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 .
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 1-4, 6-12, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dai et al. (WO 2023/220912 A1), hereinafter Dai.
Regarding claim 1, Dai teaches,
A method of operating a processing device (fig. 7, sensing node 604), the method comprising: receiving, from a sensing server for a sensing session, a sensing configuration indicating one or more Doppler modality assumptions of a target object (para. 0084, “The sensing-purpose beam measurement configuration may contain criterion for target path determination, such as a largest-power NLOS path or Doppler frequency signature (i.e., Doppler signature) . For example, the Doppler frequency signature may include a micro-Doppler profile.” The examiner notes that fig. 7 shows the sensing node 604 receiving the sensing purpose beam measurement configuration); processing a set of measurement samples associated with the sensing session to obtain a determined Doppler modality of the target object based on the one or more Doppler modality assumptions of the target object (para. 0095, “In another example, the network node 602 (or other network node) may know the blade rotation speed of the target object 601, e.g., if the target object is a UAV. Accordingly, the scope of Doppler frequency spread (sometimes referred to as micro Doppler profile) of the target object 601 (UAV) can be calculated and indicated to sensing node 604, e.g., in stage 1. The micro Doppler refers to the Doppler frequency caused by moving components on the target object 601, such as the rotation of a UAV’s blades. For target path determination in stage 3, the sensing node 604 may only consider the paths with Doppler frequency signature, which may include a micro Doppler profile, that match the Doppler frequency signature provided in stage 1.”); and reporting, to the sensing server, one or more parameters indicative of the determined Doppler modality of the target object (para. 0090, “The identity of both beams, i.e., the beam 1 and beam 2, and their relative delay may be reported in stage 4 by the sensing node 604 to the network node 602 (or other network node) . In another scenario, in stage 3, the sensing node 604 may calculate the relative delay of the NLOS signal against a known reference beam. The identity of both the NLOS signal and the reference beam, and the relative delay of the NLOS signal with respect to the reference beam may be reported in stage 4 by the sensing node 604 to the network node 602 (or other network node) .”).
Regarding claim 2, Dai teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein: the one or more Doppler modality assumptions correspond to an expected Doppler modality of the target object, and the sensing configuration comprises assistance data indicating the expected Doppler modality of the target object (para. 0095, “In another example, the network node 602 (or other network node) may know the blade rotation speed of the target object 601, e.g., if the target object is a UAV. Accordingly, the scope of Doppler frequency spread (sometimes referred to as micro Doppler profile) of the target object 601 (UAV) can be calculated and indicated to sensing node 604, e.g., in stage 1.”).
Regarding claim 3, Dai teaches,
The method of claim 2, wherein the expected Doppler modality of the target object is indicative of: the target object having a monomodal Doppler representation, the target object having a bimodal or multimodal Doppler representation, or the target object having the bimodal or multimodal Doppler representation with one or more speed differences between different modes (fig. 7 shows varying Doppler spectra. The helicopter and UAV have multimodal Doppler spectra, while the bird has a roughly bimodal Doppler spectrum. See also para. 100).
Regarding claim 4, Dai teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters comprise: a first indicator indicating the determined Doppler modality of the target object, a second indicator indicating detection of the target object that has the determined Doppler modality of the target object consistent with the one or more Doppler modality assumptions, a third indicator indicating a certainty level of the determined Doppler modality, a detection result describing a detected Doppler representation of the target object having the determined Doppler modality, or any combination thereof (para. 0095, “For target path determination in stage 3, the sensing node 604 may only consider the paths with Doppler frequency signature, which may include a micro Doppler profile, that match the Doppler frequency signature provided in stage 1.” The examiner notes that paras. 0088-0090 indicate that the paths with specific micro-Doppler profiles are reported back to the network node in stage 4).
Regarding claim 6, Dai teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more Doppler modality assumptions comprise: one or more candidate Doppler modalities, one or more detection methods applicable to at least one of the one or more candidate Doppler modalities, one or more center frequencies for one or more sensing operations applicable to at least one of the one or more candidate Doppler modalities, one or more Doppler processing or filtering methods applicable to at least one of the one or more candidate Doppler modalities, one or more Doppler slow time occasions applicable to at least one of the one or more candidate Doppler modalities, or any combination thereof (para. 0095, “In another example, the network node 602 (or other network node) may know the blade rotation speed of the target object 601, e.g., if the target object is a UAV. Accordingly, the scope of Doppler frequency spread (sometimes referred to as micro Doppler profile) of the target object 601 (UAV) can be calculated and indicated to sensing node 604, e.g., in stage 1. The micro Doppler refers to the Doppler frequency caused by moving components on the target object 601, such as the rotation of a UAV’s blades. For target path determination in stage 3, the sensing node 604 may only consider the paths with Doppler frequency signature, which may include a micro Doppler profile, that match the Doppler frequency signature provided in stage 1.”).
Claim 7 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 1, noting that Dai further teaches,
A processing device (fig. 11, sensing node 1100), comprising: one or more memories (fig. 11, memory 1104); one or more transceivers (fig. 11, WWAN 1100, WLAN 1111, UWB 1112, BT 1113); and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers (fig. 11., processors 1102)
Claim 8 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 2.
Claim 9 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 3.
Claim 10 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, Dai teaches,
The processing device of claim 10, wherein the one or more parameters further comprise: a fifth indicator indicating one or more other possible Doppler modalities of the target object together with one or more corresponding certainty levels of the one or more other possible Doppler modalities (para. 0109, “For example, the bistatic or multistatic radar Rx node can use the classification model to generate one or more classifications based on Doppler (e.g., micro-Doppler) spectrum measurements of the target object received at or obtained by the radar Rx node. In some cases, the bistatic or multistatic radar Rx node can generate multiple classifications for a detected target object and may generate a corresponding confidence level for the multiple classifications. In one illustrative example, a micro-Doppler measurement report generated and/or transmitted by the bistatic or multistatic radar Rx node can include the one or more generated classifications and confidence levels.”).
Regarding claim 12, Dai teaches,
The processing device of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: receive, via the one or more transceivers from the sensing server, a reporting request for the first indicator, the second indicator, the third indicator, the detection result, or any combination thereof (para. 0095, “In another example, the network node 602 (or other network node) may know the blade rotation speed of the target object 601, e.g., if the target object is a UAV. Accordingly, the scope of Doppler frequency spread (sometimes referred to as micro Doppler profile) of the target object 601 (UAV) can be calculated and indicated to sensing node 604, e.g., in stage 1. The micro Doppler refers to the Doppler frequency caused by moving components on the target object 601, such as the rotation of a UAV’s blades. For target path determination in stage 3, the sensing node 604 may only consider the paths with Doppler frequency signature, which may include a micro Doppler profile, that match the Doppler frequency signature provided in stage 1.”).
Claim 15 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, Dai teaches,
The processing device of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors configured to process the set of measurement samples to obtain the determined Doppler modality of the target object are further configured to: apply the one or more Doppler modality assumptions to the set of measurement samples to obtain one or more Doppler analysis results and obtain the determined Doppler modality based on the one or more Doppler analysis results (para. 0103, “A monostatic radar sensing system can perform improved target object detection based on micro-Doppler signature (s) by analyzing the reflected (e.g., returned) radar signal from a target. For example, a monostatic radar sensing system can analyze the reflected radar signal to identify one or more micro-Doppler patterns based on non-rigid movement of the target object. The one or more micro-Doppler patterns can be extracted from the reflected radar signal and analyzed against one or more known micro-Doppler signatures and/or micro-Doppler characteristics for a set of different objects or object types. Based on the analysis, a detected target object can be identified or classified, in some cases with varying confidence levels”).
Regarding claim 18, Dai teaches,
The processing device of claim 7, wherein the sensing configuration is received via: Long-Term Evolution (LTE) positioning protocol(LPP) signaling, New Radio positioning protocol A (NRPPa) signaling, system information block (SIB) messaging, Radio Resource Control (RRC) messaging, or any combination thereof (para. 0118, “The initial configuration of the CSI-based reporting provided in stage 1 may be RRC based, and updates of different parameters may be provided through RRC, Medium Access Control –Control Element (MAC CE) , or downlink Control Information (DCI) .”).
Regarding claim 19, Dai teaches,
The processing device of claim 7, wherein the one or more parameters are reported via: Long-Term Evolution (LTE) positioning protocol(LPP) signaling, New Radio positioning protocol A (NRPPa) signaling, Radio Resource Control (RRC) messaging, or any combination thereof (para. 0118, “The initial configuration of the CSI-based reporting provided in stage 1 may be RRC based, and updates of different parameters may be provided through RRC, Medium Access Control –Control Element (MAC CE) , or downlink Control Information (DCI) .”).
Claim 20 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 1, noting that Dai further teaches,
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processing device (para. 0009, “In one implementation, a non-transitory storage medium including program code stored thereon, the program code is operable to configure at least one processor in a sensing node in a wireless network for supporting radio frequency (RF) sensing a target in the wireless network”)…
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai in view of Siete et al. (DK 2020 70868 A1), hereinafter Siete.
Regarding claim 5, Dai teaches the method of claim 1, including reporting micro-Doppler information to the sensing server. However, Dai does not teach that the reported micro-Doppler information includes,
…a range map associated with the target object, a range-Doppler map associated with the target object, or both
Siete teaches micro-Doppler signatures can be expressed as,
…a range map associated with the target object, a range-Doppler map associated with the target object, or both (p. 3, para. 2, “In a range-Doppler map or range-radial velocity map, the moving parts of a body causes a characteristic Doppler signature, where the main contribution comes from the torso of the body, which causes the Doppler frequency of the target, while the flapping motion of bird wings or propeller blades induces modulation on the returned radar signal and generates sidebands around the central Doppler frequency of a Doppler signature, which may be referred to as micro-Doppler signatures. The width of the sidebands of a micro-Doppler signature within a range-Doppler map/matrix may therefore be indicative of the type of target being hit by the transmitted radar waves.”).
Dai and Siete are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the micro-Doppler signature reporting of Dai to include the range-Doppler map of Siete because the range-Doppler map of Siete allows for multiple different detected objects to be differentiated from one another, thus enabling the use of the invention of Dai for scenarios with multiple detected objects.
Claim 14 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as claim 5.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai in view of ZTE Corporation (ZTE CORPORATION: "Views on Sensing and Positioning", ETSI Draft, ISC(24)000058, European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), 650, Route Des Lucioles, F-06921 Sophia-Antipolis, France, Vol. ISG ISAC Integrated Sensing And Communications, 1 April 2024, 12 Pages, cited by applicant on IDS), hereinafter ZTE.
Regarding claim 13, Dai teaches the processing device of claim 7. Dai does not teach,
…wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: receive, via the one or more transceivers from the sensing server, a detection request for the determined Doppler modality of the target object
ZTE teaches,
…wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: receive, via the one or more transceivers from the sensing server, a detection request for the determined Doppler modality of the target object (p. 6, para. 2, “Consider SF providing potential sensing area/target information to the measurement node or UE in the measurement request, including…a range of potential sensing Doppler”).
ZTE is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Dai with the detection request of ZTE because requesting particular information from the sensing server (rather than the full Doppler spectrum) reduces the amount of information that needs to be sent to a processing device.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai in view of Katla et al. (WO 2022/261409 A1), hereinafter Katla, and further in view of Yan et al. (Yan, J., Hu, H., Gong, J., Kong, D., & Li, D. (2023). Exploring Radar Micro-Doppler Signatures for Recognition of Drone Types. Drones, 7(4), 280. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones7040280), hereinafter Yan.
Regarding claim 17, Dai teaches the processing device of claim 7. Dai does not teach,
…wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: receive, via the one or more transceivers from the sensing server, a capability inquiry; and transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to the sensing server, capability information indicative of the processing device being capable of processing the set of measurement samples to obtain the determined Doppler modality of the target object in a case that the target object having a bimodal or multimodal Doppler representation
Katla teaches (note: what Katla does not teach is struck through)
…wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: receive, via the one or more transceivers from the sensing server, a capability inquiry (para. 0202, “In some implementations, a sensing initiator may dynamically send a probe request frame that includes a sensing feedback type (e.g. Doppler or CSI) capability to solicit a probe response frame from potential sensing responder transmitters.”); and transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to the sensing server, capability information indicative of the processing device being capable of processing the set of measurement samples to obtain the determined Doppler modality of the target object (para. 0202, “In some implementations, the probe response frame includes sensing feedback type capability information (e.g., Doppler or ToF)”)
Yan teaches that micro-Doppler processing for UAVs includes processing multimodal or bimodal Doppler representations (fig. 3).
Katla and Yan are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Dai with the sensing capability reporting of Katla because the sensing capability reporting of Katla enables a central device to control multistatic sensing for multiple UEs in a system. In the invention of Dai, said devices are taught to require micro-Doppler processing capabilities. Yan teaches that micro-Doppler processing frequently requires bimodal and multimodal processing. Thus, Yan teaches that a sensing capability report indicating compatibility with the micro-Doppler processing of Dai would necessarily include bimodal or multimodal Doppler processing capabilities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
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.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648