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 Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the current grounds of rejection based on Siomina and are in place for allowance for removing option (b) from the independent claim 1.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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. Applicant has canceled the previously rejected option from the set of options in claim 1 leaving the options pertaining to the second measurement resource and the PPW, for which a new reference has been applied in an updated search.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 12-14, 16-17, 21, 27, 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manolakos et al. (“Manolakos”) (US 20220085945 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Manolakos teaches:
An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) [¶0105 UE], comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured [Figure 2] to:
obtain a first indication of a first measurement gap resource associated with a first time period [¶0105, Figure 9, PFL1 and PFL2 922, 924, corresponding to first measurement gap resource associated with measurement gap 920, corresponding to first time period, and indicated as in ¶0119, PRS configuration indicated to UE];
receive a set of position reference signals (PRSs) during a PRS occasion [Figure 9, receive PRSs across 962, 964, 966, in occasion defined by 960 ¶0105], wherein a first portion of the PRS occasion does not overlap with any portion of the first time period; [Figure 9, PRS occasion defined by 960 includes at least portion not overlapping with first time period 920 ¶0105]; and measure the set of PRSs received during the first portion of the PRS occasion based on at least one of (i) a second measurement gap resource, allocated at the UE, associated with a second time period that overlaps with the first portion of the PRS occasion, (ii) or a positioning processing window (PPW) associated with a third time period that overlaps with the first portion of the PRS occasion [PPW considered time windows spanned by PFL3-5 Figure 9, processing PRSs sent during 960, including portion of time not overlapping first time period 920].
Regarding claim 12, Manolakos teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first time period comprises a set of slots or a set of subframes, wherein the set of slots or the set of subframes are associated with the first measurement gap resource [¶0090 sent across slots / symbols thus subframes, Figure 9].
Regarding claim 13, Manolakos teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: measure at least one reference signal (RS) using at least one of (i) the first measurement gap resource associated with the first time period, (ii) the second measurement gap resource associated with the second time period, or (iii) the PPW associated with the third time period [¶0116, PRS in PFLs of Figure 9, used to make measurements ¶0099-0100].
Regarding claim 14, Manolakos teaches:
The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the at least one RS comprises an inter-frequency RS, wherein, to measure the at least one RS, the at least one processor is configured to: measure the at least one inter-frequency RS using the first measurement gap resource associated with the first time period [¶0099, ¶0105, Figure 9, measure on first measurement gap resource being time 920 corresponding to first time period, on PFL1, PFL2, thus inter-frequency, RSs being PRS].
Regarding claim 16, Manolakos teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to measure the set of PRSs, the at least one processor is configured to: measure a reference signal time difference (RSTD) of at least one PRS of the set of PRSs [¶0049, ¶0088, ¶0111 RSTD].
Regarding claim 17, Manolakos teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first portion of the PRS occasion comprises a first PRS of the set of PRSs and a second portion of the PRS occasion comprises a second PRS of the set of PRSs, wherein the first PRS and the second PRS are associated with a same PRS measurement [¶0105 multiple PRSs” received across the multiple PFLs in Figure 9, 962-966, corresponding to first and second PRS in two portions of the occasion in gap 960].
Regarding claims 21, 29-30 see similar rejection for claim 1 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponds steps.
Regarding claim 27 see similar rejection for claim 13 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponds steps.
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) 2-8, 11, 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos et al. (“Manolakos”) (US 20220085945 A1) in view of Siomina et al. (“Siomina”) (US 20210120513 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Manolakos teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1.
Manolakos teaches PRS but not a request for PPW.
Siomina teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: allocate the second measurement gap resource associated with the second time period that overlaps with the first portion of the PRS occasion; or transmit a request for the PPW associated with the third time period that overlaps with the first portion of the PRS occasion [¶0221, WD sends request for first and second measurement gap patterns, see Figure 14 MGP2 includes at least portion not overlapping with e.g. MGP1 (first time period) which may be PPW].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the request for parameters of the PPW as in Siomina. Manolakos teaches a PPW with a third time period and it would have been obvious to specify request the parameters for this period as in Siomina who teaches this allows for the device to determine performing RSTD measurements ¶0121.
Regarding claim 3-7, Examiner notes that these limitations depend on options (i) of claim 1. However claim 1 also recites option ii in the exclusive. Since case (ii) is rejected, the remaining option (i) and any limitations depending on and expanding upon these options do not have patentable weight and do not require support in the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Manolakos-Siomina teaches:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein, to transmit the request for the PPW associated with the third time period, the at least one processor is configured to: transmit the request for the PPW associated with the third time period for a first positioning frequency layer (PFL) [Manolakos shows PPW associated with third time period measured via PFLs including first PFL e.g. 962, Siomina teaches sending request for PPW ¶0221 see rationale as in claim 2], wherein, to measure the set of PRSs received during the first portion of the PRS occasion, the at least one processor is configured to: measure the set of PRSs at a second PFL different from the first PFL [Manolakos ¶0105, Figure 9 shows PFL4 964, second PFL different from first PFL e.g. 962].
Regarding claim 11, Manolakos teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1.
Manolakos teaches non-overlapping PRS occasions and first time period but not a collision range.
Siomina teaches wherein the first time period overlaps with a collision range associated with the PRS occasion, wherein the collision range occurs prior to the PRS occasion, after the PRS occasion, or both [Siomina Figure 14 R1 section where T1 and T2 overlap is considered collision range period and first measurements according to first time period before MGP2 on T2, see ¶0133].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the request for parameters of the PPW as in Siomina who teaches this allows for avoiding degrading performance of positioning measurements when there is overlap ¶0012.
Regarding claims 22-26, see similar rejections for claim 2, 4-6, 8 respectively teaching the physical structure performing the corresponds steps.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos et al. (“Manolakos”) (US 20220085945 A1) in view of Siomina et al. (“Siomina”) (US 20210120513 A1) and Zheng et al. (“Zheng”) (US 20240284389 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Manolakos-Siomina teaches:
The apparatus of claim 8.
Manolakos-Siomina teaches requests for PPW but not a priority indication.
Zheng teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive a configuration for the PPW that prioritizes a measurement of a PRS over an inter- frequency transmission [¶0068, UE receives indication DL PRS prioritized over other downlink channels, including other carriers ¶0047 (corresponding to inter-frequency transmission)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify prioritizing PRS as in Zheng who teaches this allows for network devices to estimate position ¶0003 in the event of overlap ¶0068.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos et al. (“Manolakos”) (US 20220085945 A1) in view of Cui et al. (“Cui”) (US 20190342801 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Manolakos teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor [¶0105].
Manolakos teaches obtaining measurement gap information but not via RRC however Cui teaches wherein, to obtain the first indication of the first measurement gap resource, the at least one processor is configured to: receive, via the transceiver, a radio resource control (RRC) configuration that configures the first measurement gap resource, wherein the RRC configuration is received from at least one of: a second UE, a network node, or a network entity [¶0070 the UE can be configured (e.g., via RRC signaling) with the multiple measurement gaps, ¶0044 communicated by base station]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify RRC configuring the measurement gap. Manolakos teaches a configured measurement gap and it would have been obvious to specify RRC configuration as in Cui who teaches this allows for performing signal quality measurements to determine handover ¶0044.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos et al. (“Manolakos”) (US 20220085945 A1) in view of Siomina et al. (US 20200137601 A1, hereinafter ‘601).
Regarding claim 15, Manolakos teaches:
The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the at least one RS comprises an RS, wherein, to measure the at least one RS, the at least one processor is configured to: measure the at least one intra-frequency RS using at least one of (i) the first measurement gap resource associated with the first time period [¶0099, ¶0105, Figure 9, measure on first measurement gap resource being time 920 corresponding to first time period, on PFL1, PFL2, thus inter-frequency, RSs being PRS]., (ii) the second measurement gap resource associated with the second time period, or (iii) the PPW associated with the third time period.
Manolakos teaches measuring RSs but not expressly intra-frequency RSs.
‘601 teaches the at least one RS comprises an intra-frequency RS [¶0084-86, PRS on frequency of UE being intra-frequency].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify intra-frequency RS signals for measurement as in ‘601 to measure RSTD for current cell ¶0084-86.
Claim(s) 19-20, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos et al. (“Manolakos”) (US 20220085945 A1) in view of Tang et al. (“Tang”) (US 20220217562 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Manolakos teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive a reference signal using at least one of the second measurement gap resource during the second time period or the PPW during the third time period [¶0105, Figure 9, RSs received via PFLs in gap 960, measured, corresponding to PPW in third time period]
Manolakos teaches measuring PRSs but does not teach SSB.
Tang teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive a synchronization signal block (SSB) using at least one of the second measurement gap resource during the second time period or the PPW during the third time period [¶0018, share measurement gap period, or PPW of third time period, between PRS measurement and SSB measurement, thus SSB received].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify SSB reception via PPW as in Tang. Manolakos teaches measurements during PPW and it would have been obvious to specify SSB reception as in Tang for flexible configuration and to improve MG sharing ¶0018.
Regarding claim 20, Manolakos-Tang teaches:
The apparatus of claim 19, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: decode the SSB after receiving the SSB using at least one of the second measurement gap resource or the PPW [¶0018 Tang, rationale for combination as in claim 19 ].
Regarding claims 28, see similar rejections for claim 19-20 teaching the physical structure performing the corresponds steps.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L. VOGEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30 PM MT.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached on 571-272-3905. 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.
/JAY L VOGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights