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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/06/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-4, 8-13, 32-35, 39-44, 63-64 and 67-68 are pending in the current application.
The Claims 1-4, 32-35, 63 and 67 are Allowed.
The Claims 14-31, 45-62, 65-66 and 69-70 are Withdrawn.
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 8-10, 39-41, 64 and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Cawse et al Patent No. :( US 9,538,334 B2) hereinafter referred as Cawse, in view of Vutukuri et al US Patent No.:( US 10,936,990 B2) hereinafter referred as Vutukuri.
PNG
media_image1.png
184
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
598
1028
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For claim 8, Cawse 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 ( see Figure 7b showing the actual mobile device position “no-delay schedule location” and t2equivalent to t1 which is the future position) ( column 12, lines 17-25);
determining, at time T1, that a location of the UE is not yet known (column 2, lines 38-42), ( column 10, lines 62-67) -( column 11, lines 1-9), ( column 11, lines 23-28) and ( column 12, lines 11-16 disclosing the misalignment over the time “t2’ of the mobile device between the actual mobile device position where the position is not yet known fig 8a). However, Cawse 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 Cawse.
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 Cawse. 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, Cawse 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 ( column 17, lines 1-18)
For claim 10, Cawse 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 ( column 12, lines 17-25)
PNG
media_image1.png
184
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
598
1028
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For claim 39, Cawse 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 ( see Figure 7b showing the actual mobile device position “no-delay schedule location” and t2equivalent to t1 which is the future position) ( column 12, lines 17-25);
determine, at time T1, that a location of the UE is not yet known (column 2, lines 38-42), ( column 10, lines 62-67) -( column 11, lines 1-9), ( column 11, lines 23-28) and ( column 12, lines 11-16 disclosing the misalignment over the time “t2’ of the mobile device between the actual mobile device position where the position is not yet known fig 8a). However, Cawse 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 Cawse.
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 Cawse. 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 40, Cawse teaches the UE, wherein the no-delay scheduled location request comprises a scheduled location request having a response quality of service (QoS) attribute indicating no delay ( column 17, lines 1-18).
For claim 41, Cawse teaches the UE, wherein the at least one processor being configured to report an error with the network node with zero delay comprises the at least one processor being configured to provide, to the network node, one or more reasons for the error ( column 12, lines 17-25)
PNG
media_image1.png
184
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
598
1028
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For claim 64, Cawse 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 ( see Figure 7b showing the actual mobile device position “no-delay schedule location” and t2equivalent to t1 which is the future position) ( column 12, lines 17-25);
means for determining, at time T1, that a location of the UE is not yet known (column 2, lines 38-42), ( column 10, lines 62-67) -( column 11, lines 1-9), ( column 11, lines 23-28) and ( column 12, lines 11-16 disclosing the misalignment over the time “t2’ of the mobile device between the actual mobile device position where the position is not yet known fig 8a). However, Cawse 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 Cawse.
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 Cawse. 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
184
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
598
1028
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For claim 68, Cawse 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 ( see Figure 7b showing the actual mobile device position “no-delay schedule location” and t2equivalent to t1 which is the future position) ( column 12, lines 17-25);
determine, at time T1, that a location of the UE is not yet known (column 2, lines 38-42), ( column 10, lines 62-67) -( column 11, lines 1-9), ( column 11, lines 23-28) and ( column 12, lines 11-16 disclosing the misalignment over the time “t2’ of the mobile device between the actual mobile device position where the position is not yet known fig 8a). However, Cawse 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 Cawse.
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 Cawse. 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 1-4, 32-35, 63 and 67 are Allowed.
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.
Conclusion
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 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 at (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 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.
/JOSEPH AREVALO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights