DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the communications filed June 9, 2026. Claims 17, 19, 22-31 and 33-41 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered. It is unclear what sections (e.g. page and line numbers) of the specification are being referred to by “pars.” in the arguments since the specification does not include paragraph numbering.
The rejection of claims 17, 19, 22-27 and 29-31 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the Office Action of February 9, 2026 are withdrawn since the respective claims have been amended.
Priority
The applicant claimed priority to foreign priority application EP 22 16 5097.1 filed in EP on March 29, 2022 but the application does not include a certified copy of foreign priority application EP 22 16 5097.1 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The replacement drawings received on June 9, 2026 are objected to because:
in FIG. 14, “e” corresponding to the “symbol-to-grid mapper” should be “e3” and “e-0” corresponding to the output of the “symbol-to-grid mapper” should be “e3-0” (see page 28, lines 1-3; and FIG. 14 of replacement sheets filed July 16, 2024);
in FIG. 17, “e2” corresponding to the “trainable grid mapping element” should be “e23” (see page 33, lines 28-30; and FIG. 17 of replacement sheets filed July 16, 2024); and
in FIG. 18, “e2” corresponding to the “trainable grid mapping element” should be “e23” (see page 34, line 11; and FIG. 18 of replacement sheets filed July 16, 2024).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The substitute specification filed June 9, 2026 has been entered.
The substitute specification of June 9, 2026 is objected to because of the following informalities:
on page 3, line 24, “and” or “or” should be inserted before “b)”;
on page 3, line 25, “and” or “or” should be inserted before “c)”;
on page 4, line 14, “and” or “or” should be inserted before “b)”;
on page 4, line 19, “and” or “or” should be inserted before “b)”;
on page 5, line 1, “and” or “or” should be inserted before “c)”;
on page 5, line 11, it is unclear what is meant by “(or a, e.g., another, transmitter)”;
on page 5, line 23, “As an example, in” should be “In”;
on page 6, line 6, “and” or “or” should be inserted before “b)”;
on page 6, line 24, “and” or “or” should be inserted before “c)”;
on page 6, line 29, “e.g.,” should be deleted;
on page 7, the text on lines 3-8 should be deleted since it duplicates the text on lines 1-2;
on page 8, line 3, “and” or “or” should be inserted before “a2)”
on page 8, line 24, “and” should be inserted before “h)”;
on page 8, line 27, “and” or “or” should be inserted before “h2)”;
on page 12, line 6, “, e.g.,” should be deleted;
on page 12, line 8, “e.g.,” should be deleted;
on page 13, “, e.g.,” on lines 22 and 24, respectively, should be deleted;
on page 13, line 25, “e.g.,” should be deleted
on page 13, line 27, “and” or “or” should be inserted before “c)”;
on page 14, line 26, “and” or “or” should be inserted before “b)”;
on page 15, lines 14-15, “for example positioning reference signal, for example for joint communication and sensing, for example for joint communication and positioning” is grammatically awkward;
on page 15, line 27, “(or a, e.g., another, transmitter)” should be “or another transmitter”;
on page 17, lines 14-15, “for example positioning reference signal, for example for joint communication and sensing, for example for joint communication and positioning” is grammatically awkward;
on page 18, the sentence on lines 1-2 should be deleted since it duplicates page 17, lines 27-28;
on page 23, line 21, “Communication” should be “communication”;
on page 30, line 24, “a a determination” should be “a determination”;
on page 30, line 28, “Receiver” should be “receiver” and “Transmitter” should be “transmitter”;
on page 31, line 26, “I.e., in” should be “In”;
on page 32, line 9, “Training” should be “training”;
on page 33, line 24, “UE,” should be deleted since FIG. 17 does not depict “UE”; and
page 35, line 27- page 36, line 32 is a single sentence that is difficult to comprehend. Furthermore, this paragraph does not incorporate the changes that are indicated in the marked-up version of the substitute specification (i.e. the clean version includes deleted text or does not included added text as indicated in the mark-up version).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 26, line 5, “the reflected portion” should be “the reflected portion” (see line 4);
in claim 28, “each of” should be inserted before “the at least” on line 4 and “each both” on line 5 should be deleted;
in claim 28, line 9, “the reflected portion” should be “the reflected portion” (see line 4);
in claim 35, line 1, “the selecting of the locations” should be “selecting the locations” (see claim 31, lines 28-29);
in claim 36, line 1, “the selecting of the locations” should be “selecting the locations” (see claim 31, lines 28-29); and
in claim 39, line 1, “the assigning of the information” should be “assigning the information” (see claim 31, line 17).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 41 is 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. Claim 41 recites the limitation “the detected positioning reference signal” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggests changing “claim 24” on line 1 to “claim 40” to overcome this rejection.
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.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US Publication No. 2024/0255608 A1 cited in the Office Action of February 9, 2026) in view of Hwang et al. (US Publication No. 2023/0171128 A1). FIG. 13 of Ma et al. discloses the claimed invention including transmitting a first signal using symbols (see 1302); receiving at least one reflected portion of the first signal (see 1304) and determining, based on the first signal and the reflected portion of the first signal, a distance between an object at which the at least one reflected portion has been reflected and a device that transmitted the first signal (see 1306 and paragraphs [0036] and [0058]-[0059] wherein in paragraph [0036], the calculation of the delay that is used to determine the distance information is implicitly based on timing of the first signal transmission thereby reading on “based on the first signal” in the claim). However, Ma et al. does not disclose that the first signal uses symbols wherein the symbols carry data represented by information bits and is usable by a positioning technique.
Hwang et al. teaches using a symbol/signal that carries data represented by information bits and is usable by a positioning technique. (See “301” in FIG. 3; “signal which serves the purpose of pilot signal for communication as well as sensing signal fore [sic] sensing” in paragraph [0023]; and paragraph [0028]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the same symbol for both communication and sensing (as taught by Hwang et al.) in the method of Ma et al. in order to increase/improve spectrum efficiency. (See Hwang et al., paragraph [0028])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 19, 22-25, 27, 29-31, 33, 34, 37, 38, and 40 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art of record does not teach or suggests in combination a computer-implemented method of processing data comprising modifying a mapping of symbols to resource elements of a resource grid of time and frequency resources of the wireless communications system using a trainable resource grid mask that identified locations of resource elements for carrying reference symbols usable for joint communication and sensing wherein the trainable resource grid mask is trained as recited in claim 17, lines 11-13. Claims 27 and 29 are allowed for similar reasons. Furthermore, prior art of record does not teach or suggests in combination a computer-implemented method of processing data comprising modifying a mapping of bits to symbol and modifying a mapping of the symbols to resources as recited in claim 31, lines 10-32.
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.
Please note that non-cited portions of the references may also read on the claim limitations. Therefore, the references should be considered in their entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Betsy Deppe whose telephone number is 571-272-3054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, 7:00 am - 3:00 pm (ET).
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, Sam Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/BETSY DEPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights