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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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, 2, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin (US 2025/0350971).
Regarding Claims 1, 7, 13 and 17, Lin teaches a method for coordinated sensing measurement, applicable to a sensing initiator (¶ [0175], see specifically sensing initiatior), the method comprising:
during a coordinated sensing measurement, triggering each group of or each of sensing responders that participate in the coordinated sensing measurement to execute all or a portion of stages in a sensing measurement process in a poll triggering mode (¶ [0123], [0124], see specifically poll and report phases.)
Regarding Claim 2, 8, 14 and 18, Lin teaches the poll triggering mode is implemented based on at least one type of:
sensing request frames;
sensing measurement poll frames (¶ [0123], [0124], see specifically poll and report phases.); or
sensing report poll frames (¶ [0153] – [0154], poll and report subvariants);
wherein the sensing request frames are configured to trigger the sensing responder to execute all the stages in the sensing measurement process,
the sensing measurement poll frames are configured to trigger the sensing responder to execute a sensing measurement stage and a report stage in the sensing measurement process (¶ [0123], [0124], see specifically poll and report phases and ¶ [0153] – [0154], poll and report subvariants), and
the sensing report poll frames are configured to trigger the sensing responder to execute the report stage in the sensing measurement process (¶ [0153] – [0154], poll and report subvariants);
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 9, 11, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2025/0350971) in view of Cui (US 2023/0065533).
Regarding Claim 3, 9 and 15, Lin fails to explicitly teach each of the sensing responders in one group of the sensing responders corresponds to one of the sensing request frames, or each of the sensing responders corresponds to one of the sensing request frames.
Cui from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches each of the sensing responders in one group of the sensing responders corresponds to one of the sensing request frames, or each of the sensing responders corresponds to one of the sensing request frames (¶ [0095], see specifically individually.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to individually poll each of the UE’s in the system of Lin as taught by Cui.
The motivation is that it provides greater control for the base station in performing measurements in a group to either trigger the whole group or one or more devices in the group to perform a function.
Regarding Claims 5, 11 and 19, Lin fails to explicitly teach each of the sensing responders corresponds to one of the sensing report poll frames.
Cui from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches each of the sensing responders corresponds to one of the sensing report poll frames (¶ [0095], see specifically individually.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to individually poll each of the UE’s in the system of Lin as taught by Cui.
The motivation is that it provides greater control for the base station in performing measurements in a group to either trigger the whole group or one or more devices in the group to perform a function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 10, 12, 16, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M MORLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM - 4PM.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/ROBERT M MORLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
ROBERT M. MORLAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights