DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is responsive to the communication(s) filed on 10/18/2024. Claims 1-20, of which claims 1, 14, and 18 are independent, were pending in this application and are considered below.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The recitation "NTN" (¶[00163]) seems to be improper, because this acronym has not been introduced previously. It is suggested the first instance of any abbreviation in claims appear in the parenthesis preceded by its definition, e.g., “Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN)”. Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 USC § 35 USC § 112, second paragraph
Examiner Note: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) made technical changes to 35 U.S.C. § 112 that only apply to patent applications filed on or after on September 16, 2012.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 1-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention
Regarding claims 1 and 18, claim recite the limitations “receiving/receive a response signal set that responds to a radio signal, from an ambient internet of things (A-IoT) device set” (line 2 of claim 1; line 5 of claim 18), which term “a response signal set that responds to a radio signal” makes it vague and indefinite. It is not clear what term “responds to a radio signal” is referring to. Does the response signal set responds while it is being received, or responds after it is being received? Or does the response signal set is being generated in response to the radio signal? Furthermore, it is not clear what the source of the radio signal is. The aforesaid issues leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite. It is recommended to replace the limitations with phrase --receiving/receive from an ambient internet of things (A-IoT) device set a response signal set in response to a radio signal transmitted by the reader--.
Claims also recite the limitations “identifying/identify the corresponding A-IoT device based on the identification of the corresponding A-IoT device, and performing/perform measurement for a positioning parameter” which is vague and indefinite, because it is not clear whether the steps of “identifying/identify” and “performing/perform” are two separate steps, or the step of “identifying/identify” is based on “the identification” and “performing/perform”. It is recommended to replace the limitations with phrase --identifying/identify the corresponding A-IoT device based on the identification of the corresponding A-IoT device; performing/perform measurement for a positioning parameter from the respond signal of the corresponding A-IoT device--, i.e., two separate steps.
Furthermore, claims recite the limitations “executing/execute a positioning related operation based on the identified A-IoT device and the measurement for the positioning parameter”, which is vague and indefinite, because it is not clear how the measurement for the positioning parameters is performed and what is the measurement for. Do the claims execute the positioning related operation to determine the position of the reader (i.e., UE), or the position of the A-IoT device, or both, or else?
“Assuming arguendo” that the claims execute the positioning related operation to determine the position of the reader, then, the limitations “executing/execute a positioning related operation based on the identified A-IoT device and the measurement for the positioning parameter” is vague and indefinite for omitting to recite that the A-IoT device position is known by UE.
It is noted that specification discloses a signal-based method, in which a UE uses signals from A-IoT devices to estimate its own location. (¶[0073]). However, the locations of the A-IoT is known, when the UE uses signals from A-IoT devices to estimate its own location (¶[00151]: “both the gNB 1802 and the UE 1804 may know the position of the A-IoT devices 1806-1, 1806-2 ... , 1806- n, such as geolocations of the A-IoT device 1806-1.”). Specifically, the specification discloses:
“FIG. 18(A) is a diagram 1800 illustrating an example architecture regarding precise positioning by using multiple A-IoT devices. As shown in FIG. 18, if the UE 1804 and the gNB 1802 know the geolocation of an A-IoT device set including multiple AIoT devices 1806-1, 1806-2 ... , 1806-n, and can receive the response signals from them, such as backscattered signals, both the UE 1804 and the gNB 1802 may estimate the UE's location using the A-IoT devices 1806-1, 1806-2 ... , 1806-n.” (¶[00137] - underlines added)
Regarding claim 14, claim expressly recites the limitations “determining a position of the A-IoT device based on the measurement result.”, which is vague and indefinite for omitting to recite that the UE position is known by the network or reported by UE to the network.
It is noted that specification discloses a signal-based method, in which a UE uses signals from A-IoT devices to estimate the location of an A-IoT device. (¶[0073]). However, the locations of the UE is known, when the UE uses signals from A-IoT devices to estimate the location of an A-IoT (¶[00182]: “UE finders 1904-1 and 1904-2 may report their own locations … to the gNB 1902.”).
Specifically, claim recites the limitations “determining a position of the A-IoT device” (line 6 of claim 14), i.e., claim is directed to a signal-based method of determining the location of an A-IoT by UE, using the known location of UE, in which the specification, for instance, discloses:
"gNB Request SRS Transmission: As shown in FIG. 19(A), the gNB 1902 may identify a need to locate a specific A-IoT device. It then may select one or multiple UE finders 1904-1, 1904-2 ... , 1904-n and send them a request to transmit a special Sounding Reference Signal (SRS). For instance, the gNB 1902 may select UE finders 1904-1 and 1904-2 and send them a request to transmit a special SRS." (¶[00178] - Bolds in the original; underlines added);
"SRS Transmission from UE Finders: The selected UE finders 1904-1 and 1904-2 may transmit the special SRS as requested by the gNB 1902. The passive A-IoT device 1906 in the vicinity may intercept these signals." (¶[00173] - Bolds in the original; underlines added); "Backscattering from A-IoT Device: Upon receiving the SRS, the A-IoT device 1906 may modulate it by adding its unique ID using On-Off Keying (OOK) and then reflect it back towards the UE finders. For instance, if the A-IoT device's unique ID is '101', it may modulate the intercepted SRS and reflect it back towards the UE finders 1904-1 and 1904-2." (¶[00183] - Bolds in the original; underlines added)
"Signal Measurement at UE Finders: The UE finders 1904-1 and 1904-2 may receive the backscattered signals from the A-IoT device 1906. They may measure positioning parameters like Time Difference of Arrival (TDOA) or Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) from these signals and identify the originating A-IoT device using the unique ID embedded in the signal. For example, UE finders 1904-1 and 1904-2 may measure the time it took for the backscattered signal to reach them (TDOA) and the strength of the received signal (RSSI). They may also extract the unique ID '101' from the signal to identify the A-IoT device 1906." (¶[00181] - Bolds in the original; underlines added); "Reporting Measurements to gNB: Each of the multiple UE finders 1904-1, 1904-2 ... ,1904-n may report its own location, as well as the measured parameters (TDOA or RSSI), to the gNB 1902. For instance, UE finders 1904-1 and 1904-2 may report their own locations and the measured TDOA and RSSI values to the gNB 1902." (¶[00182] - Bolds in the original; underlines added); "Position Calculation at gNB: The gNB 1902 may use these measurements from the UE finders 1904-1, 1904-2 ... ,1904-n to determine the A-IoT device's position. In such case, the gNB 1902 may know the locations of the UE finders 1904-1, 1904-2 ... ,1904-n. For example, the gNB 1902 may use the TDOA and RSSI values reported by UE finder 1904-1 and 1904-2, along with their known locations, to triangulate the position of the A-IoT device 1906." (¶[00183] - Bolds in the original; underlines added).
Claim also “receiving a report from the UE set, the report comprising a measurement result for a positioning parameter and an identification of an ambient internet of things (A-IoT) device, the measurement result indicating a position information of the A-IoT device” (line 3-5 of claim 14 – underline added), which is vague and indefinite, because it is not clear what is the difference between “positioning parameter of an ambient internet of things (A-IoT) device” and “position information of the A-IoT device”. It is recommended to replace the limitations with --receiving a report from the UE set, the report comprising a measurement result and an identification of an ambient internet of things (A-IoT) device, the measurement result indicating a positioning parameter of the A-IoT device--, and replace the term “the position information” (line 1 of claim 15) with the phrase --the positioning parameter--.
Regarding claim 15, claim recites the limitations “receiving a response signal that responds to the radio signal from the A-IoT device” (line 2 of claim 15), which term “a response signal that responds to a radio signal” makes it vague and indefinite. It is not clear what term “responds to a radio signal” is referring to. Does the response signal responds while it is being received, or responds after it is being received? Or does the response signal set is being generated in response to the radio signal? Furthermore, it is noted that claim 14, which claim 15 dependent upon, does not indicate that the UE transmit the requested radio signal by the network. The aforesaid issues leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite. It is recommended to replace the limitations with phrase --receiving from the A-IoT device a response signal in response to the radio signal transmitted by the UE--.
Regarding claims 2-13, 16-17 and 19-20, claims are rejected due to their dependency to the rejected claims 1, 14, and 18, correspondingly.
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 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.
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See also MPEP § 2131.02. "The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the … claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that, in some circumstances, it is permissible to use multiple references in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. See MPEP § 2131.01. ("(A) Prove a primary reference contains an "enabled disclosure;" (B) Explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference; or (C) Show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent.").
Claims 1-10, 13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2025/0048309 A1 to Fahim et al.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Fahim et al. disclose a method and apparatus of wireless communication of a reader (Fig. 7), comprising:
receiving a response signal set that responds to a radio signal, from an ambient internet of things (A-IoT) device set, a response signal in the response signal set being modulated by a corresponding A-IoT device in the A-IoT device set to include an identification of the corresponding A-IoT device (¶[0162]: “shown in FIG. 10, TRP 1 transmits one or more reference signals which are received by UE 1 and one or more of the RFID tags, TAG 1 through TAG 5. One or more of the RFID tags, TAG 1 through TAG 5, provide backscatter signals based on the reference signal transmitted by TRP 1.”);
identifying the corresponding A-IoT device based on the identification of the corresponding A-IoT device, and performing measurement for a positioning parameter (¶[0043]: ”positioning of a target object in an RF sensing environment may be enhanced through the additional measurements that may be obtained using the backscattered signals provided by ambient IoT device in the sensing environment the information (e.g., capabilities, locations, etc.) associated with the ambient IoT in a positioning/sensing environment may be transferred”, ¶[0154]; Fig. 7) ; and
executing a positioning related operation based on the identified A-IoT device and the measurement for the positioning parameter (¶[0163]: “The propagation times Ttrp1-tagi for i=l, 2, 3, 4, 5 are known since the locations of the TRP, TRP 1, and the RFID tags, TAG 1 through TAG 5, are known. As such, the known values may be used in the foregoing equations to obtain the backscatter propagation times Ttagi-ue1 for i=l, 2, 3, 4, 5. Additionally, the direct channel downlink propagation time between TRP 1 and UE 1, τtrp1-ue can be estimated. Finally, τtagi-ue1 for i=l, 2, 3, 4, 5 and τtrp1-ue can be used to estimate the position of UE 1 using classical TDOA positioning techniques.”). Furthermore, a TRP inherently includes a memory and a processor.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Fahim et al. disclose as stated above. Fahim et al. also disclose wherein the reader comprises a user equipment (UE) or a gNodeB (gNB) (¶[0161]: ”one or more of the base stations/TRPs in the positioning environment 900 may be replaced by anchor ambient IoT devices (e.g., RFID tags).”).
Regarding claims 3 and 20, Fahim et al. disclose as stated above. Fahim et al. also disclose wherein the radio signal comprises a sounding reference signal (SRS) (¶[0135]: “uplink reference signals ( e.g., sounding reference signals (SRS))”).
Regarding claim 4, Fahim et al. disclose as stated above. Fahim et al. also disclose wherein executing the positioning related operation comprises: determining, by the reader, a position of the reader based on the measurement (¶[0163]: “The propagation times Ttrp1-tagi for i=l, 2, 3, 4, 5 are known since the locations of the TRP, TRP 1, and the RFID tags, TAG 1 through TAG 5, are known. As such, the known values may be used in the foregoing equations to obtain the backscatter propagation times Ttagi-ue1 for i=l, 2, 3, 4, 5. Additionally, the direct channel downlink propagation time between TRP 1 and UE 1, τtrp1-ue can be estimated. Finally, τtagi-ue1 for i=l, 2, 3, 4, 5 and τtrp1-ue can be used to estimate the position of UE 1 using classical TDOA positioning techniques.”); or determining that the corresponding A-IoT device is near the reader, based on successful reception by the reader of a device-to-reader (D2R) transmission from the corresponding A-IoT device, which is in response to a reader-to-device (R2D) transmission, wherein the D2R transmission represents a communication from the corresponding A-IoT device to the reader, while the R2D transmission represents a communication from the reader to the corresponding A-IoT device.
Regarding claim 5, Fahim et al. disclose as stated above. Fahim et al. also disclose wherein the position of the reader is determined by the reader calculating its position (¶[0163]: “The propagation times Ttrp1-tagi for i=l, 2, 3, 4, 5 are known since the locations of the TRP, TRP 1, and the RFID tags, TAG 1 through TAG 5, are known. As such, the known values may be used in the foregoing equations to obtain the backscatter propagation times Ttagi-ue1 for i=l, 2, 3, 4, 5. Additionally, the direct channel downlink propagation time between TRP 1 and UE 1, τtrp1-ue can be estimated. Finally, τtagi-ue1 for i=l, 2, 3, 4, 5 and τtrp1-ue can be used to estimate the position of UE 1 using classical TDOA positioning techniques.”), or the position of the reader is determined by another computation entity calculating the position of the reader.
Regarding claim 6, Fahim et al. disclose as stated above. Fahim et al. also disclose wherein the radio signal is transmitted by the reader (¶[0162]: “shown in FIG. 10, TRP 1 transmits one or more reference signals which are received by UE 1 and one or more of the RFID tags, TAG 1 through TAG 5. One or more of the RFID tags, TAG 1 through TAG 5, provide backscatter signals based on the reference signal transmitted by TRP 1.”);, or the radio signal is transmitted by another computation entity.
Regarding claim 7, Fahim et al. disclose as stated above. Fahim et al. also disclose wherein the response signal set comprises multiple response signals from multiple A-IoT devices in the A-IoT device set (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 8, Fahim et al. disclose as stated above. Fahim et al. also disclose wherein a position of the reader is triangulated through multiple measurement results for the positioning parameter from the multiple A-IoT devices (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 9, Fahim et al. disclose as stated above. Fahim et al. also disclose wherein the positioning parameter comprises a time difference of arrival (TDOA) of the multiple response signals (¶[0163]: “TDOA positioning techniques”).
Regarding claim 10, Fahim et al. disclose as stated above. Fahim et al. also disclose wherein the positioning parameter comprises a round-trip time (RTT) of a response signal in the response signal set (Fig. 5: “530 Multi-cell Round-Trip-Time (RTT)”), or a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the response signal in the response signal set.
Regarding claim 13, Fahim et al. disclose as stated above. Fahim et al. also disclose wherein executing the positioning related operation comprises: reporting a position information of the A-IoT device to another computation entity (¶[0163]: “The propagation times Ttrp1-tagi for i=l, 2, 3, 4, 5 are known since the locations of the TRP, TRP 1, and the RFID tags, TAG 1 through TAG 5, are known.”).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The foregoing obviousness inquiry requires an expansive and flexible approach, not a rigid approach demanding express teachings, suggestions and motivations to combine prior art teachings. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 97 (US 2007). The rationale supporting a conclusion of obviousness should be made explicit for review, but the rationale does not require precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the claim. Id. at 1396. A rejection can rely on inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. Id. Obviousness rejections are not limited to showing the obviousness of solutions to the problems Applicant was trying to solve. Id. at 1397. Rather, one can show obviousness of a claim by establishing the obviousness of any solution to any known problem in the field of endeavor and addressed by a patent application's subject matter. Id. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton, but is possessed of ordinary creativity. Id. One of ordinary skill could find alternative uses for prior art elements beyond the elements' primary purposes and fit prior art teachings together like a puzzle. Id. A combination of prior art teachings does not require absolute predictability. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals Inc., 81 USPQ2d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006). All that is required is a reasonable expectation of success. Id.
Claim 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2025/0048309 A1 to Fahim et al.
Regarding claim 14, Fahim et al. disclose a method of wireless communication of a network (Fig. 8; ¶[0155]: “ FIG. 8 shows an example scenario 800 using backscatter-based positioning to determine a position of an ambient IoT device 802 (e.g., RFID tag), according to aspects of the disclosure. Baseline backscatter-based positioning typically involves at least one transmission TRP acting as a reader, at least one RFID tag that is to be positioned, and multiple reception TRPs to measure the backscatter signal from the RFID tag”), comprising:
requesting a transmission reception point (TRP) set to transmit a radio signal ((¶[0155]: “In FIG. 8, TRP 1 operates as the transmission/reader TRP and transmits one or more sensing signals 804 (e.g., PRS), which are backscattered by the RFID tag 802. The backscattered signals may be received by TRP 1 as well as by reception TRPs TRP 2 through TRP 5.);
receiving a report from the UE set, the report comprising a measurement result for a positioning parameter and an identification of an ambient internet of things (A-IoT) device, the measurement result indicating a position information of the A-IoT device (¶[0155]: “TRP 1 receives backscattered signals along propagation path 806, TRP 2 receives backscattered signals along propagation path 808, TRP 3 receives backscattered signals along propagation path 810, TRP 4 receives backscattered signals along propagation path 812, and TRP 5 receives backscattered signals along propagation path 814.”; ¶[0156]: “Given the received backscatter signals at the TRPs, the … propagation time estimates may be obtained”); and
determining a position of the A-IoT device based on the measurement result (¶[0157]: “The measurements for τ1, τ2 , τ3 , τ4 , τ5 can be used in classical positioning techniques to obtain the location of the tag 802”). Fahim et al. disclose all the limitations except for using TRP as a reader. However, Fahim et al. disclose “one or more of the base stations/TRPs in the positioning environment 900 may be replaced by anchor ambient IoT devices (e.g., RFID tags). FIG. 10 shows an example positioning environment 1000 including ambient IoT anchor devices … specific base station/TRPs shown in the positioning environment 900 have been replaced by anchor RFID tags, labeled TAG 1 through TAG 5, in the positioning environment 1000 shown in FIG. 10.” (¶0161] – truncated). One of the ordinary skills understand that a UE, with processors like the Qualcomm Dragonwing Q-6690 have a built-in UHF RFID scanning module, can also be used as a RFID reader. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the UE in place of TRP in the system of Fahim et al. disclose to reach at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success, because such a replacement would have represented the combination of known techniques through conventional manners to provide predictable and expected results.
Regarding claim 15, Fahim et al. disclose as stated above. Fahim et al. also disclose wherein the position information of the A-IoT device is obtained by a UE in the UE set receiving a response signal that responds to the radio signal from the A-IoT device, and the response signal is modulated by the A-IoT device to include the identification of the A-IoT device (Fig. 7; ¶[0154]).
Regarding claim 16, Fahim et al. disclose as stated above. Fahim et al. also disclose reporting the position of the A-IoT device to a computation entity that pairs with the A-IoT device (¶[0163]: “the locations of the TRP, TRP 1, and the RFID tags, TAG 1 through TAG 5, are known.”)..
Regarding claim 17, Fahim et al. disclose as stated above. Fahim et al. also disclose wherein the network comprises multiple base stations, and a base station receiving the report from the UE set is different from a base station reporting the position of the A-IoT device to the computation entity (¶[0162]: “shown in FIG. 10, TRP 1 transmits one or more reference signals which are received by UE 1 and one or more of the RFID tags, TAG 1 through TAG 5”.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2025/0048309 A1 to Fahim et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2024/0406275 A1 Butt et al.
Regarding claim 11, Fahim et al. disclose as stated above, except for expressly teaching wherein the identification of the corresponding A-IoT device is incorporated into the response signal by the A-IoT device altering a property of the radio signal
However, aforesaid additional claimed features are well known backscattering techniques in A-IoT in the art, which allow batteryless devices to transmit data by reflecting and modulating existing radio frequency (RF) signals rather than generating their own. For instance, Butt et al. disclose wherein the alteration of the property of the radio signal comprises: modulation of a carrier waveform within the radio signal using on-off keying (OOK) ((Fig. 2 – extracted below; ¶[0079] FIG. 2 is a diagram of an example embodiment of a monostatic configuration for exciting an ambient IoT device and reading backscatter from the ambient IoT device. The illustrated monostatic configuration includes an exciter and reader combination device 250 (which may be UE 150 of FIG. 1) and includes an ambient IoT device 202 that is capable of passive backscattering. The exciter/reader device 250 emits a radio-frequency (RF) signal, and the ambient IoT device 202 harvests energy from the RF signal and is activated. Once activated, the ambient IoT device 202 modulates the received RF signal with information stored in the ambient IoT device 202 and reflects the modulated RF signal as the backscattered signal. The exciter/reader device 250 then receives the backscattered signal (i.e., the modulated RF signal) and demodulates it to extract the information from the ambient IoT device 202. In examples, a low-complexity modulation scheme, such as on-off keying (OOK), may be used.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
272
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the well-known techniques of backscattering, as taught by Butt et al. and used by Fahim et al. to reach at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success, because such a combination would have represented the combination of known techniques through conventional manners to provide predictable and expected results.
Regarding claim 12, Fahim et al. disclose as stated above, except for expressly teaching wherein the alteration of the property of the radio signal comprises: modulation of a carrier waveform within the radio signal using on-off keying (OOK).
However, aforesaid additional claimed features are well known backscattering techniques in A-IoT in the art, which allow batteryless devices to transmit data by reflecting and modulating existing radio frequency (RF) signals rather than generating their own. For instance, Butt et al. disclose wherein the alteration of the property of the radio signal comprises: modulation of a carrier waveform within the radio signal using on-off keying (OOK) ((Fig. 2 – extracted below; ¶[0079] FIG. 2 is a diagram of an example embodiment of a monostatic configuration for exciting an ambient IoT device and reading backscatter from the ambient IoT device. The illustrated monostatic configuration includes an exciter and reader combination device 250 (which may be UE 150 of FIG. 1) and includes an ambient IoT device 202 that is capable of passive backscattering. The exciter/reader device 250 emits a radio-frequency (RF) signal, and the ambient IoT device 202 harvests energy from the RF signal and is activated. Once activated, the ambient IoT device 202 modulates the received RF signal with information stored in the ambient IoT device 202 and reflects the modulated RF signal as the backscattered signal. The exciter/reader device 250 then receives the backscattered signal (i.e., the modulated RF signal) and demodulates it to extract the information from the ambient IoT device 202. In examples, a low-complexity modulation scheme, such as on-off keying (OOK), may be used.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
272
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the well-known techniques of backscattering, as taught by Butt et al. and used by Fahim et al. to reach at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success, because such a combination would have represented the combination of known techniques through conventional manners to provide predictable and expected results.
Conclusion
As applied to the claims above, the specific columns, line numbers, and figures in the references has been cited for the Applicant’s convenience. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the particular limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures may apply as well. The Applicant is respectfully requested to fully consider the references, in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner, in preparing responses. Applicant(s) are reminded that MPEP 2123 I. states: “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
The attention of the applicant is drawn to the fact that the application may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject matter which extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed. In order to facilitate the examination of the conformity of the amended application, the applicant is respectfully requested to clearly identify the amendments carried out, irrespective of whether they concern amendments by addition, replacement or deletion, and to indicate the passages of the application as filed on which these amendments are based.
Reliance on the US Pre-Grant Publication (PG PUB) of this application, which is not part of the image file wrapper of the patent application, in the prosecution is improper. All references in the reply to the office action are to be made to the latest version on record of the patent application as filed not as published. The latest version on record of the patent application means the patent application as originally filed and modified by previously entered amendment(s).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nader Bolourchi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8064. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 to 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S. Wang, SPE can be reached on (571) 272-9018. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO web-based Video Conferencing and Collaboration Tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. See MPEP § 502.03. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122 and will not initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail. The internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. The written authorization may be submitted via EFS-Web, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.
The following is a sample authorization form, which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
A written authorization may be withdrawn by filing a signed paper clearly identifying the original authorization. The following is a sample form which may be used by applicant to withdraw the authorization:
“The authorization given on______, to the USPTO to communicate with any practitioner of record or acting in a representative capacity in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application via video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail is hereby withdrawn.”
To facilitate processing of the internet communication authorization or withdraw of authorization, the Office strongly encourages use of Form PTO/SB/439, filed via EFS-Web. The Form is available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
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.
/Nader Bolourchi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights