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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the arguments/remarks filed on 09/22/2026.
Claims 1-17, 21, 61 are currently pending.
Claims 3-4, 7-9, 11, 13-17, 61 are currently amended.
Claims 18-20, 22-60 and 62 are canceled in a preliminary amendment.
Claims 11-16 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims.
Claims 1-10, 17, 21, 61 are rejected.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 21, 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Shengyu Li et al (US 20240008097 A1) in view of Rahu Malik et al (US 20200029345 A1).
For Claim 1, Li disclose an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising computer program instructions (Li teaches, in ¶ 0085, the apparatus may include a processor and a memory …The memory is configured to be coupled to the processor, and stores program instructions and data that are necessary for the apparatus.), wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform:
detecting and measuring received power during at least one synchronization signal block or channel state information reference signal (Li teaches, in ¶ 0129, lines 1-4, that The terminal device measures an SSB, and chooses, based on reference signal received power (Reference Signal Received Power, RSRP) of the SSB, whether to initiate random access on a Normal Uplink (NUL) or a Supplemental Uplink (SUL) carrier);
selecting at least one random access channel occasion based on the detected and measured received power (Li teaches, in ¶ 0129, lines 7-11, that Then an SSB index of an SSB whose RSRP is greater than a specified threshold (configured by a higher layer) is selected, and a RACH occasion and a preamble index set that can be selected are determined based on the SSB-RACH association. Li also teaches, in ¶ 0129, lines 20-23 that the terminal device randomly selects a RACH occasion and a preamble from the plurality of RACH occasions and preamble index sets.), wherein the selecting is based on determining that the at least one random access channel occasion is associated to a measured and detected synchronization signal block of the at least one synchronization signal block (Li teaches, in ¶ 0150, that Then the terminal device obtains an association relationship between an SSB and a RACH resource, selects a first SSB resource from the active SSB resource set based on measured SSB received signal power strength, to determine a first RACH resource subset corresponding to the first SSB resource, and selects a RACH resource from the first RACH resource subset to initiate random access).
Li fails to expressly teach performing a user equipment calibration during the determined at least one random access channel occasion.
However, Malik, in the analogous art, discloses performing a user equipment calibration during the determined at least one random access channel occasion (Malik teaches, in ¶ 0117, that at 1045, the UE 115 performs the selected calibration(s) in the one or more selected calibration opportunities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Li with the calibration opportunities taught in Malik. The motivation is to avoid conflict with transmissions or other signaling [Malik: ¶ 0117].
For Claim 2, Li disclose an apparatus, wherein the detecting and measuring received power comprises detecting and measuring at least one of a reference signal received power or signal to interference plus noise ratio (Li teaches, in ¶ 0129, lines 1-4, that The terminal device measures an SSB, and chooses, based on reference signal received power (Reference Signal Received Power, RSRP) of the SSB, whether to initiate random access on an NUL or an SUL).
For Claim 4, Li disclose an apparatus, wherein the selecting the at least one random access channel occasion based on the detected and measured received power comprises comparing the detected and measured received power to a threshold (Li teaches, in ¶ 0129, lines 5-10, that Then an SSB index of an SSB whose RSRP is greater than a specified threshold (configured by a higher layer) is selected, and a RACH occasion and a preamble index set that can be selected are determined based on the SSB-RACH association).
For Claim 5, Li disclose an apparatus, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: setting the threshold autonomously (Li teaches, in ¶ 0129, lines 5-10, that Then an SSB index of an SSB whose RSRP is greater than a specified threshold (configured by a higher layer) is selected, and a RACH occasion and a preamble index set that can be selected are determined based on the SSB-RACH association).
For Claim 6, Li disclose an apparatus, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: receiving the threshold from a network element (Li teaches, in ¶ 0203, that The downlink common signal subset includes one or more first-type downlink common signals that are detected by the terminal device and whose receive power is greater than or equal to a first threshold, and the first threshold may be indicated by a first-type downlink common signal).
For Claim 21, please refer to the rejection of Claim 1, above.
For Claim 61, Li disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with instructions that, when executed in hardware, (Li teaches, in ¶ 0085, the apparatus may include a processor and a memory …The memory is configured to be coupled to the processor, and stores program instructions and data that are necessary for the apparatus), perform the method according to claim 21 (please refer to the rejection of Claim 1, above).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shengyu Li et al (US 20240008097 A1) in view of Rahu Malik et al (US 20200029345 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sangho Lee et al (US 20230421224 A1).
For Claim 3, Li and Malik disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the detecting and measuring is performed during a synchronization signal burst or channel state information reference signal transmission.
However, Lee, in the analogous art, discloses that the detecting and measuring is performed during a synchronization signal burst or channel state information reference signal transmission (Lee teaches, in ¶ 0136, that The terminal may receive SSBs included in the SSB burst as described above and measure the channel quality thereof).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Li and Malik with the beam management taught in Lee. The motivation is to obtain the effect of performing beam tracking with more improved performance [Lee: ¶ 0014].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shengyu Li et al (US 20240008097 A1) in view of Rahu Malik et al (US 20200029345 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaushik Chakraborty et al (US 20180069639 A1).
For Claim 7, Li and Malik disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of receiving activation of the user equipment calibration from a network element, wherein the detecting and measuring is performed based on the activation.
However, Chakraborty, in the analogous art, discloses receiving activation of the user equipment calibration from a network element, wherein the detecting and measuring is performed based on the activation (Chakraborty teaches, in ¶ 0069, that When the UE receives the resource indicator of the allocated resources, the UE may utilize the allocated resources to perform a self-calibration based on the resource indicator. In particular, to perform the self-calibration, the UE may transmit (e.g., via a TX chain) a reference signal using the allocated resources indicated in the resource indicator. Subsequently, the UE may measure certain parameters of the transmitted reference signal received by the RX chain).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Li and Malik with the continuous wave radar measurement taught in Chakraborty. The motivation is to enable the UE to detect an obstruction and a distance to the obstruction [Chakraborty: ¶ 0065].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shengyu Li et al (US 20240008097 A1) in view of Rahu Malik et al (US 20200029345 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jian Yao et al (US 20240298206 A1).
For Claim 8, Li and Malik disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of receiving de-activation or reconfiguration of the user equipment calibration from a network element; and discontinuing or reconfiguring the detecting and measuring based on the de-activation or reconfiguration.
However, Yao, in the analogous art, discloses receiving de-activation or reconfiguration of the user equipment calibration from a network element; and discontinuing or reconfiguring the detecting and measuring based on the de-activation or reconfiguration (Yao teaches, in ¶ 0102, that the first device transmits an indication message to the second device according to the first request, where the indication message is used to indicate the second device to enable or disable the sensing function. Yao also teaches, in ¶ 0108, that Optionally, the first request includes at least one of the following: type of the sensing function to be enabled or disabled, for example, allowing or prohibiting a target base station and/or terminal to participate in or from participating in environment reconstruction sensing services).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Li and Malik with the sensing technique taught in Yao. The motivation is to improve spectrum efficiency, and reduce mutual interference, thereby improve the overall performance of the system [Yao: ¶ 0040].
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shengyu Li et al (US 20240008097 A1) in view of Rahu Malik et al (US 20200029345 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ashwin Sampath et al (US 20190200365 A1).
For Claim 9, Li and Malik disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of performing radar measurements.
However, Sampath, in the analogous art, discloses performing radar measurements (Sampath teaches, in ¶ 0057, that One example of an MPE measurement may be made using a frequency modulated continuous wave radar measurement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Li and Malik with the continuous wave radar measurement taught in Sampath. The motivation is to enable the UE to detect an obstruction and a distance to the obstruction [Sampath: ¶ 0057].
For Claim 10, Li disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of determining proximity of a human user of the apparatus.
However, Malik, in the analogous art, discloses determining proximity of a human user of the apparatus (Malik teaches, in ¶ 0054, that Various measurement operations such as measuring distance to nearby object (such as human tissue), performing device internal calibrations, or the like may be performed in-band by leveraging existing componentry on the device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Li with the calibration opportunities taught in Malik. The motivation is to avoid conflict with transmissions or other signaling [Malik: ¶ 0117].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Shengyu Li et al (US 20240008097 A1) in view of Jian Yao et al (US 20240298206 A1).
For Claim 17, Li disclose an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising computer program instructions (Li teaches, in ¶ 0085, the apparatus may include a processor and a memory …The memory is configured to be coupled to the processor, and stores program instructions and data that are necessary for the apparatus.), wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform:
wherein the autonomous discovery and scheduling for user equipment calibration comprises determining that at least one random access channel occasion is associated to a measured and detected synchronization signal block (Li teaches, in ¶ 0150, that Then the terminal device obtains an association relationship between an SSB and a RACH resource, selects a first SSB resource from the active SSB resource set based on measured SSB received signal power strength, to determine a first RACH resource subset corresponding to the first SSB resource, and selects a RACH resource from the first RACH resource subset to initiate random access).
Li also teaches, in ¶ 0036, receiving a random access response RAR, where the RAR is carried on the second PDSCH, the RAR is used to schedule a first physical uplink shared channel PUSCH, the RAR carries indication information indicating a fourth frequency domain resource.
Li fails to expressly teach sending an activation message to a user equipment, wherein the activation message is configured to activate the user equipment to perform autonomous discovery and scheduling of transmissions for user equipment calibration; and sending a de-activation or reconfiguration message to the user equipment, wherein the de-activation or reconfiguration is configured to de-activate or reconfigure the user equipment regarding performing the autonomous discovery and scheduling of transmissions for user equipment calibration.
However, Yao, in the analogous art, discloses sending an activation message to a user equipment, wherein the activation message is configured to activate the user equipment to perform autonomous discovery and scheduling of transmissions for user equipment calibration (Yao teaches, in ¶ 0102, that the first device transmits an indication message to the second device according to the first request, where the indication message is used to indicate the second device to enable or disable the sensing function, such that the second device can enable or disable the sensing function according to the indication message, thereby achieving the purpose of enabling or disabling the sensing function); and sending a de-activation or reconfiguration message to the user equipment, wherein the de-activation or reconfiguration is configured to de-activate or reconfigure the user equipment regarding performing the autonomous discovery and scheduling of transmissions for user equipment calibration (Yao teaches, in ¶ 0108, that Optionally, the first request includes at least one of the following: type of the sensing function to be enabled or disabled, for example, allowing or prohibiting a target base station and/or terminal to participate in or from participating in environment reconstruction sensing services).
Yao further teaches, in ¶ 0141, that Optionally, the requirement information for the sensing mode (also called sensing method or sensing manner) includes at least one of the following: single-station sensing mode, that is, a self-transmitting self-receiving sensing mode, for example, a sensing mode in which the first device transmits and receives a sensing signal [i.e., autonomous sensing].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Li with the sensing technique taught in Yao. The motivation is to improve spectrum efficiency, and reduce mutual interference, thereby improve the overall performance of the system [Yao: ¶ 0040].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-16 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 11-16 are considered allowable because the prior art does not appear to teach/suggest the limitation
“selecting at least one panel of antennas from a plurality of panels or at least one spatial reception beam filter, wherein the detecting and measuring the received power comprises measuring a synchronization signal burst on the at least one panel of antennas; determining at least one synchronization signal block as not detected based on the measuring,” as recited in dependent claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will respond in the rebuttal that follows:
Claim Rejection under 35 USC 103
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the prior art "neither discloses performing calibration during the RACH occasion that was selected based on its association to a measured and detected SSB," (remarks, page 8 of 13).
First, Examiner would like to remind Applicant that MPEP 2145 states that “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).”
Importantly, Li teaches, in ¶ 0129, that Then an SSB index of an SSB whose RSRP is greater than a specified threshold (configured by a higher layer) is selected, and a RACH occasion and a preamble index set that can be selected are determined based on the SSB-RACH association; the terminal device randomly selects a RACH occasion and a preamble from the plurality of RACH occasions and preamble index sets. The Msg1 is sent based on a spatial filtering setting used when a corresponding SSB is received. And, Li teaches, in ¶ 0150, that Then the terminal device obtains an association relationship between an SSB and a RACH resource, selects a first SSB resource from the active SSB resource set based on measured SSB received signal power strength, to determine a first RACH resource subset corresponding to the first SSB resource, and selects a RACH resource from the first RACH resource subset to initiate random access.
Thus, Li teaches that the terminal device determines a RACH occasion, which has an association to an SSB whose RSRP is greater than a specified threshold. In other words, Li teaches that the RACH occasion is selected based on its association to a measured and detected SSB (i.e., an SSB whose RSRP is greater than a specified threshold).
Additionally, Examiner cites Malik for teaching, in ¶ 0117, that at 1045, the UE 115 performs the selected calibration(s) in the one or more selected calibration opportunities.
Indeed, Malik teaches in ¶ 0056, as cited by Applicant, that the UE 115 may identify one or more RACH symbols as a calibration opportunity if the UE 115 does not need to transmit in the RACH symbols.
Contrary, to Applicant’s argument, Malik’s citation is not in contrast with the claimed limitations. Although, not expressly articulated, Applicant appears to suggest that Malik’s use of the RACH resources for calibration means that “the UE is not using the RACH for its intended purpose”. But Applicant’s claim 1 declares the intended purpose of the RACH as “performing a user equipment calibration during the determined at least one random access channel occasion” (see claim 1). Thus, Examiner concludes that both the claim limitation and Malik use the RACH resources for calibration. And since claim 1 does not recite the UE selecting any RACH occasion for transmission, then, the calibration opportunity in both claim 1 and in Malik only occurs because the UE has not selected that RACH occasion for transmission, but for calibration. No wonder, Applicant’s specification, in ¶ 0104, states in part “The method can additionally include, at 1540, performing a user equipment calibration during the determined at least one random access channel occasion, for example, only during the determined at least one random access channel occasion. During the determined at least one random access channel occasion can include during the entirety of, or part of, one or more random access occasion(s) or during an entirety of, or part of, one or more random access occasion slot(s)”.
Further, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the office action’s "motivation for combining Malik and Li is "to avoid conflict with transmissions or other signaling," confirms incompatibility. Malik avoids conflict by calibrating during RACH symbols the UE is not using, while Li selects a RACH occasion specifically to transmit a preamble," (remarks, page 9).
Incompatibility is not a standard of enquiry under 35 USC § 103; Li and Malik are analogous art. Nevertheless, Examiner argues that Applicant’s specification is replete with citations directed to the same or identical motivation, such as ¶ 0041, which states in part “Therefore, certain embodiments may relate to UL opportunities for a UE to perform self-calibration and monitoring without disturbing other UEs, for example without providing unnecessary interference to other UEs”.
Once again, MPEP 2145 states that “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).” So, in the applied rejection, Li is used for teaching that the RACH occasion is selected based on its association to a measured and detected SSB (i.e., an SSB whose RSRP is greater than a specified threshold), while Malik is cited for teaching that the UE 115 may identify one or more RACH symbols as a calibration opportunity, and performing the selected calibration(s) in the one or more selected calibration opportunities.
Therefore, Examiner believes that no incompatibility exists because the use of the RACH resources to transmit a preamble does not preclude using those same RACH resources for calibration, when those resources are not being used for transmission. This is true especially because Applicant’s argument rightly cited Malik’s paragraph [0056] that "if the UE 115 does not need to transmit in the RACH symbols, is not scheduled with a UL grant, and the number of contiguous RACH symbols is greater than a threshold." Paragraph [0066] of Malik further discloses that "[i]f the UE 115 does not expect to request UL resources or otherwise utilize the RACH symbols (e.g., the UE 115 has an empty buffer) and is not scheduled for a UL transmission, the UE 115 may use some resources of the RACH for calibration." Therefore, it is clear from Applicant’s citation that Malik contemplates the UE to use RACH symbols for transmission, or use said RACH symbols for calibration when said UE does not need to transmit in those RACH symbols.
Consequently, the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would NOT change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, and the teachings of the references are sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. In this case, combining the references as proposed by the Office Action would require the UE to use the RACH resources either to transmit a preamble, or for calibration, which does not render any reference inoperable.
Indeed, the combination of Malik and Li teaches "performing a user equipment calibration during the determined at least one random access channel occasion," as recited by claim 1, where "the determined at least one random access channel occasion" is the one selected based on its association to a measured and detected SSB."
In light of the rebuttal above, Examiner respectfully submits that the combination of Li and Malik, in fact, discloses each and every element of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 21, and 61, and requests that the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 21, and 61 be maintained as proper.
Regarding the rejection of dependent claims 3 and 7-9, Examiner respectfully submits that these claims are not patentable for at least their respective dependencies, as well as for being rejected on their own merits.
Further, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that Li and Yao fail to disclose or suggest at least "the autonomous discovery and scheduling for user equipment calibration comprises determining that at least one random access channel occasion is associated to a measured and detected synchronization signal block, (claim 17)" (remarks, page 11 of 13).
The reason being Li teaches, in ¶ 0129, that Then an SSB index of an SSB whose RSRP is greater than a specified threshold (configured by a higher layer) is selected, and a RACH occasion and a preamble index set that can be selected are determined based on the SSB-RACH association; the terminal device randomly selects a RACH occasion and a preamble from the plurality of RACH occasions and preamble index sets. The Msg1 is sent based on a spatial filtering setting used when a corresponding SSB is received. Li also teaches, in ¶ 0150, that the terminal device obtains an association relationship between an SSB and a RACH resource, selects a first SSB resource from the active SSB resource set based on measured SSB received signal power strength, to determine a first RACH resource subset corresponding to the first SSB resource, and selects a RACH resource from the first RACH resource subset to initiate random access.
Clearly, Li teaches that the terminal device determines a RACH occasion, which has an association to an SSB whose RSRP is greater than a specified threshold. In other words, Li teaches that determining that at least one random access channel occasion is associated to a measured and detected synchronization signal block. And according to claim 17, said determining step defines autonomous discovery and scheduling for user equipment calibration.
Additionally, in the citation used by the Examiner, Li’s terminal device obtains an association relationship and selects a RACH resource, without the need for network indication.
Such an Examiner construction is consistent with Applicant’s specification, which in ¶ 0044 states “In certain embodiments the UE may detect random access channel (RACH) opportunities for such measurements autonomously, without the need for network indication, hence reduce signaling overhead for enabling radar operation on unused RACH opportunities”. In ¶ 0067, Applicant’s spec also states in part “At 6, autonomous discovery and scheduling of radar operation can be performed. Procedure 6 can involve a variety of subprocedures. At a, the UE can measure all SSBs in the SS burst, both from the serving gNB and from potential neighboring gNBs. At b, if the serving gNB does not indicate the RSRP/SINR threshold, the UE may autonomously choose the RSRP value to select the SSBs of which the RO is usable for radar operation”.
Further, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that “Li does not disclose calibration at all”.
Here, Applicant is “arguing limitations which are not claimed,” (see MPEP 2145 (VI)). In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., [Specifically, Li does not disclose calibration at all) is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Specifically, claim 17 only recites “to perform autonomous discovery and scheduling of transmissions for user equipment calibration” and “performing the autonomous discovery and scheduling of transmissions for user equipment calibration”. In both of these limitations, user equipment calibration is intended use. There appears to be no recitation/step in the entirety of claim 17 directed to actually performing/executing user equipment calibration. Therefore, Applicant is “arguing limitations which are not claimed”.
Applicant also mistakenly claimed that Yao, the secondary reference’s sensing function relates to environment reconstruction sensing services, not to user equipment calibration. Applicant is mistaken because Yao teaches in ¶ 0089-0101 that:
The sensing measurement quantity in this embodiment of this application includes at least one of the following: [0090] channel matrix H; [0091] received signal strength indicator (RSSI); [0092] reference signal received power (RSRP); [0093] channel state information (CSI); [0094] power, delay, and/or angle information of each path in a multipath channel; [0095] Doppler spread; [0096] Doppler frequency shift; [0097] phase difference between a first antenna and a second antenna; [0098] delay difference between a first antenna and a second antenna; [0099] characteristic difference between an I signal and a Q signal, for example, phase difference or amplitude difference between an I signal and a Q signal; and [0100] angle related information. [0101] Step 202: The first device transmits an indication message to the second device according to the first request, where the indication message is used to indicate the second device to enable or disable the sensing function.
Clearly, a PHOSITA will instantly recognize that some, if not all, of the metrics/parameters recited above are parameters/metrics that can used for UE calibration.
In light of the clearly articulated reasoning provided above, Examiner respectfully submits that Li and Yao, in combination, discloses each and every element of claim 17, and requests that the rejection of claim 17 be maintained as proper.
For at least the above reasons, the claims 1-10, 17, 21, 61 are not yet allowable.
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully requests that the rejections be maintained as proper.
In light of the above rebuttal and rejection, Examiner believes that this instant rejection should be made final.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. ZHOU et al (US 20210391913 A1) teaches beam management reports that enable selection of best antenna panel and beam combinations for uplink transmissions from a user equipment (UE) when one or more antenna panels of the UE are subject to a maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limit. The UE receives a reference signal at a plurality of antenna panels, wherein the reference signal is received in different beams on each of the plurality of antenna panels. The UE determines N beams providing highest measured strengths of the reference signal on at least one of the plurality of antenna panels, wherein the MPE limit is to be applied to the at least one of the plurality of antenna panels for uplink transmissions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached on 5712707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights