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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/31/2024, 04/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. An explanation is provided below.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant alleges on p.7:
Applicant respectfully submits that "communication unit," as used in claim 20, connotes a class of known communication hardware in the wireless communication context rather than a purely generic functional black box. This is not a case where the claim term is devoid of structural context. Claim 20 is directed to "[a] wireless communication and sensing node" comprising "a communication unit, configured to send an integrated sensing and communication, ISAC, signal comprising a communication signal and a sensing signal," as recited by claim 20. In this technological setting, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the "communication unit" to refer to communication circuitry or hardware-namely, transceiver or transmitter-receiver circuitry-of the wireless node used for signal transmission . . . Applicant respectfully submits that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would understand "communication unit," in the context of claim 20 and the
specification, as denoting sufficiently definite structure
Applicant’s argument is persuasive and the Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is accordingly withdrawn.
Double Patenting
Applicant alleges on p.9:
reference claim 1 of the copending application affirmatively requires a different sensing-signal architecture, namely, a sensing signal comprising both "a wideband signal and at least one single-tone signal," with the number of the at least one single-tone signal being less than 10 and with "a bandwidth of the wideband signal" being greater than 1 MHz. The reference claim therefore includes express limitations requiring a wideband component and a minimum bandwidth for that component, while present claim 1 does not require any wideband component at all. Applicant submits that these differences are material. The present claim set is directed to a single-tone-centered sensing framework.
The Examiner disagrees. The instant application claims “the number of the single-tone signals being less than 10” and co-pending application 18661846 claims “the number of the at least one single-tone signal is less than 10” which is substantially similar if not identical. With regards to the co-pending application disclosing a bandwidth signal being greater than 1 MHz, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter in the co-pending patent application encompasses the claimed subject matter as recited in the instant application.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant alleges on p.10:
Claim 1 thus requires a specific ISAC architecture in which the sensing signal within the ISAC signal comprises one or more single-tone signals, with the number of such single-tone signals being less than 10. Applicant submits that the cited references, individually or in combination, do not teach or suggest this claimed ISAC architecture . . . Mazzara also fails to remedy the gap. The Office Action (page 8) relied on Mazzaro's disclosure that "the number of transmitted tones is eight (M=8)." However, Mazzara is directed to multitone nonlinear radar, in which a transmitter transmits a radar signal comprising at least two predetermined frequency components and a receiver processes intermodulation and harmonic products. That is a materially different sensing paradigm from the single-tone-based ISAC arrangement recited by claim 1, and the cited tone-count disclosure (M=8) is incidental to Mazzaro's nonlinear-radar context. Mazzara therefore does not teach or suggest the integrated sensing and communication signal architecture recited by claim 1
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. An ISAC signal is Integrated sensing and communication signal. Ravenscroft teaches “[0003] The present disclosure generally relates to the design and processing of joint radar and communications waveforms. More specifically, the present disclosure is related to improved techniques for embedding of orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) communication symbols into physical radar waveforms”. Thus, an ISAC signal is taught. The Applicant is reminded, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Chen teaches a communication device that senses objects with radar signals (0040, fig 5) and uses single-tone signals (0044). Furthermore, claim 1 does not claim a single-tone signal. Rather it claims comprising one or more single-tone signals being less than 10. Thus, Applicant’s issue with Mazzaro discussing multi-tone signals is unpersuasive. Furthermore, the claims do not require a linear or non-linear architecture. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Chen 0040 “FIG. 1, the wireless device 110 may detect the interfering object 140 in the wireless channel 150 without interrupting data communications with the wireless devices 120 and 130, and/or other wireless devices (not shown) in the wireless network.”
Chen 0044 “the radar signals 222 may be un-modulated continuous-wave (CW) radar signals (e.g., containing a single frequency or signal tone) that are typically used in detecting object velocity.”
Applicant alleges on p.11:
Applicant further submits that the Office Action's articulated rationale for combining the references is conclusory. The Office Action (page 8) states that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Chen and Mazzara with Ravenscroft "in order to advantageously detect objects accurately." That rationale is too general and does not meaningfully address the substantial technical differences among the references . . . Indeed, Ravenscroft teaches away from the proposed modification, and the proposed modification would change Ravenscroft' s principle of operation. Ravenscroft' s framework depends on using a broadband FM radar waveform and embedding a communication signal into that waveform through shaping and enhancement operations so as to produce a final composite waveform suitable for radar detection and data communication.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ravenscroft does not teach away from the proposed modification and using a single-tone signal would not change the principle of operation as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art because all three prior arts discuss similar radar sensing. In fact, such a proposed modification would improve the joint radar-communication system of Ravenscroft because single-tone signals reduce system complexity and cost (Chen 0045 “single-tone CW radar signals may be relatively simple to implement (e.g., in terms of cost and/or complexity)”). As such, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 13, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 10, 17 of copending Application No. 18661846 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as set forth in the tables and description below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Claim 1
Application 18661846
1, the cited prior art teaches A wireless communication and sensing method, comprising:
sending, by a wireless communication and sensing node,
an integrated sensing and communication, ISAC, signal comprising a communication signal and a sensing signal,
wherein the sensing signal comprises one or more single-tone signals, and
wherein the number of the single- tone signals being less than 10.
1, the cited prior art teaches A wireless communication and sensing method comprising
generating or sending a message for use in a wireless communication and sensing node,
the wireless communication and sensing method comprising: transmitting an integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) signal,
wherein a sensing signal in the ISAC signal comprises a wideband signal and at least one single-tone signal,
wherein the number of the at least one single-tone signal is less than 10, and wherein a bandwidth of the wideband signal is greater than 1 MHz.
Claims 13 and 20 of the instant application are rejected for a similar reason as shown above because claims 13 and 20 are substantially the same as claim 1 of the instant application and claims 10 and 17 of the reference application are substantially the same as claim 1 of the reference application.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 10-11, 13-14, 16-18, 20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravenscroft et al. (US 20210208237 hereinafter Ravenscroft) in view of Chen (US 20170086202) and further in view of Mazzaro et al. (US 20160282457 hereinafter Mazzaro).
Regarding claim 1, Ravenscroft teaches A wireless communication and sensing method, comprising (Title “POWER-EFFICIENT FORMULATION OF TANDEM-HOPPED RADAR & COMMUNICATIONS”):
sending, by a wireless communication and sensing node, an integrated sensing and communication, ISAC, signal comprising a communication signal and a sensing signal (Abstract “The composite radar and communication waveform may facilitate radar detection and data communication operations and may be generated from a frequency modulated (FM) radar waveform and a communication signal”),
Ravenscroft does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Chen teaches
wherein the sensing signal comprises one or more single-tone signals (0044 “the radar signals 222 may be un-modulated continuous-wave (CW) radar signals (e.g., containing a single frequency or signal tone) that are typically used in detecting object velocity.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Chen with the teachings of Ravenscroft. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect objects accurately (Chen 0038). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Chen merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features. Since both Chen and Ravenscroft disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Mazzaro teaches
and wherein the number of the single-tone signals being less than 10 (0027 “FIG. 7 is a graphical illustration depicting a harmonic radar return where the number of transmitted tones is eight (M=8).”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Mazzaro with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect objects accurately (Mazzaro 0038). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Mazzaro merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features. Since both Mazzaro and the cited prior art disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teaches The wireless communication and sensing method of claim 1, wherein the sensing signal consists of one single-tone signal (Mazzaro 0042 “FIGS. 17-20 illustrate four waveforms selected for a preferred embodiment linear/nonlinear transmitter: the single-tone pulse, the multi-tone pulse”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Mazzaro with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect objects accurately (Mazzaro 0038). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Mazzaro merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features. Since both Mazzaro and the cited prior art disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The wireless communication and sensing method of claim 1, wherein the one or more single-tone signals have a duty cycle within 0% and 100% (Mazzaro 0216 “For the multitone pulse, the user may choose the number of tones (N), power per tone (P.sub.tone), the frequency at which the tones are centered (f.sub.c), the time interval during which the pulse is active (T.sub.env), and the pulse duty cycle (D.sub.c)”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Mazzaro with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect objects accurately (Mazzaro 0038). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Mazzaro merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features. Since both Mazzaro and the cited prior art disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teaches The wireless communication and sensing method of claim 1, wherein the one or more single-tone signals are periodic or non-periodic (Mazzaro 0191 “Linear radar can be implemented in different ways, commonly designated by the transmit waveform, such as continuous-wave (CW), pulsed single-tone, or chirp” [CW wave are periodic]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Mazzaro with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect objects accurately (Mazzaro 0038). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Mazzaro merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features. Since both Mazzaro and the cited prior art disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teaches The wireless communication and sensing method of claim 1, wherein the one or more single-tone signals are continuous or discontinuous (Mazzaro 0191 “Linear radar can be implemented in different ways, commonly designated by the transmit waveform, such as continuous-wave (CW), pulsed single-tone, or chirp”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Mazzaro with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect objects accurately (Mazzaro 0038). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Mazzaro merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features. Since both Mazzaro and the cited prior art disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art teaches The wireless communication and sensing method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the wireless communication and sensing node, the sensing signal in the ISAC signal sent by the wireless communication and sensing node, and determining, by the wireless communication and sensing node, sensing information based on the sensing signal (Ravenscroft 0008 “Reflections or echoes of the transmitted final composite radar and communication waveform may be received at a receiver of the radar system and may be utilized by the radar system to perform radar detection operations, such as to detect one or more targets of interest.”).
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art teaches wireless communication and sensing method of claim 1, wherein the one or more single-tone signals in difference periods have difference frequencies (Mazzaro 0192 “This extended dwell time is necessary in order to minimize reflected linear sidelobes from nonlinear reflections, which are usually very weak . . . which has a period T and a duty cycle D.sub.c. The pulse is active during the time interval Tem”; 0245 “Since the multi-tone paradigm enables the instantaneous collection of data at multiple frequencies, a preferred embodiment system is capable of collecting the same frequency data as the stepped frequency system, but in a shorter period of time.”), and wherein the sensing signal in the ISAC signal is sent to another wireless communication and sensing node (Ravenscroft 0069 “This manner of OFDM implementation may also prove useful to achieve communication-only waveforms with PAPR=0 dB, which may facilitate new transmission capability for some technologies, such as base stations (e.g., evolved Node bs (eNBs), next generation Node bs (gNBs), and the like) and other devices operating in OFDM-based communication networks.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Mazzaro with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect objects accurately (Mazzaro 0038). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Mazzaro merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features. Since both Mazzaro and the cited prior art disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and therefore is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2 and therefore is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4 and therefore is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5 and therefore is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 6 and therefore is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and therefore is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 22, the cited prior art teaches The wireless communication and sensing method of claim 13, wherein the one or more single-tone signals in different periods have difference frequencies (Mazzaro 0245 “One advantage of a stepped-frequency design, however, is that its underlying switched-frequency signal source is likely able to dwell on a single frequency for a long period of time. As dwell time increases while transmitting the same average power in a tone or a series of tones, the side lobes caused by interrupting the transmission (e.g. turning the source off or switching to another tone) diminish.”; 0245 “(i.e. “multi-tone” waveforms)”); wherein the sensing signal is received from another wireless communication and sensing node (Ravenscroft 0008 “Reflections or echoes of the transmitted final composite radar and communication waveform may be received at a receiver of the radar system and may be utilized by the radar system to perform radar detection operations, such as to detect one or more targets of interest. Additionally, a device possessing communication signal processing capabilities, such as OFDM signal demodulation, for example, may receive transmitted final composite radar and communication waveforms and extract data associated with the communication signal embedded therein.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Mazzaro with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect objects accurately (Mazzaro 0038). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Mazzaro merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features. Since both Mazzaro and the cited prior art disclose similar radar systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 3, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravenscroft et al. (US 20210208237 hereinafter Ravenscroft) in view of Chen (US 20170086202) and further in view of Mazzaro et al. (US 20160282457 hereinafter Mazzaro) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Paik et al. (US 20080123758 hereinafter Paik).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teaches .
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Paik teaches
wherein the time spacing between the first and last time-domain position of the one or more single-tone signals is larger than 90% of a total time duration of the ISAC signal (0056 “In an OFDM system without continual pilots at both ends, channel estimates in the latest symbol where the first and last sub-carriers are used as pilot sub-carriers may be copied and used in their entirety, or may be interpolated in the direction of the time axis and stored in the buffer for use in later symbols.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Paik with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve OFDM techniques (Paik 0038). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Paik merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular pilot symbol features. Since both Paik and the cited prior art disclose similar OFDM systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3 and therefore is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 7, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravenscroft et al. (US 20210208237 hereinafter Ravenscroft) in view of Chen (US 20170086202) and further in view of Mazzaro et al. (US 20160282457 hereinafter Mazzaro) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Heinonen et al. (US PAT 6768714 hereinafter Heinonen).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teaches
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Heinonen teaches
wherein the ISAC signal comprises one or more guard bands between the one or more single-tone signals and the communication signal, and wherein the ISAC signal is carried on a plurality of sub-carriers, and one of the one or more single-tone signals is carried on one of the sub-carriers with the highest or lowest frequency band (5:22-27 “The amplitude and phase of pilot tones remain relatively constant over time, while the amplitude and phase of traffic tones vary over time. Adjacent pilot tones are separated by a frequency gap fg that is different from a frequency gap fint (i.e., a “guard band”) between adjacent frequency bands. For example, two adjacent pilot tones of lower adjacent frequency band 504 are separated by a frequency gap 510, and lower adjacent frequency band 504 and frequency band of interest 502 are separated by a frequency gap 512. As apparent, fg>fint.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Heinonen with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve signal quality (Heinonen 5:45-65). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Heinonen merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular signal features. Since both Heinonen and the cited prior art disclose similar OFDM systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 7 and therefore is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 9, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravenscroft et al. (US 20210208237 hereinafter Ravenscroft) in view of Chen (US 20170086202) and further in view of Mazzaro et al. (US 20160282457 hereinafter Mazzaro) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zou et al. (US 20230246668 hereinafter Zou).
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art teaches The wireless communication and sensing method of claim 1, .
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Zou teaches wherein the sensing signal is used as a reference signal of the communications signal (0092 “a specific radar reference signal (RRS) can be introduced into a mmWave communication system”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Zou with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve co-existence between radar and communication signals (Zou 0098). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Zou merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular reference signal features. Since both Zou and the cited prior art disclose similar radar/communication systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 21, the cited prior art teaches The wireless communication and sensing method of claim 13, further comprising: .
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Zou teaches using the sensing signal as a reference signal of a communication signal of the ISAC signal (0092 “a specific radar reference signal (RRS) can be introduced into a mmWave communication system”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Zou with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve co-existence between radar and communication signals (Zou 0098). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Zou merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular reference signal features. Since both Zou and the cited prior art disclose similar radar/communication systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
DUAN et al. (US 20220095319) discloses “Methods of reducing the interferences of radar signals with uplink or downlink data communication signals in a wireless system for both data communication and radar sensing may include configuring the transmitters of the radar signals and the data communication signals such that the data communication signals and the radar signals are transmitted using different radio frequency resources, and/or configuring the receivers of the data communication signals to receive the data communication signals using a receive beam that does not collide with radar beams. The methods may also include using a reference signal for both downlink data communication and radar sensing and/or determining a Quasi-Colocation (QCL) configuration for downlink data reception based on information regarding a radar beam. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights