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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 filed on 27 NOV 2024 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 5 JAN 2026 and 10 APR 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the arrow for 316 in Figure 3 should be pointing toward the WTRU 302. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) in claim 1: structure found in ¶ [0046]-[0055] and Fig. 1B includes a memory, a processor and a transceiver.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(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) 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2024/0429963 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. discloses:
A method performed by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (Liu et al. UE 1406, Fig. 14), the method comprising:
receiving, from a wireless network (Liu et al. base station 1402, Fig. 14), configuration information indicating information related to a positioning operation and identifying at least one event that triggers one or more sensing-related actions to assist the positioning operation (Liu et al. indication parameters of first and second chirp set configurations 1410 are sent to UE 1406; where detecting motion triggers the second chirp set configuration; the positioning operation is performed using the first chirp set configuration and the sensing operation is performed using the second chirp set configuration);
performing one or more positioning measurements (Liu et al. coarse “Doppler sensing 1414, 1418, Fig. 14; “The sensing device 604 can measure various properties (e.g., times of arrival (ToAs), angles of arrival (AoAs), phase shift, etc.) of the reflections 636 of the RF sensing signals 634 to determine characteristics of the target object 606 (e.g., size shape, speed, motion state, etc.).” - ¶ [0129]) based on the information related to the positioning operation (Liu et al. Doppler sensing performed based on the first and second chirp set configurations 1410, Fig. 14);
determining that an event of the at least one event has occurred while performing the one or more positioning measurements (Liu et al. report motion detected 1420, Fig. 14);
performing, based on the determination that the event has occurred, the one or more sensing-related actions (Liu et al. “Based on the report received from the UE 1406, the base station 1402 transmits a set of second chirp signals at operation 1422.” - ¶ [0173]; Fig. 14); and
performing at least one additional positioning measurement based on the performance of the one or more sensing-related actions (Liu et al. “The first set of chirp signals 902 may be transmitted on a semi-persistent basis (e.g., periodically or at a fixed times) for coarse detection of motion associated with target objects. Transmission of the first set of chirp signals 902 may continue on a semi-persistent basis until such time as reflections of the first chirp signals 906 indicate motion of one or more target objects in the sensing environment.” - ¶ [0156]).
Regarding claim 2, Liu et al. discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the event is based on at least one of:
changes in the one or more positioning measurements (Liu et al. when the target object 1404 is changes from not being in motion to being in motion, Fig. 14);
hierarchical measurement dependencies;
a determined error type or error source;
reference values or expected values of the one or more positioning measurements;
reliability of the one or more positioning measurements;
a lack of neighboring cells;
a loss of line of sight;
variation in channel impulse response;
one or more positioning requirements not being satisfied; or
mobility of the WTRU.
Regarding claim 3, Liu et al. discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the information related to the positioning operation comprises at least one of:
a target identifier;
target positioning information;
a target type;
target mobility information (Liu et al. report motion detected 1420, Fig. 14);
WTRU positioning information;
hierarchical measurements and dependencies;
error sources, types, groups, or determination procedures;
reference positioning measurements (Liu et al. “In the case of an OTDOA or DL-TDOA positioning procedure, the assistance data may further include an expected RSTD value and an associated uncertainty, or search window, around the expected RSTD.” - ¶ [0119]) ;
thresholds for measurement validation;
reporting assistance information; or a
validity time.
Regarding claim 5, Liu et al. discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensing-related actions comprise at least one of:
identifying an alternate path or reference signal to measure (Liu et al. “In addition, if the sensing device 604 is capable of receive beamforming, the sensing device 604 may be able to determine the general direction to a target object as the direction (angle) of the receive beam on which the RF sensing signal following the NLOS path was received.” - ¶ [0134]);
estimating expected duration of an error state;
estimating and reporting, to the wireless network, a position of the WTRU;
improving line of sight detection and clutter removal;
performing one or more sensing measurements;
validating the one or more sensing measurements and determining a validity window;
reporting of the one or more sensing measurements based on measurement validation; or
determining reporting modes of the one or more sensing measurements based on the event.
Regarding claim 6, Liu et al. discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the event further triggers one or more positioning-related actions to assist the positioning operation, further comprising:
performing, based on the determination that the event has occurred, the one or more positioning-related actions (Liu et al. “In another aspect, the transmission schedule of the first set of chirp signals 902 (e.g., as specified in a chirp set configuration) may be changed so that the first set of chirp signals are only transmitted during gaps that occur between transmissions of the second set of chirp signals 904.” - ¶ [0157]); and
performing the at least one additional positioning measurement based on the performance of the one or more positioning-related actions (Liu et al. “In another aspect, the transmission schedule of the first set of chirp signals 902 (e.g., as specified in a chirp set configuration) may be changed so that the first set of chirp signals are only transmitted during gaps that occur between transmissions of the second set of chirp signals 904.” - ¶ [0157]).
Regarding claim 7, Liu et al. discloses:
The method of claim 6, wherein the one or more positioning-related actions comprise at least one of:
sending uplink assistance information to the wireless network;
logging a first set of positioning measurements;
stopping radio access technology (RAT) based positioning;
applying non-RAT based positioning;
enabling a second set of positioning measurements (Liu et al. “In another aspect, the transmission schedule of the first set of chirp signals 902 (e.g., as specified in a chirp set configuration) may be changed so that the first set of chirp signals are only transmitted during gaps that occur between transmissions of the second set of chirp signals 904.” - ¶ [0157]);
validating the first set of positioning measurements and determining a validity window;
reporting of the first set of positioning measurements based on measurement validation; or
determining reporting modes of the first set of positioning measurements based on the additional event.
Regarding claim 8, Liu et al. discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the configuration information further indicates information related to a sensing operation, further comprising:
performing one or more sensing measurements based on the information related to the sensing operation (Liu et al. indication parameters of second chirp set configuration 1410 are sent to UE 1406, Fig. 14; where the second chirp set configuration is used to perform the sensing operation).
Regarding claim 9, Liu et al. discloses:
The method of claim 8, wherein the determining that the event of the at least one event has occurred is based on the one or more sensing measurements (Liu et al. “determining a velocity associated with the one or more RF reflecting objects based on one or more reflections of the second chirp signals” - ¶ [0193]).
Regarding claim 11, Liu et al. discloses:
A wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (Liu et al. UE 302, Fig. 3A) comprising:
a processor (Liu et al. Processor(s) 332, Fig. 3A); and
a transceiver (Liu et al. WWAN Transceiver(s) 310, Short-Range Wireless Transceiver(s) 320, Fig. 3A), wherein the WTRU is configured to:
receive, from a wireless network (Liu et al. base station 1402, Fig. 14), configuration information indicating information related to a positioning operation and identifying at least one event that triggers one or more sensing-related actions to assist the positioning operation (Liu et al. indication parameters of first and second chirp set configurations 1410 are sent to UE 1406; where detecting motion triggers the second chirp set configuration; the positioning operation is performed using the first chirp set configuration and the sensing operation is performed using the second chirp set configuration);
perform one or more positioning measurements (Liu et al. coarse “Doppler sensing 1414, 1418, Fig. 14; “The sensing device 604 can measure various properties (e.g., times of arrival (ToAs), angles of arrival (AoAs), phase shift, etc.) of the reflections 636 of the RF sensing signals 634 to determine characteristics of the target object 606 (e.g., size shape, speed, motion state, etc.).” - ¶ [0129]) based on the information related to the positioning operation (Liu et al. Doppler sensing performed based on the first and second chirp set configurations 1410, Fig. 14);
determine that an event of the at least one event has occurred while performing the one or more positioning measurements (Liu et al. report motion detected 1420, Fig. 14);
perform, based on the determination that the event has occurred, the one or more sensing-related actions (Liu et al. “Based on the report received from the UE 1406, the base station 1402 transmits a set of second chirp signals at operation 1422.” - ¶ [0173]; Fig. 14); and
perform at least one additional sensing measurement based on the performance of the one or more sensing-related actions (Liu et al. “The first set of chirp signals 902 may be transmitted on a semi-persistent basis (e.g., periodically or at a fixed times) for coarse detection of motion associated with target objects. Transmission of the first set of chirp signals 902 may continue on a semi-persistent basis until such time as reflections of the first chirp signals 906 indicate motion of one or more target objects in the sensing environment.” - ¶ [0156]).
Regarding claim 12, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 13, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 6 is applied.
Regarding claim 17, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim7 is applied.
Regarding claim 18, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 8 is applied.
Regarding claim 19, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 9 is applied.
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) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2024/0429963 A1) in view of Reddy et al. (US 2026/0135602 A1) and Huang et al. (US 2025/0341607 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Liu et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Liu et al. has been struck-through]
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting, to the wireless network, assistance information based at least in part on the one or more positioning measurements (Liu et al. report motion detected 1420, Fig. 14; where the assistance information includes the velocity);
repeating the performing one or more positioning measurements based on the information related to the positioning operation, the determining that an event of the at least one event has occurred while performing the one or more positioning measurements, the performing, based on the determination that the event has occurred, the one or more sensing-related actions, the performing at least one additional sensing measurement based on the performance of the one or more sensing-related actions (Liu et al. “The first set of chirp signals 902 may be transmitted on a semi-persistent basis (e.g., periodically or at a fixed times) for coarse detection of motion associated with target objects. Transmission of the first set of chirp signals 902 may continue on a semi-persistent basis until such time as reflections of the first chirp signals 906 indicate motion of one or more target objects in the sensing environment.” - ¶ [0156]; “In another aspect, the transmission schedule of the first set of chirp signals 902 (e.g., as specified in a chirp set configuration) may be changed so that the first set of chirp signals 902 are only transmitted during gaps that occur between transmissions of the second set of chirp signals 904.” - ¶ [0157]; the measurement process of claim 1 is repeated), the transmitting, to the wireless network, assistance information based at least in part on the one or more positioning measurements (Liu et al. report motion detected 1420, Fig. 14; where the assistance information includes the velocity)(Liu et al. implicitly discloses that the positioning and sensing process continues and therefore a termination event does not exist); and
transmitting, to the wireless network, a report based on the one or more positioning measurements (Liu et al. “the UE 1406 generates a sensing report that includes the Doppler sensing and range detection information and transmits the sensing report to the base station 1402.” - ¶ [0173])
Reddy et al. discloses:
receiving, from the wireless network, updated configuration information (Reddy et al. “At stage 916, the network node 902 may determine narrower beamwidths for sensing operations to provide a higher degree of angular accuracy or resolution to distinguish between the targets or to distinguish between each target and non-target objects and/or clutter in an environment.” - ¶ [01714]; Fig. 9);
Huang et al. discloses:
transmitting, to the wireless network, a report based on the one or more positioning measurements based on determining that the termination event exists (Huang et al. “In another aspect, if the detected sensing RSRP is less than a threshold (e.g., sensing RSRP<G) until the timer expires, the Rx BS/UE may stop monitor the sensing RS (e.g., this may occur when the UAV rotates slowly). After this occurs, the Rx BS/UE may send a message that indicates the target object is leaving (or has left) a monitoring area. Then, the Tx BS may stop transmitting the sensing RS to the Rx BS/UE.” - ¶ [0099]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Reddy et al. and Huang et al. into the invention of Liu et al. to yield the invention of claim 4 above. Liu et al., Reddy et al. and Huang et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose performing positioning and sensing of target objects in communication systems. Liu et al. discloses repeating the steps of the method of claim 1 and sending measurement reports to the base station. However, Liu et al. fails to explicitly disclose receiving, from the wireless network, updated configuration information and transmitting, to the wireless network, a report based on the one or more positioning measurements based on determining that the termination event exists. These features are disclosed by Reddy et al. where an update signal configuration is sent to the UE (Reddy et al. 918, Fig. 9), and Huang et al. where the sensing operation ceases after the target object leaves the sensing area (Huang et al. ¶ [0099]). The combination of Liu et al., Reddy et al. and Huang et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to dynamic “switching between wider and narrower beamwidths for beamsweeping and sensing operations… to distinguish individual targets in an environment that may include multiple targets, non-target objects and/or clutter with a high level of accuracy and resolution and reduced latency.” (Reddy et al. ¶ [0029]) and “may allow for efficient sensing operations for target objects including RCS variance.” (Huang et al. - ¶ [0030]).
Regarding claim 14, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 4 is applied.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2024/0429963 A1) in view of Reddy et al. (US 2026/0135602 A1)
Regarding claim 10, Liu et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Liu et al. has been struck-through]
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
Reddy et al. discloses:
receiving, from the wireless network, updated configuration information indicating updated information related to the positioning operation (Reddy et al. “At stage 916, the network node 902 may determine narrower beamwidths for sensing operations to provide a higher degree of angular accuracy or resolution to distinguish between the targets or to distinguish between each target and non-target objects and/or clutter in an environment.” - ¶ [0171]; Fig. 9); and
wherein the performing the at least one additional positioning measurement is further based on the updated information related to the positioning operation (Reddy et al. “At stage 920, the sensing nodes 904 may perform additional sensing measurements based on the new configuration received from the network node 902 at stage 918.” - ¶ [0172]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Reddy et al. into the invention of Liu et al. to yield the invention of claim 10 above. Both Liu et al. and Reddy et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose monostatic and bistatic sensing of target objects in communication systems. Liu et al. discloses the invention of claim 1. However, Liu et al. fails to explicitly disclose receiving, from the wireless network, updated configuration information indicating updated information related to the positioning operation; and wherein the performing the at least one additional positioning measurement is further based on the updated information related to the positioning operation. This feature is disclosed by Reddy et al. where an update signal configuration is sent to the UE (Reddy et al. 918, Fig. 9). The combination of Liu et al. and Reddy et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide dynamic “switching between wider and narrower beamwidths for beamsweeping and sensing operations… to distinguish individual targets in an environment that may include multiple targets, non-target objects and/or clutter with a high level of accuracy and resolution and reduced latency.” (Reddy et al. ¶ [0029]).
Regarding claim 20, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 10 is applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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 at (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.
NAOMI M. WOLFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/N.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3648
25 JUN 2026
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights