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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6-12-2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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) 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0357319, filed June 28, 2024.
As per claims 1 and 11, Ding discloses a method performed by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising: receiving sensing configuration information associated with a sensing target (Ding, ¶207);
performing, based on the sensing configuration information, first sensing measurements of the sensing target during a first measurement time window (Ding, ¶208);
determining, based on the first sensing measurements, dwelling time information associated with the sensing target; determining a length mismatch based on the dwelling time information; determining a second measurement time window based on the length mismatch; and performing second sensing measurements of the sensing target during the second measurement time window (Ding, ¶160 where the new sensing period is based on prior sensing).
Ding fails to expressly disclose dwell time, instead ensuring a target requirement is met. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use dwell time, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184. In this case, the requirement of Ding ensures sufficient data.
As per claims 2, 5, 12 and 15, Ding further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: determining the length mismatch comprises comparing the dwelling time information to a threshold; the comparing indicates that the length mismatch is short or long; and performing the second sensing measurements comprises bundling sensing measurements from a plurality of measurement time windows (Ding, ¶160 satisfying a requirement acts as a threshold).
The examiner submits it is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine how to process received data based on how it looks as compared to criteria.
As per claims 8 and 18, Ding further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: reporting, to a wireless network entity, an indication of the length mismatch, an indication of the second measurement time window, and the second sensing measurements (Ding, ¶206).
As per claims 9 and 19, Ding further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first measurement time window is defined by at least one of: a duration expressed in a quantity of seconds, symbols, slots, frames, or subframes; a start time expressed in absolute time, system time, relative time, serving node function (SNF) index, slot index, symbol index, frame index, or subframe index; or an end time expressed in absolute time, system time, relative time, SNF index, slot index, symbol index, frame index, or subframe index (Ding, ¶78 and 138 using specific time periods).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights