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 filed 07/16/2026 with respect to the RF sensing signal have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The meaning of a “sensing signal” is interpreted to include a set of reference signals as the functionality and scope of “sensing” is broad in the independent claims 1, 11, 25.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 10, argument with respect to interleaving of antenna ports, and configured based on the capabilities of the MIMO antenna, filed 07/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 11, 25 under Manolakos have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Suh.
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 1, 2, 6-10, 11-13, 15, 17, 18, 19-21, 24-27, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos et al. (US 20200028550 A1), hereinafter Manolakos in view of Suh et al. (US 20220263547 A1), hereinafter Suh.
Regarding claim 6, Manolakos teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining of the configuration data comprises:
determining an allocation of resource elements, resource blocks, or a combination thereof to the plurality of antenna ports; (paragraph 0092 – Multiple sets of RF signal resources are obtained by the receiver. The resource elements containing the RF signals may be grouped by having the same antenna ports of MIMO precoders.)
sending an indication of the determined allocation to the network entity; and ; (paragraph 0093 - the receiver receives OFDM symbols and MIMO precoder. The receiver determines whether the same antenna port/MIMO precoder is used based on a time coherency parameter).
receiving a confirmation for the determined allocation from the network entity. (paragraph 0094 – The transmitter can use reference MIMO precoder when sending future data).
Regarding claim 11, Manolakos teaches,
A base station, comprising:
a transmitter, the transmitter comprising a multiple input, multiple output (MIMO) antenna; (Figure 3, label 352, paragraph 0053, 0054 - MIMO antenna).
memory; (Figure 3, label 360, paragraph 0051 - Memory
and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory and the transmitter, and configured to:
transmit the RF sensing signal in [accordance with the configuration data]. (Figure 8, label 806, paragraph 0106 – The node transmits the set of reference signals).
Manolakos fails to teach,
determine one or more capabilities associated with the MIMO antenna of the transmitter;
send, to a network entity of a network, information relating to the one or more capabilities associated with the MIMO antenna;
obtain configuration data relating to an allocation of frequency resources for an RF sensing signal, the frequency resources interleaved with respect to a plurality of antenna ports associated with the MIMO antenna, the obtained data configured based on the one or more capabilities associated with the MIMO antenna; and
[in accordance with the configuration data].
However, Suh teaches,
determine one or more capabilities associated with the MIMO antenna of the transmitter; (Figure 2, labels 256, 257, paragraph 0053 – The base station sends to a network entity (access point) capability information for the station. Paragraph 0055 – The capability information includes information regarding MIMO detection algorithms and the complexity to be handled by the station).
send, to a network entity of a network, information relating to the one or more capabilities associated with the MIMO antenna; (Figure 2, labels 256, 257, paragraph 0053 – The base station sends to a network entity (access point) capability information for the station. Paragraph 0055 – The capability information includes information regarding MIMO detection algorithms and the complexity to be handled by the station).
obtain configuration data relating to an allocation of frequency resources for an RF sensing signal, (paragraph 0043-0047 – The base station receives from the network entity (access point) channel state information regarding the signals to be transmitted).
the frequency resources interleaved with respect to a plurality of antenna ports associated with the MIMO antenna, (paragraph 0049 – The spatial streams are superimposed on each other with different antennas).
the frequency resources configured according to an orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) communication scheme, (paragraph 0059 – The use of an OFDM modulation scheme for capability information).
the obtained data configured based on the one or more capabilities associated with the MIMO antenna; and (Paragraph 0056 – The network entity (access point) submits an association request based on the capabilities of the MIMO antenna, “In this case, AP 102 may determine that the capability of STA 104 meets a minimum requirement for effective communication between AP 102 and a STA, and further generate an association response to STA 104 to facilitate an association process with STA 104. The association response includes, for example, an association ID for STA 104.”)
in accordance with the configuration data. (paragraph 0043-0047 – The base station receives from the network entity (access point) channel state information regarding the signals to be transmitted).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Manolakos to incorporate the configuration data and the other covered aspects of claim 11 teachings of Suh. The purpose of doing so is to improve performance and optimize communication using capability information of the MIMO (paragraphs 0009-0011, Suh).
Regarding claim 12, Manolakos teaches,
The base station of claim 11, wherein:
the obtaining of the configuration data comprises obtaining the configuration data from the network entity; and (paragraph 0092 – Multiple sets of RF signal resources are obtained by the receiver. The resource elements containing the RF signals may be grouped by having the same antenna ports of MIMO precoders.)
the configuration data comprises an allocation of resource elements or resource blocks to the plurality of antenna ports, within at least a frequency domain of the OFDM communication scheme. (paragraph 0093 – Each RF signal resources contains an indication of whether the antenna port is the same across the OFDM symbols within a time coherency parameter. Paragraph 0094 – The reception of multiple reference signal resources having the same OFDM but in disjoint subbands.)
Regarding claim 13, Manolakos teaches,
The base station of claim 12, wherein the configuration data comprises an indication of an equidistant allocation of the resource elements or the resource blocks to the plurality of antenna ports. (paragraph 0066 – The available bandwidth to be used for grouping can be divided into subcarriers that are of equal spacing.)
Regarding claim 15, Manolakos teaches,
The base station of claim 12, wherein the configuration data comprises an indication of a non-equidistant allocation of the resource elements or the resource blocks to the plurality of antenna ports. (paragraph 0101, 0102 – The transmission of the first and second MIMO precoders may vary over time based on a configured precoder granularity.)
Regarding claim 17, Manolakos fails to teach,
The base station of claim 11, wherein:
the RF sensing signal comprises a radar reference signal, the radar reference signals configured to facilitate positioning of an object; and (paragraph 0094 – Multiple positioning reference RF signal resource can be transmitted. Paragraph 0094 –The transmitter determines the TDOA which can be used to calculate distance to the receiver from the transmitter).
the one or more processors are further configured to perform positioning of a target object based at least on the transmitted RF sensing signal. (Paragraph 0094 –The transmitter determines the TDOA which can be used to calculate distance to the receiver from the transmitter).
Regarding claim 18, Manolakos teaches,
The base station of claim 11, wherein the network entity comprises:
a location server of the network; or (Figure 2A, label 230 – The use of a locations server in the network.)
a base station comprising the transmitter of the network. (“In an aspect, a reference RF signal may be transmitted with a different MIMO precoder in each frequency subband or in each time interval to enable the transmitter (e.g., a base station) to adjust the measured CER at the receiver (e.g., a UE) in an attempt to make the detection of the earliest path of the channel easier and more robust.” - paragraph 0082)
Claim 1 is a method of claim 11 and is thus rejected.
Claim 2 is a method of claim 12 and is thus rejected.
Claim 7 is a method of claim 16 and is thus rejected.
Claim 8 is a partial method of claim 17 and is thus rejected.
Claim 9 is a partial method of claim 17 and is thus rejected.
Claim 10 is a method of claim 18 and is thus rejected.
Claim 19 is a method of claim 25 and is thus rejected.
Claim 20 is a method of claim 26 and is thus rejected.
Claim 21 is a method of claim 27 and is thus rejected.
Claim 24 is a method of claim 30 and is thus rejected.
Claim 25 is rejected under claim 11.
Claim 26 is rejected under claim 16.
Claim 27 is rejected under claim 12.
Claim 30 is rejected under claim 17.
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 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Manolakos-Suh in view of Kuo (US 20140362939 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Manolakos-Suh fails to teach,
The base station of claim 11, wherein the one or more capabilities comprise one or more of a number of the antenna ports associated with the transmitter, or a phase coherence across the antenna ports.
Kuo teaches,
The base station of claim 11, wherein the one or more capabilities comprise one or more of a number of the antenna ports associated with the transmitter, or a phase coherence across the antenna ports. (paragraph 0031 – The precoding information transmitted by the base station includes the number of antenna ports N that can be used in further calculations).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Manolakos-Suh to incorporate the transmitting of number of antenna port teachings of Kuo. The purpose of doing so is to perform a quality indicator calculating using the number of antenna ports N and the number of UE groups that the transmitter wants to jointly connect to (paragraph 0012).
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos-Suh in view of Shim (US 10841052 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Manolakos teaches,
prior to the obtaining the configuration data relating to the frequency resources for the RF sensing signal… the prescribed allocation comprising the equidistant allocation. (Paragraph 0093 – The RF signal comes with a configured precoder granularity that is determined before the LOS path is calculated or the TDOA estimate is made. paragraph 0066 – The available bandwidth to be used for grouping can be divided into subcarriers that are of equal spacing).
Manolakos-Suh fails to teach,
The base station of claim 13, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, [prior to the obtaining the configuration data relating to the frequency resources for the RF sensing signal], send a request to the network entity for a prescribed allocation of the resource elements or the resource blocks to the plurality of antenna ports, [the prescribed allocation comprising the equidistant allocation].
Shim teaches,
The base station of claim 13, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, [prior to the obtaining the configuration data relating to the frequency resources for the RF sensing signal,] send a request to the network entity for a prescribed allocation of the resource elements or the resource blocks to the plurality of antenna ports, the prescribed allocation [comprising the equidistant allocation]. (Column 2, lines 23-36 – The base station transmits a request for sub-carrier spacing groups and allocating resources by sub-bands of the group. Col. 6, lines 3-14 – The resources are indexed and subdivided into groupings based on their frequencies).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Manolakos-Suh to incorporate the allocation of resource blocks teachings of Shim. The purpose of doing so is to improve transmissions in large MIMO systems (col. 1, lines 29-44).
Claims 3, 5, 22, 23, 28, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos-Suh in view of Larsson et al. (US 20140141792 A1) hereinafter Larsson.
Regarding claim 3, Manolakos teaches,
The method of claim 2, wherein the configuration data comprises an indication of an equidistant allocation of the resource elements or the resource blocks to the plurality of antenna ports, [such that the resource elements or the resource blocks do not overlap within a combined frequency spectrum associated with the plurality of antenna ports]. (paragraph 0066 – The available bandwidth to be used for grouping can be divided into subcarriers that are of equal spacing.)
Manolakos-Suh fails to teach,
[such that the resource elements or the resource blocks do not overlap within a combined frequency spectrum associated with the plurality of antenna ports].
Larsson teaches,
[such that the resource elements or the resource blocks do not overlap within a combined frequency spectrum associated with the plurality of antenna ports]. (Paragraph 0049, figure 5b – allocated resources do no overlap with each other with a plurality of antenna ports used.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Manolakos-Suh to incorporate the non-overlapping of resource elements teachings of Larsson. The purpose of doing so is to reduce interference (paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 5, Manolakos teaches,
The method of claim 2, wherein the configuration data comprises an indication of a non-equidistant allocation of the resource elements or the resource blocks to the plurality of antenna ports, [such that the resource elements or the resource blocks do not overlap within a combined frequency spectrum associated with the plurality of antenna ports]. (paragraph 0101, 0102 – The transmission of the first and second MIMO precoders may vary over time based on a configured precoder granularity.)
Manolakos-Suh fails to teach,
[such that the resource elements or the resource blocks do not overlap within a combined frequency spectrum associated with the plurality of antenna ports].
Larsson teaches,
[such that the resource elements or the resource blocks do not overlap within a combined frequency spectrum associated with the plurality of antenna ports]. (Paragraph 0049, figure 5b – allocated resources do no overlap with each other with a plurality of antenna ports used.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Manolakos-Suh to incorporate the non-overlapping of resource elements teachings of Larsson. The purpose of doing so is to reduce interference (paragraph 0051).
Claim 28 is rejected under claim 3.
Claim 29 is rejected under claim 5.
Claim 22 is a method of claim 28 and is thus rejected.
Claim 23 is a method of claim 29 and is thus rejected.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos-Suh in view of Larsson and further in view of Shim.
Regarding claim 4, Manolakos teaches,
The method of claim 3, further comprising, prior to the obtaining the configuration data relating to the frequency resources for the RF sensing signal, [sending a request to the network entity for a prescribed allocation of the resource elements or the resource blocks to the plurality of antenna ports, such that the resource elements or the resource blocks do not overlap within a combined frequency spectrum associated with the plurality of antenna ports]. (Manolakos, Paragraph 0093 – The RF signal comes with a configured precoder granularity that is determined before the LOS path is calculated or the TDOA estimate is made. paragraph 0066 – The available bandwidth to be used for grouping can be divided into subcarriers that are of equal spacing).
Manolakos-Suh fails to teach,
[sending a request to the network entity for a prescribed allocation of the resource elements or the resource blocks to the plurality of antenna ports, such that the resource elements or the resource blocks do not overlap within a combined frequency spectrum associated with the plurality of antenna ports].
Larsson teaches,
[such that the resource elements or the resource blocks do not overlap within a combined frequency spectrum associated with the plurality of antenna ports]. (Larsson Paragraph 0049, figure 5b – allocated resources do no overlap with each other with a plurality of antenna ports used.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Manolakos-Suh to incorporate the non-overlapping of resource elements teachings of Larsson. The purpose of doing so is to reduce interference (Larsson paragraph 0051).
Larson fails to teach,
[sending a request to the network entity for a prescribed allocation of the resource elements or the resource blocks to the plurality of antenna ports]
Shim teaches,
[sending a request to the network entity for a prescribed allocation of the resource elements or the resource blocks to the plurality of antenna ports] (Shim Column 2, lines 23-36 – The base station transmits a request for sub-carrier spacing groups and allocating resources by sub-bands of the group. Col. 6, lines 3-14 – The resources are indexed and subdivided into groupings based on their frequencies).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Larson and Manolakos-Suh to incorporate the allocation of resource blocks teachings of Shim. The purpose of doing so is to improve transmissions in large MIMO systems (Shim col. 1, lines 29-44).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Crigler whose telephone number is (571)272-9376. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Nicholas A. Jensen can be reached at (571) 270-5443. 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.
/RYAN CRIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/NICHOLAS A JENSEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights