DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Trademarks in the Specification
The use of the terms iOS, ANDROID, WINDOWS, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, Wi-MAX, and IEEE, each of which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. Each of these terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore each of these terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Please note that iOS, ANDROID, and WINDOWS are, at least, in paragraph [0249] of the specification; that Bluetooth is, at least, in paragraph [0089] of the specification; and that Wi-Fi, Wi-MAX, and IEEE are, at least, in paragraph [0036] of the specification.
Comments
The drawings of October 14, 2024 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
Each of the information disclosure statements (IDS) of January 14, 2025 and of April 23, 2026 have been considered during examination.
On the first page of the claim listing, and, before the first line of claim 1, it is noted that the line is a phrase in duplicate: “What is claimed is: What is claimed is:”.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW), not to any claim as it may be reproduced below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Overall, dependent claim 2 is indefinite and unclear as to what the claimed relationship is between the “doppler [sic] measurements” (line 3) and the long list of information types/methods. Is the data from these listed information types/methods used along with the Doppler measurements in some combined way in order to obtain the final velocity measurements? For purposes of examination, it is presumed that this is the case.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 17 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 2.
On line 4 of dependent claim 10, it is unclear what is meant in context by the phrase, “velocity resolution associated with the plurality of velocity measurements,” particularly as to what information this would mean that would be “assistance information.”
Prior Art Rejections
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duan et al (‘549).
The text of independent claim 1 is as follows:
“1. A device for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the device to: receive first signaling comprising an indication for the device to perform a plurality of velocity measurements associated with sensing one or more targets, wherein the first signaling comprises a measurement configuration and assistance information corresponding to the plurality of velocity measurements; receive second signaling comprising one or more reference signals associated with sensing the one or more targets; and transmit, based at least in part on the measurement configuration, the assistance information, and the one or more reference signals, third signaling comprising the plurality of velocity measurements.”
Looking, first, to independent claim 1, Duan et al (‘549) plainly discloses, “A device for wireless communication” (line 1), noting, for example, paragraph [0001] (note “wireless communication” and “wireless communication system”); paragraph [0007] at line 1 (“sensing node”); and, paragraph [0011] at line 1 (“network node”).
The claim 1, “at least one memory” (line 2) is met in Duan et al (‘549) by any disclosed memory in Duan et al (‘549), noting, for example, item 211 in Figure 2; item 311 in Figure 3; item 411 in Figure 4; item 530 in Figure 5; item 630 in Figure 6; and, page 35, right column, claim 15 at line 5 (“at least one memory”).
The claim 1, “at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the device to” (lines 3-4) is met in Duan et al (‘549) by any one or disclosed processors in Duan et al (‘549), noting, for example, in Figure 2, items 210, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234; paragraph [0087]; and, page 35, right column, claim 15 at lines 6-8 (“at least one processor coupled to … the at least one memory … configured to”).
The claim 1 limitations, “receive first signaling comprising an indication for the device to perform a plurality of velocity measurements associated with sensing one or more targets, wherein the first signaling comprises a measurement configuration and assistance information corresponding to the plurality of velocity measurements” (lines 5-8) are met in Duan et al (‘549) by the functions 1016 and 1018 as illustrated in Figure 10, and, as described in paragraphs [0175] and [0176].
The claim 1 limitations, “receive second signaling comprising one or more reference signals associated with sensing the one or more targets” (lines 9-10) are met in Duan et al (‘549) by the function 1020 as illustrated in Figure 10 (“Reference Signal”), and, as described in paragraph [0177].
The claim 1 limitations, “transmit, based at least in part on the measurement configuration, the assistance information, and the one or more reference signals, third signaling comprising the plurality of velocity measurements” (lines 11-13) are met in Duan et al (‘549) by one or more of items 1022, 1016, and/or 1018 in Figure 10, noting, also, for example, paragraph [0178]; paragraph [0097] at lines 30-35 (“velocity”); paragraph [0139] at lines 10-26 (“velocity”); paragraph [0142] (“velocity” and “Doppler”); and, page 21, left column at line 1 (“velocity”).
In that each and every claim limitation recited in independent claim 1 is plainly disclosed in Duan et al (‘549), independent claim 1 is anticipated by Duan et al (‘549).
The further limitations of dependent claim 7 are met by the transmitting of reference signals in Duan et al (‘549).
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 13, Duan et al (‘549) discloses the claimed “positioning reference signal (PRS)” (see paragraphs [5] and [124]); the claimed “sounding reference signal (SRS)” (see paragraphs [113], [118], and [119]); and, “tracking reference signal (TRS)” (see paragraph [189]).
As for independent claim 14, the remarks are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 1. The claim 14, “at least one controller …” on lines 2-3 of claim 14 is interpreted as being met in Duan et al (‘549) in that the disclosed processors in Duan et al (‘549) perform control by executing the functions of the claimed device. The term, “processor” on line 1 of claim 14 is interpreted as being the overall device in Duan et al (‘549), noting the treatment of “device” on line 1 of claim 1 in the rejection above. Thus, independent claim 14 is anticipated by Duan et al (‘549).
The remarks with respect to independent claim 15 are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 1 in that claim 15 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1. So, independent claim 15 is anticipated by Duan et al (‘549).
With reference to independent claim 16, “A first device for wireless communication” (line 1) is plainly disclosed in Duan et al (‘549), by any disclosed memory in Duan et al (‘549), noting, for example, item 211 in Figure 2; item 311 in Figure 3; item 411 in Figure 4; item 530 in Figure 5; item 630 in Figure 6; and, page 35, right column, claim 15 at line 5 (“at least one memory”).
The claim 16, “at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the first device to” (lines 3-4) is met in Duan et al (‘549) by any one or disclosed processors in Duan et al (‘549), noting, for example, in Figure 2, items 210, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234; paragraph [0087]; and, page 35, right column, claim 15 at lines 6-8 (“at least one processor coupled to … the at least one memory … configured to”).
The claim 16 function, “transmit first signaling that indicates for one or more second devices to perform a plurality of velocity measurements associated with sensing one or more targets, wherein the first signaling comprises assistance information corresponding to the plurality of velocity measurements” (lines 5-8) is met in Duan et al (‘549) by one or more of items 1022, 1016, and/or 1018 in Figure 10, noting, also, for example, paragraph [0178]; paragraph [0097] at lines 30-35 (“velocity”); paragraph [0139] at lines 10-26 (“velocity”); paragraph [0142] (“velocity” and “Doppler”); and, page 21, left column at line 1 (“velocity”). The claim 16, “one or more second devices” (line 5) are met in Duan et al (‘549), at least, by any one or more of the disclosed sensing nodes, noting, for example, paragraph [0158] at line 6 (“one or more sensing nodes”), paragraph [0163] (“sensing nodes”), and, paragraph [0210].
The claim 16 function, “receive, based at least in part on the assistance information and one or more reference signals, second signaling comprising the plurality of velocity measurements” is met in Duan et al (‘549) by items 1026 and 1028 in Figure 10.
In that each and every claimed feature recited in independent claim 16 is plainly disclosed in Duan et al (‘549), independent claim 16 is anticipated by Duan et al (‘549).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al (‘549).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of wireless measuring equipment.
The further limitations of dependent claim 8 are not disclosed in Duan et al (‘549), except for the transmitting of the reference signals from a device. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the claimed “velocity measurement window,” “location information associated with the transmitting device,” and, “location information associated with the device” from among the many possibilities for “assistance information” in an effort to optimize the functioning of the claimed device, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
The further limitations of dependent claim 12 are disclosed in Duan et al (‘549) as follows: the “transmission-reception point (TRP)” (paragraphs [5], [34], and [54]); “user equipment (UE)” (paragraph [52]); “network equipment (NE)” (any disclosed piece of equipment in the disclosed network; e.g., paragraph [5] at lines 1-3); “sensing management component (SMC)” (any sensing node in part or in whole); and, “positioning reference unit (PRU)” (paragraph 5). However, there is not a disclosure in Duan et al (‘549) as to a “passive target” or an “active target” (line 4). In that Duan et al (‘549) discloses detection of targets generally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that any desired type of target, whether active or passive, could be detected, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 13, Duan et al (‘549) discloses the claimed “positioning reference signal (PRS)” (see paragraphs [5] and [124]); the claimed “sounding reference signal (SRS)” (see paragraphs [113], [118], and [119]); and, “tracking reference signal (TRS)” (see paragraph [189]). However, Duan et al (‘549) does not disclose the claimed “sensing reference signal (SeRS)”; “synchronization signal block (SSB)”; “channel state information-reference signal (CSI-RS); or, the claimed “phase tracking-reference signal (PT-RS).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the claimed “sensing reference signal (SeRS)”; “synchronization signal block (SSB)”; “channel state information-reference signal (CSI-RS); or, the claimed “phase tracking-reference signal (PT-RS)” in the Duan et al (‘549) “one or more reference signals” in an effort to optimize the functioning of the claimed “device,” with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-6, 9, 11, and 18-20 are 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.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cha et al (‘256) is of general interest for showing the state of the related prior art, particularly as to a Transmission Reception Point (TRP) and configuration information. However, Cha et al (‘256) fails to disclose any of the claimed features recited in any one of dependent claims 2-6, 9-11, or 17-20.
Hasegawa et al (‘622) is of general interest for showing the state of the related prior art, particularly as to the use of types of time stamps. However, Hasegawa et al (‘622) fails to disclose any of the claimed features recited in any one of dependent claims 2-6, 9-11, or 17-20.
Hammarberg et al (‘971) is of general interest for showing the state of the related prior art, particularly as to the use of quality metrics. However, Hammarberg et al (‘971) fails to disclose any of the claimed features recited in any one of dependent claims 2-6, 9-11, or 17-20.
Edge et al (‘162) is of general interest for showing the state of the related prior art, particularly as to the use of assistance data. However, Edge et al (‘162) fails to disclose any of the claimed features recited in any one of dependent claims 2-6, 9-11, or 17-20.
In that each of Cha et al (‘256), Hasegawa et al (‘622), Hammarberg et al (‘971), or Edge et al (‘162) merely shows the general state of the related prior art, none of the prior art of record either taken alone or taken in any possible combination would anticipate or would tend to render obvious the claimed subject matter in any one or more of dependent claims 2-6, 9-11, or 17-20 interpreted as incorporating the limitations of the claims from which each depends (37 CFR 1.75(c): “Claims in dependent form shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim”).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights