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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 36, and 48 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. In particular, although Choi is still used, the Examiner has brought in a new reference to show that sounding reference signals can be used for position determination. Additionally, the applicant’s affidavit raises questions about the disclosure of SRS-Pos because if it does cover different technology, the applicant did not disclose such technology and conventional SRS-Pos is based on conventional SRS implementations contrary to what the applicant alleged in the affidavit.
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, 7, 8, 18, 20, 36, 40, and 45-52 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.
Written Description Issue #1
Claims 1, 36, and 48 feature the following limitation:
selectively dropping either the SRS-Pos for positioning or the first channel based on at least the indication information received from the network node by dropping the first channel on the overlapped OFDM symbols and transmitting the SRS-Pos for positioning to enable positioning calculations by one or more base stations, when the SRS-Pos for positioning is determined to have the transmission priority on the overlapped OFDM symbols.
The limitation is written in such a way that dropping the SRS-Pos for positioning is done by dropping the first channel. This is not disclosed. The examiner suggests that the applicant use a wherein clause or some other claim mechanism to point out that the description of dropping in the claim applies only to the selection of the first channel to drop and not the dropping of the SRS-Pos, as dropping the SRS-Pos would not be performed by dropping the first channel.
Written Description Issue #2
Section 2162 of the MPEP states:
To obtain a valid patent, a patent application must contain a full and clear description of the invention for which a patent is sought in the manner prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. The requirement for an adequate written description ensures that the public receives something in return for the exclusionary rights that are granted to the inventor by a patent. The grant of a patent helps to foster and enhance the development and disclosure of new ideas and the advancement of scientific knowledge. Upon the grant of a patent in the U.S., information contained in the patent becomes a part of the information available to the public for further research and development, subject only to the patentee’s right to exclude others during the life of the patent.
The applicant is claiming a concept using the term “Sounding Reference Signal-Position (SRS-Pos)” in each independent claim.
The applicant filed an affidavit under 35 CFR 1.132 on 1/27/2026 arguing the following:
(7) According to my knowledge, SRS-Pos has its inherent meaning, which is different from the ordinary SRS. The ordinary SRS is a reference signal introduced by 3GPP in the 5G NR R15 version for MIMO channel measurement, and it is not related to positioning. In contrast, SRS-Pos is a dedicated reference signal specifically introduced by 3GPP in the 5G NR R16 version for uplink positioning, with extensive optimizations tailored for positioning characteristics. Therefore, it is fundamentally different from the ordinary SRS and should not be confused with it.
The Examiner supplies a copy of a 5G NR R16 document, cited on the 892. The term “SRS-Pos” does not appear in this document. On pages 68 and 69, the document described that ordinary UL Sounding Reference signals can be used for positioning. There is no description in the 5G NR R16 document that there is a concept of SRS-Pos that relies on a different implementation than any other SRS implementation described in the document. The applicant has not described in their disclosure how SRS-Pos is different than SRS in such a way that it “should not be confused with it”. Consequently, the applicant has not described the concept of SRS-Pos, as it is characterized by the applicant, with a full and clear description as required by 35 USC section 112(a) as explained in section 2162 of the MPEP.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 18, 20, 36, 40, and 45-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high precision” in claims 1, 36, and 48 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high precision” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims state that a parameter specifies whether “positioning using the SRS-Pos is to achieve… high precision” but the specification does not describe what constitutes “high precision”. The applicant uses the terms frequently to define a positioning requirement but does not define any standard for “high precision” or how positioning would “achieve” high precision, as claimed. The examiner notes that the original disclosure does not use such phrasing.
The term “low delay” in claims 1, 36, and 48 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low delay” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims state that a parameter specifies whether “positioning using the SRS-Pos is to achieve… low delay” but the specification does not describe what constitutes “low delay”. The applicant uses the terms frequently to define a positioning requirement but does not define any standard for “low delay” or how positioning would “achieve” low delay, as claimed. The examiner notes that the original disclosure does not use such phrasing.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 18, 36, 40, 45, 46, and 48-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0163079 by Choi et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0185632 by Manolakos et al.
As to claim 1, Choi teaches a signal processing method, performed by a terminal, comprising: determining that Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) symbols (paragraph 36) occupied by an uplink Sounding Reference Signal overlap with OFDM symbols occupied by a first channel (paragraphs 87 and 88, Table 11 Option 2, the detected collisions indicate an overlap in OFDM symbols), the first channel including a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) and/or a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) (paragraph 7); receiving indication information from a network node, the indication information comprising one or more parameters including at least a parameter specifying achievement of at least one of high precision or low delay (The rules in table 11 lead to high precision achievement); determining whether the SRS or the first channel has transmission priority on the overlapped OFDM symbols based on the one or more parameters (paragraphs 87 and 88, Table 11 Option 2); and selectively dropping either the SRS or the first channel based on at least the indication information received from the network node by dropping the first channel on the overlapped OFDM symbols and transmitting the SRS (paragraphs 87 and 88, Table 11 Option 2); however Choi does not explicitly teach that the SRS is a SRS-Pos.
Manolakos shows that positioning signals can be transmitted as SR signals on OFDM mediums (paragraphs 47 and 49) and that such signals can enable positioning calculations by one or more base stations (paragraph 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mobility management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Choi regarding managing overlapping OFDM symbols with the teachings of Manolakos regarding using SRS-Pos signals over OFDM symbols because Manolakos provides an example of a specific type of SRS implementation that could be applied to the SRS taught by Choi.
As to claims 36 and 48, they are rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
As to claims 7, 40, and 49, Table 11 of Choi, indicates priority.
As to claims 8, 45, and 50, the applicant does not define a "positioning delay requirement" or "high precision" in their specification. The rules in Table 11 of Choi are considered a "requirement" that leads to "high precision".
As to claims 18, 46, and 51, Table 11 of Choi covers the final alternative limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 47, and 52 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art did not suggest indication information including all three indicators together in a single indicator as the three indicators are defined in claims 7, 40, and 49.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights