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 amendments and remarks filed June 16, 2026 have been fully considered.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 have not been fully overcome. See rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for detailed analysis.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Han have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to Applicant’s arguments (Remarks pg. 14-15) that Han does not teach the amended limitations of claims 9/26, Examiner respectfully disagrees. To address the added limitations, the new ground of rejection relies upon Han’s second radar capability information to teach measurement reports from UEs. Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “measurement report” in light of the specification includes a radar specification, see, e.g., instant application specification [0012]. Han’s first frame is then determined based on the received second radar capability information. See rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for detailed mapping and analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, the phrases “the determining comprises implementing the passive interference…” and “implementing the active interference management procedure…” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the determinations or implementations occur based on the recited limitations. Examiner’s best interpretation is that the determination to implement the passive or active interference management occurs based on one of the recited limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being upatentable over US 20220066018 A1 to Han in view of US 20230176207 A1 to Kimionis.
Regarding claim 1,
US 20220066018 A1 to Han teaches:
A method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), (Fig. 4 – STA 1; [0081] – “The STA has different names, for example… user equipment”) comprising:
receiving, from a first node, signaling (Figs. 3-4; [0101] – “The AP sends the first frame to the M STAs”) that indicates a measurement report configuration, ([0089-93] – “The first frame is used to configure radar measurement information for M STAs”) the measurement report configuration indicating a first time period during which the UE is to transmit a first radar signal ([0089-95] – “radar measurement start time point is used to indicate a time point at which a STA starts to perform radar measurement.”) and a second time period during which the UE is to measure one or more radar signals received ([0089-95] – “The measurement periodicity is used to indicate a time interval for a STA to receive and/or send a radar signal, or a time interval between two radar measurement processes of the STA. (3) The radar measurement duration is used to indicate duration for which a radar measurement process of a STA lasts.”) (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference)
transmitting the first radar signal ([0112-114] – “in a process in which the target STA performs radar measurement, the target STA may serve as a monostatic radar, to emit a radar wave and receive a corresponding echo.”) during the first time period based at least in part on the measurement report configuration; ([0110] – “the target STA performs radar measurement based on the radar measurement information in the first frame.”)
measuring the one or more radar signals received ([0112-114] – “in a process in which the target STA performs radar measurement, the target STA may serve as a monostatic radar, to emit a radar wave and receive a corresponding echo.”)during the second time period based at least in part on the measurement report configuration; ([0110] – “the target STA performs radar measurement based on the radar measurement information in the first frame.”) and
transmitting a measurement report to the first node that includes measurement information for the one or more radar signals received ([0195] – “If radar measurement information configured in the first frame for a STA includes a data feedback information indication and/or a radar data feedback type, after the STA performs radar measurement, the STA sends radar measurement data to the AP based on the data feedback information indication and/or the radar data feedback type in the radar measurement information.”)
Han does not appear to explicitly teach the lined-through portions of the claim above.
However, US 20230176207 A1 to Kimionis teaches:
A method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), ([0072] – “bistatic or multistatic backscatter system in which localization estimation of the tag may be performed by dynamically switching the role of the transmitter and receiver of each AP between different APs in the set of APs over time.”) comprising:
transmitting the first radar signal during the first time period ([0072] – “For example, for each time interval, an AP in the set of APs is configured in a transmitting mode and the other APs in the set of APs are configured in a receiving mode,) based at least in part on the measurement report configuration; ([0084-86] – “the localization coordination scheme configured the APs in the set of APs 102a-102m to dynamically switch between the role of the transmitter (Tx) and receiver (Rx) of an AP for different APs in the set of APs 102a-102m over time or over different time intervals… one of the APs 102a of the set of APs 102a-102m acts as the master AP and sends out synchronization signals in a different RF or wired channel (control channel) to the other APs 102b-102c in the set of APs 102a-102m that the other APs 102b-102m listen to.”)
measuring the one or more radar signals received from the one or more other UEs during the second time period ([0072] – “in subsequent time intervals the AP changes to a receiving mode and another AP in the set of APs changes to a transmitting mode.”) based at least in part on the measurement report configuration; ([0084-86] – “the localization coordination scheme configured the APs in the set of APs 102a-102m to dynamically switch between the role of the transmitter (Tx) and receiver (Rx) of an AP for different APs in the set of APs 102a-102m over time or over different time intervals… one of the APs 102a of the set of APs 102a-102m acts as the master AP and sends out synchronization signals in a different RF or wired channel (control channel) to the other APs 102b-102c in the set of APs 102a-102m that the other APs 102b-102m listen to.”)
transmitting a measurement report to the first node that includes measurement information for the one or more radar signals received from the one or more other UEs. ([0098] – “216 may comprise using all of the received distance information from the corresponding APs of the set of APs 102a-102m that is received in the plurality of time intervals”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Kimionis’s known technique to Han’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Han teaches a base technique of request, capability, and sensing parameter communications between AP and STAs for purposes of object detection with reduced interference; (2) Kimionis teaches a specific technique of switching the roles of individual APs between transmitter and receiver; (3) Han teaches at [0112] that the target STA may serve as a monostatic radar, transmitter of a bistatic/multistatic radar, or a receiver of a multistatic radar. Han further teaches at [0285-287] that a STA may support a monostatic radar, a bistatic radar, and a multistatic radar. Han further teaches at [0290] that a STA may be supported to be a transmitter of a bistatic radar/multistatic radar, and the STA may be supported to be a receiver of a bistatic radar/multistatic radar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a more efficient system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2,
Han in view of Kimonis teaches:
The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
further comprising:
receiving, from the first node, ([0103] – “S102. The AP sends the first frame to the M STAs, so that the M STAs receive the first frame sent by the AP.”) radar transmit parameters for radar operation at the UE; ([0089-93] – “The first frame is used to configure radar measurement information for M STAs”) and
activating a radar at the UE based at least in part on the radar transmit parameters to detect one or more targets in proximity of the UE. ([0110] – “the target STA performs radar measurement based on the radar measurement information in the first frame.”)
Regarding claim 3,
Han in view of Kimonis teaches:
The method of claim 2, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
wherein the radar transmit parameters provide for interference mitigation in multi-radar cooperative receive processing. ([0101] – “It may be understood that, because the first frame is used to configure radar measurement information for the M STAs, any STA in the M STAs may determine, based on radar measurement information of another STA, related information (for example, a transmitting time point and a signal frequency band) about radar measurement performed by the another STA. This helps implement space, time, and phase synchronization between the M STAs, to coordinate the M STAs to jointly perform radar measurement, and reduce mutual interference between radar measurement processes of a plurality of STAs.”)
Regarding claim 6,
Han in view of Kimonis teaches:
The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
wherein the measurement report configuration indicates one or more parameters that are to be measured at the UE, an accuracy of measurements of the one or more parameters, a data format for the measurement report, ([0195] – “the STA sends radar measurement data to the AP based on the data feedback information indication and/or the radar data feedback type in the radar measurement information.”) transmit parameter specifications and space-time-frequency resources to be used for the measuring the one or more radar signals received ([0092-97] – “The first frame includes the radar measurement information… includes at least… radar measurement resource allocation information… The radar measurement resource allocation information is used to indicate a time domain resource, a frequency domain resource, and a space domain resource used when a STA performs radar measurement.”
Kimonis further teaches:
wherein the measurement report configuration indicates one or more parameters that are to be measured at the UE, an accuracy of measurements of the one or more parameters, a data format for the measurement report, transmit parameter specifications and space-time-frequency resources to be used for the measuring the one or more radar signals received from the one or more other UEs during the second time period, or any combinations thereof. ([0084-86] – “the localization coordination scheme configured the APs in the set of APs 102a-102m to dynamically switch between the role of the transmitter (Tx) and receiver (Rx) of an AP for different APs in the set of APs 102a-102m over time or over different time intervals… one of the APs 102a of the set of APs 102a-102m acts as the master AP and sends out synchronization signals in a different RF or wired channel (control channel) to the other APs 102b-102c in the set of APs 102a-102m that the other APs 102b-102m listen to.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Kimionis’s known technique to Han’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Han teaches a base technique of request, capability, and sensing parameter communications between AP and STAs for purposes of object detection with reduced interference; (2) Kimionis teaches a specific technique of switching the roles of individual APs between transmitter and receiver; (3) Han teaches at [0112] that the target STA may serve as a monostatic radar, transmitter of a bistatic/multistatic radar, or a receiver of a multistatic radar. Han further teaches at [0285-287] that a STA may support a monostatic radar, a bistatic radar, and a multistatic radar. Han further teaches at [0290] that a STA may be supported to be a transmitter of a bistatic radar/multistatic radar, and the STA may be supported to be a receiver of a bistatic radar/multistatic radar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a more efficient system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 7,
Han in view of Kimonis teaches:
The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
wherein the measurement report ([0195] – “the STA sends radar measurement data to the AP based on the data feedback information indication and/or the radar data feedback type in the radar measurement information.”) includes one or more of a unique identification of the UE, ([0108] – “the sequence ID is used to identify a radar measurement process performed by the target STA. In this way, in a subsequent procedure (for example, feeding back radar measurement data), information (for example, the sixth frame below) sent by the target STA may carry the sequence ID, to differ from a radar measurement process performed by another STA.”) a location, a UE mobility, a future behavior or path intent of the UE, a radar specification, a received interference-to-noise ratio, one or more detected scatters in a radar heatmap, a relative interfering radar parameter estimation, or any combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 8,
Han in view of Kimonis teaches:
The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
further comprising:
receiving, from the first node, radar transmit parameters that indicate a transmit precoder or beamforming parameters to use in radar transmissions, a frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar configuration and delay pattern, one or cooperative sensing parameters, ([0092-97] – “The first frame includes the radar measurement information. In an embodiment, the radar measurement information includes at least one of the following parameters: a radar measurement start time point, a measurement periodicity, radar measurement duration, a measurement frequency band, radar measurement resource allocation information, a data feedback information indication, and a radar data feedback type.” Examiner notes that any of these parameters may correspond to cooperative sensing parameters. [0101] – “This helps implement space, time, and phase synchronization between the M STAs, to coordinate the M STAs to jointly perform radar measurement, and reduce mutual interference between radar measurement processes of a plurality of STAs.”) or any combinations thereof; and
transmitting one or more radar signals from the UE based at least in part on the radar transmit parameters. ([0110] – “the target STA performs radar measurement based on the radar measurement information in the first frame.”)
Regarding claim 23,
Han teaches:
An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), (Fig. 4 – STA 1; [0081] – “The STA has different names, for example… user equipment”) comprising:
a processor; ([0038] – “The chip includes a processing circuit… The processing circuit is configured to perform the radar measurement method according to any possible design in the first aspect or the second aspect.”)
memory coupled with the processor; ([0038] – “The chip includes a processing circuit and a transceiver pin. In an embodiment, the chip further includes a memory.”) and
instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor ([0038] – “memory is configured to store instructions.”) to cause the apparatus to:
receive, from a first node, signaling (Figs. 3-4; [0101] – “The AP sends the first frame to the M STAs”) that indicates a measurement report configuration, ([0089-93] – “The first frame is used to configure radar measurement information for M STAs”) the measurement report configuration indicating a first time period during which the UE is to transmit a first radar signal ([0089-95] – “radar measurement information includes… radar measurement start time point is used to indicate a time point at which a STA starts to perform radar measurement.”) and a second time period during which the UE is to measure one or more radar signals ([0089-95] – “radar measurement information includes… The measurement periodicity is used to indicate a time interval for a STA to receive and/or send a radar signal, or a time interval between two radar measurement processes of the STA. (3) The radar measurement duration is used to indicate duration for which a radar measurement process of a STA lasts.”)
transmit the first radar signal ([0112-114] – “in a process in which the target STA performs radar measurement, the target STA may serve as a monostatic radar, to emit a radar wave and receive a corresponding echo.”) during the first time period based at least in part on the measurement report configuration; ([0110] – “the target STA performs radar measurement based on the radar measurement information in the first frame.”)
measure the one or more radar signals ([0112-114] – “in a process in which the target STA performs radar measurement, the target STA may serve as a monostatic radar, to emit a radar wave and receive a corresponding echo.”) ([0110] – “the target STA performs radar measurement based on the radar measurement information in the first frame.”) and
transmit a measurement report to the first node that includes measurement information for the one or more radar signals ([0195] – “If radar measurement information configured in the first frame for a STA includes a data feedback information indication and/or a radar data feedback type, after the STA performs radar measurement, the STA sends radar measurement data to the AP based on the data feedback information indication and/or the radar data feedback type in the radar measurement information.”)
Han does not appear to explicitly teach the lined-through portions of the claim above.
However, US 20230176207 A1 to Kimionis teaches:
An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), ([0072] – “bistatic or multistatic backscatter system in which localization estimation of the tag may be performed by dynamically switching the role of the transmitter and receiver of each AP between different APs in the set of APs over time.”) comprising:
transmitting the first radar signal during the first time period ([0072] – “For example, for each time interval, an AP in the set of APs is configured in a transmitting mode and the other APs in the set of APs are configured in a receiving mode,) based at least in part on the measurement report configuration; ([0084-86] – “the localization coordination scheme configured the APs in the set of APs 102a-102m to dynamically switch between the role of the transmitter (Tx) and receiver (Rx) of an AP for different APs in the set of APs 102a-102m over time or over different time intervals… one of the APs 102a of the set of APs 102a-102m acts as the master AP and sends out synchronization signals in a different RF or wired channel (control channel) to the other APs 102b-102c in the set of APs 102a-102m that the other APs 102b-102m listen to.”)
measuring the one or more radar signals received from the one or more other UEs during the second time period ([0072] – “in subsequent time intervals the AP changes to a receiving mode and another AP in the set of APs changes to a transmitting mode.”) based at least in part on the measurement report configuration; ([0084-86] – “the localization coordination scheme configured the APs in the set of APs 102a-102m to dynamically switch between the role of the transmitter (Tx) and receiver (Rx) of an AP for different APs in the set of APs 102a-102m over time or over different time intervals… one of the APs 102a of the set of APs 102a-102m acts as the master AP and sends out synchronization signals in a different RF or wired channel (control channel) to the other APs 102b-102c in the set of APs 102a-102m that the other APs 102b-102m listen to.”)
transmitting a measurement report to the first node that includes measurement information for the one or more radar signals received from the one or more other UEs. ([0098] – “216 may comprise using all of the received distance information from the corresponding APs of the set of APs 102a-102m that is received in the plurality of time intervals”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Kimionis’s known technique to Han’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Han teaches a base technique of request, capability, and sensing parameter communications between AP and STAs for purposes of object detection with reduced interference; (2) Kimionis teaches a specific technique of switching the roles of individual APs between transmitter and receiver; (3) Han teaches at [0112] that the target STA may serve as a monostatic radar, transmitter of a bistatic/multistatic radar, or a receiver of a multistatic radar. Han further teaches at [0285-287] that a STA may support a monostatic radar, a bistatic radar, and a multistatic radar. Han further teaches at [0290] that a STA may be supported to be a transmitter of a bistatic radar/multistatic radar, and the STA may be supported to be a receiver of a bistatic radar/multistatic radar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a more efficient system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 24,
Han teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Han further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 23, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
receive, from the first node, ([0103] – “S102. The AP sends the first frame to the M STAs, so that the M STAs receive the first frame sent by the AP.”) radar transmit parameters for radar operation at the UE; ([0089-93] – “The first frame is used to configure radar measurement information for M STAs”) and
activate a radar at the UE based at least in part on the radar transmit parameters to detect one or more targets in proximity of the UE. ([0110] – “the target STA performs radar measurement based on the radar measurement information in the first frame.”)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220066018 A1 to Han in view of US 20210270951 A1 to Yoshizawa.
Regarding claim 4,
Han teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Han further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting, to the first node, ([0195] – “the STA sends radar measurement data to the AP based on the data feedback information indication and/or the radar data feedback type in the radar measurement information.”) an indication of a unique identification of the UE, ([0108] – “the sequence ID is used to identify a radar measurement process performed by the target STA. In this way, in a subsequent procedure (for example, feeding back radar measurement data), information (for example, the sixth frame below) sent by the target STA may carry the sequence ID, to differ from a radar measurement process performed by another STA.”)
US 20210270951 A1 to Yoshizawa teaches:
transmitting, to the first node, and one or more of a location, ([0169] – “each radar device (for example, each vehicle) may provide, to the central control system, information of the radar device itself and information of the surroundings of the radar device, such as location information of the radar device itself, an ability related to object detection, information of a detected target, and the like.”) mobility, predicted path, transmit specifications, or performance requirements of the UE.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Yoshizawa’s known technique to Han’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Han teaches a base technique of communications between AP and STAs for purposes of object detection with reduced interference ([0101] – “It may be understood that, because the first frame is used to configure radar measurement information for the M STAs, any STA in the M STAs may determine, based on radar measurement information of another STA, related information (for example, a transmitting time point and a signal frequency band) about radar measurement performed by the another STA. This helps implement space, time, and phase synchronization between the M STAs, to coordinate the M STAs to jointly perform radar measurement, and reduce mutual interference between radar measurement processes of a plurality of STAs.” [0192] – “ the AP requires the STA to report radar measurement data, so that the AP analyzes information such as a location and a velocity of a measured object based on the radar measurement data reported by the STA.”); (2) Yoshizawa teaches a specific technique of a radar including information about itself in transmission to a central control system for purposes of object detection and interference reduction ([0169] – “With such a configuration, the central control system can perform various controls so that a more efficient operation of the entire system (for example, reduction of interference and improvement of resource utilization efficiency, or the like) can be realized in consideration of the situation of each radar device.”) ; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in more accurate object detection and reduced interference; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 5, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220066018 A1 to Han in view of US 20230086144 A1 to Roy.
Regarding claim 5,
Han teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Han further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting, to the first node, a request to be included in an active interference management procedure, ([0017] – “the STA may actively request the AP to coordinate a plurality of STAs to jointly perform radar measurement in a subsequent radar measurement procedure”)
Roy teaches:
an indication of a type of interference information that is requested from the first node. (Fig. 2; [0259-261] – “The WTRU may send to a gNB a resource request requesting resource allocation based on a set of N sensing configurations corresponding to N different resolution levels (204). The WTRU may receive a configuration response from the gNB (206). The configuration response may include a set of K sensing configurations corresponding to K resolution levels (where, for example, K<= N).” [0135] – “The resource request may indicate and/or include a basis for the requested configuration”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Roy’s known technique to Han’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Han teaches a base technique of request, capability, and sensing parameter communications between AP and STAs for purposes of object detection with reduced interference (see Figs. 23, 26); (2) Roy teaches a specific technique of transmitting a resource request prior to receiving transmission allocation / configuration info to improve joint communication and sensing; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in more efficient joint communication and sensing; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 25,
Han teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Han further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 23, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
transmit, to the first node, a request to be included in an active interference management procedure, ([0017] – “the STA may actively request the AP to coordinate a plurality of STAs to jointly perform radar measurement in a subsequent radar measurement procedure”)
Roy teaches:
an indication of a type of interference information that is requested from the first node. (Fig. 2; [0259-261] – “The WTRU may send to a gNB a resource request requesting resource allocation based on a set of N sensing configurations corresponding to N different resolution levels (204). The WTRU may receive a configuration response from the gNB (206). The configuration response may include a set of K sensing configurations corresponding to K resolution levels (where, for example, K<= N).” [0135] – “The resource request may indicate and/or include a basis for the requested configuration”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Roy’s known technique to Han’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Han teaches a base technique of request, capability, and sensing parameter communications between AP and STAs for purposes of object detection with reduced interference (see Figs. 23, 26); (2) Roy teaches a specific technique of transmitting a resource request prior to receiving transmission allocation / configuration info to improve joint communication and sensing; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in more efficient joint communication and sensing; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 9-11, 14-16, 18-20, 22, 26-28, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220066018 A1 to Han in view of US 20230054822 A1 to Beer.
Regarding claim 9,
US 20220066018 A1 to Han teaches:
A method for wireless communication at a first node, (Fig. 4 – AP) comprising:
determining a measurement configuration (Figs. 3, 4; [0089] – “S101. An AP generates a first frame.”) for user equipment (UE) measurements for active interference management of a plurality of radars associated with a plurality of UEs; (Figs. 3, 4; [0089] – “The first frame is used to configure radar measurement information for M STAs. M is a positive integer.”)
transmitting, to a first UE, ([0103] – “S102. The AP sends the first frame to the M STAs, so that the M STAs receive the first frame sent by the AP.”) signaling that indicates the measurement configuration that indicates a first time period during which the first UE is to transmit a first radar signal and a second time period during which the first UE is to measure received radar signals; (Figs. 3, 4, 6; [0092] – “The first frame includes the radar measurement information… includes at least one of the following parameters: a radar measurement start time point, a measurement periodicity, radar measurement duration… two radar measurement processes of the STA” [0125] – “It should be noted that, when the M STAs perform radar measurement, each STA in the M STAs may serve as a monostatic radar. Alternatively, a portion of the M STAs may serve as transmitters of a bistatic radar/multistatic radar, and another portion of the STAs may serve as receivers of the bistatic radar/multistatic radar.)
transmitting, to a second UE, signaling that indicates the measurement configuration, the measurement configuration indicating that the second UE is to transmit a second radar signal in (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) time period and measure received radar signals during ) (Fig. 6; [0125] – “It should be noted that, when the M STAs perform radar measurement, each STA in the M STAs may serve as a monostatic radar. Alternatively, a portion of the M STAs may serve as transmitters of a bistatic radar/multistatic radar, and another portion of the STAs may serve as receivers of the bistatic radar/multistatic radar.” [0092] – “The first frame includes the radar measurement information… includes at least one of the following parameters: a radar measurement start time point, a measurement periodicity, radar measurement duration… two radar measurement processes of the STA” [0153] – “first frame may include a second identifier… to indicate whether a STA corresponding to the user information field in a radar measurement process serves as a transmitter or a receiver of a bistatic radar/multistatic radar.” Examiner notes that transmitter/receiver role is indicated for individual radar measurement processes.)
receiving a first measurement report from the first UE ([0030-32] – “The STA sends second radar capability indication information to the AP… used to indicate whether the STA supports radar measurement… used to indicate a radar type supported by the STA, where the radar type includes: a monostatic radar, a bistatic radar, and a multistatic radar.” Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “measurement report” in light of the specification includes a radar specification, see, e.g., instant application specification [0012]) and a second measurement report from the second UE; ([0017] – “the STA may actively request the AP to coordinate a plurality of STAs to jointly perform radar measurement in a subsequent radar measurement procedure, to improve accuracy of radar measurement… ”) and
determining, based at least in part on the first measurement report and the second measurement report, ([0292-293] – “the AP learns of a radar capability of the STA, and is prevented from scheduling a STA that does not support radar measurement to perform radar measurement, and therefore proper execution of radar measurement is not affected… AP to coordinate a plurality of STAs to jointly perform radar measurement”) (Figs. 3, 4; [0089] – “S101. An AP generates a first frame.”) a first set of radar transmit parameters for the first UE ([0092-97] – “The first frame includes the radar measurement information… includes at least… radar measurement resource allocation information… The radar measurement resource allocation information is used to indicate a time domain resource, a frequency domain resource, and a space domain resource used when a STA performs radar measurement.”) and a second set of radar transmit parameters for the second UE. (Fig. 4 – first frame comprises radar measurement information for each of the M STAs; [0101])
Han does not appear to explicitly teach the lined-through portions of the claim.
However, US 20230054822 A1 to Beer teaches:
a first time period during which the first transceiver is to transmit a first radar signal and a second time period during which the first transceiver is to measure received radar signals ([0003, 12] – “In multistatic mode, each transceiver transmits in sequence and all the transceiver collects that return signal… the MMA system transmits a transmit signal via transceiver 1 and receives the return signals via transceivers 2-8. The MMA system then transmits a transmit signal via transceiver 2 and receives the return signals via transceivers 1 and 3-8”)
the second transceiver is to transmit a second radar signal in the second time period and measure received radar signals during the first time period; ([0003, 12] – “In multistatic mode, each transceiver transmits in sequence and all the transceiver collects that return signal… the MMA system transmits a transmit signal via transceiver 1 and receives the return signals via transceivers 2-8. The MMA system then transmits a transmit signal via transceiver 2 and receives the return signals via transceivers 1 and 3-8”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Beer’s known technique to Han’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Han teaches a base technique using multistatic STAs for purposes of object detection with reduced interference where each STA is aware of transmission configurations/parameters of other STAs, see, e.g., Han [0101]; (2) Beer teaches a specific sequence of transceiver transmission/reception switching in a multistatic mode; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in more accurate object detection; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 10,
Han in view of Beer teaches:
The method of claim 9, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
further comprising:
transmitting the first set of radar transmit parameters to the first UE and the second set of radar transmit parameters to the second UE, ([0103] – “S102. The AP sends the first frame to the M STAs, so that the M STAs receive the first frame sent by the AP.”) wherein the first set of radar transmit parameters and the second set of radar transmit parameters provide for interference mitigation in multi-radar cooperative receive processing. ([0101] – “It may be understood that, because the first frame is used to configure radar measurement information for the M STAs, any STA in the M STAs may determine, based on radar measurement information of another STA, related information (for example, a transmitting time point and a signal frequency band) about radar measurement performed by the another STA. This helps implement space, time, and phase synchronization between the M STAs, to coordinate the M STAs to jointly perform radar measurement, and reduce mutual interference between radar measurement processes of a plurality of STAs.”) ([0292-293] – “the AP learns of a radar capability of the STA, and is prevented from scheduling a STA that does not support radar measurement to perform radar measurement, and therefore proper execution of radar measurement is not affected… AP to coordinate a plurality of STAs to jointly perform radar measurement”)
Regarding claim 11,
Han in view of Beer teaches:
The method of claim 10, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
wherein each of the first set of radar transmit parameters and the second set of radar transmit parameters include one or more of a space-time-frequency resource allocation, ([0092-97] – “The first frame includes the radar measurement information… includes at least… radar measurement resource allocation information… The radar measurement resource allocation information is used to indicate a time domain resource, a frequency domain resource, and a space domain resource used when a STA performs radar measurement.”) a transmit precoder, a waveform parameter selection, cooperative sensing and receive processing parameters, ([0101] – “It may be understood that, because the first frame is used to configure radar measurement information for the M STAs, any STA in the M STAs may determine, based on radar measurement information of another STA, related information (for example, a transmitting time point and a signal frequency band) about radar measurement performed by the another STA. This helps implement space, time, and phase synchronization between the M STAs, to coordinate the M STAs to jointly perform radar measurement, and reduce mutual interference between radar measurement processes of a plurality of STAs.”) or any combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 14,
Han in view of Beer teaches:
The method of claim 9, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
further comprising:
determining, based at least in part on radar specifications and receive requirements of the plurality of radars associated with the plurality of UEs, ([0291] – “S802. The STA sends the second radar capability indication information to an AP, so that the AP receives the second radar capability indication information sent by the STA.”) whether to implement coordinated interference management to perform an active interference management procedure or a passive interference management procedure, ([0292] – “the STA sends the second radar capability indication information to the AP, so that the AP learns of a radar capability of the STA, and is prevented from scheduling a STA that does not support radar measurement to perform radar measurement” Examiner notes that scheduling a STA may correspond to active interference management. Not scheduling a STA may correspond to passive interference management. Examiner further notes that the determining to perform the active interference management procedure is listed in the alternative with determining to perform the active interference management procedure and only one is required by the claim.) and wherein the determining the measurement configuration is performed responsive to determining to implement the active interference management procedure. ([0292] – “the AP learns of a radar capability of the STA, and is prevented from scheduling a STA that does not support radar measurement to perform radar measurement, and therefore proper execution of radar measurement is not affected” AP scheduling of STAs is therefore in response to radar capability information) [0086] – “the AP needs to coordinate the plurality of STAs to perform radar measurement. In the embodiments of this application, a solution in which an AP coordinates a plurality of STAs to perform radar measurement may include at least one of the following solutions.” Examiner further notes that this step is contingent upon the condition precedent “determining to implement the active interference management procedure.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. MPEP 2111.04. As discussed above, determining to perform an active interference management procedure is listed in the alternative with determining to perform a passive interference management procedure and only one is required by the claim. Therefore, because the claimed invention may be practiced without the without the condition precedent occurring (i.e., determining to implement the passive interference management procedure), the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require the contingent step.)
Regarding claim 15,
Han in view of Beer teaches:
The method of claim 14, (see rejection of claim above)
wherein the passive interference management procedure provides time resources and radar transmit parameters for the plurality of UEs independent of measurement reports from the plurality of UEs. (In regard to claim 15, the limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Parent claim 14 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., determining to perform an active interference management procedure is listed in the alternative with determining to perform a passive interference management procedure. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitations to the other alternative(s) in dependent claims are not required limitations. See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, Han teaches determining to perform an active interference management as detailed in the rejection of claim 14. Claim 15 is based on another alternative/other alternatives, i.e., determining to perform an active interference management procedure. See also rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).)
Regarding claim 16,
Han in view of Beer teaches:
The method of claim 14, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
wherein the active interference management procedure includes a determination of a multi-radar configuration for active radar measurements within a cluster of UEs. (Fig. 4; [0292] – “the STA sends the second radar capability indication information to the AP, so that the AP learns of a radar capability of the STA, and is prevented from scheduling a STA that does not support radar measurement to perform radar measurement, and therefore proper execution of radar measurement is not affected.” [0086] – “the AP needs to coordinate the plurality of STAs to perform radar measurement. In the embodiments of this application, a solution in which an AP coordinates a plurality of STAs to perform radar measurement may include at least one of the following solutions.”)
Regarding claim 18,
Han in view of Beer teaches:
The method of claim 9, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
wherein the first measurement report and the second measurement report each include one or more of a unique identification of the associated UE, ([0108] – “the sequence ID is used to identify a radar measurement process performed by the target STA. In this way, in a subsequent procedure (for example, feeding back radar measurement data), information (for example, the sixth frame below) sent by the target STA may carry the sequence ID, to differ from a radar measurement process performed by another STA.”) a location, a UE mobility, a future behavior or path intent of the associated UE, a radar specification, a received interference-to-noise ratio, one or more detected scatters in a radar heatmap, a relative interfering radar parameter estimation, or any combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 19,
Han in view of Beer teaches:
The method of claim 9, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
wherein the measurement configuration indicates one or more measurement report parameters and an associated accuracy, a measurement report data format, one or more transmit parameters and space-time- frequency resources to be used while performing measurements, or any combinations thereof. ([0092-97] – “The first frame includes the radar measurement information. In an embodiment, the radar measurement information includes at least one of the following parameters: a radar measurement start time point, a measurement periodicity, radar measurement duration, a measurement frequency band, radar measurement resource allocation information, a data feedback information indication, and a radar data feedback type.”)
Regarding claim 20,
Han in view of Beer teaches:
The method of claim 9, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
wherein the first set of radar transmit parameters and the second set of radar transmit parameters each include an associated time period for use at a corresponding UE. ([0089-95] – “radar measurement start time point is used to indicate a time point at which a STA starts to perform radar measurement.”) ([0089-95] – “The measurement periodicity is used to indicate a time interval for a STA to receive and/or send a radar signal, or a time interval between two radar measurement processes of the STA. (3) The radar measurement duration is used to indicate duration for which a radar measurement process of a STA lasts.”)
Regarding claim 22,
Han in view of Beer teaches:
The method of claim 9, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
wherein the first set of radar transmit parameters and the second set of radar transmit parameters each indicate a transmit precoder or beamforming parameters to use in radar transmissions, a frequency- modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar configuration and delay pattern, one or cooperative sensing parameters, ([0092-97] – “The first frame includes the radar measurement information. In an embodiment, the radar measurement information includes at least one of the following parameters: a radar measurement start time point, a measurement periodicity, radar measurement duration, a measurement frequency band, radar measurement resource allocation information, a data feedback information indication, and a radar data feedback type.” Examiner notes that any of these parameters may correspond to cooperative sensing parameters. [0101] – “This helps implement space, time, and phase synchronization between the M STAs, to coordinate the M STAs to jointly perform radar measurement, and reduce mutual interference between radar measurement processes of a plurality of STAs.”) or any combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 26,
Han teaches:
An apparatus for wireless communication at a first node, (Fig. 4 – AP) comprising:
a processor; ([0039] – “The AP is configured to perform the radar measurement method according to any design in the first aspect.”) ([0038] – “The chip includes a processing circuit… The processing circuit is configured to perform the radar measurement method according to any possible design in the first aspect or the second aspect.”)
memory coupled with the processor; ([0038] – “The chip includes a processing circuit and a transceiver pin. In an embodiment, the chip further includes a memory.”) and
instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor ([0038] – “memory is configured to store instructions.”) to cause the apparatus to:
determine a measurement configuration for user equipment (UE) measurements (Figs. 3, 4; [0089] – “S101. An AP generates a first frame.”) for active interference management of a plurality of radars associated with a plurality of UEs; (Figs. 3, 4; [0089] – “The first frame is used to configure radar measurement information for M STAs. M is a positive integer.”)
transmit, to a first UE, ([0103] – “S102. The AP sends the first frame to the M STAs, so that the M STAs receive the first frame sent by the AP.”) signaling that indicates the measurement configuration that indicates a first time period during which the first UE is to transmit a first radar signal and a second time period during which the first UE is to measure received radar signals; (Figs. 3, 4, 6; [0092] – “The first frame includes the radar measurement information… includes at least one of the following parameters: a radar measurement start time point, a measurement periodicity, radar measurement duration… two radar measurement processes of the STA” [0125] – “It should be noted that, when the M STAs perform radar measurement, each STA in the M STAs may serve as a monostatic radar. Alternatively, a portion of the M STAs may serve as transmitters of a bistatic radar/multistatic radar, and another portion of the STAs may serve as receivers of the bistatic radar/multistatic radar.)
transmit, to a second UE, signaling that indicates the measurement configuration, the measurement configuration indicating that the second UE is to transmit a second radar signal in(lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) time period and measure received radar signals during (Fig. 6; [0125] – “It should be noted that, when the M STAs perform radar measurement, each STA in the M STAs may serve as a monostatic radar. Alternatively, a portion of the M STAs may serve as transmitters of a bistatic radar/multistatic radar, and another portion of the STAs may serve as receivers of the bistatic radar/multistatic radar.” [0092] – “The first frame includes the radar measurement information… includes at least one of the following parameters: a radar measurement start time point, a measurement periodicity, radar measurement duration… two radar measurement processes of the STA” [0153] – “first frame may include a second identifier… to indicate whether a STA corresponding to the user information field in a radar measurement process serves as a transmitter or a receiver of a bistatic radar/multistatic radar.” Examiner notes that transmitter/receiver role is indicated for individual radar measurement processes.)
receive a first measurement report from the first UE ([0030-32] – “The STA sends second radar capability indication information to the AP… used to indicate whether the STA supports radar measurement… used to indicate a radar type supported by the STA, where the radar type includes: a monostatic radar, a bistatic radar, and a multistatic radar.” Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “measurement report” in light of the specification includes a radar specification, see, e.g., instant application specification [0012]) and a second measurement report from the second UE; ([0017] – “the STA may actively request the AP to coordinate a plurality of STAs to jointly perform radar measurement in a subsequent radar measurement procedure, to improve accuracy of radar measurement… ”) and
determine, based at least in part on the first measurement report and the second measurement report ([0292-293] – “the AP learns of a radar capability of the STA, and is prevented from scheduling a STA that does not support radar measurement to perform radar measurement, and therefore proper execution of radar measurement is not affected… AP to coordinate a plurality of STAs to jointly perform radar measurement”) (Figs. 3, 4; [0089] – “S101. An AP generates a first frame.”) a first set of radar transmit parameters for the first UE ([0092-97] – “The first frame includes the radar measurement information… includes at least… radar measurement resource allocation information… The radar measurement resource allocation information is used to indicate a time domain resource, a frequency domain resource, and a space domain resource used when a STA performs radar measurement.”) and a second set of radar transmit parameters for the second UE. (Fig. 4 – first frame comprises radar measurement information for each of the M STAs; [0101])
Han does not appear to explicitly teach the lined-through portions of the claim.
However, US 20230054822 A1 to Beer teaches:
a first time period during which the first transceiver is to transmit a first radar signal and a second time period during which the first transceiver is to measure received radar signals ([0003, 12] – “In multistatic mode, each transceiver transmits in sequence and all the transceiver collects that return signal… the MMA system transmits a transmit signal via transceiver 1 and receives the return signals via transceivers 2-8. The MMA system then transmits a transmit signal via transceiver 2 and receives the return signals via transceivers 1 and 3-8”)
the second transceiver is to transmit a second radar signal in the second time period and measure received radar signals during the first time period; ([0003, 12] – “In multistatic mode, each transceiver transmits in sequence and all the transceiver collects that return signal… the MMA system transmits a transmit signal via transceiver 1 and receives the return signals via transceivers 2-8. The MMA system then transmits a transmit signal via transceiver 2 and receives the return signals via transceivers 1 and 3-8”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Beer’s known technique to Han’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Han teaches a base technique using multistatic STAs for purposes of object detection with reduced interference where each STA is aware of transmission configurations/parameters of other STAs, see, e.g., Han [0101]; (2) Beer teaches a specific sequence of transceiver transmission/reception switching in a multistatic mode; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in more accurate object detection; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 27,
Han in view of Beer teaches:
The apparatus of claim 26, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
transmit the first set of radar transmit parameters to the first UE and the second set of radar transmit parameters to the second UE, ([0103] – “S102. The AP sends the first frame to the M STAs, so that the M STAs receive the first frame sent by the AP.”) wherein the first set of radar transmit parameters and the second set of radar transmit parameters provide for interference mitigation in multi-radar cooperative receive processing. ([0101] – “It may be understood that, because the first frame is used to configure radar measurement information for the M STAs, any STA in the M STAs may determine, based on radar measurement information of another STA, related information (for example, a transmitting time point and a signal frequency band) about radar measurement performed by the another STA. This helps implement space, time, and phase synchronization between the M STAs, to coordinate the M STAs to jointly perform radar measurement, and reduce mutual interference between radar measurement processes of a plurality of STAs.”)
Regarding claim 28,
Han in view of Beer teaches:
The apparatus of claim 27, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
wherein each of the first set of radar transmit parameters and the second set of radar transmit parameters include one or more of a space-time-frequency resource allocation, ([0092-97] – “The first frame includes the radar measurement information… includes at least… radar measurement resource allocation information… The radar measurement resource allocation information is used to indicate a time domain resource, a frequency domain resource, and a space domain resource used when a STA performs radar measurement.”) a transmit precoder, a waveform parameter selection, cooperative sensing and receive processing parameters, ([0101] – “It may be understood that, because the first frame is used to configure radar measurement information for the M STAs, any STA in the M STAs may determine, based on radar measurement information of another STA, related information (for example, a transmitting time point and a signal frequency band) about radar measurement performed by the another STA. This helps implement space, time, and phase synchronization between the M STAs, to coordinate the M STAs to jointly perform radar measurement, and reduce mutual interference between radar measurement processes of a plurality of STAs.”) or any combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 30,
Han in view of Beer teaches:
The apparatus of claim 26, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
determine, based at least in part on radar specifications and receive requirements of the plurality of radars associated with the plurality of UEs, ([0291] – “S802. The STA sends the second radar capability indication information to an AP, so that the AP receives the second radar capability indication information sent by the STA.”) whether to implement coordinated interference management to perform an active interference management procedure or a passive interference management procedure, ([0292] – “the STA sends the second radar capability indication information to the AP, so that the AP learns of a radar capability of the STA, and is prevented from scheduling a STA that does not support radar measurement to perform radar measurement” Examiner notes that scheduling a STA may correspond to active interference management. Not scheduling a STA may correspond to passive interference management. Examiner further notes that the determining to perform the active interference management procedure is listed in the alternative with determining to perform the active interference management procedure and only one is required by the claim.) and wherein the determining the measurement configuration is performed responsive to determining to implement the active interference management procedure. ([0292] – “the AP learns of a radar capability of the STA, and is prevented from scheduling a STA that does not support radar measurement to perform radar measurement, and therefore proper execution of radar measurement is not affected” AP scheduling of STAs is therefore in response to radar capability information) [0086] – “the AP needs to coordinate the plurality of STAs to perform radar measurement. In the embodiments of this application, a solution in which an AP coordinates a plurality of STAs to perform radar measurement may include at least one of the following solutions.” Examiner further notes that this step is contingent upon the condition precedent “determining to implement the active interference management procedure.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. MPEP 2111.04. As discussed above, determining to perform an active interference management procedure is listed in the alternative with determining to perform a passive interference management procedure and only one is required by the claim. Therefore, because the claimed invention may be practiced without the without the condition precedent occurring (i.e., determining to implement the passive interference management procedure), the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require the contingent step. While claim 26, from which claim 30 depends, positively recites “determine a measurement configuration,” the broadest reasonable interpretation of “determine… to perform a passive interference management procedure” does not require that the determination of measurement configuration of claim 26 be performed in response to determining to implement the active interference management procedure.)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220066018 A1 to Han in view of US 20230054822 A1 to Beer and further in view of US 20210270951 A1 to Yoshizawa.
Regarding claim 12,
Han in view of Beer teaches:
The method of claim 9, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
further comprising:
receiving, from each of the first UE and the second UE, ([0195] – “the STA sends radar measurement data to the AP based on the data feedback information indication and/or the radar data feedback type in the radar measurement information.”) an indication of a unique identification, ([0108] – “the sequence ID is used to identify a radar measurement process performed by the target STA. In this way, in a subsequent procedure (for example, feeding back radar measurement data), information (for example, the sixth frame below) sent by the target STA may carry the sequence ID, to differ from a radar measurement process performed by another STA.”)
Han does not appear to explicitly teach the lined-through portions of the claim above.
However, US 20210270951 A1 to Yoshizawa teaches:
receiving, from each of the first UE and the second UE, one or more of a location, ([0169] – “each radar device (for example, each vehicle) may provide, to the central control system, information of the radar device itself and information of the surroundings of the radar device, such as location information of the radar device itself, an ability related to object detection, information of a detected target, and the like.”) mobility, predicted path, transmit specifications, or performance requirements of the associated UE.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Yoshizawa’s known technique to Han’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Han teaches a base technique of communications between AP and STAs for purposes of object detection with reduced interference ([0101] – “It may be understood that, because the first frame is used to configure radar measurement information for the M STAs, any STA in the M STAs may determine, based on radar measurement information of another STA, related information (for example, a transmitting time point and a signal frequency band) about radar measurement performed by the another STA. This helps implement space, time, and phase synchronization between the M STAs, to coordinate the M STAs to jointly perform radar measurement, and reduce mutual interference between radar measurement processes of a plurality of STAs.” [0192] – “ the AP requires the STA to report radar measurement data, so that the AP analyzes information such as a location and a velocity of a measured object based on the radar measurement data reported by the STA.”); (2) Yoshizawa teaches a specific technique of a radar including information about itself in transmission to a central control system for purposes of object detection and interference reduction ([0169] – “With such a configuration, the central control system can perform various controls so that a more efficient operation of the entire system (for example, reduction of interference and improvement of resource utilization efficiency, or the like) can be realized in consideration of the situation of each radar device.”) ; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in more accurate object detection and reduced interference; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 13, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220066018 A1 to Han in view of US 20230054822 A1 to Beer and further in view of US 20230086144 A1 to Roy.
Regarding claim 13,
Han in view of Beer teaches:
The method of claim 9, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
further comprising:
receiving from each of the first UE and the second UE, a request to be included in active interference management procedures of the first node, ([0017] – “the STA may actively request the AP to coordinate a plurality of STAs to jointly perform radar measurement in a subsequent radar measurement procedure”)
Han does not appear to explicitly teach the lined-through portions of the claim above.
However, Roy teaches:
an indication of a type of interference information that is requested. (Fig. 2; [0259-261] – “The WTRU may send to a gNB a resource request requesting resource allocation based on a set of N sensing configurations corresponding to N different resolution levels (204). The WTRU may receive a configuration response from the gNB (206). The configuration response may include a set of K sensing configurations corresponding to K resolution levels (where, for example, K<= N).” [0135] – “The resource request may indicate and/or include a basis for the requested configuration”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Roy’s known technique to Han’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Han teaches a base technique of request, capability, and sensing parameter communications between AP and STAs for purposes of object detection with reduced interference; (2) Roy teaches a specific technique of transmitting a resource request prior to receiving transmission allocation / configuration info to improve joint communication and sensing; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in more efficient joint communication and sensing; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 29,
Han in view of Beer teaches:
The apparatus of claim 26, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
receive from each of the first UE and the second UE, a request to be included in active interference management procedures of the first node, ([0017] – “the STA may actively request the AP to coordinate a plurality of STAs to jointly perform radar measurement in a subsequent radar measurement procedure”)
Han does not appear to explicitly teach the lined-through portions of the claim above.
However, Roy teaches:
an indication of a type of interference information that is requested from the first node. (Fig. 2; [0259-261] – “The WTRU may send to a gNB a resource request requesting resource allocation based on a set of N sensing configurations corresponding to N different resolution levels (204). The WTRU may receive a configuration response from the gNB (206). The configuration response may include a set of K sensing configurations corresponding to K resolution levels (where, for example, K<= N).” [0135] – “The resource request may indicate and/or include a basis for the requested configuration”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Roy’s known technique to Han’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Han teaches a base technique of request, capability, and sensing parameter communications between AP and STAs for purposes of object detection with reduced interference (see Figs. 23, 26); (2) Roy teaches a specific technique of transmitting a resource request prior to receiving transmission allocation / configuration info to improve joint communication and sensing; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in more efficient joint communication and sensing; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220066018 A1 to Han in view of US 20230054822 A1 to Beer and further in view of US 20200025866 A1 to Gulati.
Regarding claim 17,
Han in view of Beer teaches:
The method of claim 14, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
wherein the determining comprises implementing the passive interference management procedure ([0292] – “the STA sends the second radar capability indication information to the AP, so that the AP learns of a radar capability of the STA, and is prevented from scheduling a STA that does not support radar measurement to perform radar measurement” Not scheduling a STA may correspond to passive interference management. Examiner further notes that the determining to perform the active interference management procedure is listed in the alternative with determining to perform the active interference management procedure and only one is required in claim 14, from which claim 17 depends. See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).) based on a congestion (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) of the plurality of UEs([0117] – “the AP configures the radar measurement information for the M STAs by using the first frame… to coordinate radar measurement processes of a plurality of STAs and reduce mutual interference between the radar measurement processes of the plurality of STAs.”)
or implementing the active interference management procedure ([0292] – “the STA sends the second radar capability indication information to the AP, so that the AP learns of a radar capability of the STA, and is prevented from scheduling a STA that does not support radar measurement to perform radar measurement” Examiner notes that scheduling a STA may correspond to active interference management. Examiner further notes that the determining to perform the active interference management procedure is listed in the alternative with determining to perform the active interference management procedure and only one is required by the claim. based on a congestion ([0117] – “the AP configures the radar measurement information for the M STAs by using the first frame… to coordinate radar measurement processes of a plurality of STAs and reduce mutual interference between the radar measurement processes of the plurality of STAs.”)
Gulati teaches:
The method of claim 14, wherein the passive interference management procedure is implemented based on a congestion level of the plurality of UEs being below a threshold value, and the active interference management procedure is implemented based on a congestion level of the plurality of UEs being at or above the threshold value. ([0097] – “vary the radar transmission parameters across frames until settling on a set of parameters that reduce/suppress interference with the second radar detection system (e.g., below a threshold (e.g., a threshold based on signal to interference ratio (SIR)).” Varying transmission parameters may correspond to active interference management procedure, and settling on parameters may correspond to passive interference management procedure. See also rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Gulati’s known technique to Han’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Han teaches a base technique of communications regarding transmission parameters between AP and STAs for purposes of object detection with reduced interference ([0101] – “It may be understood that, because the first frame is used to configure radar measurement information for the M STAs, any STA in the M STAs may determine, based on radar measurement information of another STA, related information (for example, a transmitting time point and a signal frequency band) about radar measurement performed by the another STA. This helps implement space, time, and phase synchronization between the M STAs, to coordinate the M STAs to jointly perform radar measurement, and reduce mutual interference between radar measurement processes of a plurality of STAs.” [0192] – “ the AP requires the STA to report radar measurement data, so that the AP analyzes information such as a location and a velocity of a measured object based on the radar measurement data reported by the STA.”); (2) Gulati teaches a specific technique of adjusting transmission parameters in response to an interference thresholding for multi-radar coexistence ; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in more efficiently reduced interference; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220066018 A1 to Han in view of US 20230054822 A1 to Beer and further in view of US 20160097849 A1 to Nichols.
Regarding claim 21,
Han in view of Beer teaches:
The method of claim 9, (see rejection of claim above)
Han further teaches:
wherein the first measurement report and the second measurement report include one or more of a global channel state information (CSI) and interference profile estimate in a range-angle-Doppler domain, a local CSI and interference profile estimate in the range-angle-Doppler domain, a congestion measurement, one or more clutter statistics, information used to determine a location relative to the first node, ([0193] – “the STA to report radar measurement data, so that the AP analyzes information such as a location and a velocity of a measured object based on the radar measurement data reported by the STA.”) a mobility of the associated UE, or any combinations thereof,
US 20160097849 A1 to Nichols teaches:
the first measurement report and the second measurement report include one or more of a global channel state information (CSI) and interference profile estimate in a range-angle-Doppler domain, a local CSI and interference profile estimate in the range-angle-Doppler domain, a congestion measurement, one or more clutter statistics, a location relative to the first node, a mobility of the associated UE, or any combinations thereof, ([0020] – “a scanning system may be configured to track the position of detected objects to determine one or more of location, heading and speed of each object. The scanning system may detect and track objects based on output of a radar sensor and one or more of a known position of the scanning device, geospatial data (e.g., coordinates, etc.), distance, and an azimuth relative to the position of object.”) that are used to determine a prediction of each UE in a cluster of UEs, relative radar transmit parameters, tracking and prediction of one or more scatterers in proximity of one or more UEs, or any combinations thereof. ([0042] – “System 200 may optionally include one or more additional scanning devices, such as scanning devices 206.sub.1−n, to detect and track objects from one or more additional positions. Server 215 may be configured to receive tracking data from scanning devices 206.sub.1−n by way of communication network 210. In certain embodiments, system 200 may include one or more additional servers, such as optional server 230, to aid in collection of tracking data from scanning devices and providing the tracking data to objects 225.sub.1−n.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Nichols’ known technique to Han’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Han teaches a base technique of communications regarding transmission parameters between AP and STAs for purposes of object detection with reduced interference ([0101] – “It may be understood that, because the first frame is used to configure radar measurement information for the M STAs, any STA in the M STAs may determine, based on radar measurement information of another STA, related information (for example, a transmitting time point and a signal frequency band) about radar measurement performed by the another STA. This helps implement space, time, and phase synchronization between the M STAs, to coordinate the M STAs to jointly perform radar measurement, and reduce mutual interference between radar measurement processes of a plurality of STAs.” [0192] – “ the AP requires the STA to report radar measurement data, so that the AP analyzes information such as a location and a velocity of a measured object based on the radar measurement data reported by the STA.”); (2) Nichols teaches a specific technique of target tracking using a plurality of scanning systems; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in more efficient and accurate object detection; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANA CROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Pacific 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, Resha Desai can be reached on (571) 270-7792. 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.
/JULIANA CROSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights