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 .
Claim Interpretation
With respect to “one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to [transmit/receive/train/update/associate/apply]” (claims 1, 13, 19): Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this term is Not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Although functional language follows, “processor” (coupled to memories and transceivers) recites sufficiently definite structure to a person of ordinary skill, and the claim itself supplies the structural nexus (processors coupled to memories/transceivers performing the recited operations). The limitations are therefore given their ordinary structural meaning as a programmed processor, consistent with the specification.
Furthermore, “AIML entity” (claims 3, 13, 28): Under BRI, any computing entity that maintains, trains, or updates an AIML model, including one or more servers in a cellular network or a third-party network per claim 14. No specific model architecture or learning algorithm is required.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 12-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katla (US 2024/0049161 A1) in view of Jang (US 2024/0023161 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Katla discloses: A network entity, comprising: one or more memories; one or more transceivers; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers, the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to: because Katla teaches a wireless transmit/receive unit whose enumerated components include non-removable and removable memory, a transceiver and a processor, and expressly couples that processor to the transceiver: (Katla, para. [0032] “As shown in FIG. 1B, the WTRU 102 may include a processor 118, a transceiver 120, a transmit/receive element 122, a speaker/microphone 124, a keypad 126, a display/touchpad 128, non-removable memory 130, removable memory 132, a power source 134, a global positioning system (GPS) chipset 136, and/or other peripherals 138, among others.”; Katla, para. [0033] “The processor 118 may be coupled to the transceiver 120, which may be coupled to the transmit/receive element 122.”)
In addition, Katla discloses: transmit, via the one or more transceivers, configuration information to a user equipment target (UE-T) to provide sensing assistance information indicative of one or more ground truth parameters of the UE-T, because Katla teaches an initiating node sending sensing configuration and sensing parameters, including location information, to other devices so those devices can participate in and report for the sensing procedure: (Katla, para. [0106] “An initiator may send sensing parameters (e.g. resolution, sensing duration, sensing accuracy, location information, etc.) to other devices, to enable the other devices to participate in sensing.”)
Moreover, Katla discloses: receive, via the one or more transceivers, sensing measurement information of the UE-T for at least a first sensing session, because Katla teaches collecting fed-back sensing measurement information gathered during a sensing duration of a sensing session: (Katla, para. [0122] “Following the NDP transmission 1003 and subsequent sensing measurement by sensing responder 1, at 1004, the sensing responder 1 may feedback the sensing measurement information (e.g., sensing report or sensing samples) to the initiator as dictated by the sensing trigger frame 1001.”)
Furthermore, Katla discloses: wherein the received sensing measurement information of the UE-T is obtained by one or more sensing nodes separate from the UE-T, because Katla teaches responder devices, distinct from the object being sensed, measuring the signal scattered or reflected off the target and reporting those measurements back: (Katla, para. [0098] “In some embodiments as shown at 405, the device, acting as an Rx sensing responder, may measure the signal scattered or reflected off the target.”; Katla, para. [0079] “In bistatic receivers, the transmitter and receiver may be embodied in different nodes. In multi-static receivers, there may be multiple transmitters and multiple receivers located at different nodes.”)
Although Katla teaches an initiating node that distributes sensing parameters including location information to other devices, and receives back sensing measurement information obtained by separate responder nodes measuring signals reflected from a target during a sensing session: (Katla, para. [0093], [0098], [0104], [0106], [0113]), Katla does not explicitly disclose receipt, from the target device itself, of reported information indicating reference parameter values of that device associated with the sensing session.
However, Katla in view of Jang discloses receive, via the one or more transceivers, at least some of the sensing assistance information from the UE-T because Jang teaches that in Jang’s sensing framework the device that is itself instructed to participate returns a sensing response frame to the requesting station over the allocated resource unit, so the requesting node receives reported information directly from the addressed device rather than only from third-party measuring nodes (Jang, para. [0343], “the sensing request frame indicates an identifier (ID) of an STA to receive a sensing response frame and RU allocation information, the STA corresponding to the identifier of the STA receives the sensing request frame, and transmits the sensing response frame after SIFS through the allocated RU.”).
Furthermore, Jang discloses wherein the received sensing assistance information is indicative of the one or more ground truth parameters of the UE-T associated with the first sensing session because Jang’s negotiated parameter set ties the reported information to a specific sensing session and specifies the type of information to be measured and reported, so the response returned by the addressed device conveys measured parameter values associated with that identified sensing session (Jang, para. [0346], “The parameter information includes timer information for a negotiation step, role information of a STA, timeout information for a sensing step, information on a number of sensing sessions included in the sensing step, and information on the first to third STAs, information on a length of a sensing signal, information”; Jang, para. [0294], “For example, information of STAs, Group ID, Session ID, etc. may be basically included for one sensing session.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the initiating node of Katla also solicit and receive reported information directly from the target device itself, as taught by Jang, because Jang discloses addressing a specific station by identifier and having that station return a sensing response on allocated resources within an identified sensing session; adding this direct report to Katla’s reflection-based measurements gives the initiator an independent reference for the target’s own parameters, which improves the accuracy of the sensing result Katla is already trying to refine, and both references address the same problem of coordinating multi-device sensing sessions.
Regarding claim 2, in spite of the fact that Katla teaches the combination already provides distribution of sensing parameters including location information and receipt of session-associated reports from the target device: (Katla, para. [0106], [0113]), Katla does not explicitly disclose reported reference values indicating the device’s location at a time within the session duration.
Yet, Katla in view of Jang discloses The network entity of claim 1, wherein the one or more ground truth parameters of the UE-T associated with the first sensing session comprise one or more ground truth parameters indicative of a location of the UE-T for at least a first time included in a duration of the first sensing session because Jang’s sensing use cases expressly report the location of persons in a room as the measured key performance indicator, and Jang’s negotiated parameters bound the reporting by a timeout for the sensing step and by the number of sensing sessions that step contains, so a reported location value corresponds to a time falling within the duration of an identified sensing session (Jang, para. [0106], Table 2, “Location of persons in room”; Jang, para. [0346], “timeout information for a sensing step, information on a number of sensing sessions included in the sensing step”).
Katla in view of Jang further discloses one or more ground truth parameters indicative of an orientation of the UE-T at for at least a second time included in the duration of the first sensing session, or a combination thereof, wherein the first time and the second time are the same or different because this recitation is set out in the alternative — the location alternative addressed immediately above satisfies the limitation, so the orientation alternative need not additionally be shown and the closing clause expressly embraces both possibilities for the first and second time and therefore imposes no further restriction. Jang’s negotiated parameter set moreover specifies the type of information to be measured and reported for the sensing step, so an orientation-type value reported for a second time within that same session falls within the reporting framework Jang already establishes (Jang, para. [0346], “information on a type of information to be measured based on the sensing signal”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the reported information in the Katla and Jang combination convey the target’s location for a time within the sensing session, because Jang identifies locating persons within a room as a core objective of its sensing sessions and bounds reporting by session timers, and a location value tied to the session interval is what makes the reflected measurements of Katla interpretable.
Regarding claim 3, in spite of the fact that Katla teaches the combination already provides configuration of a target device, receipt of separate-node sensing measurements, and receipt of the target’s reported parameter values for the session: (Katla, para. [0104], [0106], [0113]), Katla does not explicitly disclose training a machine learning model using those reported reference values together with the sensing measurements.
Yet, Katla in view of Jang discloses The network entity of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: train an Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AIML) model using the received sensing assistance information indicative of the one or more ground truth parameters and sensing measurements of the UE-T for the first sensing session because Jang describes training an artificial neural network by updating model parameters using training data accompanied by labels that state the correct value the network must infer, so the reported reference values serve as the labels for the collected sensing measurements (Jang, para. [0397], “Supervised learning refers to a method of training an artificial neural network with a label given for training data, wherein the label may indicate a correct answer (or result value) that the artificial neural network needs to infer when the training data is input to the artificial neural network.”; Jang, para. [0392], “The artificial neural network may be defined by a pattern of connection between neurons of different layers, a learning process of updating a model parameter, and an activation function generating an” output value).
Furthermore, claim recites: or transmit, via the one or more transceivers, AIML training data indicating the one or more ground truth parameters and the sensing measurements of the UE-T for the first sensing session to an AIML entity is set out in the alternative to the training recitation addressed above. Because the training alternative is shown, the transmitting alternative need not additionally be shown for the claim to be met.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the collecting node of the Katla and Jang combination train a learning model using the target’s reported reference values together with the sensing measurements taken about it, because Jang expressly applies supervised training with labeled correct values to devices performing wireless sensing, and using a device’s self-reported values as the labels for measurements taken about it is a predictable way to improve the sensing accuracy that Katla is expressly seeking to raise.
Regarding claim 4, in spite of the fact that Katla teaches the combination already provides distribution of sensing parameters and receipt of session-associated reported parameter values from the target device: (Katla, para. [0106]), Katla does not explicitly disclose reported parameters comprising location parameters.
Yet, Katla in view of Jang discloses The network entity of claim 1, wherein the one or more ground truth parameters of the UE-T comprise one or more location parameters, one or more orientation parameters, or a combination thereof because Jang’s sensing use cases enumerate localization of persons to a stated accuracy as the key performance indicator reported for the session, which is a location parameter within the meaning of the claim (Jang, para. [0106], Table 2, “Localization of persons to within 0.2 m”).
For these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the reported values in the Katla and Jang combination comprise location parameters, because Jang identifies localization of persons as an express objective of its sensing operation and Katla already circulates location information among the participating devices to steer the sensing procedure.
Regarding claim 5, even though Katla teaches the combination already provides distribution of sensing configuration and receipt of reported parameter values from the target device for the session: (Katla, para. [0105], [0106], [0119]), and although a Katla request for measurement results may call for an indication of the type of measurement alongside the results (Katla, para. [0105]), Katla does not explicitly disclose a label paired with a ground truth parameter value reported by the target device itself.
Yet, Katla in view of Jang discloses The network entity of claim 1, wherein at least a first ground truth parameter of the one or more ground truth parameters of the UE-T includes a first ground truth parameter label and at least one ground truth parameter value of the UE-T associated with the first ground truth parameter label because Jang’s parameter information carries an explicit indication of the type of information to be measured and reported alongside the measurement itself, and a label identifying a correct value for reported data is expressly described in Jang’s learning discussion, so a reported value is accompanied by an identifier of what the value represents (Jang, para. [0346], “information on a type of information to be measured based on the sensing signal, information on a type of the sensing signal”; Jang, para. [0397], “Supervised learning refers to a method of training an artificial neural network with a label given for training data, wherein the label may indicate a correct answer (or result value) that the artificial neural network needs to infer when the training data is input to the artificial neural network.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the reports of the Katla and Jang combination pair each reported value with a label identifying the parameter type, as taught by Jang, because Jang negotiates the type of information to be measured and describes labeled data used in its learning processes, and pairing a value with its type label lets the receiving node correctly interpret reports arriving from multiple devices.
Regarding claim 6, in spite of the fact that Katla teaches the combination already provides labeled reported parameter values from the target device for the sensing session: (Katla, para. [0119]), and although Katla’s trigger frame designates the type of sensing measurement to be fed back, including a sensing report giving resolution or Doppler values (Katla, para. [0119]), Katla does not explicitly disclose a label indicating that a value reported by the device itself is location information or velocity information of that device.
Yet, Katla in view of Jang discloses The network entity of claim 5, wherein the first ground truth parameter label indicates that the at least one associated ground truth parameter value of the UE-T includes location information of the UE-T, range information of the UE-T, height information of the UE-T, velocity information of the UE-T, Doppler shift information of the UE-T, acceleration information of the UE-T, attitude information of the UE-T, orientation information of the UE-T, or a combination thereof because Jang’s sensing use case table identifies the reported quantity by name as the location of persons for a given detection scenario, so the type designation accompanying a report indicates that the value is location information as the claim requires in the alternative (Jang, para. [0106], Table 2, “Number and location of persons in store”; Jang, para. [0346], “information on a type of information to be measured based on the sensing signal”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the parameter type designation in the Katla and Jang combination identify the reported value as location or velocity information, because Jang expressly characterizes its reported sensing quantities in those terms and Katla likewise circulates location information and Doppler values among the sensing participants.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Katla discloses wherein the network entity comprises a server, a Radio Access Network (RAN) node, or a User Equipment (UE) implementing a Sensing Management Function (SnMF), the one or more sensing nodes comprise one or more Transmission Reception Points (TRPs), one or more UEs, or a combination thereof, as Katla further discloses a network or system node that coordinates the sensing effort together with responder devices that carry out the measurements, the coordinating node being a network node of the wireless system (Katla, para. [0104] “5, a system may at least include a network/system node 501, a sensing initiator 502, a sensing responder 503a and a sensing responder 503b. The network/ system node 501 may be a network node or system node within the wireless network or system in which the sensing initiator operates.”). The recitations of the network entity and of the sensing nodes are each set out in the alternative, so the showing above satisfies the limitation.
Katla further discloses and wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: transmit, via the one or more transceivers, sensing session configuration information for at least the first sensing session to the one or more sensing nodes separate from the UE-T, as Katla discloses sending sensing configuration information, including a sensing duration and resources for reporting measurements, to the devices that will act as responders, those responder devices being distinct from the target whose reflections they measure (Katla, para. [0113] “At 804, the sensing initiator may send sensing configuration information (such as a sensing duration, resources for reporting measurements, etc.) to the devices.”; Katla, para. [0098] “In some embodiments as shown at 405, the device, acting as an Rx sensing responder, may measure the signal scattered or reflected off the target.”).
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 1, Katla discloses wherein the configuration information to provide sensing assistance information includes configuration information indicating a ground truth information type, configuration information indicating time resources to obtain sensing assistance information measurements, configuration information indicating one or more sensor parameters to obtain additional sensor measurements, configuration information for time stamping the sensing assistance information, configuration information for an identifier for the UE-T, configuration information indicating timing to provide the sensing assistance information to the network entity, or a combination thereof, as Katla further discloses configuration signaling that specifies the type of sensing measurement to be fed back as well as the time resources and duration allotted for the sensing procedure (Katla, para. [0119] “In some embodiments, the trigger frame may include a type of sensing measurement to be fed-back by a sensing responder (i.e., a sensing report (e.g. resolution, Doppler values), or sensing data samples).”; Katla, para. [0097] “The device/sensing responder may receive a message from the sensing initiator with configuration information indicating time and/ or frequency resources, such as a duration for access to a frequency resource used for sensing”). This limitation is recited in the alternative, so the showing of the ground truth information type and time resource alternatives satisfies the claim.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Katla discloses wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: receive, via the one or more transceivers, capability information from the UE-T, the capability information indicating support for sensing assistance information measurements indicative of one or more ground truth parameters, as Katla further discloses receiving messages back from the addressed devices stating whether each is able to participate in the sensing procedure and in what capacity, which conveys the device’s measurement capability (Katla, para. [0113] “At 803, the devices may send messages to the sensing initiator acknowledging the request and either indicating their participation type or indicating that they are unable to participate in the sensing procedure based on the requested or required sensing parameters.”).
Regarding claim 12, although Katla teaches the combination already provides configuration sent to a target device and receipt of that device’s session-associated reported parameter values: (Katla, para. [0113], [0118], [0120]), and although Katla’s trigger frame carries identifiers of the sensing responders together with the resource units in which their measurements are fed back (Katla, para. [0118], [0120]), Katla does not explicitly disclose configuration of an additional target device addressed by a temporary device identifier used to associate that device’s own reported ground truth parameters.
Yet, Katla in view of Jang discloses The network entity of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: transmit, via the one or more transceivers, configuration information to at least one additional UE-T to provide sensing assistance information indicative of one or more ground truth parameters of the at least one additional UE-T because Jang’s request frame carries station identifier information addressing multiple stations, and each addressed station is separately configured to report, so configuration reaches an additional target device beyond the first (Jang, para. [0342], “When the STA identifier information does not include an identifier of a fourth STA, the first STA does not receive a third sensing response frame from the fourth STA.”).
Moreover, Jang discloses wherein the UE-T and the at least one additional UE-T are each associated with a temporary device identifier because Jang assigns identifiers such as a Group ID and Session ID together with per-station information for a given sensing session, and such session-scoped identifiers are not permanent, satisfying the temporary device identifier under the adopted construction (Jang, para. [0294], “For example, information of STAs, Group ID, Session ID, etc. may be basically included for one sensing session.”).
Furthermore, Jang discloses receive, via the one or more transceivers, at least some of the sensing assistance information indicative of the one or more ground truth parameters of the at least one additional UE-T for the first sensing session or a different sensing session or both because Jang describes changing which stations are instructed from one session to the next, with each instructed station transmitting in its own session, so reports from the additional device are received for the first session or a subsequent one (Jang, para. [0329], “In the first session, only STA 2 is instructed and only STA 2 transmits a sensing signal, and in the second session, only STA 3 is instructed and a sensing signal is transmitted.”).
Additionally, Jang discloses and associate the temporary device identifier for the at least one additional UE-T with the at least some of the sensing assistance information indicative of the one or more ground truth parameters of the at least one additional UE-T for the first sensing session, the different sensing session, or both because each response frame in Jang is returned by the station corresponding to the identifier carried in the request and on the resource allocated to that identifier, so the receiving node necessarily ties each returned report to the identifier of the reporting station for the session concerned (Jang, para. [0343], “the sensing request frame indicates an identifier (ID) of an STA to receive a sensing response frame and RU allocation information, the STA corresponding to the identifier of the STA receives the sensing request frame, and transmits the sensing response frame after SIFS through the allocated RU.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the Katla and Jang combination to configure and track multiple reporting target devices by identifier, because Jang expressly addresses stations individually by identifier, scopes them with group and session identifiers, and varies the instructed stations from session to session, and Katla already engages several responders at once, so identifier-based association is the predictable way to keep the incoming reports attributed to the right device.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites: An Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AIML) entity, comprising: one or more memories; one or more transceivers; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers, the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to: receive, via the one or more transceivers, information indicative of one or more ground truth parameters for one or more target devices including a first target device, the information indicative of the one or more ground truth parameters for the first target device based at least in part on measurements made by the first target device during at least a first sensing session; receive, via the one or more transceivers, sensing information for at least the first target device based on sensing measurements obtained by one or more sensing nodes separate from the first target device during at least the first sensing session; and update an AIML model based at least on the information indicative of one or more ground truth parameters for the first target device of the first sensing session and the sensing information for the first target device for the first sensing session.
Claim 13 only differs from claim 1 in that it does not recite transmitting configuration information to the target device, and instead further recites updating an AIML model. As to that further limitation: although Katla teaches a coordinating network/system node that interfaces with a sensing initiator and receives from it the sensing measurements that responder devices performed on a target at a requested resolution: (Katla, para. [0104]), Katla does not explicitly disclose using reported reference parameter values together with those sensing measurements to update a machine learning model.
Nonetheless, Katla in view of Jang discloses and update an AIML model based at least on the information indicative of one or more ground truth parameters for the first target device of the first sensing session and the sensing information for the first target device for the first sensing session because Jang applies machine learning to its wireless sensing devices and describes training a neural network by updating model parameters using labeled training data, where the label supplies the correct value the network must infer, so the collected measurements together with the reported correct values drive the model update (Jang, para. [0392], “The artificial neural network may be defined by a pattern of connection between neurons of different layers, a learning process of updating a model parameter, and an activation function generating an” output value; Jang, para. [0397], “Supervised learning refers to a method of training an artificial neural network with a label given for training data, wherein the label may indicate a correct answer (or result value) that the artificial neural network needs to infer when the training data is input to the artificial neural network.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the coordinating node of Katla, which already aggregates responder measurements about a target, also collect the target device’s own reported values and use both to update a learning model as taught by Jang, because Jang expressly applies artificial intelligence and supervised training with labeled correct values to devices performing wireless sensing, and using a device’s self-reported values as the labels for measurements taken about it is a predictable way to improve the sensing accuracy that Katla is expressly seeking to raise.
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 13, Katla discloses wherein the AIML entity comprises one or more servers included in a cellular network, one or more servers included in a third party network, or both, as Katla further discloses the coordinating entity being a network node or system node of the wireless network in which the sensing initiator operates, connected to it by a wireless or backhaul link (Katla, para. [0104] “The network/ system node 501 may be a network node or system node within the wireless network or system in which the sensing initiator operates. The network/system node 501 and the sensing initiator 502 may interface, for example, wirelessly or via a backhaul wired connection.”).
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 13, Katla discloses wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: associate the sensing information for at least the first target device with the one or more ground truth parameters for the first target device based at least on time stamping, a temporary identifier for the first target device, or both, as Katla further discloses requesting that measurement results be accompanied by an indication of a time stamp, duration or period in which the measurement was made, so results from different devices can be aligned (Katla, para. [0105] “A request for measurement results may call for additional information certain conditions (or no conditions at all) such as an indication of a time stamp, duration, or period in which the measurement was made, direction information, type of measurement, or other information.”). This limitation is recited in the alternative, so the showing of the time stamping alternative satisfies the claim.
Regarding claim 16, even though Katla teaches the combination already provides a coordinating node that obtains responder measurements about a target plus the target’s own reported values and updates a learning model, and although Katla teaches a network node requesting that devices sense in a particular location or sense a previously detected object with a desired resolution, over an interface running in both directions: (Katla, para. [0103], [0104]), Katla does not explicitly disclose that this exchange is conducted with a sensing management entity as configuration for an identified sensing session, or configuration of the target device itself to report ground truth parameters for that session.
Yet, Katla in view of Jang discloses The AIML entity of claim 13, wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: transmit, via the one or more transceivers, a sensing session configuration request to a sensing management entity; receive, via the one or more transceivers, sensing session configuration information for at least a first sensing session from the sensing management entity because Jang teaches the requesting station broadcasting a sensing request frame and then receiving back the negotiated session parameters in the initiation frame from the station that manages the negotiation, each participant recognizing the session through that explicit signaling (Jang, para. [0339], “In step S4810, a first station (STA) broadcasts a sensing request frame.”; Jang, para. [0299], “All or some of the parameters described in parameter negotiation can be indicated in the SENS Initiation frame. For example, information or group ID of STAs may be basically included for one sensing session.”; Jang, para. [0297], “In method A, each SENS STA can recognize the session through explicit signaling for the sensing session.”).
Moreover, Jang discloses transmit, via the one or more transceivers, configuration information to at least the first target device to provide the information indicative of one or more ground truth parameters for the first target device associated with at least the first sensing session because Jang’s request frame is addressed by station identifier and allocates the resource unit on which the addressed station is to answer, which is configuration directing that device to report for the session (Jang, para. [0343], “the sensing request frame indicates an identifier (ID) of an STA to receive a sensing response frame and RU allocation information”).
In addition, Katla discloses receive, via the one or more transceivers, information indicative of sensing measurements of the first target device obtained by one or more sensing nodes separate from the first target device as part of the first sensing session, because Katla teaches responder devices distinct from the target performing the measurements at the desired resolution and feeding them back to the sensing initiator, which in turn supplies those sensing measurements to the coordinating network node: (Katla, para. [0104] “The sensing responders 503a and 503b may perform measurements at the desired resolution and feed back the measurements to the sensing initiator 502, which may then provide the requested sensing measurements to the network/system node 501.”; Katla, para. [0079] “In bistatic receivers, the transmitter and receiver may be embodied in different nodes. In multi-static receivers, there may be multiple transmitters and multiple receivers located at different nodes.”)
Furthermore, Jang discloses and receive, via the one or more transceivers, at least some of the information indicative of the one or more ground truth parameters from the first target device associated with the first sensing session because the addressed station in Jang transmits its sensing response frame back on the allocated resource, so the reported parameter information for that session arrives from the target device itself (Jang, para. [0343], “the STA corresponding to the identifier of the STA receives the sensing request frame, and transmits the sensing response frame after SIFS through the allocated RU.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the coordinating node of the Katla and Jang combination obtain session configuration from the managing station and in turn configure the target device to report, as taught by Jang, because Jang organizes its sensing operations around an initiation frame that distributes negotiated session parameters and identifier-addressed requests that elicit per-device responses, which is a straightforward way to keep the multi-device sensing procedure of Katla synchronized to a defined session.
Regarding claim 17, although Katla teaches the combination already provides receipt of reported parameter values from the target device together with responder measurements used to update the model: (Katla, para. [0104]), Katla does not explicitly disclose reported information indicating a location of the target device.
Yet, Katla in view of Jang discloses The AIML entity of claim 13, wherein the information indicative of one or more ground truth parameters for the first target device includes at least information indicative of a location of the first target device, information indicative of a speed of the first target device, information indicative of an orientation of the first target device, or a combination thereof because Jang’s stated sensing objectives include reporting the location of persons in a room as the tabulated key performance indicator for the sensing session, so the reported information indicates a location of the target device as the claim requires in the alternative (Jang, para. [0106], Table 2, “Location of persons in room”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the reported parameter information in the Katla and Jang combination indicate the target’s location or speed, because Jang identifies locating and tracking persons as the purpose of its sensing sessions and Katla already exchanges location information among sensing participants to steer the procedure.
Regarding claim 18, even though Katla teaches the combination already provides a coordinating node that updates a learning model from responder measurements and the target’s reported values: (Katla, para. [0104]), Katla does not explicitly disclose applying the updated model to later sensing information about a different object to produce outputs.
Yet, Katla in view of Jang discloses The AIML entity of claim 13, wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: subsequent to updating the AIML model, receive sensing information for a target object different than the first target device because Jang’s sensing request/response framework addresses a request to multiple distinct stations under a single sensing request, so after the model is trained using the first target device’s reported values, the node continues to receive sensing response frames — i.e., sensing information — concerning the second and third STAs, which are target devices distinct from the first target device that supplied the training values (Jang, para. [0342], “The first sensing response frame is received through the first RU, and the second sensing response frame is received through the second RU. That is, the response to the sensing request frame may be (simultaneously) received by the second and third STAs based on orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA).”).
Moreover, Jang discloses and apply the updated AIML model to the sensing information for the target object to generate one or more outputs because Jang describes a trained neural network that infers a result value from input signals, each neuron outputting a function value once the model parameters have been learned, which is application of the updated model to new input to generate outputs (Jang, para. [0393], “In the artificial neural network, each neuron may output a function value of an activation function of input signals input through a synapse, weights, and deviations.”; Jang, para. [0397], “the label may indicate a correct answer (or result value) that the artificial neural network needs to infer when the training data is input to the artificial neural network.”).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the trained model of the Katla and Jang combination to later sensing data concerning other objects, because Jang’s stated purpose for its sensing operation is detecting the motion and change of a user or an object, and a network trained on labeled examples is expressly intended to infer result values for new inputs, so using the model beyond the device that supplied the training labels is the natural and predictable use.
Regarding claim 19, Katla discloses: A user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories, because Katla’s wireless transmit/receive unit includes non-removable and removable memory, a transceiver and a processor among its enumerated components: (Katla, para. [0032] “As shown in FIG. 1B, the WTRU 102 may include a processor 118, a transceiver 120, a transmit/receive element 122, a speaker/microphone 124, a keypad 126, a display/touchpad 128, non-removable memory 130, removable memory 132, a power source 134, a global positioning system (GPS) chipset 136, and/or other peripherals 138, among others.”)
Furthermore, Katla discloses: one or more transceivers, because Katla teaches a full duplex radio in the unit for transmission and reception of signals: (Katla, para. [0041] “The WTRU 102 may include a full duplex radio for which transmission and reception of some or all of the signals (e.g., associated with particular subframes for both the UL (e.g., for transmission) and DL (e.g., for reception) may be concurrent and/ or simultaneous.”)
Moreover, Katla discloses: one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers, the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to: receive, via the one or more transceivers, configuration information to provide sensing assistance information indicative of one or more ground truth parameters, because Katla teaches a responder device receiving, from the initiator, sensing parameters such as resolution, sensing duration, accuracy and location information that enable it to take part in and report for the sensing procedure: (Katla, para. [0106] “An initiator may send sensing parameters (e.g. resolution, sensing duration, sensing accuracy, location information, etc.) to other devices, to enable the other devices to participate in sensing.”; Katla, para. [0033] “The processor 118 may be coupled to the transceiver 120, which may be coupled to the transmit/receive element 122.”)
In addition, Katla discloses: wherein the configuration information includes one or more configured time resources to perform measurements for the sensing assistance information indicative of the one or more ground truth parameters of the UE, because Katla teaches configuration received from the initiator indicating time resources, including a duration for access to the resource used for sensing: (Katla, para. [0097] “The device/sensing responder may receive a message from the sensing initiator with configuration information indicating time and/ or frequency resources, such as a duration for access to a frequency resource used for sensing”)
Furthermore, Katla discloses: and transmit, via the one or more transceivers, at least some of the sensing assistance information based at least on the measurements obtained according to the one or more configured time resources, because Katla teaches the responder feeding back its sensing measurement information to the initiator as dictated by the trigger frame after performing the measurement during the sensing duration: (Katla, para. [0122] “Following the NDP transmission 1003 and subsequent sensing measurement by sensing responder 1, at 1004, the sensing responder 1 may feedback the sensing measurement information (e.g., sensing report or sensing samples) to the initiator as dictated by the sensing trigger frame 1001.”)
Although Katla teaches a responder device that receives sensing parameters and configuration indicating time resources and a sensing duration, performs the measurements within that duration, and feeds the resulting measurement information back to the initiator: (Katla, para. [0097], [0106], [0113], [0119], [0122]), and although Katla’s sensing session requirements may themselves include a sensing duration (Katla, para. [0089]), Katla assigns identifiers only to its sensing responders (Katla, para. [0118], [0120]) and does not explicitly disclose associating the configured measurement interval with a sensing session that is itself identified to the participating devices.
Yet, Katla in view of Jang discloses wherein the configured time resources are included in a duration of at least a first sensing session because Jang’s negotiated parameters expressly include timeout information for the sensing step and the number of sensing sessions it contains, with each session explicitly signaled to the participating stations, so the interval configured for measurement falls within the duration of an identified sensing session (Jang, para. [0346], “The parameter information includes timer information for a negotiation step, role information of a STA, timeout information for a sensing step, information on a number of sensing sessions included in the sensing step”; Jang, para. [0297], “In method A, each SENS STA can recognize the session through explicit signaling for the sensing session.”).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to tie the configured measurement interval of Katla to an explicitly identified sensing session as taught by Jang, because Jang negotiates timers and the number of sensing sessions and signals each session to the participating stations, and organizing Katla’s timed measurement and feedback around identified sessions lets several devices report in a coordinated way without collision.
Regarding claim 20, in spite of the fact that Katla teaches the combination already provides a responder device configured with timed measurement resources within an identified sensing session and reporting its measurements: (Katla, para. [0097], [0113], [0119]), and although Katla sends a sensing trigger frame that directs when the responders transmit and what measurement type they feed back (Katla, para. [0118], [0119]), that frame is itself the trigger rather than configuration information conveying an indication of one or more trigger events, and Katla does not explicitly disclose the latter.
Yet, Katla in view of Jang discloses The user equipment of claim 19, wherein the configuration information to provide sensing assistance information comprises an indication of one or more trigger events because Jang’s sensing request is carried in a trigger frame, and its parameter information further conveys timer expiry and completion indicators that condition when a station is to act, which are indications of events triggering the reporting behavior (Jang, para. [0342], “The sensing request frame may be a (newly defined) trigger frame.”; Jang, para. [0201], “Anew SENS completion frame may be transmitted or an explicit indicator indicating that negotiation is complete may be included in the SENS Request frame”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the configuration in the Katla and Jang combination convey event indications as taught by Jang, because Jang delivers its sensing request in a trigger frame and adds explicit indicators marking completion and timer expiry, giving the participating device unambiguous cues for when to measure and report and thereby avoiding needless transmissions in Katla’s multi-device procedure.
Regarding claim 21, although Katla teaches the combination already provides a responder configured with trigger indications and timed measurement resources for an identified sensing session: (Katla, para. [0097], [0113], [0118]), and although Katla teaches a device sending a request to the sensing initiator for time and/or frequency resources and thereafter receiving from the initiator a message with configuration information indicating those resources (Katla, para. [0097]), Katla does not explicitly disclose that the device-originated indication reports detection of one or more trigger events indicated in the configuration information.
Yet, Katla in view of Jang discloses The user equipment of claim 20, wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: transmit, via the one or more transceivers, an indication that at least one of the one or more trigger events has been detected because in Jang the addressed station answers the trigger-frame request — the trigger event identified for claim 20 — with a sensing response frame, which is a transmitted indication that the station has detected and acted upon that triggering request (Jang, para. [0342], “The sensing request frame may be a (newly defined) trigger frame.”; Jang, para. [0343], “the STA corresponding to the identifier of the STA receives the sensing request frame, and transmits the sensing response frame after SIFS through the allocated RU.”).
Moreover, Jang discloses and wherein the configuration information comprising configured time resources is received in response to transmitting the indication that at least one of the one or more trigger events has been detected because Jang’s initiation frame, which carries the negotiated session parameters including timers and session count, is transmitted after the negotiation phase in which the stations have responded, so the timing configuration follows the station’s response (Jang, para. [0299], “All or some of the parameters described in parameter negotiation can be indicated in the SENS Initiation frame. For example, information or group ID of STAs may be basically included for one sensing session.”; Jang, para. [0346], “The parameter information includes timer information for a negotiation step, role information of a STA, timeout information for a sensing step, information on a number of sensing sessions included in the sensing step”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to order the exchange in the Katla and Jang combination so that the station first signals its response and only then receives the timing configuration, as taught by Jang, because Jang separates a negotiation phase in which stations answer the request from a later initiation frame carrying the session timers, and Katla likewise conditions its configuration message on the responder’s prior acknowledgement, so resources are committed only to devices that have confirmed participation.
Regarding claim 22, in spite of the fact that Katla teaches the combination already provides a responder that receives, from the sensing initiator, sensing configuration information including a sensing duration and the resources for reporting measurements, and performs its sensing measurements during that duration: (Katla, para. [0097], [0113] “At 804, the sensing initiator may send sensing configuration information (such as a sensing duration, resources for reporting measurements, etc.) to the devices.”; Katla, para. [0119], [0122]), Katla does not explicitly disclose that the duration so indicated is signaled to the device as the duration of an identified sensing session.
Yet, Katla in view of Jang discloses The user equipment of claim 19, wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: receive, via the one or more transceivers, an indication of the first sensing session from one or more sensing nodes separate from the UE, including at least an indication of a duration of the first sensing session because Jang’s requesting station signals timer information in the sensing request so the other stations know the interval during which the requesting station will operate, and each station recognizes the session through explicit signaling, which conveys both the session and its duration from a separate node (Jang, para. [0199], “SENS RQSTA (STA 1) indicates Timer information in the SENS Request frame and operates the Timer. Through this, other SENS STAs can know until when the SENS RQSTA will transmit the SENS Request.”; Jang, para. [0297], “In method A, each SENS STA can recognize the session through explicit signaling for the sensing session.”).
Moreover, Jang discloses obtain sensing assistance information measurements at one or more times included in the duration of the first sensing session because Jang’s stations measure the information type negotiated for the sensing phase during that phase, with responses required before the signalled timer expires, so the measurements are taken at times inside the session duration (Jang, para. [0285], “Type of Information: The type of information to be measured through sensing signal reception during the sensing phase (for example, CSI per subcarrier)”; Jang, para. [0344], “Before the timer according to the timer information expires, the first and second sensing response frames may be transmitted.”).
Furthermore, Jang discloses and transmit, via the one or more transceivers, the at least some of the sensing assistance information indicative of the one or more ground truth parameters of the UE to a network entity, an AIML entity, or both because the addressed station in Jang returns its sensing response frame on the allocated resource to the requesting station, delivering the measured information to that coordinating node (Jang, para. [0343], “the STA corresponding to the identifier of the STA receives the sensing request frame, and transmits the sensing response frame after SIFS through the allocated RU.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the responder of Katla receive a session indication with its duration from the requesting node and confine its measurements and report to that interval, as taught by Jang, because Jang signals timer information precisely so the other stations know how long the exchange lasts, which prevents late or colliding reports in the multi-device sensing procedure Katla describes.
Regarding claim 23, even though Katla teaches the combination already provides a responder that receives a session indication with its duration and reports measurements taken within it: (Katla, para. [0113], [0119]), and although Katla conditions the sending of sensing configuration and of the sensing trigger frame on whether a device has indicated its participation or sent an acknowledgement (Katla, para. [0108], [0118]), Katla does not explicitly disclose that condition being carried in the configuration information as a location condition or a sensing node condition.
Yet, Katla in view of Jang discloses The user equipment of claim 22, wherein the configuration information indicates at least one condition to receive the indication of the first sensing session from one or more sensing nodes, wherein the at least one condition includes a location condition, a sensing node condition, or a combination thereof because Jang conditions receipt on the station identifier information carried in the request, so a station whose identifier is absent does not receive the corresponding exchange, which is a sensing node condition governing whether the device is addressed for the session (Jang, para. [0342], “When the STA identifier information does not include an identifier of a fourth STA, the first STA does not receive a third sensing response frame from the fourth STA.”). This limitation is recited in the alternative, so the showing of the sensing node condition satisfies the claim.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make participation in the session of the Katla and Jang combination conditional as taught by Jang, because Jang gates the exchange on whether a station’s identifier appears in the request, and Katla likewise selects participants by their situation relative to the target, so conditioning the session indication keeps uninvolved devices from consuming the allocated resources.
Regarding claim 24, in spite of the fact that Katla teaches the combination already provides configuration directing the device to measure within a session and report the resulting values: (Katla, para. [0113], [0119]), and although Katla’s trigger frame designates the type of sensing measurement to be fed back — a sensing report giving resolution or Doppler values, or raw sensing data samples (Katla, para. [0119]) — Katla does not explicitly disclose a ground truth label designating a location or orientation quantity of the reporting device itself to be reported.
Yet, Katla in view of Jang discloses The user equipment of claim 19, wherein the configuration information to provide sensing assistance information indicative of one or more ground truth parameters comprises one or more ground truth labels associated with a location of the UE, an orientation of the UE, or both because Jang’s negotiated parameters designate the type of information to be measured, and Jang’s sensing objectives identify that information as the location of persons, so the configuration carries a designation of the location quantity to be reported (Jang, para. [0285], “Type of Information: The type of information to be measured through sensing signal reception during the sensing phase (for example, CSI per subcarrier)”; Jang, para. [0106], Table 2, “Location of persons in room”).
For these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the configuration of the Katla and Jang combination designate the location quantity the device is to report, as taught by Jang, because Jang expressly negotiates the type of information to be measured and identifies location of persons as the reported quantity, and telling the device which quantity to supply keeps the reports from several participants uniform and interpretable.
Regarding claim 25, even though Katla teaches the combination already provides configuration designating the location quantity to be reported and timed measurement resources within the sensing session, and although Katla expressly asks that measurement results carry an indication of a time stamp, duration, or period in which the measurement was made, and may request measurements performed within a certain time frame or duration: (Katla, para. [0097], [0105]), Katla does not explicitly disclose performing, within the configured interval, a measurement designated by a ground truth label as a location or orientation quantity of the reporting device itself.
Yet, Katla in view of Jang discloses The user equipment of claim 24, wherein the one or more ground truth parameters comprise the location of the UE, the orientation of the UE, or both, and further comprising: in response to receiving configuration information comprising at least one ground truth label associated with the location of the UE, perform one or more location measurement operations to obtain location information according to the one or more configured time resources because Jang’s station measures the negotiated type of information during the sensing phase and must transmit its response before the signalled timer expires, so a station configured to supply location performs that measurement within the configured interval (Jang, para. [0285], “Type of Information: The type of information to be measured through sensing signal reception during the sensing phase (for example, CSI per subcarrier)”; Jang, para. [0344], “Before the timer according to the timer information expires, the first and second sensing response frames may be transmitted.”).
Katla in view of Jang further discloses in response to receiving configuration information comprising at least one ground truth label associated with the orientation of the UE, perform one or more orientation measurement operations to obtain orientation information according to the one or more configured time resources because this operation is conditioned on receipt of a label associated with the orientation of the UE, and the claim’s transmitting limitation expressly permits the transmitted result to be based on the location measurement operations alone, so the recited condition need not be met for the claim to be satisfied; in any event Jang’s negotiated parameter set designates the type of information to be measured for the sensing step, so a label designating an orientation quantity configures the device to perform the corresponding measurement within the configured time resources (Jang, para. [0346], “information on a type of information to be measured based on the sensing signal”).
Moreover, Jang discloses and wherein, to transmit at least some of the sensing assistance information based at least on the one or more measurements obtained according to the one or more configured time resources, the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are configured to transmit time stamped sensing assistance information based on the location measurement operations, based on the orientation measurement operations, or based on both because Jang orders the reports of the several stations and bounds them by the negotiated timer so each response is delivered in its assigned slot within the session, which associates the reported measurement with the time at which it was taken (Jang, para. [0287], “Order of reports/sensing: An order may be explicitly included for STAs in order to prevent collisions during sensing signal transmission or information feedback on signal measurement.”; Jang, para. [0344], “Before the timer according to the timer information expires, the first and second sensing response frames may be transmitted.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the device of the Katla and Jang combination carry out the designated location measurement inside the configured interval and return the result with its timing, because Jang bounds and orders the reports of the participating stations by negotiated timers to prevent collisions, and Katla expressly asks that measurement results carry a time stamp or the period in which the measurement was made so results from different devices can be aligned.
Regarding claim 26, the claim recites: A method at a network entity comprising: transmitting configuration information to a user equipment target (UE-T) to provide sensing assistance information indicative of one or more ground truth parameters of the UE-T; receiving sensing measurement information of the UE-T for at least a first sensing session, wherein the received sensing measurement information of the UE-T is obtained by one or more sensing nodes separate from the UE-T; and receiving at least some of the sensing assistance information from the UE-T, wherein the received sensing assistance information is indicative of the one or more ground truth parameters of the UE-T associated with the first sensing session. Claim 26 is the method analogue of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites: The method of claim 26, wherein the one or more ground truth parameters of the UE-T associated with the first sensing session comprise one or more ground truth parameters indicative of a location of the UE-T for at least a first time included in a duration of the first sensing session, one or more ground truth parameters indicative of an orientation of the UE-T at for at least a second time included in the duration of the first sensing session, or a combination thereof, wherein the first time and the second time are the same or different. Claim 27 is the method analogue of claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 28, the claim recites: The method of claim 26, further comprising: training an Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AIML) model using the received sensing assistance information indicative of the one or more ground truth parameters and sensing measurements of the UE-T for the first sensing session; or transmitting AIML training data indicating the one or more ground truth parameters and the sensing measurements of the UE-T for the first sensing session to an AIML entity. Claim 28 is the method analogue of claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites: The method of claim 26, wherein the one or more ground truth parameters of the UE-T comprise one or more location parameters, one or more orientation parameters, or a combination thereof. Claim 29 is the method analogue of claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 30, the claim recites: The method of claim 26, wherein at least a first ground truth parameter of the one or more ground truth parameters of the UE-T includes a first ground truth parameter label and at least one ground truth parameter value of the UE-T associated with the first ground truth parameter label. Claim 30 is the method analogue of claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katla (US 2024/0049161 A1) in view of Jang (US 2024/0023161 A1) and further in view of Kasichainula (US 2023/0262281 A1).
Regarding claim 8, although Katla in view of Jang teaches the combination already provides receipt of the target device’s reported location-related parameter values for the sensing session: (Katla, para. [0106]; Jang, para. [0102], [0123], [0106] (Table 2)), Katla in view of Jang does not explicitly disclose location information of the radio-access-technology-dependent kind.
Yet, Katla in view of Jang and further in view of Kasichainula discloses The network entity of claim 1, wherein the sensing assistance information indicative of the one or more ground truth parameters of the UE-T comprises Radio Access Technology (RAT)-dependent location information, RAT-independent location information, or a combination thereof because Kasichainula’s devices report radio information in measurement reports that are each tagged with the location of the measurement, and that radio information consists of signal strength and quality measurements produced by the underlying radio access technology, so the reported location information is of the radio-access-technology-dependent kind called for in the alternative (Kasichainula, para. [0093], “The radio information may be in the form of one or more measurement reports, and/ or may include, for example, signal strength measurements, signal quality measurements, and/ or the like. Each measurement report is tagged with a timestamp and the location of the measurement (e.g., the UEs 1110 current location).”).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further have the reports carry radio-access-technology-derived location information as taught by Kasichainula, because Kasichainula tags each report of signal strength and quality with the reporting device’s current location, and supplying that location context with the radio measurements makes the aggregated reports directly usable by the collecting node. The motivation to combine Katla and Jang set forth in the rejection of claim 1 applies equally to the combination relied upon here.
Regarding claim 11, in spite of the fact that Katla in view of Jang teaches the combination already provides receipt of capability information from the target device concerning its ability to take part in the sensing measurements: (Katla, para. [0113]; Jang, para. [0098], [0126]), Katla in view of Jang does not explicitly disclose reported information describing a physical attribute of the device such as its type or class.
Yet, Katla in view of Jang and further in view of Kasichainula discloses The network entity of claim 10, wherein the capability information further comprises information indicative of a shape of the UE-T, a size of the UE-T, or a combination thereof because Kasichainula characterizes the reporting devices by identifiers that indicate the identity or unique class of the object or entity, and its device taxonomy distinguishes classes such as wearable devices, vehicles and drones whose physical form differs, so the information accompanying the device identification conveys the device’s physical class as the claim requires under its broadest reasonable reading (Kasichainula, para. [0197], “Examples of UEs, client devices, and the like, include desktop computers, workstations, laptop computers, mobile data terminals, smartphones, tablet computers, wearable devices, machine-to-machine (M2M) devices”; Kasichainula, para. [0184], “the term "identifier" at least in some examples refers to a sequence of characters that identifies or otherwise indicates the identity of a unique object, element, or entity, or a unique class of objects, elements, or entities.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include the device’s class information as taught by Kasichainula, because Kasichainula’s reporting devices span forms as different as wearables, vehicles and drones and its identifiers indicate the class of the entity, so conveying that class with the capability report tells the collecting node what kind of device produced each report. The motivation to combine Katla and Jang set forth in the rejection of claim 1 applies equally to the combination relied upon here.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST
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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights