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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s submission for Domestic Benefit/National State Information under 35 U.S.C. 371 for PCT/ EP2022/069002 with filing date 07/07/2022.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The same physical element is referred to as an “access point 22” (see, e.g., [0078], [0083], [0095], [0099]) and as an “access node” (see, e.g., [0065], [0066], [0076], [0104]) without any statement that the two terms are synonymous. This inconsistency has propagated into claims 17 and 22, each of which switches between the two terms within a single claim.
There is inconsistent support for the claim term neighboring service areas recited in claim 15. The specification describes the corresponding subject matter as “one or more neighboring regions” ([0111]) and elsewhere uses the defined term “network coverage area 40” ([0084]). The phrase “service area” does not appear in the description. Applicant is required to reconcile the claim terminology with the description. This objection is directed to informality; it is not a written-description rejection, because [0084] and [0111] together reasonably convey possession of the claimed subject matter.
Paragraph [0104] recites that “the UE 12 acts a radar receiver.” The word “as” is omitted. The same error appears in Claim 34.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 34 recites a multi-static radar configuration in which the UE acts a radar receiver; the word “as” is omitted, and the phrase should read “acts as a radar receiver” to conform to the parallel recitation in claim 1. Second, the claim recites configured to transmit, via the communication interface circuitry configuration information for a UE; a comma is required after “circuitry” so that the parenthetical via the communication interface circuitry is properly closed. Neither informality obscures the scope of the claim, nor does it rise to § 112(b) rejection.
Claim 26 recites the wireless communications network, whereas parent claim 18 recites a wireless communication network (singular “communication”). Although this is technically a lack of antecedent basis, the intended referent is unambiguous, and the scope of the claim is not thereby rendered unclear. The defect is therefore treated as an informality rather than as a ground of rejection.
Claim 19 is objected to for improper form. The claim defines the receiving step of claim 18 as comprising an estimating step: wherein receiving the illumination signals from the at least two different access points … comprises receiving reflected illumination signals … and estimating a position of an object based on the reflected illumination signals. An act of estimating is not a species of an act of receiving. Companion claim 33 recites the same subject matter in correct form, framing the estimating as a basis for the object-detection function rather than as part of the receiving function. Applicant is invited to conform claim 19 to the form of claim 33. Because the acts required by claim 19 - receiving reflected signals and estimating a position - are both clearly identified, the scope of the claim is ascertainable and no § 112(b) rejection is made.
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.
Claims 8, 10, 17, 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 8 depends from claim 1 and recites assistance information indicative of the locations of respective access points in the set of access points. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the locations in this claim. Claim 1 recites no locations. Claim 2 - from which claim 8 does not depend - recites positions of respective access points. The specification at [0097] states that references to the “positions” of the respective access points are to be understood as the locations of the involved transmit antennas, which suggests the two terms are intended as synonyms. That statement does not resolve the ambiguity, because claim 8 stands independent of claim 2: the reader cannot determine whether the locations in claim 8 refers back to the positions of claim 2 (in which case claim 8 would improperly depend from claim 2 without saying so), or introduces a new and possibly different parameter, or is intended to invoke [0097]’s narrower reading limited to transmit-antenna locations. The scope of the assistance information required by claim 8 is therefore unclear. Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending claim 8 to recite locations with an indefinite article, or by conforming claim 8 to the term positions used in claim 2, or by making claim 8 depend from claim 2.
Claim 10 recites wherein, with respect to any one of the access points in the set of access points, the method further comprises transmitting one or more respective ones of the illumination signals, according to the multi-static radar configuration. It cannot be determined from this language how many access points must transmit. The phrase any one of the access points has at least two mutually inconsistent readings: (1) each and every access point in the set must transmit; or (2) it suffices that some single, arbitrarily selected access point transmits. The plural respective ones of the illumination signals compound the problem, because “respective” ordinarily signals a one-to-one correspondence across a plurality, which leads toward reading (1), while any one leads toward reading (2). The specification does not resolve the ambiguity. Paragraph [0108] describes transmitting the illumination signals from the set of access points and then states in [0109] that transmitting comprises, “for any one of the access points 22 in the set,” transmitting one or more respective ones of the illumination signals - repeating the same ambiguity verbatim rather than clarifying it. The difference between the two readings: reading (2) is satisfied by a single transmitting access point, which is inconsistent with the multi-static premise of claim 1, whereas reading (1) requires transmission by every access point in the set.
PNG
media_image1.png
175
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 17 recites, in its first alternative, wherein the network node is a serving access point of the UE, and in its second alternative, or wherein the network node is not the serving access point of the UE and transmitting the configuration information comprises sending the configuration information to the serving access node, for radio transmission by the serving access node. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the serving access node - no access node has been recited in claim 17 or in parent claim 1. Two distinct ambiguities result. First, the term switch: it is unclear whether the serving access node is the same element as the serving access point recited in the immediately preceding phrase, or a different element. Although the specification uses “access point” and “access node” interchangeably, the specification’s usage cannot supply an antecedent that the claim itself withholds, and the claim gives the reader no basis for equating two facially different terms. Second, the antecedent problem is compounded by the disjunctive structure: the second alternative refers to the serving access point definitely, but that element was introduced with the indefinite article only in the first alternative - an alternative that, by the operation of the or, is not in force when the second alternative is. It therefore cannot be determined what serving access point or node the second alternative requires.
Claim 22 recites transmitting a request to a first access point of the wireless communication network, the first access point acting as a serving access point for the UE, and then wherein receiving the configuration information comprises the UE receiving the configuration information from the serving access node in response to the request. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the serving access node. It is unclear whether the configuration information must be received from the same first access point to which the request was transmitted, or from some other, unrecited serving access node. That distinction is substantive: claim 22’s stated purpose is to require a request and response exchange with a single serving node, and the reading under which the response may issue from a different node would materially broaden the claim. As with claim 17, the specification’s interchangeable use of “point” and “node” does not supply the missing antecedent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2022/0022056 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Park et al. (‘056) discloses:
A method of operation in a wireless communication network, the method comprising: ([0119]: “diagram 1010 illustrates a scenario in which each involved base station is a transmitter (Tx) and each UE is a receiver (Rx)“).
transmitting configuration information for a User Equipment (UE) from a network node in the wireless communication network ([0131]: “the transmitter base station may inform its associated UE(s) of the RF sensing signal configuration“). The transmitter base station is the network node, and the UEs it serves are the UEs for which the configuration information is transmitted.
wherein the configuration information indicates a multi-static radar configuration in which the UE acts as a radar receiver ([0132]: “the UEs may attempt to detect target objects as well (i.e., by receiving the downlink RF sensing signals as described above with reference to FIGS. 9B and 9C)“). The UE that has been informed of the RF sensing signal configuration uses that configuration to receive the downlink RF sensing signals and detect target objects, placing the UE in the radar receiver role.
and a set of access points in the wireless communication network act as radar transmitters, transmitting respective illumination signals for illumination of a target region ([0117]: “one transmitter may transmit RF sensing signals to multiple receivers and one receiver may receive RF sensing signals from multiple transmitters“; [0119]: “each involved base station is a transmitter (Tx) and each UE is a receiver (Rx). In this scenario, the RF sensing signals would be downlink (DL) signals, such as PRS or dedicated downlink RF sensing signals“; [0124]: “The configuration may specify which base stations should transmit RF sensing signals and which base stations should receive RF sensing signals“). The base stations are access points of the wireless communication network, the downlink RF sensing signals are the illumination signals, and the environment scanned for device-free objects is the target region ([0118]).
Regarding Claim 4, Park et al. (‘056) discloses the method according to Claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the network node is an access point of the wireless communication network that is acting as a serving access point with respect to the UE ([0127]: “the involved base stations may inform any UEs in their coverage area (i.e., any UEs they are serving) of the configuration of the RF sensing signals“; [0131]: “the transmitter base station may inform its associated UE(s) of the RF sensing signal configuration“).
Regarding Claim 6, Park et al. (‘056) discloses the method according to Claim 4, and further discloses: further comprising, at the serving access point, exchanging signaling with at least one additional access point, to establish the multi-static radar configuration ([0122]: “coordination among the involved base stations is necessary. This coordination may be centralized or distributed, and the type of coordination may be determined during a coordination stage among the involved base stations“; [0123]: “the involved base stations communicate among each other to determine the configuration. For example, one or more base stations may propose a configuration and the other base stations may accept the configuration or suggest alterations to the configuration(s)“).
Regarding Claim 9, Park et al. (‘056) discloses the method according to Claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the illumination signals are communication reference signals used by the wireless communication network ([0119]: “the RF sensing signals would be downlink (DL) signals, such as PRS or dedicated downlink RF sensing signals“). The positioning reference signal (PRS) is a reference signal defined and used by the wireless communication network for communication-system purposes and is therefore a communication reference signal within the meaning of the claim.
Regarding Claim 10, Park et al. (‘056) discloses the method according to Claim 1, and further discloses: wherein, with respect to any one of the access points in the set of access points, the method further comprises transmitting one or more respective ones of the illumination signals, according to the multi-static radar configuration ([0128]: “Following the configuration stage illustrated in FIG. 12 is the RF sensing stage. During this stage, the transmitter base station(s) transmit RF sensing signals and the receiver base station(s) receive/measure the RF sensing signals“; [0129]: “the transmitter base station transmits downlink RF sensing signals“).
Regarding Claim 11, Park et al. (‘056) discloses the method according to Claim 10, and further discloses: wherein transmitting the one or more respective ones of the illumination signals comprises performing one or more beamformed transmissions directed towards all or part of the target region ([0126]: “The configuration may additionally specify the transmit and/or receive beams that each base station should use“; [0129]: “the transmitter base station may have transmitted a single RF sensing signal in a broad enough beam that a portion of the RF sensing signal followed the LOS paths and a portion of the RF sensing signal followed the NLOS paths“). The NLOS paths are those reflecting off the target objects, so the beam is directed towards at least part of the target region.
Regarding Claim 16, Park et al. (‘056) discloses the method according to Claim 1, and further discloses: wherein transmitting the configuration information to the UE comprises broadcasting all or parts of the configuration information for reception by the UE ([0131]: “the configuration may be broadcasted via system information (SI)“).
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 recites two alternatives joined by “or”; the art need teach only one. Examiner relies on the first alternative.
Park et al. (‘056) discloses the method according to Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the network node is a serving access point of the UE and transmitting the configuration information comprises performing a radio transmission of the configuration information ([0131]: “the transmitter base station may inform its associated UE(s) of the RF sensing signal configuration. For example, the configuration may be broadcasted via system information (SI)“). Broadcasting via system information is a radio transmission performed by the base station serving those UEs.
The second alternative, wherein the network node is not the serving access point of the UE and transmitting the configuration information comprises sending the configuration information to the serving access node, for radio transmission by the serving access node, need not be addressed.
Regarding Claim 18, Park et al. (‘056) discloses:
A method performed by a User Equipment (UE) configured for operation with a wireless communication network, the method comprising: ([0132]: “the UEs may attempt to detect target objects as well“).
receiving configuration information indicating a multi-static radar configuration for illumination of a target region of the wireless communication network via the transmission of illumination signals by a set of access points of the wireless communication network, each access point acting as a respective radar transmitter in the multi-static radar configuration and the UE acting as a radar receiver in the multi-static radar configuration ([0131]: “the transmitter base station may inform its associated UE(s) of the RF sensing signal configuration“; [0119]: “each involved base station is a transmitter (Tx) and each UE is a receiver (Rx). In this scenario, the RF sensing signals would be downlink (DL) signals“; [0124]: “The configuration may specify which base stations should transmit RF sensing signals“).
receiving the illumination signals from at least two different access points in the set of access points, according to the configuration information ([0117]: “one receiver may receive RF sensing signals from multiple transmitters“; [0132]: “by receiving the downlink RF sensing signals as described above with reference to FIGS. 9B and 9C“).
and performing object detection based on the received illumination signals ([0132]: “the UEs may attempt to detect target objects as well“).
Regarding Claim 19, Park et al. (‘056) discloses the method according to Claim 18, and further discloses: wherein receiving the illumination signals from the at least two different access points in the set of access points comprises receiving reflected illumination signals corresponding to two or more access points in the set of access points and estimating a position of an object based on the reflected illumination signals ([0117]: “one receiver may receive RF sensing signals from multiple transmitters“; [0115]: “the UE may report the ToA measurements to the base station, or other entity, and the base station may determine the distance and, optionally, the direction to the target object“; [0129]: “the dashed lines represent the RF sensing signals that followed NLOS paths … due to reflecting off the target objects“). The signals following NLOS paths off the target objects are the reflected illumination signals, and distance together with direction is an estimate of the position of the object.
Regarding Claim 23, Park et al. (‘056) discloses the method according to Claim 18, and further discloses: wherein receiving the configuration information comprises receiving all or parts of the configuration information as broadcasted information ([0131]: “the configuration may be broadcasted via system information (SI)“).
Regarding Claim 24, Claim 24 recites one or more of three bases for the configuring. Only one need be taught. Examiner relies on the configuration information.
Park et al. (‘056) discloses the method according to Claim 18, and further discloses: further comprising configuring multi-static radar processing at the UE based on one or more of the configuration information ([0131]: “the transmitter base station may inform its associated UE(s) of the RF sensing signal configuration“; [0132]: “the UEs may attempt to detect target objects as well (i.e., by receiving the downlink RF sensing signals …)“). The UE configures its detection processing to the RF sensing signal configuration of which it has been informed. The remaining alternatives, radar performance requirements known at the UE, and radar operation preferences defined at the UE, need not be addressed.
Regarding Claim 25, Claim 25 recites any one of three alternatives. Only one need be taught. Examiner relies on the spatial-domain alternative.
Park et al. (‘056) discloses the method according to Claim 24, and further discloses: wherein configuring the multi-static radar processing at the UE comprises configuring the UE for any one of: … spatial-domain radar operation ([0115]: “direction to the target object as the direction of the receive beam on which the RF sensing signal following the reflected path was received“). Determining the direction to the target from the receive beam on which the reflected signal arrived is radar operation in the spatial domain. The time-domain radar operation and combination of time-domain and spatial-domain radar operations alternatives need not be addressed.
Regarding Claim 27, Claim 27 recites any one of three beamforming alternatives. Only one need be taught. Examiner relies on the analog beamforming alternative.
Park et al. (‘056) discloses the method according to Claim 18, and further discloses: further comprising configuring reception beamforming by the UE for reception of the illumination signals, according to the configuration information, the reception beamforming being any one of: analog beamforming ([0052]: “In receive beamforming, the receiver uses a receive beam to amplify RF signals detected on a given channel. For example, the receiver can increase the gain setting and/or adjust the phase setting of an array of antennas in a particular direction to amplify … the RF signals received from that direction“; [0115]: “the direction of the receive beam on which the RF sensing signal following the reflected path was received“; [0132]: “by receiving the downlink RF sensing signals“). Adjusting the gain and phase settings of an array of antennas to form a receive beam in a given direction is analog beamforming. The UE applies that receive beamforming to the reception of the downlink RF sensing signals it has been configured to receive.
The digital beamforming and combination of analog and digital beamforming alternatives need not be addressed.
Regarding Claim 29, Park et al. (‘056) discloses the method according to Claim 18, and further discloses: further comprising providing radar-detection feedback to the wireless communication network, based on performing radar detection according to the illumination signals received by the UE ([0115]: “The UE may then optionally report this information to the transmitting base station, an application server associated with the core network, an external client, a third-party application, or some other entity. Alternatively, the UE may report the ToA measurements to the base station, or other entity“).
Regarding Claim 32, the claim is a User Equipment claim whose processing-circuitry limitations correspond element for element to the method steps of Claim 18, adding only radio transceiver circuitry and processing circuitry. Park et al. (‘056) discloses those structures ([0084]: “At the UE 302, the receiver 312 receives a signal through its respective antenna(s) 316. The receiver 312 recovers information modulated onto an RF carrier and provides the information to the one or more processors 332“). Claim 32 is otherwise rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 33, the limitations are substantially identical to those of Claim 19 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 34, the claim is a network node claim whose processing-circuitry limitations correspond element for element to the method step of Claim 1, adding only communication interface circuitry and processing circuitry. Park et al. (‘056) discloses those structures ([0084]). Claim 34 is otherwise rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 35, the limitations are substantially identical to those of Claim 4 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
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.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15, 20, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0022056 A1) in view of Zorgui et al. (US 2022/0104111 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Park et al. (‘056) in view of Zorgui et al. (‘111) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Park et al. (‘056) teaches: wherein the configuration information comprises assistance information for receiving the illumination signals at the UE ([0131]: “the transmitter base station may inform its associated UE(s) of the RF sensing signal configuration“; [0132]: “the UEs may attempt to detect target objects as well (i.e., by receiving the downlink RF sensing signals …)“).
Park et al. (‘056) does not explicitly teach, but Zorgui et al. (‘111) teaches: the assistance information at least indicating positions of respective access points in the set of access points ([0066]: “If UE 404 needs to locate target object 406, UE 404 must have information regarding the location of BS 402, the AoA or AoD of target object 406, and the range of the reflected path“; [0070]: “A bi-static radar scenario may be extended to a multi-static radar case (i.e., multiple BSs, and/or multiple UEs)“).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the positions of the transmitting base stations in the RF sensing signal configuration that the transmitter base station of Park et al. (‘056) sends to its associated UEs. One would have been motivated to do so because Zorgui et al. (‘111) states the requirement as a necessity rather than a preference: where the UE rather than the network is to locate the target object, the UE must have information regarding the location of the transmitting base station, because the bistatic and multi-static geometry cannot be solved for the target coordinates without it ([0066]). Park et al. (‘056) already places the UE in the object-detection role ([0132]), so a PHOSITA implementing that role would necessarily confront the same geometric requirement Zorgui identifies. There is a reasonable expectation of success because both references operate in the same NR cellular RF sensing environment, both convey sensing configuration to the involved nodes over existing network signaling, and adding a location field to an existing configuration message is an ordinary signaling modification.
Regarding Claim 3, Park et al. (‘056) in view of Zorgui et al. (‘111) teaches the method according to Claim 2.
Park et al. (‘056) teaches: wherein the assistance information further indicates one or more transmission parameters of the illumination signals ([0125]: “The configuration may also specify which resources (e.g., time, frequency, space, etc.) should be used for RF sensing signals“; [0126]: “The configuration may also specify the transmit power at which the RF sensing signals should be transmitted … The configuration may additionally specify the transmit and/or receive beams that each base station should use“).
Regarding Claim 5, Park et al. (‘056) in view of Zorgui et al. (‘111) teaches the method according to Claim 4.
Park et al. (‘056) does not explicitly teach, but Zorgui et al. (‘111) teaches: further comprising, at the serving access point, receiving a request from the UE for activation of multi-static radar operations ([0077]: “The SnMF receives sensing requests from applications (e.g., outside applications, network initiated applications, UEs, etc.) and configures the network/devices in the network with the sensing parameters“; [0082]: “Signaling begins at 608 where a first network entity 604 transmits an RF sensing request for the purpose of detecting the presence of, at least, a first object in an environment“).
Zorgui et al. (‘111) further teaches: and, responsive to the request, determining or obtaining the multi-static radar configuration and transmitting the configuration information to the UE ([0083]: “In response to the sensing request transmitted by first network entity 604 at 608, SnMF 602 initiates a first RF sensing session in a network at 610“; [0084]: “First, SnMF 602 may configure a sensing session with a selected first set of nodes … The sensing session involves configuration of nodes with the sensing parameters including, among other things, time, frequency and spatial resources“; [0077]: “The SnMF may be part of a network controller, part of one or more BSs, part of one or more UEs“). Because the SnMF may be part of one or more BSs, the requested-and-configured exchange occurs at an access point.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the multi-static sensing session of Park et al. (‘056) initiated on demand by a UE request handled at the serving base station, in the manner taught by Zorgui et al. (‘111). One would have been motivated to do so because Park et al. (‘056) expressly conditions when sensing is performed on network load, stating that the sensing is performed intermittently when the cellular data traffic load is small ([0119]), and Zorgui’s request-driven model supplies exactly the trigger mechanism that an intermittent, on-demand sensing session requires, while allowing the network to satisfy a new request from an existing session rather than creating a new one and so preserving user throughput ([0080], [0081]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because both references configure the same class of NR nodes with sensing parameters over RRC-class signaling.
Regarding Claim 7, Park et al. (‘056) in view of Zorgui et al. (‘111) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Park et al. (‘056) does not explicitly teach, but Zorgui et al. (‘111) teaches: further comprising determining the multi-static radar configuration at least in part by identifying access points in the wireless communication network that are associated with the target region ([0078]: “a SnMF may need to initially select useful nodes to participate in a sensing session. In one example, the SnMF may make the determination of usefulness based on an absolute location and/or relative location of the node“; [0076]: “a network entity may selectively activate and deactivate nodes (e.g., base stations (BSs) and/or user equipments (UEs)) during the course of a sensing session to optimize network performance“).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the base stations that participate as transmitters in the multi-static configuration of Park et al. (‘056) by reference to their locations relative to the region being scanned. One would have been motivated to do so because Park et al. (‘056) leaves the membership question open, saying only that the configuration specifies which base stations transmit and which receive ([0124]) without stating how that set is chosen, and Zorgui et al. (‘111) supplies a location-based usefulness criterion whose stated purpose, optimizing network performance by not activating nodes that contribute nothing ([0076]), applies with equal force to Park’s indoor multi-base-station deployments ([0120]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because node location is already known to the network for base stations, as Zorgui notes ([0079]).
Regarding Claim 8, Park et al. (‘056) in view of Zorgui et al. (‘111) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Park et al. (‘056) does not explicitly teach, but Zorgui et al. (‘111) teaches: wherein the configuration information comprises assistance information indicative of the locations of respective access points in the set of access points ([0066]: “If UE 404 needs to locate target object 406, UE 404 must have information regarding the location of BS 402“). The motivation to combine and the reasonable expectation of success are as set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Claim 8 further recites a list joined by “or”; only one item need be taught. Examiner relies on signal frequencies.
Park et al. (‘056) teaches: and wherein the assistance information further indicates one or more transmission parameters of the illumination signals, including any one or more of … signal frequencies ([0125]: “The configuration may also specify which resources (e.g., time, frequency, space, etc.) should be used for RF sensing signals“). The remaining items, signal identifiers, signal bandwidth, signal codes, signal timing, or beamforming configuration information associated with beamformed transmission of the illumination signals, need not be addressed.
Regarding Claim 12, Park et al. (‘056) in view of Zorgui et al. (‘111) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Park et al. (‘056) does not explicitly teach, but Zorgui et al. (‘111) teaches: further comprising determining the multi-static radar configuration, including determining whether the set of access points uses concurrent or non-concurrent transmissions ([0088]: “A BS and/or a UE may transmit an RF signal from a first transmitter at lower frequency in a first slot, and an RF signal from a second transmitter at a higher frequency in a first slot. This transmission may be repeated in a second slot to mitigate pathloss. A BS and/or a UE may then repeat the transmission pattern with RF signals on a third and fourth transmitter, a fifth and sixth transmitter, and so forth“; [0088]: “the RF signal from each transmitter is sent simultaneously“). The resource allocation determines which transmitters transmit in the same slot and which transmit in a later slot, which is a determination of concurrent versus non-concurrent transmission.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify, in the configuration of Park et al. (‘056), whether the transmitting base stations transmit in the same slot or in successive slots. One would have been motivated to do so because Park et al. (‘056) already makes time and frequency resources part of the configuration ([0125]) without resolving the concurrency question, and Zorgui et al. (‘111) identifies the concrete engineering consequences that turn on it, namely increased transmission repetition and accuracy and mitigation of pathloss ([0088]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because both references allocate sensing transmissions on the same NR slot and frequency-resource structure.
Regarding Claim 15, Park et al. (‘056) in view of Zorgui et al. (‘111) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Park et al. (‘056) does not explicitly teach, but Zorgui et al. (‘111) teaches: wherein the UE is one among two or more UEs in the target region or in one or more neighboring service areas that request multi-static radar operation ([0077]: “The SnMF receives sensing requests from applications (e.g., outside applications, network initiated applications, UEs, etc.)“; [0083]: “At 614, SnMF 602 may receive an RF sensing request for detecting a presence of at least a second object in the environment from second network entity 606“).
Zorgui et al. (‘111) further teaches: and wherein the method further comprises determining the multi-static radar configuration in joint consideration of multi-static radar needs or capabilities respectively indicated by the two or more UEs ([0081]: “In response to the RF sensing request received by SnMF 602 at 614, SnMF 602 may, at 616, accommodate the RF sensing request (e.g., received at 614) using output from the first ongoing RF sensing session at 612“; [0081]: “where there is an existing sensing session to detect a moving automated guided vehicle (AGV), an SnMF may use the existing AGV sensing session to satisfy a new request for detecting a moving person near the vehicle“). Satisfying a second requester’s sensing need from a session configured for a first requester’s need is a determination of the configuration in joint consideration of both needs.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the multi-static configuration of Park et al. (‘056) in joint consideration of the needs of multiple requesting UEs. One would have been motivated to do so because Park et al. (‘056) contemplates multiple UEs in the coverage areas of the involved base stations ([0130]) and constrains sensing to periods of low traffic load, and Zorgui et al. (‘111) states the payoff of joint consideration in exactly those terms, namely limiting the number of future sensing sessions and thereby prioritizing user throughput ([0081]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because the joint accommodation is performed by reusing an already-configured session rather than by any new radio capability.
Regarding Claim 20, Park et al. (‘056) in view of Zorgui et al. (‘111) teaches the method according to Claim 18.
Park et al. (‘056) teaches: wherein the configuration information comprises assistance information ([0131]: “the transmitter base station may inform its associated UE(s) of the RF sensing signal configuration“).
Park et al. (‘056) does not explicitly teach, but Zorgui et al. (‘111) teaches: the assistance information at least indicating positions of respective access points in the set of access points ([0066]: “If UE 404 needs to locate target object 406, UE 404 must have information regarding the location of BS 402, the AoA or AoD of target object 406, and the range of the reflected path“). The motivation to combine and the reasonable expectation of success are as set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 21, Park et al. (‘056) in view of Zorgui et al. (‘111) teaches the method according to Claim 20. Claim 21 recites a list joined by “or”; only one item need be taught. Examiner relies on signal frequencies.
Park et al. (‘056) teaches: wherein the assistance information further indicates one or more transmission parameters of the illumination signals, including any one or more of … signal frequencies ([0125]: “The configuration may also specify which resources (e.g., time, frequency, space, etc.) should be used for RF sensing signals“). The remaining items need not be addressed. No secondary reference is invoked for this element.
Regarding Claim 22, Park et al. (‘056) in view of Zorgui et al. (‘111) teaches the method according to Claim 18.
Park et al. (‘056) does not explicitly teach, but Zorgui et al. (‘111) teaches: further comprising transmitting a request to a first access point of the wireless communication network, the first access point acting as a serving access point for the UE and the request requesting activation of multi-static radar operation by the wireless communication network ([0077]: “The SnMF receives sensing requests from applications (e.g., … UEs, etc.) and configures the network/devices in the network with the sensing parameters“; [0077]: “The SnMF may be part of a network controller, part of one or more BSs, part of one or more UEs“).
Zorgui et al. (‘111) further teaches: and wherein receiving the configuration information comprises the UE receiving the configuration information from the serving access node in response to the request ([0083]: “In response to the sensing request transmitted by first network entity 604 at 608, SnMF 602 initiates a first RF sensing session in a network at 610“; [0084]: “The configuration may be communicated using radio resource control (RRC) signaling/medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) (MAC-CE) downlink control information (DCI)“).
The motivation to combine and the reasonable expectation of success are as set forth in the rejection of Claim 5.
Claim 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0022056 A1) in view of Brook et al. (US 3,938,145).
Regarding Claim 30, Park et al. (‘056) in view of Brook et al. (‘145) teaches the method according to Claim 18.
Park et al. (‘056) does not explicitly teach, but Brook et al. (‘145) teaches: further comprising, for illumination-signal reception, using a correlation time that is shorter than a radar pulse length used for the illumination signals (Col. 3, lines 27-37: “the nature of broadband noise is such that the correlation time of the noise is short compared with the transmitted pulse length“; Col. 4, lines 1-28: “If the radar sends out a noise pulse of duration T long compared to τ, the number of uncorrelated noise configurations will be T/τ“).
Brook et al. (‘145) further teaches: and for each received illumination signal, non-coherently combining correlation results obtained from two or more of the correlation times (Col. 3, lines 32-37: “The relative shortness permits an averaging of a significant number of independent samples within the single transmitted pulse period“; Col. 4, lines 17-22: “At the receiver, if the returns are integrated for a time T equal to the pulse duration, the integrating function effectively produces an average over the returned power from one hundred independent samples“). Averaging returned power over independent samples within a single pulse is a non-coherent combination, since it operates on power rather than on amplitude and phase.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to process each received RF sensing signal of Park et al. (‘056) in correlation intervals shorter than the signal’s own duration and to average the resulting power estimates across those intervals. One would have been motivated to do so because Park et al. (‘056) transmits wideband OFDM-based sensing signals across a specified bandwidth ([0125]) and detects targets from multipath returns arriving in clusters of channel taps ([0112]), a detection problem in which the reliability of the estimate is limited by the number of independent samples available; Brook et al. (‘145) teaches the general signal-processing relationship that governs that limit, namely that a signal of bandwidth β yields an independent configuration every 1/β interval so that a pulse of length T contains βT independent samples that may be averaged within the single pulse (Col. 3). Averaging within one pulse rather than across many pulses is directly responsive to Park’s constraint that sensing be performed intermittently and only when the cellular traffic load is small ([0119]), which limits how many pulses are available. There is a reasonable expectation of success because the relationship between bandwidth, correlation time and independent-sample count is a general property of broadband signals and is not specific to any radar application.
Claim 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0022056 A1) in view of Whelan et al. (US 2016/0103216 A1).
Regarding Claim 31, Park et al. (‘056) in view of Whelan et al. (‘216) teaches the method according to Claim 18.
Park et al. (‘056) does not explicitly teach, but Whelan et al. (‘216) teaches: wherein the illumination signals include illumination signals in two or more frequency bands ([0006]: “The detection system may include a radar transmitter configured to transmit a first signal representative of a plurality of frequency bands. Each frequency band may be at an interval from another frequency band based on a range resolution“).
Whelan et al. (‘216) further teaches: and wherein the method further comprises the UE combining radar measurement results from two or more frequency bands ([0006]: “a radar receiver configured to generate a plurality of synthetic aperture radar maps based on a second signal representative of a reflection of the first signal. Each synthetic aperture radar map may be associated with a frequency band from the plurality of frequency bands“; [0021]: “Non-coherent change detection may identify changes in the mean backscatter power of an imaged area, radar pixel by radar pixel, by comparing sample estimates of the mean backscatter power taken from a SAR relative to an ensemble average of a plurality of maps“). Each map is a radar measurement result associated with one frequency band, and comparing a map against the ensemble average of the plurality of maps combines results obtained from two or more frequency bands.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to distribute the RF sensing signals of Park et al. (‘056) across two or more frequency bands and to have the receiving UE combine the measurement results obtained in those bands. One would have been motivated to do so because Park et al. (‘056) already makes frequency a configured resource of the sensing signals ([0125]) and operates across multiple defined frequency ranges ([0044]), so multiple bands are available to it without new hardware, and Whelan et al. (‘216) supplies the reason to use them together: the variation in scatterer response across an interval of frequency bands is what makes the object detectable and allows an automatic detection that would otherwise be impractical ([0006], [0020]). Park’s stated application of detecting device-free objects in an environment ([0118]) is the same detection problem Whelan addresses. There is a reasonable expectation of success because the combination requires only that measurements already produced per band be compared, which Park’s UE already performs per configured resource ([0112]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13, objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, 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:
Claim 13 requires determining the multi-static radar configuration to include in the set of access points only access points that have Line-of-Sight (LoS) illumination towards at least a portion of the target region. Park et al. (‘056) distinguishes LOS from NLOS paths ([0129]) but does so to characterize the paths a transmitted signal takes after transmission, not to select which base stations are admitted to the transmitting set. Zorgui et al. (‘111) selects nodes by absolute or relative location ([0078]), which is a proximity criterion and not a line-of-sight criterion.
Claim 14 requires determining whether to use narrowband illumination signals or wideband illumination signals or both narrowband and wideband illumination signals based on at least one of: multi-static radar capabilities indicated by the UE or multi-static radar requirements indicated by the UE. Park et al. (‘056) refers to narrowband IoT and enhanced mobile broadband only as protocol types by which different cells may be configured ([0044]), which is not a bandwidth determination for illumination signals and is not conditioned on anything indicated by the UE. Zorgui et al. (‘111) adapts sensing parameters including larger or smaller bandwidth ([0084]), but conditions that adaptation on sensing feedback from the initial session rather than on capabilities or requirements indicated by the UE. No reference of record ties the narrowband-versus-wideband selection to a UE-indicated capability or requirement.
Claim 26 requires evaluating the multi-static radar configuration indicated in the configuration information in view of radar performance requirements defined at the UE, and determining, based on the evaluation, whether to request additional radar support or re-configured radar illumination from the wireless communications network. Zorgui et al. (‘111) has the network refine an ongoing session based on sensing feedback ([0084]), which is a network-side evaluation, and receives fresh requests from entities ([0082]), but those requests originate from an application need rather than from a UE testing a configuration it has already received against its own stored performance requirements. Park et al. (‘056) has the UE optionally report measurement information to the network ([0112]), which is reporting rather than evaluation, and no follow-on request for reconfiguration is conditioned on that report. No reference of record discloses the UE-side evaluate-then-request loop.
Claim 28 requires using an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) of the UE to estimate relative locations of the UE with respect to receiving different ones of the illumination signals at different times. Duan et al. (US 2022/0252709 A1) was considered for this limitation and is not applied. Its only inertial-sensor disclosure is a component listing in the mobile-device block diagram, stating that the sensors may comprise “one or more inertial sensors and/or other sensors (accelerometer(s), gyroscope(s), camera(s), magnetometer(s), altimeter(s), microphone(s), proximity sensor(s), light sensor(s), barometer(s), and the like), some of which may be used to obtain position-related measurements” ([0129]). That is a generic hardware recitation. It does not disclose using the inertial unit to estimate the UE’s relative location between successive illumination-signal receptions, which is the operative concept of Claim 28, and supplying that concept would require reading applicant’s own disclosure into the reference. No other reference of record reaches the limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 2024/0004049 A1) discloses a UE performing digital beamforming on its receiving antennas ([0040]) and receive beamforming configured through an RX configuration ([0079]). It was considered as a substitute for Levitan on Claim 27 and is not needed, because Park et al. (‘056) supplies the analog alternative under § 102(a)(1) and Wang is available only under § 102(a)(2). Wang is also structurally distinct from the claims: its radar transmitter is a transmitting UE configured by a coordinating UE, not a set of access points.
Han et al. (US 2022/0066018 A1) discloses an access point configuring stations for radar measurement, and stations indicating whether they support monostatic, bistatic or multi-static radar and whether they can act as a multi-static receiver ([0019], [0290]). It supplies no limitation not already supplied by Park et al. (‘056) or Zorgui et al. (‘111), and its stations rather than its access point transmit the radar signal. It is not applied. It is noted here because it is evidence, available under § 102(a)(1), that access-point-configured multi-static radar with the station in the receiver role was known before the effective filing date, should applicant contend otherwise.
Tadayon et al. (WO 2022/133872 A1) discloses base stations collecting UE capability reports including achievable spectral resolution ([75]) and configuring sensing parameters including bandwidth on that basis ([82], [83]). It was considered for Claim 14 and is not applied. Tadayon nowhere frames the parameter selection as a choice between narrowband and wideband illumination signals, and the parameters configured at [83] are those of the sensing-cluster UEs rather than of illumination signals transmitted by the base stations, so applying it to Claim 14 would require supplying both the framing and the transmitter role.
Park et al. (US 2022/0066014 A1) was cited by the International Searching Authority as document 02 and is directed to measurement reporting for bistatic and multi-static radar in cellular systems. Its transmitter and receiver are both TRPs. It is cumulative of Park et al. (‘056) for every limitation for which it was considered and is not applied.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights