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 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.
Claim 9 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.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “one or more propagation paths with line-of-sight (LoS) condition towards a sensing receive (Rx) radio node” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what “towards a sensing receive (Rx) radio node” means. Examiner’s best interpretation is that the sensing configuration comprises an identification of a line-of-sight propagation path.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 11, 13 Is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2023154141 A1 to Duan.
Regarding claim 1,
Duan teaches:
A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, (Figs. 6-9 - UE) comprising:
at least one memory; ([0005] – “memory”) and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory ([0005] – “, and one or more processing units communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory”) and configured to cause the UE to:
receive a sensing configuration for performing a sensing signal transmission ([0087] – “the UE may receive configuration information indicative of the predetermined time delay.) and at least one sensing measurement; ([0075] – “TDOA assistance data may be provided to a UE 105 by a location server (e.g., location server 160) for a “reference cell” (which also may be called “reference resource”), and one or more “neighbor cells” or “neighboring cells” (which also may be called a “target cell” or “target resource”), relative to the reference cell.”)
perform at least one sensing measurement ([0056] – “UE 105 may obtain location measurements… includ[ing] Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI), Round Trip signal propagation Time (RTT), Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ), Reference Signal Time Difference (RSTD), Time of Arrival (TOA), AoA, Receive Time-Transmission Time Difference (Rx-Tx)” [0097] – “the AoD of the RF sensing RS may be determined by RSRP measurements reported by UE 804.”) based on a first sensing signal; ([0075-76] – “TDOA assistance data may also include “expected Reference Signal Time Difference (RSTD)” parameters… may also include PRS configuration information parameters, which allow a UE 105 to determine when a PRS positioning occasion occurs on signals received from various neighbor cells relative to PRS positioning occasions for the reference cell, and to determine the PRS sequence transmitted from various cells in order to measure a signal ToA or RSTD.”)
transmit a second sensing signal in accordance with the sensing configuration, ([0088] – “At block 708, the functionality comprises the UE transmitting a corresponding RS at a time point corresponding to the predetermined time delay duration after the second time point (e.g., after the time point at which the UE received the RF sensing RS at block 704).”) wherein the sensing configuration indicates a time difference between a reception of the first sensing signal and a time of transmission of the second sensing signal or a time reference, ([0087] – “the UE may receive configuration information indicative of the predetermined time delay.) or a frequency difference between the reception of the first sensing signal and a transmission frequency of the second sensing signal or a frequency reference , or both; (Examiner notes that “a time difference…,” “a frequency difference…,” and “both” are elements listed in the alternative and only one is required by the claim.) and
transmit a measurement report based at least in part on the at least one sensing measurement. ([0056] – “UE 105 may obtain location measurements and send the measurements to a location server (e.g., LMF 220) for computation of a location estimate for UE 105) ([0097] – “the AoD of the RF sensing RS may be determined by RSRP measurements reported by UE 804.”)
Regarding claim 7,
Duan teaches:
The UE of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
Duan further teaches:
wherein the sensing configuration further indicates a set of measurement parameters associated with a propagation path, wherein the set of measurement parameters comprises one or more of: reference signal received path power (RSRPP), angle of arrival (AoA), zenith of arrival (ZoA), time of arrival (ToA), time of flight (ToF), doppler shift, a path-specific receive-to-transmit (Rx-to-Tx) time difference, a path-specific transmit-to-receive (Tx-to-Rx) time difference, a path-specific Rx-to-Tx frequency difference, a path specific Tx-to-Rx frequency difference, or a combination thereof. ([0076] – “In some embodiments, TDOA assistance data may also include “expected Reference Signal Time Difference (RSTD)” parameters, which provide the UE 105 with information about the RSTD values the UE 105 is expected to measure at its current location between the reference cell and each neighbor cell”)
Regarding claim 11,
Duan teaches:
The UE of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
Duan further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to receive the first sensing signal on a propagation path in a downlink direction or a first SL direction, ([0056] – “UE 105 may obtain location measurements… for gNBs 210, ng- eNB 214, and/or one or more access points for WLAN 216. Additionally or alternatively, measurements may be made of sidelink signals transmitted by other UEs”) and to transmit the second sensing signal on the propagation path in an uplink direction or a second SL direction. ([0078] – “the corresponding RS may be the an uplink RS, such as SRS”)
Regarding claim(s) 13,
Claim(s) 13 is/are processor claims corresponding to UE claim(s) 1, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 13 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023154141 A1 to Duan in view of US 20230076874 A to Jeon.
Regarding claim 2,
Duan teaches:
The UE of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
Duan further teaches:
wherein (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) wherein the measurement report indicates a measured time delay between an arrival time of the first sensing signal and the transmission of the second sensing signal ([0056] – “UE 105 may obtain location measurements and send the measurements to a location server (e.g., LMF 220) for computation of a location estimate for UE 105… location measurements may include… Receive Time-Transmission Time Difference (Rx-Tx)”) or a frequency shift between a detected frequency of the first sensing signal and the transmission frequency of the second sensing signal, or both.
Duan does not teach the lined-through portions above.
However, Jeon teaches:
UE to receive a reporting configuration that indicates a timing or condition for a transmission of the measurement report, ([00426-428] – “At operation 605, the UE reports the status of a specific sensing resource to the BS according to received configuration from the BS… The UE will report the corresponding status to the BS once the report conditions are met”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Jeon’s known technique to Lynch’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Duan teaches a base method including UE reception of configuration information and UE transmission of a measurement report; (2) Jeon teaches a specific technique of UE receiving measurement report configuration information; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an system with improved collaboration between UE and the receiver of the measurement report; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023154141 A1 to Duan in view of US 20240222853 A1 to Moss.
Regarding claim 3,
Duan teaches:
The UE of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
Duan does not teach the additional elements of the claim.
However, Moss teaches:
wherein a set of transmission parameters for the transmission of the second sensing signal is based at least in part on the at least one sensing measurement. ([0094] – “This enables the direction to a target object to be determined in the form of one or more detections, such that target objects of particular attention and arrival direction can be determined in previously well-known ways, for example using FFT/Bartlett based beamforming or a super-resolution technique such as MUSIC (Multiple Signal Classification) or Capon. The parameters making up the transmission beam, for example the present elevation angle α.sub.1, α.sub.2, may be updated as a result of the information contained within the one or more detections.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Jeon’s known technique to Lynch’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Duan teaches a base method of RF sensing and RF transmission; (2) Moss teaches a specific technique of adjusting transmission based on known locations; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an system with improved transmission; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 4,
Duan in view of Moss teaches:
The UE of claim 3, (see rejection of claim above)
Duan does not teach the additional elements of the claim.
However, Moss teaches:
The UE of claim 3, wherein to transmit the second sensing signal, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to adjust a transmission beam based at least in part on an estimated direction of arrival of the first sensing signal, and wherein the estimated direction of arrival is measured on a propagation path associated with a sensing target. ([0094] – “This enables the direction to a target object to be determined in the form of one or more detections, such that target objects of particular attention and arrival direction can be determined in previously well-known ways, for example using FFT/Bartlett based beamforming or a super-resolution technique such as MUSIC (Multiple Signal Classification) or Capon. The parameters making up the transmission beam, for example the present elevation angle α.sub.1, α.sub.2, may be updated as a result of the information contained within the one or more detections.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Jeon’s known technique to Lynch’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Duan teaches a base method of RF sensing and RF transmission; (2) Moss teaches a specific technique of adjusting transmission based on known locations; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an system with improved transmission; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 5,
Duan in view of Moss teaches:
The UE of claim 3, (see rejection of claim above)
Duan further teaches:
The UE of claim 3, wherein the time of transmission of the second sensing signal is based on the time difference and an arrival time of the first sensing signal ([0088] – “At block 708, the functionality comprises the UE transmitting a corresponding RS at a time point corresponding to the predetermined time delay duration after the second time point (e.g., after the time point at which the UE received the RF sensing RS at block 704).”) via a propagation path associated with a sensing target. (Examiner notes that no determination or association by the UE regarding this propagation path is required. When a sensing target is in the propagation path, the first sensing signal will arrive via a propagation path associated with a sensing target.)
Claim(s) 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023154141 A1 to Duan in view of US 20200142029 A1 to Brooker.
Regarding claim 8,
Duan teaches:
The UE of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
Duan does not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
However, Brooker teaches:
wherein the sensing configuration comprises an identification of one or more reflective propagation paths associated with a sensing target object, ([0083] – “store Doppler characteristics or signatures relating to known objects”) and wherein the identification of the one or more reflective propagation paths is based at least in part on a description of the one or more reflective propagation paths. ([0102] – “The object detection system 100 is configured to detect an object that has entered the radar beam by detecting characteristics of any Doppler effects created by movement of the object through one or more radar beams and comparing the Doppler characteristics with Doppler characteristics or signatures associated with known objects.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Brooker’s known technique to Lynch’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Duan teaches a base method of RF sensing and expected parameters (2) Brooker teaches a specific technique of identifying a sensing target object’s propagation path based on an expected parameter; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an system with improved object recognition; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 10,
Duan teaches:
The UE of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
Duan does not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
However, Brooker teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to identify a respective propagation path based at least in part on: an indicated propagation time/delay characteristic of the respective propagation path; an indicated propagation path directional information of the respective propagation path; an indicated movement/mobility pattern associated with the respective propagation path; ([0102] – “The object detection system 100 is configured to detect an object that has entered the radar beam by detecting characteristics of any Doppler effects created by movement of the object through one or more radar beams and comparing the Doppler characteristics with Doppler characteristics or signatures associated with known objects.”) an indicated energy/power associated with the respective propagation path; an indicated pattern describing a group of paths wherein the path is a member of the group of paths; an indicated relative description of an identified path or a known path; or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Brooker’s known technique to Lynch’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Duan teaches a base method of RF sensing and expected parameters (2) Brooker teaches a specific technique of identifying a sensing target object’s propagation path based on an expected parameter; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an system with improved object recognition; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023154141 A1 to Duan in view of US 20220234534 A1 to Elad.
Regarding claim 9,
Duan teaches:
The UE of claim 1, (see rejection of claim above)
Duan does not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
However, Elad teaches:
The UE of claim 1, wherein the sensing configuration comprises an identification of one or more propagation paths with line-of-sight (LoS) condition towards a sensing receive (Rx) radio node. ([0023] – “FIG. 4 is a flow diagram of an illustrative occupancy detector calibration method, which may be a one-time factory calibration to determine the appropriate parameter values to be stored in the internal (nonvolatile) memory” [0005] – “at least one of the azimuth-elevation-range parameter value sets corresponds to a direct line-of-sight signal transmission and reception path.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Elad’s known technique to Lynch’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Duan teaches a base method of RF sensing and expected parameters (2) Elad teaches a specific technique of using known line of sight parameters; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an system with more robust known environment parameters; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 12 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.
Claims 14-20 indicated as allowable subject matter.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record (WO 2023154141 A1 to Duan; US 20230076874 A to Jeon; US 20240222853 A1 to Moss; US 20200142029 A1 to Brooker; US 20220234534 A1 to Elad) neither teaches nor fairly renders obvious the combinations set forth in claims 12, 14-20. See analysis regarding claims 6, 12 below. Claim(s) 14 recite similar limitation(s) to claim 12 and is/are indicated as allowable subject matter for similar reasons. Dependent claims 15-20 indicated allowable at least as depending from indicated allowable claims.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record does not teach, in combination with the remaining elements of the claim:
wherein the transmission frequency of the second sensing signal is based on the frequency difference and a detected frequency or detected doppler shift, or both, of the first sensing signal via a propagation path associated with a sensing target.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record does not teach, in combination with the remaining elements of the claim:
wherein the sensing configuration indicates a directional circular graph comprising a plurality of graph vertices and a corresponding plurality of directional edges, wherein each of the plurality of graph vertices corresponds to a radio node for performing sensing signal transmission and sensing measurements, wherein each of the plurality of directional edges corresponds to a sensing measurement, wherein a starting vertex a respective directional edge corresponds to a transmitting radio node associated with a transmission of a respective sensing signal, and wherein a terminating vertex of the respective directional edge corresponds to a receiving radio node associated with a reception and measurement of the respective sensing signal.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANA CROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Pacific time.
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 Desai can be reached on (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.
/JULIANA CROSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights