DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species A1 in the reply filed on 07/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/28/2026.
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.
Claims 1-17 are 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.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into 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). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claims fail to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claim 10, the claimed language of “information relating to the one or more RF sensing metrics given the signal interference” is unclear and not readily understood. Does it mean that the information relating to the one or more RF sensing metrics is based on or affected by the signal interference or something else?
Still regarding claim 1, and similarly claim 10, it is unclear of how and in what manner that with only the communications with the communication UE and sensing UE alone yields to the determination of a feasibility of sensing a target object. It is unclear of how the positive feasibility of sensing the target object is determined/indicated when there is no claimed data/information related to or associated with the target object recited in the claim. It appears that the claim is being incomplete for omitting essential element(s) which is the data/information related to or associated with the target object. Such element(s) is essential for determining a feasibility of sensing the target object.
Regarding claim 3, and similarly claim 12, it is unclear of what is meant and encompasses “one of a binary determination of feasibility of sensing the target object” as claimed. The metes and bound of the claims cannot be ascertained by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
It is Applicant’s responsibility to draft a clear and concise set of claims defining the metes and bounds of Applicant’s invention. Applicant should review all of the outstanding claims in response hereto. All of the claims should be reviewed for issues related to clarity and scope as the errors/issues are not constrained to those listed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are allowed over prior art. However, 35 USC 112(b) rejections must be overcome.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2026/0095210 discloses techniques for wireless sensing. In an aspect, a sensing node transmits, to a sensing server, an indication that one or more reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RIS) are present in an environment of the sensing node, receives a configuration of one or more sensing reference signals, transmits, to the sensing server, a first sensing measurement report including one or more first sensing measurements of the one or more sensing reference signals obtained during a period of time that the one or more RIS are not configured to reflect the one or more sensing reference signals, and transmits, to the sensing server, a second sensing measurement report including one or more second sensing measurements of the one or more sensing reference signals obtained during a period of time that the one or more RIS are configured to reflect the one or more sensing reference signals.
US 2025/0390788 discloses techniques for artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) based sensing. In an aspect, a sensing node may configure an AI/ML model to be used for sensing. The sensing node may obtain sensing measurements. The sensing node may determine sensing target information by applying the AI/ML model to the sensing measurements. Example sensing nodes include user equipment and base stations. In another aspect, a network entity or network node may receive first information indicating a capability of a sensing node to support an AI/ML model for sensing. The network entity or network node may configure, based on the first information, an AI/ML model to be used by the sensing node for sensing, and send AI/ML model configuration information to the sensing node. Example network entities or network nodes include base stations, sensing servers, and AI servers.
US 2024/0369678 discloses methods, systems, and devices for joint sensing and data communication. A first sensing signal and a second sensing signal are transmitted in sequence, from a transmitter and using the same carrier frequency, for combined processing by a receiver. In some implementations, the sensing signals are radar signals. Data communication during an intervening time period between the first sensing signal and the second sensing signal involves the transmitter sending a data communication signal to another device or vice versa. Phase continuity between the first sensing signal and the second sensing signal can be maintained through performing radio frequency (RF) tuning on the transmitter after the transmitter transmits the data communication signal. The RF tuning may involve storing and restoring an operating state of a power amplifier in the transmitter. Alternatively, phase continuity can be maintained through preventing the transmitter from transmitting over an entirety of the intervening time period.
US 2023/0309144 discloses systems and methods of integrated sensing and communication. These involve using a communications network for the exchange of both communications signals and sensing signals. A device on the network, which might be a user equipment or a network device, uses a first set of channels to transmit sensing signals for use in cooperative sensing involving a multiple devices, which may include user equipment and/or network devices, for sensing a target that is not registered in the network, such as a building. The device uses a second set of channels to transmit a communications signal. The second set of channels includes at least one channel not included in the first protocol stack.
US 2023/0232183 discloses systems and techniques for wireless communications. For example, a process can include determining a subset of radio frequency (RF) sensing devices from a plurality of available RF sensing devices for performing an RF sensing technique for a target object. The subset of RF sensing devices may be determined based on a plurality of factors associated with the plurality of available RF sensing devices. The process can include transmitting, to at least one RF sensing device of the subset of RF sensing devices, at least one message instructing the subset of RF sensing devices to perform the RF sensing technique for the target object to obtain one or more characteristics of the target object.
US 12,369,178 discloses various aspects relating to wireless communication. In some aspects, a full-duplex user equipment (UE) may identify timing for performing an interference measurement based at least in part on a scheduled uplink transmission time. The full-duplex UE may perform, in a particular symbol and in accordance with the timing for performing the interference measurement, a self-interference measurement and a cross-link interference measurement. Numerous other aspects are provided.
US 11,178,691 discloses integration of sensing and wireless communications. Wireless communication networks can configure and implement both sensing signals and communication signals. Sensing signals, or sensing reference signals, can be used to determine properties of the environment, and do not carry any information or data for the purpose of communications. Communication signals, on the other hand, are signals that carry information or data between network entities. Sensing agents can be used for both passive and active sensing. Sensing agents may be dedicated devices capable of performing passive sensing, active sensing, or both. Sensing agents can also be existing networks device such as user equipment or transmit receive points. Methodologies described here may be particularly beneficial for half-duplex systems, but could also be implemented in full duplex systems.
US 11,903,024 discloses integration of sensing and wireless communications. Wireless communication networks can configure and implement both sensing signals and communication signals. Sensing signals, or sensing reference signals, can be used to determine properties of the environment, and do not carry any information or data for the purpose of communications. Communication signals, on the other hand, are signals that carry information or data between network entities. Sensing agents can be used for both passive and active sensing. Sensing agents may be dedicated devices capable of performing passive sensing, active sensing, or both. Sensing agents can also be existing networks device such as user equipment or transmit receive points. Methodologies described here may be particularly beneficial for half-duplex systems, but could also be implemented in full duplex systems.
US 9,320,047 discloses wireless communication systems, methods, devices and computer programs and, more specifically, relate to communications in heterogeneous networks. To find a D2D channel, by example a shared channel for offload traffic from an allocated D2D channel, a cellular network access node sends a configuration message with parameters (e.g., sensing time, frequency band, sensing mechanism, cyclic shift) for a D2D device to sense spectrum. From results of this spectrum sensing is decided whether to utilize a frequency band, sensed according to the parameters, for D2D communications. In an embodiment the network selects a subframe configuration to set the sensing time, in which different subframe configurations have different-length guard periods which is the sensing time. In the embodiments, a first sensing is within a guard period and represents coarse sensing results and if those are not sufficient the network configures a longer sensing time (e.g., spanning multiple subframes) for finer sensing results. The network or alternatively the D2D device decides whether to use the sensed frequency band for offload traffic.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights