DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
2. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
1. The following is a final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments/remarks received 08/31/2026.
2. Claims 1, 8 - 9, 13, 16 and 18 - 20 have been amended.
3. Claim 5 has been cancelled.
4. Claims 1 – 4 and 6 - 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on 08/31/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) 1, 16 and 24 have been fully considered and are persuasive as a result claims 1 – 8, 16 – 20 are allowed in view of a further search and reconsideration.
Independent claim 9 was also amended, the newly amended limitations to independent claim 9 changed the scope of the claim and are persuasive. However, upon conducting a further search it is determined claims 9 – 15 is not in condition for allowance, as a result a new ground(s) of rejection is being made. 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).
Claim interpretation
1. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) [MPEP 2106 Sec I, C]. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). [MPEP 2111.01 Sec II]. Thus, the Examiner interprets Applicant’s claims "in view of the specification" and does not “import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim”.
2. When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations does not have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9 - 10, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2024/0284506 A1, support is found in the foreign application) in view Liu et al. (US 2024/0406689).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses: A base station (BS) for wireless communication [see figure 1, label “network side device”], comprising:
at least one memory; and [see figure 14 (network side device), label 145]
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory [see figure 14 (network side device), label 145 and 144] and configured to cause the BS to:
select a user equipment (UE) to assist sensing based on a selection criterion, the selection criterion including the UE being within a target area in which the sensing is to be performed; [¶0080: “Therefore, the base station may select a terminal matching the sensing region in the first message. The “matching” may be that a position of the terminal is evaluated to be located in the sensing region.]
transmit, to the UE, a request to assist sensing, [¶ 0082: “When the terminal in the RRC inactive state is selected as a sensing terminal, the base station delivers the paging message to page the terminal only in all cells or a part of cells under the base station”, this paging message is to trigger the UE to be in the connected state (last sentence of ¶ 0082) after which the UE will be sent a sensing signal to perform sensing measurement, see ¶ 0083 ]
receive, from the UE, a sensing signal in response to the transmission of the request. [¶ 0083: “…may be that the terminal transmits a sensing signal…”]. [see also the reference of Katla and the paragraphs used in the rejection of claim 13 below that teaches this limitation as well].
Zhang discloses every aspect of claim 1, except: wherein the request indicates the target area in which the sensing is to be performed; however, in the same field of endeavor, Liu discloses the above missing feature, see ¶ 0061 in view of ¶ 0066, the sensing parameter can contain a sensing area (¶ 0135: “…a candidate base station located in the same sensing area as the UE involved in the sensing service….”), this sensing parameter is sent from a network node (SF) to the UE, see ¶ 0060. And as stated in ¶ 0062, the SF may be any entity/element on the core network or access network.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang’s system in view of Liu. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to provide sensing service according to the sensing parameter [see ¶ 0006 of Liu].
Note to the applicant:
The reference of Abu AL Haija et al. (US 2024/0259834A1), discloses the concept of independent claim 1, particularly target area of the UE, see ¶ 0144: “…The BS 910 sending map type image information to the target UE 920 enables the target UE 920 to receive an identification of one or more nearby UE with which to perform D2D discovery. The map type images may identify: an area local to the UE; locations of the one or more nearby UE and an identifier for each of the one or more nearby UE;…”
Claim 12, Zhang further discloses:) The BS of claim 9, wherein the request is transmitted via a paging message in response to the UE being in an inactive mode or idle mode. [¶ 0082].
Claim 10, Zhang further discloses: The BS of claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the BS to select the UE to assist the sensing based on a selection criterion. [¶0080: “Therefore, the base station may select a terminal matching the sensing region in the first message. The “matching” may be that a position of the terminal is evaluated to be located in the sensing region.]
Claim 14, Zhang further discloses: The BS of claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the BS to transmit a configuration for the sensing signal to the UE; and wherein receiving the sensing signal comprises receiving the sensing signal according to the configuration for the sensing signal. [¶ 0084 - ¶ 0085].
2. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2024/0284506 A1, support is found in the foreign application) in view Liu et al. (US 2024/0406689) and Liu (US 2024/0406690, herein refer as Liu2).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang in view of Liu discloses: The user equipment of claim 9 [see rejected claim 9]
Zhang in view of Liu does not disclose: wherein the request is transmitted via a radio resource control (RRC) message in response to the UE being in a connected mode.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Liu2 discloses the above missing feature, see ¶ 0146: “…transmit the sensing parameters to the base station connected to the UE, and then the base station transmits the sensing parameters to the UE through a radio resource control (RRC) message, a Medium Access Control Control Element (MAC CE) or downlink control information (DCI)…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang’s system in view of Liu and Liu2. The motivation for making the above modification would have been for design incentive since Liu2 offers multiple ways to receive the request (radio resource control (RRC) message, a Medium Access Control Control Element (MAC CE) or downlink control information (DCI)).
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2024/0284506 A1, support is found in the foreign application) in view Liu et al. (US 2024/0406689) and Katla et al. (US 2024/0049161 A1).
Claim 15, Zhang in view of Liu discloses: The BS of claim 9 (see rejected claim 9).
Zhang in view of Liu does not disclose: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the BS to transmit an indication to terminate the sensing to the UE. However, Katla discloses the above missing feature: ¶ 0110: “… then that sensing responder or the sensing initiator may inform other sensing responders that participate in the sensing to cease or terminate the sensing operation. …”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang’s system in view of Liu and Katla. The motivation for making the above modification would have been if one sensing responder has already achieved the requested sensing resolution or target key performance indicator (KPI), then that sensing responder or the sensing initiator may inform other sensing responders that participate in the sensing to cease or terminate the sensing operation. [¶0110 of Katla].
Claim 13, Katla further discloses: The BS of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the BS to receive an acknowledgement (ACK) message from the UE in response to the request, wherein the ACK message indicates a sensing capability of the UE. [¶ 0092 and ¶ 0106 (last sentence)].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 4, 6 - 8 and 16 – 20 are allowed.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7909. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Nawaz M Asad can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MAHARISHI V. KHIRODHAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights