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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 3/6/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 11-13, 14-15, and 21-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 11-12, 11, 14-15, 11-12, and 11, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,506,527.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims clearly anticipate the pending claims with the following exceptions:
Claims 1 and 14 require “locations of the plurality of sensing signals in the signal structure form an irregular pattern”. However, patented claims 1 and 14 require spreading the plurality of sensing signals with spreading codes, which creates an “irregular pattern”. Claims 1 and 14 are therefore anticipated.
Claims 13 and 23 require 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. However, patented claim 11 specifies a frequency modulated continuous waveform, which anticipates “one of more frequency resources”.
Claims 21-23 are directed to an apparatus, whereas patented claims 11-12 are directed to a method. However claims 21-23 are not patentably distinct from claims 11-12, as the patented method requires performance on a wireless device, anticipating claims 21-23.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-15, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bayeseth et al. (IDS reference, US 2021/0076367).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Bayeseth 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 an irregular pattern (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]).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Bayeseth 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, Bayeseth 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, Bayeseth 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, Bayeseth 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).
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) 3, 4, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayeseth as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Rafique (WO 2022/0146368).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 16, and 17, Bayeseth discloses the signal structure comprises a plurality of time slots (e.g. Fig. 6) and 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]). Nonetheless, Bayeseth is not found to specifically disclose random sensing signal location as claimed. Rafique also discloses a joint sensing and communication technique where sensing signals are randomly located in symbols within each time slot (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 Bayeseth as claimed and disclosed by Rafique in order to improve security as noted by Rafique with predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art shows various joint sensing and communication signal structure techniques.
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 M-Th, 8:00 AM-4:30 PM; Fri 8 AM-12 PM Eastern Time.
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