DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement submitted on September 3, 2025, has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on October 16, 2025, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. This action is NON-FINAL.
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, 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 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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Manolakos et al., US 11424966 B2, hereinafter “Manolakos,” in view of Gurumoorthy et al., US 11792878 B2, hereinafter “Gurumoorthy.”
Consider claim 1 . Manolakos discloses:
a self-location positioning method operable at a user equipment
(UE) in a non-connected protocol state (limitation is in the preamble and it is not tied to the body of the claim, but it could still be read on the UE may transition from the RRC connected state 720 to the RRC idle state 710 or the RRC inactive state 730 during an ongoing positioning session – see column 23 lines 37-39), comprising:
initiating a random-access channel (RACH) procedure by transmitting an initial RACH message to a serving base station (see fig. 5 step 510; see column 2 lines 16-25: a method of wireless communication performed by a TRP includes receiving, from a UE, one or more SRS on one or more SRS resources; receiving, from the UE during a positioning session with the UE, at least a first signal of a RACH procedure having transmission properties based on a first association between at least one SRS resource or resource set of the one or more SRS resources and at least one RACH resource of one or more RACH resources; and performing a positioning measurement of the first signal of the RACH procedure; see column 22 lines 29-35: At 610, the UE 604 transmits a RACH Message A (“MsgA”) to the base station 602. In a two-step random access procedure 600, Msg1 and Msg3, described above with reference to FIG. 5, are collapsed (e.g., combined) into MsgA and sent to the base station 602. As such, a MsgA includes a RACH preamble and a PUSCH, similar to the Msg3 PUSCH of a four-step RACH procedure),
wherein the initial RACH message comprises a preamble and uplink positioning reference signals (UL PRSs) (see column 9 lines 11-16: The UE can then form a transmit beam for sending one or more uplink reference signals (e.g., uplink positioning reference signals (UL-PRS), sounding reference signal (SRS), demodulation reference signals (DMRS), PTRS, etc.) to that base station based on the parameters of the receive beam; see column 20 lines 41-44: When the UE sends the very first message of the four-step random access procedure 500 to the base station 502, it sends a specific pattern called a preamble (also referred to as a RACH preamble, a PRACH preamble, or a sequence); and
receiving a final RACH message of the RACH procedure from the serving base station (see fig. 6 step 610; see column 22 lines 39-40: At 620, the UE 604 receives a RACH Message B (“MsgB”) from the base station 602).
But Manolakos is silent/not specific regarding entering a protocol state determined at least in part based on contents of the final message of the RACH procedure.
Gurumoorthy, in related art, suggests entering a protocol state -reads on RRC connected state- determined at least in part based on contents of the final message of the RACH procedure (see column 17 lines 57-67 through column 18 lines 1-11: As shown, in 602, initially the UE may operate in the RRC inactive state. In 604, the UE may determine to transition to the RRC connected state, and in 606, the UE may initiate a random access channel (RACH) procedure, by transmitting a physical RACH (PRACH) preamble on the uplink, which may also be referred to as a MSG1. In 608, the network may respond on the downlink with an uplink grant, which may also be referrred to as a MSG2. The UE may encode (610) and transmit (612) on the uplink a RRCConnectionResumeRequest message (which may also be referred to as a MSG3), requesting a preferred data inactivity timer value (T1), and a preferred state to transition to when the inactivity timer expires (RRC_INACTIVE). The network may encode (614) and transmit (616) a RRCConnectionResume message on the downlink (which may also be referred to as a MSG4), indicating a data inactivity period (T2) and a state for the UE to transition to after the data inactivity timer expires (RRC_INACTIVE). Note that, in the example scenario of FIG. 6, the data inactivity timer prescribed by the network (e.g., T2, in the illustrated scenario) and state (e.g., RRC_INACTIVE, in the illustrated scenario) may be binding on the UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to consider Gurumoorthy’s teachings in relation to the claimed invention, thus providing means for performing implicit radio resource control state transitions in a cellular communication system for the purpose of reducing power requirements in UE device designs while allowing the UE device to maintain good transmit and receive abilities for improved communications, as discussed by Gurumoorthy (see column 1 lines 26-62).
Consider claim 2. Manolakos in view of Gurumoorthy teaches claim 1; and Manolakos further suggests wherein the RACH procedure is a four-step RACH, wherein the initial RACH message is Msg 1 and the final RACH message is Msg4 (see column 20 lines 9-14: FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary four-step random access procedure 500, according to aspects of the disclosure. The four-step random access procedure 500 is performed between a UE 504 and a base station 502, which may correspond to any of the UEs and base stations, respectively, described herein).
Consider claim 3. Manolakos in view of Gurumoorthy teaches claim 1; and Manolakos further suggests wherein the RACH procedure is a two-step RACH, wherein the initial RACH message is MsgA and the final RACH message is MsgB (see column 22 lines 23-24: FIG. 6 illustrates an exemplary two-step random access procedure 600, according to aspects of the disclosure).
Consider claim 4. Manolakos in view of Gurumoorthy teaches claim 1; and Manolakos further suggests receiving assistance data comprising configuration information of DL PRSs, the DL PRSs being transmitted by a plurality of network nodes (see column 9 lines 2-5: a UE may use a particular receive beam to receive one or more reference downlink reference signals (e.g., positioning reference signals (PRS));
measuring a subset of the DL PRSs and transmitting a RACH message of the RACH procedure, wherein the message comprises measurement results of the subset of the DL PRSs (see column 23 lines 45-49).
Consider claim 5. Manolakos in view of Gurumoorthy teaches claim 4; and Manolakos further suggests wherein the RACH message encapsulates a message of an LTE positioning protocol (LPP) (see column 27 lines 41-48: As will be appreciated, the various network nodes described above may communicate over different interfaces and using different protocols. For example, the UE 804 may communicate with the location server, and vice versa, using LTE positioning protocol (LPP) signaling).
Consider claim 6. Manolakos in view of Gurumoorthy teaches claim 5; and Manolakos further suggests wherein the RACH message is Msg3 of a four-step RACH procedure (see fig. 5 and column 22 lines 31-35: Msg1 and Msg3, described above with reference to FIG. 5, are collapsed (e.g., combined) into MsgA and sent to the base station 602. As such, a MsgA includes a RACH preamble and a PUSCH, similar to the Msg3 PUSCH of a four-step RACH procedure).
Consider claim 7. Manolakos in view of Gurumoorthy teaches claim 5; and Manolakos further suggests wherein the RACH message is MsgA of atwo-step RACH procedure, and wherein MsgA is the initial message that comprises both the UL PRSs and the measurement results of the subset of the DL PRSs (see fig. 5 and column 25 lines 18-52).
Consider claim 8. Manolakos in view of Gurumoorthy teaches claim 1; and Manolakos further suggests wherein the UE receives measurement results of the UL PRSs in the final RACH message of the RACH procedure, wherein the UE computes a location estimate based at least in part on the measurement results of the UL PRSs (see column 27 lines 22-40).
Consider claim 9. Manolakos in view of Gurumoorthy teaches claim 1; and Manolakos further suggests wherein the UE receives a location estimate in the final RACH message of the RACH procedure (see column 24 lines 10-12; column 27 lines 37-40).
Consider claim 10. Manolakos in view of Gurumoorthy teaches claim 1; and Manolakos further suggests wherein the UE is in radio resource control (RRC) idle state or inactive state during the RACH procedure (see column 20 lines 18-25; column 23 lines 37-40; column 24 lines 37-41).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following references, although not relied upon, are considered to be pertinent prior art since they disclose subject matter related to the invention claimed by the present application, i.e., random access preamble for positioning indication.
US 12356462 B2 US 12302409 B2 US 12206607 B2
US 12167458 B2 US 12069763 B2 US 12058754 B2
US 20240057031 A1 US 11818738 B2 US 20230300739 A1
US 20230300889 A1 US 20230292370 A1 US 20230224850 A1
US 11632792 B2 US 11622388 B2 US 11606771 B2
US 20230062577 A1 US 20230033454 A1 US 11553534 B2
US 11503609 B2 US 11330632 B2 US 11316568 B2
US 20210250937 A1 US 20200288508 A1 US 10763947 B2
US 20200245372 A1 US 20200245372 A1 US 10420063 B2
Conclusion
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Amancio González, whose telephone number is (571) 270-1106. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 8:00am to 5:00pm.
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 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) or 703-305-3028.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/AMANCIO GONZALEZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
December 11, 2025