DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner's Notes
2. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of information disclosure statement (IDS), dated on October 20, 2025 and January 29, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Application Status
4. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of the present application on October 3, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. This communication is considered fully responsive and sets forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 1, it recites, “A method performed by a wireless network, the method comprising:
receiving a sensing service request for tracking a target object and path information;
identifying, based on the path information, a plurality of sensing entities;
assigning one or more sensing entities of the plurality of sensing entities to a respective group of a plurality of groups of sensing entities,
wherein each of the plurality of sensing entities is assigned to at least one of the plurality of groups of sensing entities, and
wherein each group of the plurality of groups of sensing entities is associated with a sensing service area of a plurality of sensing service areas;
causing each of the plurality of sensing entities to be configured for sensing operation;
determining that the target object is in a first sensing service area of the plurality of sensing service areas based on the path information;
based on determining that the target object is in the first sensing service area, causing each sensing entity of a first group of sensing entities of the plurality of groups of sensing entities that is associated with the first sensing service area to be activated for sensing operation;
receiving first sensing measurements from the first group of sensing entities;
determining a first sensing result based on the first sensing measurements;
determining that the target object moved to a second sensing service area of the plurality of sensing service areas, wherein the second sensing service area is different from the first sensing service area;
based on determining that the target object moved to the second sensing service area, causing each sensing entity of a second group of sensing entities of the plurality of groups of sensing entities that is associated with the second sensing service area to be activated for sensing operation;
receiving second sensing measurements from the second group of sensing entities; and
determining a second sensing result based on the second sensing measurements.”
Claim 1 is a method-step claim, including multiple steps, e.g., receiving, identifying, assigning, etc. The limitations include some devices/entities, e.g., “a target object” indicated in italics in the first receiving step and “a plurality of sensing entities” indicated in italics in the identifying step.
In the telecom technical area, a wireless network is a collection of multiple entities, not a single device/entity. The limitation of “A method performed by a wireless network,” as in the preamble, raises questions, such as which network entity performs each step?
Consequently, claim 1 is rejected for ambiguity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 9, it recites, “A system implementing one or more network functions of a core network of a wireless network, wherein the system comprises one or more processors configured to:
receive a sensing service request for tracking a target object and path information;
identify, based on the path information, a plurality of sensing entities;
assign one or more sensing entities of the plurality of sensing entities to a respective group of a plurality of groups of sensing entities, wherein each of the plurality of sensing entities is assigned to at least one of the plurality of groups of sensing entities, and wherein each group of the plurality of groups of sensing entities is associated with a sensing service area of a plurality of sensing service areas;
cause each of the plurality of sensing entities to be configured for sensing operation;
…”
Claim 9 is a system claim, i.e. the system comprises one or more processors configurated to perform some functions. The claim includes multiple limitations, e.g., “a target object” indicated in italics in the first receive function and “a plurality of sensing entities” indicated in italics in the identify function.
In the telecom technical area, a system is a collection of multiple entities, not a single device/entity. Apparently, the relationships are not defined between the processor(s) and other claim limitations, like the sensing entity. In other words, is the sensing entities a part of a processor in the system?
Consequently, claim 9 is rejected for ambiguity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 17, it recites, “A method performed by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) in communication with a wireless network, the method comprising:
receiving configuration information from the wireless network;
associating the WTRU with a sensing service area based on the configuration information;
entering the WTRU into a sensing state and configuring the WTRU for sensing based on the configuration information;
after the WTRU enters the sensing state and is configured for sensing, receiving an activation command from the wireless network;
performing a sensing operation with respect to a target object based on the activation command;
determining a sensing result based on the sensing operation; and
transmitting data indicating the sensing result to the wireless network.”
Claim 17 is a method-step claim, including multiple steps, e.g., receiving, associating, etc. The limitations include some devices/entities, e.g., “a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU)” indicated in italics in the preamble, “a target object” indicated in italics in the performing step, etc.
In the telecom technical area, a wireless network is a collection of multiple entities, not a single device/entity.
For the receiving step, i.e., “receiving configuration information from the wireless network,” it raises a question on where this configuration information came from? Or from which network entity in the wireless network?
Consequently, claim 17 is rejected for ambiguity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1, 9, or 17.
7. Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), but would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s).
The following is the reason for examiner’s statement of allowance:
The closest prior art on record, Qiao et al. (US 12,185,189) and Lee (US 2025/0301286) are generally directed to various aspects of the positioning measurement for determining the wireless device location, wherein the wireless device location information, based on the positioning measurement(s), may be communicated to a network device, via a user plane transmission, to indicate the location of the wireless device with improved accuracy; the sensing method using integrated sensing and communication (ISAC), including receiving, via a sensing entity capable of communicating, a sensing request to obtain sensing information of a target, generating a sensing trigger based on the sensing request, and communicating with the sensing entity so that sensing of the target is performed using preconfigured sensing device configuration information, based on the sensing trigger, wherein the preconfigured sensing device configuration information includes information on a sensing device capable of sensing the target and the sensing entity associated with the sensing device.
However, after considering the claim limitations, the IDS filed October 27, 2025 and December 23, 2025, and further search, no prior art reference or a combination of prior art references disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the independent claims including:
"based on determining that the target object moved to the second sensing service area, causing each sensing entity of a second group of sensing entities of the plurality of groups of sensing entities that is associated with the second sensing service area to be activated for sensing operation; receiving second sensing measurements from the second group of sensing entities;” and “determining a second sensing result based on the second sensing measurements,” in addition to other intervening claim limitations as specified in claim 1.
Claim 9 includes similar limitations.
"performing a sensing operation with respect to a target object based on the activation command; determining a sensing result based on the sensing operation;” and “transmitting data indicating the sensing result to the wireless network,” in addition to other intervening claim limitations as specified in claim 17.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are also allowable for incorporating the features recited in the independent claims.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee (US 2025/0301286) is cited to show the sensing method using integrated sensing and communication (ISAC), including receiving, via a sensing entity capable of communicating, a sensing request to obtain sensing information of a target, generating a sensing trigger based on the sensing request, and communicating with the sensing entity so that sensing of the target is performed using preconfigured sensing device configuration information, based on the sensing trigger, wherein the preconfigured sensing device configuration information includes information on a sensing device capable of sensing the target and the sensing entity associated with the sensing device;
Qiao et al. (US 12,185,189) is cited to show the positioning measurement for determining the wireless device location, wherein the wireless device location information, based on the positioning measurement(s), may be communicated to a network device, via a user plane transmission, to indicate the location of the wireless device with improved accuracy;
Etemad et al. (US 9,572,063) is cited to show the radio resource control (RRC) signaling for configuring the user equipment to obtain and report channel state information for the downlink channels so that a target user equipment experiences enhanced signal reception and reduced interference;
Lo (US 2018/0020441) is cited to show the collaborative transmission in a wireless communication system, wherein the control information indicates time-frequency resources allocated or assigned for data transmission by the transmitter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5672. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:00AM to 5:00PM Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor JAE Y LEE can be reached on (571) 270-3936. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEI ZHAO/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights