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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 and 15-20, in the reply filed on 7/21/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/21/26.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed to date have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 and 15-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 15 and taking claim 1 as an example, the limitation “wherein the first set of time domain resources at least partially overlap time domain resources for communication” (lines 7-8) should read “wherein the first set of time domain resources at least partially overlap second time domain resources for communication” (underlining added for clarity). The dependent claims fall in view of their respective parent independent claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeon et al., US 2022/0256519, (“Jeon”).
Independent Claims
Regarding claim 1, Jeon teaches “A method comprising:
receiving, by a user equipment (UE) of a wireless system, a first configuration defining a first set of time domain resources for radar sensing, wherein the first configuration comprises at least one of a frame structure comprising radar sensing slots or a slot structure comprising radar sensing symbols (see, e.g., Fig. 9, step 902; Fig. 8 for the slot and symbol structure including radar (R) slots/symbols; paragraph nos. 0414, 0415, and in particular 0415, “The UE receives a configuration for a second set of time resources for radar sensing (step 902)”); and
performing, by the UE, radar sensing within the first set of time domain resources and first frequency domain resources, wherein the first set of time domain resources at least partially overlap time domain resources for communication based on one or more different beams, spatial filters, or spatial angles, and wherein the first frequency domain resources at least partially overlap second frequency domain resources for communication based on one or more different beams, spatial filters, or spatial angles” (paragraph no. 0429, “In a second approach, overlapping time/frequency resources can be allocated for radar sensing and DL/UL/SL communication. For example, both time-domain and frequency-domain resources for radar sensing can be partially or fully overlapping with corresponding resources for communication. In one example, the UE applies spatial or angular separation between radar sensing transmission and DL/UL/SL communication transmission/reception. In one example, a first beam/spatial filter/spatial angle is used for sensing transmission/reception, and a second beam/spatial filter/spatial angle is used for communication”).
Regarding independent claim 15, this independent claim is a corresponding apparatus (i.e. UE) claim of the method claim 1 and recites similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 1 applies with equal force to this independent claim and as further amplified below to highlight the minor differences between the claims.
Regarding independent claim 15, see Fig. 3 for the claimed structural elements of the claim.
Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 2, 16, Jeon teaches “wherein the first configuration comprises at least one of an absolute frequency location indicating a starting point of the first frequency domain resources and a size of a set of the first frequency domain resources” (paragraph no. 0422).
Regarding claims 3, 17, Jeon teaches “wherein the frame structure comprises downlink slots, flexible slots, the radar sensing slots, and uplink slots” (Fig. 8).
Regarding claims 4, 17, Jeon teaches “wherein at least one of the flexible slots comprises downlink symbols, flexible symbols, radar sensing symbols, and uplink symbols” (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Jeon teaches “wherein the at least one of the flexible slots comprises a guard symbol between one of the radar sensing symbols and one of the uplink symbols” (paragraph no. 0413).
Regarding claims 6, 18, Jeon teaches “receiving, by the UE, from a gNode B (gNB), a second configuration defining a second set of time domain resources for communication; and performing, by the UE, communication based on the second configuration, wherein the first set is within the second set, and communication is performed within remaining time domain resources of the second set, or wherein the first set is separate from the second set, and communication is performed within the second set” (Fig. 9, paragraph no. 0416).
Regarding claims 7, 19, Jeon teaches “transmitting, from the UE, to a gNB, a request for configuration of resources for radar sensing via as a physical random access channel (PRACH)-based transmission, a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH)-based transmission, a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH)-based transmission, a downlink (DL) downlink control information (DCI)-based transmission, or a sidelink (SL) sidelink control information (SCI)-based transmission” (paragraph no. 0009).
Regarding claims 8, 20, Jeon teaches “configuring the UE with a third set of sensing activity states;
configuring the UE with a fourth set of radar sensing type categories; and
configuring the UE with corresponding radar sensing resources for different combinations of sensing activity states from the third set and radar sensing type categories from the fourth set,
wherein transmitting the request for configuration comprises transmitting an indication of a radar sensing activity state from the third set and a radar sensing type category from the fourth set, and
wherein configuring the UE comprises receiving, by the UE, from the gNB, an activation indication for radar sensing resources associated with the radar sensing activity state and the radar sensing type category” (Fig. 1 and its respective written description).
Regarding claim 9, Jeon teaches “wherein the sensing activity states comprise full sensing mode and coarse sensing mode” (paragraph no. 0440).
Regarding claim 10, Jeon teaches “wherein the full sensing mode is configured with resources comprising a larger bandwidth and a smaller periodicity than those of the coarse sensing mode” (paragraph no. 0440).
Regarding claim 11, Jeon teaches “wherein the radar sensing type categories comprise at least one of a sensing range, a sensing velocity, a sensing elevation, a sensing angle, or a sensing field of view for short-range radar (SRR), mid-range radar (MRR), or long-range radar (LRR)” (paragraph no. 0449).
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.
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(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon.
Regarding claim 12, Jeon teaches “wherein the UE indicates the radar sensing type category via an index” (paragraph no. 0446).
Jeon does not teach “wherein the UE indicates the radar sensing activity state via an index” as recited in claim 12. However, this is an obvious modification.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Jeon by using the same index to indicate both the radar sensing activity state and the radar sensing type category to reduce the signaling overhead between the UE and the base station.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See the abstracts of Lee et al., US 2025/0365111, Ali et al., US 2024/0012095, and Kalantari et al., US 2023/0266434.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/WON TAE C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights