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 .
Response to Amendment/Remarks
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment/Remarks filed on 12/04/2025. Claims 1-4, 8-35 and 39-70 are still pending in the present application. Claims 1-4, 8-13, 32-35, 39-44, 63-64 and 67-68 are Rejected and Clams 14-31, 45-62, 65-66 and 69-70 are Withdrawn. This Action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/04/2025 is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, has been considered by the Examiner, and made of record in the application file.
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.
Claim limitation “means for” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder that is merely a substitute for the term "means" coupled with functional language “to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) (63 and 64) has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Limitation
Corresponding structure
receiving, from a network node, a no-delay scheduled location…
Fig. 4: 312 & ¶s [0126]
determining, at time T1, that a location of the UE is not yet known…
Fig. 6: 606 & ¶ [0116]
determining location information for the UE, the location information comprising a location measurement
Fig. 4: 332 & ¶s [0135]
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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:
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 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 12, 32-35, 39-41, 43, 63-64 and 67-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Opshaug et al Patent Application No. :( US 2018/0146332 A1) hereinafter referred as Opshaug in view of Vutukuri et al US Patent No.:( US 10,936,990 B2) hereinafter referred as Vutukuri.
For claim 1, Opshaug teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
receiving, from a network node, a no-delay scheduled location (current location) request that identifies a future time T1 for reporting, at time t1, a location of the UE at time t1 (paragraphs [0022]- [0024], [0052], lines 1-5), [0084] and [0087], lines 1-6 disclosing the scheduling request and the actual or current location identified as no-delay scheduled location) and, in response to receiving the no-delay scheduled location request (paragraph [0052], lines 1-5). However, Opshaug disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of the at a time T0 that occurs before time T1, determining location information for an expected location of the UE at time T1 , the location information comprising a location measurement, a determined location that is determined based on a location measurement, or combinations thereof ; and at time T1, reporting to the network node the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 as determined at time TO as recited in claim 1.
Vutukuri from the same or analogous art teaches the at a time T0 that occurs before time T1, determining location information for an expected location of the UE at time T1 , the location information comprising a location measurement, a determined location that is determined based on a location measurement, or combinations thereof (Column 2, lines 13-18); and at time T1, reporting to the network node the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 as determined at time TO (Column 9, lines 15-25) and ( see claim 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the at a time T0 that occurs before time T1, determining location information for an expected location of the UE at time T1 , the location information comprising a location measurement, a determined location that is determined based on a location measurement, or combinations thereof ; and at time T1, reporting to the network node the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 as determined at time TO as taught by Vutukuri into the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device of Opshaug.
The at a time T0 that occurs before time T1, determining location information for an expected location of the UE at time T1 , the location information comprising a location measurement, a determined location that is determined based on a location measurement, or combinations thereof ; and at time T1, reporting to the network node the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 as determined at time TO can be modify/implemented by combining the at a time T0 that occurs before time T1, determining location information for an expected location of the UE at time T1 , the location information comprising a location measurement, a determined location that is determined based on a location measurement, or combinations thereof ; and at time T1, reporting to the network node the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 as determined at time TO with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Vutukuri into the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device of Opshaug. As disclosed in Vutukuri, the motivation for the combination would be to use the initial location information in one initial time considered as the time information and report this location information to the base station becoming the method/device more efficient and reliable for a better communication connection.
For claim 2, Opshaug teaches the method, wherein the no-delay scheduled location request comprises a scheduled location request having a response quality of service (QoS) attribute indicating no delay (paragraph [0062], lines 1-25).
For claim 3, Opshaug teaches the method, wherein the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 comprises the location of the UE at time T0, which the UE predicts will also be its location at time T1 (paragraph [0035], lines 12-14 and 16-21).
For claim 4, Opshaug disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 comprises a predicted location for the UE at time T1, which is different from the location of the UE at time TO as recited in claim 4.
Vutukuri from the same or analogous art teaches the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 comprises a predicted location for the UE at time T1, which is different from the location of the UE at time TO (224 fig. 2B) ( Column 8, lines 43-56). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 comprises a predicted location for the UE at time T1, which is different from the location of the UE at time TO as taught by Vutukuri into the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device of Opshaug.
The location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 comprises a predicted location for the UE at time T1, which is different from the location of the UE at time TO can be modify/implemented by combining the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 comprises a predicted location for the UE at time T1, which is different from the location of the UE at time TO with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Vutukuri into the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device of Opshaug. As disclosed in Vutukuri, the motivation for the combination would be to use the initial location information in specific time creates the expected location becoming the method/device more efficient and reliable for a better location communication connection.
For claim 8, Opshaug teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
receiving, from a network node, a no-delay scheduled location request that identifies a future time T1 for reporting, at time t1, a location of the UE at time t1 (paragraphs [0022]- [0024], [0084] and [0087], lines 1-6 disclosing the scheduling request);
determining, at time T1, that a location of the UE is not yet known (paragraph [0028], lines 26-37) (paragraph [0041], lines 1-8). However, Opshaug disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of reporting an error to the network node as recited in claim 8.
Vutukuri from the same or analogous art teaches the reporting an error to the network node (Colum 16, lines 39-54). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the reporting an error to the network node as taught by Vutukuri into the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device of Opshaug.
The reporting an error to the network node can be modify/implemented by combining the reporting an error to the network node with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Vutukuri into the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device of Opshaug. As disclosed in Vutukuri, the motivation for the combination would be to use the initial location information in one initial time considered as the time information and report this location information to the base station becoming the method/device more efficient and reliable for a better communication connection.
For claim 9, Opshaug teaches the method, wherein the no-delay scheduled location request comprises a scheduled location request having a response quality of service (QoS) attribute indicating no delay (paragraph [0062], lines 1-25).
For claim 10, Opshaug teaches the method, wherein reporting an error with the network node with zero delay further comprises providing, to the network node, one or more reasons for the error (paragraph [0027], lines 27-37).
For claim 12, Opshaug teaches the method, wherein the UE determines the location information for the UE and reports the location information for the UE to the network node with non-zero delay or reports the error to the network with zero delay based on a quality of service (QoS) class associated with the UE, with the no-delay scheduled location request, or combinations thereof (paragraph [0062], lines 1-25).
For claim 32, Opshaug teaches a user equipment (UE), comprising:
a memory (704 fig. 7);
a communication interface (710 fig. 7); and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the communication interface (702 fig. 7), the at least one processor configured to:
receive, via the communication interface, from a network node, a no-delay scheduled location request that identifies a future time T1 for reporting, at time t1, a location of the UE at time t1 (paragraphs [0022]- [0024], [0084] and [0087], lines 1-6 disclosing the scheduling request) and, in response to receiving the no-delay scheduled location request(paragraph [0052], lines 1-5). However, Opshaug disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of the at a time T0 that occurs before time T1, determining location information for an expected location of the UE at time T1 , the location information comprising a location measurement, a determined location that is determined based on a location measurement, or combinations thereof; and at time T1, report to the network node the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 as determined at time TO thereof as recited in claim 32.
Vutukuri from the same or analogous art teaches the at a time T0 that occurs before time T1, determining location information for an expected location of the UE at time T1 , the location information comprising a location measurement, a determined location that is determined based on a location measurement, or combinations thereof (Column 2, lines 13-18); and at time T1, reporting to the network node the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 as determined at time TO (Column 9, lines 15-25) and ( see claim 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the at a time T0 that occurs before time T1, determining location information for an expected location of the UE at time T1 , the location information comprising a location measurement, a determined location that is determined based on a location measurement, or combinations thereof ; and at time T1, reporting to the network node the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 as determined at time TO as taught by Vutukuri into the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device of Opshaug.
The at a time T0 that occurs before time T1, determining location information for an expected location of the UE at time T1 , the location information comprising a location measurement, a determined location that is determined based on a location measurement, or combinations thereof ; and at time T1, reporting to the network node the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 as determined at time TO can be modify/implemented by combining the at a time T0 that occurs before time T1, determining location information for an expected location of the UE at time T1 , the location information comprising a location measurement, a determined location that is determined based on a location measurement, or combinations thereof ; and at time T1, reporting to the network node the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 as determined at time TO with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Vutukuri into the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device of Opshaug. As disclosed in Vutukuri, the motivation for the combination would be to use the initial location information in one initial time considered as the time information and report this location information to the base station becoming the method/device more efficient and reliable for a better communication connection.
For claim 33, Opshaug teaches the user equipment (UE), wherein the no-delay scheduled location request comprises a scheduled location request having a response quality of service (QoS) attribute indicating no delay (paragraph [0062], lines 1-25).
For claim 34, Opshaug teaches the user equipment (UE), wherein the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 comprises the location of the UE at time [T2]T0, which the UE predicts will also be its location at time T1 (paragraph [0035], lines 12-14 and 16-21).
For claim 35, Opshaug disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 comprises a predicted location for the UE at time T1, which is different from the location of the UE at time TO as recited in claim 35.
Vutukuri from the same or analogous art teaches the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 comprises a predicted location for the UE at time T1, which is different from the location of the UE at time TO (paragraph [0011], lines 1-22).
Vutukuri from the same or analogous art teaches the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 comprises a predicted location for the UE at time T1, which is different from the location of the UE at time TO (224 fig. 2B) ( Column 8, lines 43-56). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 comprises a predicted location for the UE at time T1, which is different from the location of the UE at time TO as taught by Vutukuri into the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device of Opshaug.
The location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 comprises a predicted location for the UE at time T1, which is different from the location of the UE at time TO can be modify/implemented by combining the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 comprises a predicted location for the UE at time T1, which is different from the location of the UE at time TO with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Vutukuri into the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device of Opshaug. As disclosed in Vutukuri, the motivation for the combination would be to use the initial location information in specific time creates the expected location becoming the method/device more efficient and reliable for a better location communication connection.
For claim 39, Opshaug teaches a user equipment (UE), comprising:
a memory (704 fig. 7);
a communication interface (710 fig. 7); and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the communication interface (702 fig. 7), the at least one processor configured to:
receive, via the communication interface, from a network node, a no-delay scheduled location request that identifies a future time T1 for reporting, at time t1, a location of the UE at time t1 (paragraphs [0022]- [0024], [0084] and [0087], lines 1-6 disclosing the scheduling request);
determine, at time T1, that a location of the UE is not yet known (paragraph [0028], lines 26-37). However, Opshaug disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of reporting an error to the network node as recited in claim 39.
Vutukuri from the same or analogous art teaches the reporting an error to the network node (Colum 16, lines 39-54). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the reporting an error to the network node as taught by Vutukuri into the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device of Opshaug.
The reporting an error to the network node can be modify/implemented by combining the reporting an error to the network node with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Vutukuri into the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device of Opshaug. As disclosed in Vutukuri, the motivation for the combination would be to use the initial location information in one initial time considered as the time information and report this location information to the base station becoming the method/device more efficient and reliable for a better communication connection.
For claim 63, Opshaug teaches a user equipment (UE), comprising:
means for receiving, from a network node, a no-delay scheduled location request that identifies a future time T1 for reporting, at time t1, a location of the UE at time t1 (paragraphs [0022]- [0024], [0052], lines 1-5), [0084] and [0087], lines 1-6 disclosing the scheduling request and the actual or current location identifies as no-delay scheduled location) and, in response to receiving the no-delay scheduled location request(paragraph [0052], lines 1-5). However, Opshaug disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of the at a time T0 that occurs before time T1, determining location information for an expected location of the UE at time T1 , the location information comprising a location measurement, a determined location that is determined based on a location measurement, or combinations thereof ; and at time T1, reporting to the network node the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 as determined at time TO as recited in claim 63.
Vutukuri from the same or analogous art teaches the at a time T0 that occurs before time T1, determining location information for an expected location of the UE at time T1 , the location information comprising a location measurement, a determined location that is determined based on a location measurement, or combinations thereof (Column 2, lines 13-18); and at time T1, reporting to the network node the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 as determined at time TO (Column 9, lines 15-25) and ( see claim 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the at a time T0 that occurs before time T1, determining location information for an expected location of the UE at time T1 , the location information comprising a location measurement, a determined location that is determined based on a location measurement, or combinations thereof ; and at time T1, reporting to the network node the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 as determined at time TO as taught by Vutukuri into the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device of Opshaug.
The at a time T0 that occurs before time T1, determining location information for an expected location of the UE at time T1 , the location information comprising a location measurement, a determined location that is determined based on a location measurement, or combinations thereof ; and at time T1, reporting to the network node the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 as determined at time TO can be modify/implemented by combining the at a time T0 that occurs before time T1, determining location information for an expected location of the UE at time T1 , the location information comprising a location measurement, a determined location that is determined based on a location measurement, or combinations thereof ; and at time T1, reporting to the network node the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 as determined at time TO with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Vutukuri into the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device of Opshaug. As disclosed in Vutukuri, the motivation for the combination would be to use the initial location information in one initial time considered as the time information and report this location information to the base station becoming the method/device more efficient and reliable for a better communication connection.
For claim 64, Opshaug teaches a user equipment (UE), comprising
means for receiving, from a network node, a no-delay scheduled location request that identifies a future time T1 for reporting , at time t1, a location of the UE at time t1 (paragraphs [0022]- [0024], [0084] and [0087], lines 1-6 disclosing the scheduling request);
means for determining, at time T1, that a location of the UE is not yet known(paragraph [0028], lines 26-37) and (paragraph [0041], lines 1-8). However, Opshaug disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of reporting an error to the network node as recited in claim 64.
Vutukuri from the same or analogous art teaches the reporting an error to the network node (Colum 16, lines 39-54). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the reporting an error to the network node as taught by Vutukuri into the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device of Opshaug.
The reporting an error to the network node can be modify/implemented by combining the reporting an error to the network node with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Vutukuri into the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device of Opshaug. As disclosed in Vutukuri, the motivation for the combination would be to use the initial location information in one initial time considered as the time information and report this location information to the base station becoming the method/device more efficient and reliable for a better communication connection.
For claim 67, Opshaug teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a user equipment (UE), cause the UE to:
receive, from a network node, a no-delay scheduled location request that identifies a future time T1 for reporting a location of the UE at time t1(paragraphs [0022]- [0024], [0052], lines 1-5), [0084] and [0087], lines 1-6 disclosing the scheduling request and the actual or current location identifies as no-delay scheduled location) and, in response to receiving the no-delay scheduled location request (paragraph [0052], lines 1-5). However, Opshaug disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of the at a time T0 that occurs before time T1, determining location information for an expected location of the UE at time T1 , the location information comprising a location measurement, a determined location that is determined based on a location measurement, or combinations thereof ; and at time T1, reporting to the network node the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 as determined at time TO as recited in claim 67.
Vutukuri from the same or analogous art teaches the at a time T0 that occurs before time T1, determining location information for an expected location of the UE at time T1 , the location information comprising a location measurement, a determined location that is determined based on a location measurement, or combinations thereof (Column 2, lines 13-18); and at time T1, reporting to the network node the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 as determined at time TO (Column 9, lines 15-25) and ( see claim 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the at a time T0 that occurs before time T1, determining location information for an expected location of the UE at time T1 , the location information comprising a location measurement, a determined location that is determined based on a location measurement, or combinations thereof ; and at time T1, reporting to the network node the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 as determined at time TO as taught by Vutukuri into the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device of Opshaug.
The at a time T0 that occurs before time T1, determining location information for an expected location of the UE at time T1 , the location information comprising a location measurement, a determined location that is determined based on a location measurement, or combinations thereof ; and at time T1, reporting to the network node the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 as determined at time TO can be modify/implemented by combining the at a time T0 that occurs before time T1, determining location information for an expected location of the UE at time T1 , the location information comprising a location measurement, a determined location that is determined based on a location measurement, or combinations thereof ; and at time T1, reporting to the network node the location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1 as determined at time TO with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Vutukuri into the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device of Opshaug. As disclosed in Vutukuri, the motivation for the combination would be to use the initial location information in one initial time considered as the time information and report this location information to the base station becoming the method/device more efficient and reliable for a better communication connection.
For claim 68, Opshaug teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a UE, cause the UE to:
receive, from a network node, a no-delay scheduled location request that identifies a future time T1 for reporting a location of the UE (paragraphs [0022]- [0024], [0084] and [0087], lines 1-6 disclosing the scheduling request);
determine, at time T1, that a location of the UE is not yet known (paragraph [0028], lines 26-37). However, Opshaug disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of reporting an error to the network node as recited in claim 68.
Vutukuri from the same or analogous art teaches the reporting an error to the network node (Colum 16, lines 39-54). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the reporting an error to the network node as taught by Vutukuri into the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device of Opshaug.
The reporting an error to the network node can be modify/implemented by combining the reporting an error to the network node with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Vutukuri into the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device of Opshaug. As disclosed in Vutukuri, the motivation for the combination would be to use the initial location information in one initial time considered as the time information and report this location information to the base station becoming the method/device more efficient and reliable for a better communication connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13, 42, 44 are objected 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Opshaug discloses the time difference of arrival positioning of a mobile device and Vutukuri disclose the transport status that include a current location of an asset that is being tracked by the asset tracking device, an estimated ( expected) time of arrival of the asset when is tracked. Therefore, the obviousness of the subject matter is determined
Inventive Concept
The Applicant states that “Applicant notes that conventional networks support two types of location requests: (1) a no-delay location request, in which the network immediately reports the location of a device, if it has one; and (2) a scheduled location request, in which at some future time T, a request for a location is made, at which time the device location is determined (which incurs some non-zero delay), after which the device location is reported. Specification, paragraphs [0119]- [0120]. Current network standards do not define or contemplate a no-delay scheduled location request, which is a location request that identifies a future time at which the UE must, without delay, report its location at that future time, which was determined prior to that future time.” It is not clear from the Applicant’s arguments whether the inventive concept combines to network types. If this concept is what Applicant seeks to be patented, the claims should particularly establish each network separately, and point to the overlapping functionality. However, such meaning cannot be attached to the currently pending claims in view of the broad nature of the claims. There is difficulty in interpretation of the claims since, generally, it is well known in the art that the future location of a mobile can be predicted. The allowability of the currently pending claims seem to lie within the differentiation between the conventional networks (as described by the Applicant) and the improvement of such conventional systems (i.e. combining the functionality of both systems). Again, the Examiner is not certain if the interpretation presented herein, is the inventive concept, however, if the Applicant disagrees, the Applicant is respectfully requested to clarify the interpretation.
Claim Language
The Applicant states that “Applicant notes that conventional networks support two types of location requests: (1) a no-delay location request, in which the network immediately reports the location of a device, if it has one; and (2) a scheduled location request, in which at some future time T, a request for a location is made, at which time the device location is determined (which incurs some non-zero delay), after which the device location is reported. Specification, paragraphs [0119]-[0120].” The claims do not differentiate between “no delay” and “non-zero delay.”
Further, the Applicant states that “Current network standards do not define or contemplate a no-delay scheduled location request, which is a location request that identifies a future time at which the UE must, without delay, report its location at that future time, which was determined prior to that future time.” This specific language is not claimed as such.
Further, the Applicant states that “at time T0, the UE does not determine its location at time T0, but instead determines the location that it expects to be at time T1, so that the UE can report location information for the location of the UE at time T1.” Applicant’s reconsideration of such argument is respectfully requested, since at least exemplary claim 1 does not specifically state such limitation.
Further, the Applicant states that “at time T1, the UE does not report what its location was at time TO, but instead reports the location that it expected to be at time T1, which was determined by the UE at time TO before time T1.” Similarly, the claims do not word the limitations as argued by Applicant.
Further, the Applicant states that “the UE the reports, at time T1, location information for the expected location of the UE at time T1. This differs from the prior art, in which a UE responds to a conventional scheduled location request at time T1 by starting a location determination at time T1 and reporting the results after that location determination process is finished, i.e., at some non-zero delay time after T1. There seems to be a contradiction here since the report takes place at the same time of the expected location. It is not clear whether the Applicant means that a report (location information for an expected location is generated at T0 but not reported, then reported at T1.
Prior art
Regarding the limitations of “a no-delay scheduled location request that identifies a future time T1 for reporting, at time T1, a location of the UE at time T1,” Vutukuri et al specifically states that “a current (actual) transport status to a predicted transport status of the asset at each respective time instance of multiple time instances. The “current transport status” can refer to an updated transport status that is measured or derived by the processor 105 at a current respective time instance. The predicted transport status can include a predicted location of the asset at a particular time, or an estimated time of arrival of the asset, or any other predicted information that relates to the transport of the asset.” Also teaches. “ In FIG. 3, at time T1, the asset tracking device 104 compares the actual location 304-1 to the predicted location 306-1 for time T1, and determines that the actual location 304-1 does not differ from the predicted location 306-1 by greater than the specified distance threshold. As a result, the sending of Report 1 at time T1 is skipped. At time T2, the asset tracking device 104 compares the actual location 304-2 to the predicted location 306-2 for time T2, and determines that the actual location 304-2 does not differ from the predicted location 306-2 by greater than the specified distance threshold. As a result, the sending of Report 2 at time T2 is skipped. Therefore the actual location which is identified as the “non-delay’ location is produced by the current location which at time T1 will be the future (expected or predicted ) location.
Applicant asserts that Opshaug does not teach in claims 1, 8, 32, 39, 63-64 and 67-68 "receiving, from a network node, a no-delay scheduled location request that identifies a future time Tl for reporting".. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with such assertion. (See below for further clarification).
In response to the preceding argument examiner respectfully submits that Opshaug teaches "receiving, from a network node, a no-delay scheduled location request that identifies a future time Tl for reporting". Opshaug teaches a location server may then determine an additional RSTD measurement for any neighbor cell from an additional TOA measurements for either the neighbor cell or the reference cell by using the reported RSTD measurement for the neighbor cell plus or minus the time offset of the additional TOA measurement. The multiple TOAs may be measured for each cell at almost the same time and may be measured at different times. The multiple TOAs may be used to determine multiple RSTD measurements. The Tl is obtained for the reference cell, an additional RSTD corresponding to an additional TOA measurement T2 for a neighbor cell may be determined from the difference T2-Tl after Tl and T2 have been projected to a common point in time. If a second TOA measurement T3 is obtained for the reference cell, a second RSTD for each additional TOA measurement T2 for a neighbor cell may be determined from the difference T2- T3 after T2 and T3 have been projected to a common point in time, although reporting this may be less efficient in signaling. The times of measurement for each of the additional TOA measurements may also be provided by an MS to a location server as discussed above. The Reporting additional TOA measurements and/or additional RSTD measurements to a location server by an MS, along with the time of measurement of each additional TOA measurement and/or each additional RSTD measurement as described above, may enable the location server to determine a more accurate location for the MS. The data may include "expected RSTD" parameters, which provide MS 120 with information about the approximate RSTD values MS 120 is expected to measure at its current location together with an uncertainty of the expected RSTD parameter as disclosed on Paragraphs [0030]-[0032], [0052], [0084] and [0087]. Therefore, the return of any location “no-delay” identifying the future time and reporting the location is taught by the report of the RSTD.
The prior art should be considered as a whole. See also MPEP § 2141.02 [R-5] Paragraph VI. Claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during examination and limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim (See M.P.E.P. 2111 [R-l]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH AREVALO whose telephone number is (571)270-3121. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on (571)272-7915. 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 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.
/JOSEPH AREVALO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights