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
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s reply, filed on 11/24/2025, to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 10/06/2025.
Claims 1, 8, and 16 are amended. Claims 45- 50 are added. Claims 2, 3, and 33-36 are cancelled. Claims 1, 8-10, 15-16, and 37-50 are pending and addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8-10, 15-16, and 37-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 limitation “measurements on at least one non-PRS reference signal comprising a demodulation reference signal (DMRS), the measurements useable to correct, calibrate, or refine measurements on the at least one PRS” is not disclosed in the Spec. Spec para [117], given in the Applicant’s Remarks for the support of the limitation, does not clearly disclose “the measurements useable to correct, calibrate, or refine measurements on the at least one PRS”. Therefore, the limitation is a new matter. Claims 8 and 16 are subjected to the same rejection by virtue of reciting the same limitation. Other claims are also subjected to the same rejection due to being their dependency on the above rejected claims.
Claim 47 expression “maintenance-mode positioning operation” is not understood. It is not clear as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers. Claim is, therefore, indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 8-10, 15-16, 37-46, 48, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MANOLAKOS; Alexandros et al US 20220109466 A1, hereinafter MANOLAKOS, in view of HONG; Wei US 20240292253 A1, hereinafter HONG, and further in view of DUAN; Weiminet al US 20230370230 A1, hereinafter DUAN.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 16, MANOLAKOS teaches, a method for transmitting a reference signal configuration for performing location estimation, comprising:
generating, by a user equipment device (UE), signaling for transmission, to a network, of one or more UE capabilities associated with a location estimation positioning procedure (MANOLAKOS [273]-[274], [305], teaches UE determining its capability to perform measuring PRS (Positioning Reference Signal, and transmitting the capability information associated with positioning of the UE, to the network);
Performing, by the UE, the location estimation positioning procedure, in accordance with the reference signal configuration generated for transmission to the network the performing comprising obtaining:
measurements on at least one positioning reference signal (PRS) of the reference signal configuration (MANOLAKOS [277], [305], [307], teaches positioning is performed based on configuration of positioning reference signal DL-PRS according to the reported UE capability comprising configuration related information for the positioning signal DL-PRS); and
MANOLAKOS further teaches, transmitting configuration information in thereported UE capability information for configuring a DL-PRS signal (i.e., a reference signal) used for positioning process, as disclosed in MANOLAKOS para [279]-[286], without expressly reciting “a reference signal configuration”.
However, Hong expressly teaches, transmitting, to the network, “a reference signal configuration for the location estimation positioning procedure” (Hong [45], [51], teaches UE transmitting a reference signal configuration for the positioning procedure to a network device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of MANOLAKOS to reciting a reference signal configuration transmitted by the UE as taught by Hong above in order to execute measurement related to location information (Hong [0002]).
MANOLAKOS and Hong do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, DUAN teaches, measurements on at least one non-PRS reference signal comprising a demodulation reference signal (DMRS), the measurements useable to correct, calibrate, or refine measurements on the at least one PRS (DUAN [111] “As another example, a PRS may be processed in combination with a supplemental signal to increase the bandwidth of processed signals, e.g., to improve measurement accuracy (e.g., ToA accuracy). … The supplemental signal may be a non-PRS signal such as a signal used (e.g., measured) for one or more other (non-positioning) purposes but that is used for positioning purposes in addition to the other purpose(s) …”, [117] “Referring to FIG. 9, with further reference to FIG. 5, the combined processing unit 550 may be configured to process PRS in combination with an SSB signal (Synchronization Signal Block signal) as the supplemental signal. For example, the combined processing unit 550 may use a PBCH DMRS (Demodulation Reference Signal) and SSS (Secondary Synchronization Signal) 910 (shown as shaded RBs from RB 5 to RB 16) of the SSB in combination with PRS to measure ToA and derive RSTD and/or Rx-Tx measurements.”, [121] “The supplemental signal type field 1140 may indicate the type of supplemental signal, e.g., SSB, PBCH DMRS, SSS, etc.” teaches, DMRS reference signal can be used as non-PRS reference signal and is used along with PRS reference signal to improve (=correct/calibrate/refine) measurement accuracy).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of MANOLAKOS and Hong to include the features as taught by DUAN above in order to provide techniques so that mobile device position determination accuracy may be increased (DUAN [36]).
With respect to claim 8, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding UE. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
With respect to claim 16, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding apparatus. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
Regarding claim 9, MANOLAKOS, in view of Hong and DUAN, teaches the UE, as outlined in the rejection of claim 8.
MANOLAKOS further teaches, wherein the reference signal configuration supports frequency hopping with tone- overlap (see MANOLAKOS [311]-[313] for support of frequency hopping with overlapped tones).
Regarding claim 10, MANOLAKOS, in view of Hong and DUAN, teaches the UE, as outlined in the rejection of claim 8.
MANOLAKOS further teaches, wherein the reference signal configuration includes an indication of a repetition factor (see MANOLAKOS [249], Table 2, teaches PRS having repetition factor).
Regarding claim 15, MANOLAKOS, in view of Hong and DUAN, teaches the UE, as outlined in the rejection of claim 8.
MANOLAKOS further teaches, wherein the UE comprises a reduced capacity UE (see MANOLAKOS [284] teaching RedCap (i.e., Reduced Capacity) UE).
Regarding claims 37 and 41, MANOLAKOS, in view of Hong and DUAN, teaches the UE/apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 8 and 16.
MANOLAKOS further teaches, wherein the reference signal configuration includes an indication of a frequency hopping factor (see MANOLAKOS [278] “If the UE can perform hopping within a single instance, a factor can be introduced which includes the number of hops the UE can do within a single instance, so that the total number of samples is not proportional to the number of hops.”).
Regarding claims 38 and 42, MANOLAKOS, in view of Hong and DUAN, teaches the UE/apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 37 and 41.
MANOLAKOS further teaches, wherein the frequency hopping factor indicates a number of overlapping resource blocks (see MANOLAKOS [9] “the indication indicates a minimum sub-band overlap between two frequency hops”, [10] “the minimum sub-band overlap is specified as a number of physical resource blocks (PRBs)”, suggesting a factor, such as a frequency hopping factor, indicating a number of overlapping resource blocks).
Regarding claims 39 and 43, MANOLAKOS, in view of Hong and DUAN, teaches the UE/apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 38 and 42.
MANOLAKOS further teaches, wherein the frequency hopping factor indicates a percentage of overlapping resource blocks (see MANOLAKOS [9] “the indication indicates a minimum sub-band overlap between two frequency hops”, [10] “the minimum sub-band overlap is specified as a percentage of a sub-band size associated with the plurality of frequency hops”, suggesting a factor, such as a frequency hopping factor because of association with frequency hopping, indicating a percentage of overlapping resource block).
Regarding claims 40 and 44, MANOLAKOS, in view of Hong and DUAN, teaches the UE/apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claims 8 and 16.
MANOLAKOS further teaches, wherein the reference signal configuration configures at least one of a positioning reference signal (PRS) or a positioning sounding reference signal (SRS) (see MANOLAKOS [284] teaching PRS).
Regarding claim 45, MANOLAKOS, in view of Hong and DUAN, teaches the method, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
DUAN further teaches, wherein the signaling comprises an indication that the UE supports estimating a position of the UE using multiple reference signals, including the PRS and the at least one non-PRS reference signal (DUAN [0129] “At stage 1310, the UE 500 sends one or more indications of one or more processing capabilities for processing PRS and a supplemental signal in combination. For example, the combined processing unit 550 may send a processing capability message 1312 to the network entity 600 that indicates one or more abilities of the UE 500 for combined signal processing to determine position information.”, supplemental signal is a non-PRS signal).
Regarding claim 46, MANOLAKOS, in view of Hong and DUAN, teaches the method, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
DUAN further teaches, wherein the reference signal configuration configures the at least one non-PRS reference signal for use in a location-estimation procedure (see DUAN [121], [129], [130] for reference signal configuration having a non-PRS reference signal).
Regarding claim 48, MANOLAKOS, in view of Hong and DUAN, teaches the method, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
DUAN further teaches, wherein the location-estimation positioning procedure comprises a reduced-accuracy positioning mode using the at least one non-PRS reference signal (DUAN [111] implies reduced accuracy with only PRS or non-PRS reference signal-based location estimation, as combined use of PRS and non-PRS provides improved accuracy, according to DUAN).
Regarding claim 50, MANOLAKOS, in view of Hong and DUAN, teaches the method, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
DUAN further teaches, wherein the performing comprises reporting, by the UE, measurements for the PRS and the at least one additional reference signal for the positioning procedure (DUAN [0061] “With a UE-assisted position method, the UE 105 may obtain location measurements and send the measurements to a location server (e.g., the LMF 120) for computation of a location estimate for the UE 105.”, [113] “to report that the PRS and the supplemental signal were processed in combination to provide reported position information (e.g., one or more measurements, one or more ranges, one or more position estimates, etc.).”).
Claims 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MANOLAKOS, in view of HONG and DUAN, as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of Ramachandran; Vignesh Raja et al US 20250164598 A1, hereinafter Ramachandran.
Regarding claim 47, MANOLAKOS, in view of Hong and DUAN, teaches the method, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
MANOLAKOS and Hong and DUAN do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Ramachandran suggests, further comprising: performing, by the UE, a maintenance-mode positioning operation using the at least one non-PRS reference signal (The maintenance-mode positioning operation is interpretated, under BRI, as calibrating the positioning. Ramachandran [24] “a synchronization signal may be received from the anchor device and the timing difference may be determined based on the synchronization signal. Thereby, an available synchronization signal transmitted or broadcast from the anchor device can be used for the calibration process.” teaches, calibration using a synchronization signal, which is a non-PRS reference signal as established in DUAN above (see DUAN [121]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of MANOLAKOS and Hong and DUAN to include the features as taught by Ramachandran above in order to provide improved calibration and power management for combined ranging and location services (Ramachandran [0006]).
Claims 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MANOLAKOS, in view of HONG and DUAN, as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of RAO; Jaya et al US 20240179583 A1, hereinafter RAO.
Regarding claim 49, MANOLAKOS, in view of Hong and DUAN, teaches the method, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
MANOLAKOS and Hong and DUAN do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, RAO suggests, further comprising: disabling, by the UE, PRS measurements; and activating a DMRS configuration for the positioning procedure (This claim is interpretated, under BRI, as deactivating one PRS configuration and activating another (non-)PRS configuration. RAO [0184] “The WTRU may use validity conditions for determining the PRS configurations to apply during mobility. In some examples, the WTRU may use validity conditions associated with one or more PRS configurations for determining when to start and/or stop using the PRS configurations associated with the source base station/gNB/cell and the target base station/gNB/cell during mobility. … The validity conditions, associated with PRS configurations may include or indicate any of the following: …”, [0188] “(4) one or more radio environment conditions of the WTRU (e.g., radio environment information (for example, the WTRU may change from a first set consisting of one or more PRS configurations to a second set when: (i) the RSRP of measurements made on PRS or non-positioning RS/channels (e.g., CSI-RS, SSB) associated with the first set are above/below an RSRP threshold value), …”. DMRS in the claim is also a non-positioning RS as established in DUAN above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of MANOLAKOS and Hong and DUAN to include the features as taught by Ramachandran above in order to supporting positioning service continuity (RAO [0002]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL, IEEE A. Pin, LTE Uplink TOA Opportunistic Measurement Based on DM-RS, April 24-26, 2019
Edge, US 20230362592 A1 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PERIODIC AND TRIGGERED EVENT REPORTING VIA USER PLANE.
IDS reference NPL, Qualcomm R1-2205042 Positioning for Reduced Capabilities UEs, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #109-e, e-Meeting, May 9th – 20th, 2022.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0232. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST; Friday variable.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475