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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/6/2026.
Claims 4 and 17 as amended are directed to Species B, Embodiment 2 relating to randomly selected time slots.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. At pages 8-9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the indicated locations for the sensing signals within Bayesteh’s signal structure do not form non-uniform, aperiodic, and pseudo-random pattern because Bayesteh shows that all time-domain locations are used, which corresponds to a periodic pattern having a periodicity of one. The argument is not persuasive at least in that the illustrated signal structure pattern in Figure 6 is irregular and aperiodic over the timeframe illustrated. It is submitted the pattern can also be described as “pseudo-random”, though this new language is addressed separately below. At pages 9-10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Rafique does not disclose, teach, or suggest randomly selecting symbols, time slots, or spreading codes, without additional explanation. The argument is not persuasive, at least because the cited portion of Rafique (page 3, lines 16-20) states “…these radar sequences are placed randomly over the time-axis...” The argument does not address the indicated disclosure.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the locations of communications and sensing signals as described in the specification concerning Figures 2-4 and 6-8. It is noted that the figures provide a legend to indicate the two different types of signals, but there is no differentiation between the two actually illustrated.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 16 require the “non-uniform, aperiodic, and pseudo-random pattern is formed by at least one sensing signal that is located in each symbol of the at least one randomly selected symbol that is located within each time slot of the plurality of time slots”. It is noted “the” is missing in claim 16 prior to “non-uniform” and correction is required. The indicated language appears to be grammatically incorrect to the extent that what is required is indefinite. The claim requires “at least one sensing signal that is located in each symbol…” which appears to indicate the (possibly “one”) signal is located within more than one symbol, in particular all of them, which does not appear the intent in view of Figure 2, albeit interpretation is complicated by lack of illustration per the drawing objection above. It appears the intent may instead be in general that sensing signals are located in respective randomly selected symbols. It is further apparent the same applies similarly to “the at least one randomly selected symbol located within each time slot”, as it does not appear that the same randomly selected symbol(s) would itself/themselves be located in multiple time slots.
Additionally, the claims require a “non-uniform, aperiodic, and pseudo-random pattern” yet require only “one” sensing signal and “one” selected time slot. It is not clear to what extent a “non-uniform, aperiodic, and pseudo-random pattern” can exist if only one signal and/or slot is present, and is instead contradictory.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-16, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayesteh et al. (US 2021/0076367) in view of Rafique (WO 2022/0146368).
Regarding claims 1-2, 14, and 16, Bayesteh discloses a wireless device and communication method, comprising: transmitting, by a wireless device comprising a processor (Fig. 2A), a waveform that includes a signal structure (Figure 6),
wherein the signal structure includes a plurality of data signals ([0053]),
wherein the signal structure includes a plurality of sensing signals configured to reflect from an object in an area where the wireless device is operating resulting in a reflected waveform that comprises at least some of the plurality of sensing signals to be received by the wireless device ([0067]), and
wherein locations of the plurality of sensing signals in the signal structure form a non-uniform, irregular pattern in time domain (Figure 6, [0153]);
receiving, by the wireless device, the reflected waveform; and determining, by processing the reflected waveform, one or more parameters of the object ([0186]).
Bayesteh appears to imply that the irregular pattern may be formed by at least one sensing signal that is randomly located in at least one symbol within each time slot ([0083], [0084], [0146]) but is not found to specifically disclose the pattern is pseudo-random and based on one of a random selection of at least one symbol, random selection of at least one time slot, or random selection of at least one spreading code. Rafique also discloses a joint sensing and communication technique where locations of a plurality of sensing signals form a pseudo-random pattern in time domain based on random selection of symbols and time slots (page 3, lines 16-20, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to randomly locate sensing signals of Bayesteh in the pattern as claimed and disclosed by Rafique in order to improve security as noted by Rafique (page 7, lines 6-10) with predictable results.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Bayesteh discloses the one or more parameters of the object include a distance between the object and the wireless device, a speed of the object, a motion period of the object, or an image of the object ([0186]).
Regarding claims 11 and 21, Bayesteh discloses the plurality of sensing signals include a frequency modulation continuous wave (FMCW) signal, a pulse signal, or a low-correlation sequence.
Regarding claims 12 and 22, Bayesteh discloses the low-correlation sequence includes an m-sequence, a pseudo-noise sequence, a gold sequence, or a Zadoff-Chu sequence ([0140]).
Regarding claims 13 and 23, Bayesteh discloses the plurality of sensing signals are included in a first set of multiple time resources and/or a first set of one or more frequency resources (Figure 6).
Conclusion
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 Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on a part time schedule, typically M-Fri 8:00 AM-4:30 PM Eastern Time, but having off alternating Monday-Tuesdays and Fridays.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights