DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/15/2026 has been entered.
Claim status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 07/15/2026
Claims 1-58 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 59-70, 73, 74, 76 and 78 have been amended.
Claims 59-78 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 59-63, 67-69 and 73-76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niemenmaa et al. (US 2014/0155096) in view of Tenny et al. (US 2020/0367022).
Regarding claim 59: Niemenmaa disclose a location management function (LMF) apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 1, item 20), and
at least one memory storing instructions that (Fig. 1, item 40,42), that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the LMF apparatus at least to:
receive, by the LMF apparatus, a request for a location of a communication device with information indicating a target location quality of service associated with said location (¶0044-0045);
based on the information, determine, by the LM apparatus, a location method from a plurality of location methods to use and one or more parameters for said determined location method (¶0044-0047 & ¶0051).
Niemenmaa does not explicitly disclose obtain, by the LMF apparatus, assistance data from an NG-RAN, wherein the assistance data if for the determined location method, and wherein the NG-RAN is configured to provide access to a core network.
In analogous art regarding location services, Tenny disclose obtain, by the LMF apparatus, assistance data from an NG-RAN, wherein the assistance data if for the determined location method, (Fig. 1, 8 and ¶0100: The assistance data may include the position of several NG-RAN 650 nodes used in triangulating the UE 640 position. The assistance data is transmitted to the UE 640 at step 4. At step 5, the UE 640 measures positioning reference signals (PRSs) transmitted from the NG-RAN 650 nodes. At step 6, the UE 640 provides the measurements to the LMF 660. LMF 660 may forward the measurements on to the LMF 624 at step 7. At step 8, the LMFc 624 calculates the position of the UE 640 using the measurement results), wherein the NG-RAN is configured to provide access to a core network. (Fig. 1, ¶0050- ¶0051)).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of obtain, by the LMF apparatus, assistance data from an NG-RAN, wherein the assistance data if for the determined location method, and wherein the NG-RAN is configured to provide access to a core network, as disclose by Tenny, to the system of Niemenmaa. The motivation is to increase the accuracy of the determination.
Regarding claim 60: The combination of Niemenmaa and Tenny disclose the LMF apparatus of claim 59, wherein the location quality of service of said location comprises a location accuracy (Niemenmaa: ¶0042).
Regarding claim 61: The combination of Niemenmaa and Tenny disclose the LMF apparatus of claim 59, wherein the instructions, executed by the at least one processor, cause the LMF apparatus at least to: use, by the LMF apparatus, the determined location method with the assistance data to determine said location for said communication device (Niemenmaa: ¶0047 and Tenny: ¶0100).
Regarding claim 62: The combination of Niemenmaa and Tenny disclose the LMF apparatus of claim 61, wherein the instructions, executed by the at least one processor, cause the LMF apparatus at least to: to cause the LMF apparatus at least to: determine a location quality of service of said determined location for said communication device (Niemenmaa: ¶0047).
Regarding claim 63: The combination of Niemenmaa and Tenny disclose the LMF apparatus of claim 62, , wherein the instructions, executed by the at least one processor, cause the LMF apparatus at least to: use, by the LMF apparatus, a different location method and a different assistance data to determine the location for said communication device when said determined location quality of service of said determined location does not meet the target location quality of service (Niemenmaa: ¶0045 and Tenny: ¶0100).
Regarding claim 67: The combination of Niemenmaa, Tenny and Saraiva disclose the LMF apparatus of claim 59, wherein the information indicating the target location quality of service comprises: a quality of service (QoS) class, and a required latency (Tenny: ¶0095).
Regarding claim 68: The combination of Niemenmaa and Tenny disclose the LMF apparatus of claim 59, the assistance data from the radio access network is assistance data for said communication device (Tenny: Fig. 1, 8 and ¶0100:The assistance data may include the position of several NG-RAN 650 nodes used in triangulating the UE 640 position. The assistance data is transmitted to the UE 640 at step 4. At step 5, the UE 640 measures positioning reference signals (PRSs) transmitted from the NG-RAN 650 nodes).
Regarding claim 69: Niemenmaa disclose an apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 1, item 20), at least one memory storing instructions that (Fig. 1, item 40,42), that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the LMF apparatus at least to:
use, by the apparatus, a location method with one or more parameters to determine a location for a communication device (¶0044-0047 & ¶0051);
determine, by the apparatus, a location quality of service of said location (¶0044-0045); and
use, by the apparatus, a different location method and a different parameter based on said determined location quality of service not meeting a target location quality service of said location (¶0045).
Niemenmaa does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more parameters comprise assistance data from an NG-RAN, and the NG-RAN is configured to provide access to a core network.
In analogous art regarding location services, Tenny disclose wherein the one or more parameters comprise assistance data from an NG-RAN (Fig. 1, 8 and ¶0100:The assistance data may include the position of several NG-RAN 650 nodes used in triangulating the UE 640 position. The assistance data is transmitted to the UE 640 at step 4. At step 5, the UE 640 measures positioning reference signals (PRSs) transmitted from the NG-RAN 650 nodes), and the NG-RAN is configured to provide access to a core network (Fig. 1, ¶0050- ¶0051)).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the one or more parameters comprise assistance data from an NG-RAN, and the NG-RAN is configured to provide access to a core network, as disclose by Tenny, to the system of Niemenmaa. The motivation is to increase the accuracy of the determination.
Regarding claim 73: The combination of Niemenmaa and Tenny disclose the LMF apparatus of claim 69, wherein the at least one memory and the computer code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the LMF apparatus at least to:
receive, by the apparatus, a request for said location of the communication device with information indicating the target location quality of service associated with said location (Niemenmaa: ¶0044-0045).
Regarding claim 74: The combination of Niemenmaa and Tenny disclose the LMF apparatus of claim 53, wherein the at least one memory and the computer code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the LMF apparatus at least to:
Determining, by the apparatus, which of a plurality of location methods to use and assistance data for said determined location method based on said information (Niemenmaa: ¶0045 & Tenny :¶0100).
Regarding claim 75: The combination of Niemenmaa and Tenny disclose the LMF apparatus of claim 69, wherein the determined location quality of service of said location comprises a location accuracy (Niemenmaa: ¶0042).
Regarding claim 76: The combination of Niemenmaa and Tenny disclose the LMF apparatus of claim 73, wherein the information indicating the target location quality of service comprises: a quality of service (QoS) class, and a required latency (Tenny: ¶0095).
Regarding claim 77: The combination of Niemenmaa and Tenny disclose the LMF apparatus of claim 74, wherein the assistance data from the radio access network is assistance data for said communication device (Tenny: Fig. 1, 8 and ¶0100:The assistance data may include the position of several NG-RAN 650 nodes used in triangulating the UE 640 position. The assistance data is transmitted to the UE 640 at step 4. At step 5, the UE 640 measures positioning reference signals (PRSs) transmitted from the NG-RAN 650 nodes),
Claim(s) 64-66 & 70-72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niemenmaa et al. (US 2014/0155096) in view of Tenny et al. (US 2020/0367022) in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0132861)
Regarding claim 64: The combination of Niemenmaa and Tenny disclose the LMF apparatus of claim 62, but does not explicitly disclose determine, by the LMF apparatus, the location quality of service of said determined location based on an online computation using a trained neural network, where input data to the trained neural network comprises said determined location, and wherein the determined position is determined prior to the online computation.
In analogous art regarding location accuracy systems, Kim disclose determine, by the LMF apparatus, the location quality of service of said determined location based on an online computation using a trained neural network (Fig. 10: trainer), where input data to the trained neural network comprises said determined location, and wherein the determined position is determined prior to the online computation. (Fig. 10, ¶0112-114).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of determine, by the LMF apparatus, the location quality of service of said determined location based on an online computation using a trained neural network, where input data to the trained neural network comprises said determined location, and wherein the determined position is determined prior to the online computation, as disclose by Kim, to the system of the combination of Niemenmaa and Tenny. The motivation is to increase accuracy with minimal to no human interaction.
Regarding claim 65: The combination of Niemenmaa, Tenny and Kim disclose the LMF apparatus of claim 64, wherein said trained neural network is trained with respect to at least one of the location methods (Kim: ¶0112-114).
Regarding claim 66: The combination of Niemenmaa, Tenny and Kim disclose the LMF apparatus of claim 64, wherein said trained neural network is trained offline methods (Kim: ¶0015).
Regarding claim 70: Claim 70 is rejected for the same reason of claim 64.
Regarding claim 71: Claim 71 is rejected for the same reason of claim 65.
Regarding claim 72: Claim 72 is rejected for the same reason of claim 66.
Claim(s) 78 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niemenmaa et al. (US 2014/0155096) in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0132861)
Regarding claim 78: Niemenmaa disclose an apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 1, item 20), and at least one memory including computer code (Fig. 1, item 40,42), the at least one memory and the computer code configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to:
use, by the apparatus, model for online computation to determine an accuracy of a determined position for a communication device using a location method of a plurality of different location methods wherein input data for online computation comprises the determined position (¶0044-0047 & ¶0051), but does not explicitly disclose a trained neural network for the model and wherein the determined position is determined prior to online computation and wherein said neural network model is trained offline using at least one training set of data for the location method of the plurality of different location methods.
In analogous art regarding location accuracy systems, Kim disclose a trained neural network (Fig. 10: trainer) wherein the determined position is determined prior to online computation and wherein said neural network model is trained offline using at least one training set of data for the location method of the plurality of different location methods. (Fig. 10, ¶0112-114).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of a trained neural network for the model and wherein the determined position is determined prior to online computation and wherein said neural network model is trained offline using at least one training set of data for the location method of the plurality of different location methods, as disclose by Kim, to the apparatus of Niemenmaa. The motivation is to increase accuracy with minimal to no human interaction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 78 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s argue with respect to claim(s) 59 that the prior art does not teach “obtain, by the LMF apparatus, assistance data from an NG-RAN, wherein the assistance data is for determined the location method because that in Tenny, it is the UE that obtains the assistance data, not the LMF as claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Even thou that the UE request assistance data, said assistance data is used and requested by the UE, the Use also provide said assistance data to the LMF and hence the LMF obtain said assistance data hence meeting the limitation in question.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights