112] which discloses a sensing request carrying at least access network device identifier information of one or more access points to be used for RF sensing), the access network device identifier information includes identifiers of M access network devices, and the M access network devices include a first access network device, where M is an integer greater than 0 (see paragraph [0112]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Zorgui to Wu, in order to yield predictable results such as improving sensing performance.
As to claims 2, 10, 17, the combination of Wu and Zorgui discloses that the sensing request further carries at least a sensing data type and the sensing data type is one of the following types: the echo signal (see Wu, paragraphs [0079], [0098]; Zorgui, paragraphs [0109], [0129]); or a range/Doppler spectrum or a range/Doppler/angle spectrum (see Zorgui, paragraphs [0115], [0126], [0127]).
As to claims 3, 11, 18, the combination of Wu and Zorgui discloses that the sensing request further carries at least sensing configuration information and the sensing configuration information is used to configure at least one of the following: a sensing manner, or a result reporting manner. See Zorgui, paragraphs [0111], [0119].
As to claims 4, 12, 19, the combination of Wu and Zorgui discloses that the sensing request further carries at least a sensing requirement and the sensing requirement comprises a sensing time. See Zorgui, paragraph [0111].
As to claims 5, 20, Wu discloses that the sensing result further comprises at least one of the following: a sensing service identifier, an identifier of the 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 the 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 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; namely, determining a range/Doppler spectrum or a range/Doppler/angle spectrum based on the echo signal. 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. In addition, the specification of the instant application fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained from determining a range/Doppler spectrum or a range/Doppler/angle spectrum based on the echo signal. Zorgui further discloses determining a range/Doppler spectrum or a range/Doppler/angle spectrum based on an echo signal (see paragraphs [0109], [0115]). 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 with Zorgui, in order to yield predictable results such as improving sensing performance.
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. In addition, the access point AP SCS in at least figure 1; and paragraph [0073] as taught by Wu reads on “a core network” as claimed under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
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].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bayesteh (US 11,178,691 B2); Shi (US 2020/0275402 A1) disclose sensing operations in mobile communication systems.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 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, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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
Prosecution Insights