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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 11/26/2025 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 12, 14-16 and 20 are amended, claim 2 is canceled, and claims 1 and 3-20 are currently pending.
Applicant’s newly submitted replacement drawing have been entered and fully considered, therefore drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with respect to specification, that “IEEE”, “Wi-Fi” and “3GPP” are not trade names or marks used in commerce, there is no requirement to note these as such in the specification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to USPTO trademark database, “IEEE” is live and registered to “The institution of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (Corporation; New York, USA), “Wi-Fi” is live and registered to “Wi-Fi Alliance (Corporation; California, USA), and “3GPP” is live and registered to “European Telecommunications Standard Institute (Non-Profit Association; France). Therefore, specification objection will be maintained.
Applicant stated that claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 12, 14-16 and 20 are amended and Examiner thank the Applicant for citing specification support for the amendment.
Applicant further argues, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 should be withdrawn based on amendment and the following remarks:
Step 2A, Prong One
Applicant argues that claims do not recite mental process when they do not contain limitation that can practically be performed in human mind, and in claim 1, the terminal receives the priority configuration information sent by the network-side device. Obviously, the human mind cannot replace the terminal to receive the priority configuration information sent by the network-side device. And the human mind cannot perform the technical effect that would ensuring the positioning accuracy, the positioning delay and the power consumption of the terminal can be reduced (as recited in specification background and Paragraph 0046).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. These limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person could get instruction from a manager, to listen to other people in order, such as listen to People A first, and then People B second, etc. The person could evaluate the loudness of sound from each of these people. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a terminal and/or a network-side device does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Applicant argues amended claim 1 recites additional elements “measuring a positioning signal based on priority information; wherein the priority information is configured for positioning signal resource set, and an order of the positioning signal resource sets int eh corresponding object list is determined based on the priority information; or, the priority information is configured for transmission and reception points (TRPs), and an order of the TRPs in the corresponding object list is determined based on the priority information” for incorporating forensic exceptions into practical applications, since the positioning measurement technology is improved by determining the order of positioning signal resource set or order of the TRPs, therefore continuity measurement is ensured, reliability of measurement is enhanced, measurement of invalid positioning signals is reduced, power consumption and computing overhead of terminals are reduced.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP states that, see specifically 2106.05(f) Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial except in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court that in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “more than simply” stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S.C. 208,221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S.C. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftman’s art”). Further while evaluating step 2A if claim recite any additional elements beyond the judicial exception and reviewing MPEP 2106.05(f) i.e., mere instruction to apply an exception. It is clearly recited that the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743044 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743. Having said that current limitation recites receive priority configuration from a network-side device, measuring a positioning signal based on the priority information, wherein the priority information is configured for positioning signal resource sets or configured for transmission and reception points (TRPs), which does not recite how the solution to the problem is accomplished. If the additional elements taken alone or in combination fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim is directed to judicial exception and analysis proceeds to step 2B
Step 2B
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 are not directed to a judicial exception, and even if they were, for the sake of argument, the claim recites limitations that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity within the field. As such the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection should be withdrawn because the amended claim 1 is significantly more than an abstract idea.
The claim as whole is analyzed and does not recite additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Applicant further argues, with respect to amended independent claim 1, that Johansson does not teach or suggest wherein the priority information is configured for positioning signal resource sets, and an order of the positioning signal resource sets in the corresponding object list is determined based on the priority information; or, the priority information is configured for transmission and reception points (TRPs), and an order of the TRPs in the corresponding object list is determined based on the priority information.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Johansson teaches Figures 17-19 illustrate different embodiments for determining a priority order of various positioning objective (Figures 17-19 and Paragraphs 0059, 0061 and 0063). The available positioning signal resource sets including Wi-Fi signals used in WiFi positioning, LTE signals used in LTE OTDOA positioning, satellite systems/signals used in GNSS positioning [These signals are disclosed in Paragraph 0057. Examiner asserts that these signals are interpreted as positioning signal resource sets]. These signals are prioritized based on the positioning objective. For example, in Figure 17, when the positioning objective is response time, the available signal resource sets of WiFi signals, LTE signals, AGNSS signals and GNSS signals are ranked in one certain order. Whereas in Figure 18, a different positioning objective wherein accuracy is the objective, the available positioning resource sets [Wi-Fi, cellular, satellite] are arranged in different priority order. Since the claim has not disclosed what encompass “the corresponding object list”, Examiner interprets the list of signals as the corresponding object list. Further, since the newly added priority information limitation is in alternative or format (e.g., either configured for positioning signal resource set, or configured for transmission and reception points (TRPs), since the Johansson teaches the priority information is configured for positioning signal resource set, thus the limitation has been satisfied). Therefore, Johansson teaches wherein the priority information is configured for positioning signal resource sets, and an order of the positioning signal resource sets in the corresponding object list is determined based on the priority information; or, the priority information is configured for transmission and reception points (TRPs), and an order of the TRPs in the corresponding object list is determined based on the priority information, as recited in amended independent claim 1.
Applicant further respectfully submits that claims 14 and 20 (as amended) are eligible for patenting and patentable over the cited prior art references.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since amended claims 14 and 20 recites similar features as amended claim 1, therefore is rejected for similar reason as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Applicant further argues as to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 9 and 10, Hao fails to cure at least the above noted deficiencies of Johansson.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, please refer to the reason discussed above regarding claim 1, from which claims 9 and 10 depend either directly or indirectly from. Further, all other dependent claims that depend either directly or indirectly from claims 1 and 14 are rejected for same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 14 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Amended claim 1 recites “the positioning signal resource sets in the corresponding object list” on line 10. Examiner suggest changing the limitation to “the positioning signal resource sets in [[the]] a corresponding object list”. Claims 14 and 20 recites similar limitation, and therefore are objected for similar reason.
Amended claim 3 recites “and in a case that the positioning information is positioning information associated with the positioning signal, a priority order of measuring the positioning signal is consistent with a priority order of reporting the positioning information” on lines 3-8. Examiner understand the limitation as “wherein the positioning information …” instead of “and in a case that the positioning information …”. Examiner suggests either amend the limitation in similar language, or further define what happens after “in a case that …” to complete the sentence.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the terms IEEE, Wi-Fi, 3GPP, etc., which are trade name or mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 3-20 are directed to abstract idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”, for example receiving priority configuration information; and perform measuring a positioning signal. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such.
Step 1: Yes. The claims meet the statutory categories.
Claims 1, 3-12 fall within a statutory category of process.
Claims 14-19 fall within a statutory category of process.
Claim 20 falls within a statutory category of machine.
Step 2A: Prong One: Yes. The claims are directed to a judicial exception.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception.
Claims 1 and 3-20 recites a judicial exception being directed to an abstract idea. As a representative example, take Claim 1: A positioning measurement method performed by a terminal, comprising: receiving priority configuration information sent by a network-side device, wherein the priority configuration information comprises priority information; and measuring a positioning signal based on the priority information; wherein the priority information is configured for positioning signal resource sets, and an order of the positioning signal resource sets int eh corresponding object list is determined based on the priority information; or, the priority information is configured for transmission and reception points (TRPs), and an order of the TRPs in the corresponding object list is determined based on the priority information. These steps are merely a mental process (receiving information and observing) performed using general purpose computer. Examiner notes mental process includes described mental observation and evaluations that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and also those performed with a pen/pencil or a general purpose computer (i.e. graphing, mapping, calculations).
Claims 14 and 20 recites similar features as claim 1, performed using general purpose computer.
Step 2A Prong Two: No. Evaluating additional elements recited in the claims individually and in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The additional element in claim 1 (such as terminal, network-side device, and the priority information is configured for positioning signal resource sets or TRPs) account for insignificant extra solution activity. The limitations merely define the intended environment (i.e., terminal, network-side device) defined generally and are mere generic entities constitute mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving and analyzing data generally, which is well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and (f). The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B: No. Evaluating additional elements recited, the claims as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The analysis above in parts and re-evaluated again for the claims as a whole, the additional elements are mere generic entities such as “terminal” and “network-side devices”, and “priority information configured for positioning resource set or TRPs” without any given implementation thus amount to data gathering and analyzing at a high level of generality and amount to receiving and analyzing over a network, which is well understood, routine, convention activity. The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Analysis 2A Dependent claims 3-13 and 15-19
Dependent claims recite addition elements: reporting position information based on priority information, priority order of measuring the positioning signal, priority order of reporting the positioning information. The dependent claims further recite additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality and thus amount to intended environment descriptors. Thus the claims are mere data gathering, analyzing, and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, analyzing, and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, analyzing, and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Analysis 2B dependent claims 3-13 and 15-19: No. Evaluating additional elements recited, the claim as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The analysis above in parts and re-evaluated again for the claims as a whole, the additional elements are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1, 3-8 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johansson et al. (US 20130190009 A1, and Johansson hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Johansson teaches a positioning measurement method performed by a terminal (Figure 5), comprising:
receiving priority configuration information sent by a network-side device, wherein the priority configuration information comprises priority information (Figure 5 and Paragraphs 0009 and 0044; a UE receives an MDT location request comprises an MDT location option configuration having one or more location options, and each location option is associated with a priority. Examiner asserts the priority configuration/information is received by the UE from a network-side device. Paragraph 0044; the network sends an MDT location request to a UE. In step 511, the UE receives the MDT location request comprises an MDT location option configuration. The MDT location option configuration contains multiple location options. For example, the location options are 1) UE GNSS, 2) OTDOA, and 3) C-PLANE LCS in a prioritized order); and
measuring a positioning signal based on the priority information (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0044; the UE performs location measurements, reporting, and logging);
wherein the priority information is configured for positioning signal resource sets, and an order of the positioning signal resource sets in the corresponding object list is determined based on the priority information; or the priority information is configured for transmission and reception points (TRPs), and an order of the TRPs in the corresponding object list is determined based on the priority information (Figures 17-19 and Paragraphs 0059, 0061 and 0063; Figures 17-19 illustrate different embodiments for determining a priority order of various positioning objective. The available positioning signal resource sets including Wi-Fi signals used in WiFi positioning, LTE signals used in LTE OTDOA positioning, satellite systems/signals used in GNSS positioning [These signals are disclosed in Paragraph 0057. Examiner asserts that these signals are interpreted as positioning signal resource sets]. These signals are prioritized based on the positioning objective. For example, in Figure 17, when the positioning objective is response time, the available signal resource sets of WiFi signals used in Wi-Fi location procedure, cellular signals used in LTE OTDOA location procedure, and satellite signals used in GNSS location procedure are ranked in order. Whereas in Figure 18, a different positioning objective wherein accuracy is the objective, the available positioning resource sets [such as Wi-Fi, cellular and satellite signals] are arranged in different priority order).
Regarding claim 3, Johansson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Johansson teaches wherein after measuring the positioning signal (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0044; the UE performs location measurements, reporting, and logging), the method further comprises: reporting positioning information based on the priority information (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0044; the UE performs location measurements, reporting, and logging based on the received location options with priority information), and in a case that the positioning information is positioning information associated with the positioning signal (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0044; UE measures location based on the available location options, such as UE GNSS, OTDOA, and/or C-PLANE LCS in prioritized order), a priority order of the measuring the positioning signal is consistent with a priority order of reporting the positioning information (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0044; the UE checks feasibly for first location option, and if successful, MDT features [of UE] started according to the received configuration – measurements, reporting and logging. Examiner asserts that for example if UE GNSS is chosen first and successful, then the location information obtained using UE GNSS is reported/logged first, thus the priority order of measuring positioning signal is the same as priority order of reporting the positioning information. Further, when check is unsuccessful, then the UE optionally indicates to the network that no location option could be supported, and/or the UE just applies best effort location information collection. Paragraph 0046; parameters are provided in the MDT location request, e.g., for periodic location, periodicity would typically be given or deduced from the parameters in MDT location request).
Regarding claim 4, Johansson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Johansson teaches wherein the priority information is configured for at least one of the following target objects: a positioning mode; a type of reported positioning information; a type of a positioning measurement quantity; a positioning frequency layer; or a positioning signal resource (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0044; The MDT location option configuration contains multiple location options. For example, the location options are 1) UE GNSS, 2) OTDOA, and 3) C-PLANE LCS in a prioritized order), wherein in a case that the priority information is configured for the positioning signal resource set and/or the positioning signal resource, the priority information comprises at least one of the following priority rules: prioritizing based on a type of the positioning signal; prioritizing based on whether the positioning signal is within a measurement time window; prioritizing based on whether the positioning signal is within a measurement gap time window; prioritizing based on whether the positioning signal has an associated spatial reference signal; prioritizing based on whether the positioning signal has an associated quasi-co-location reference signal; prioritizing based on a measurement quality of the positioning signal; or prioritizing based on priorities/a priority of the positioning signal resource and/or the positioning signal resource set indicated by the network-side device (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0044; In step 501, the network sends an MDT location request to a UE. In step 511, the UE receives the MDT location request comprises an MDT location option configuration. The MDT location option configuration contains multiple location options. For example, the location options are 1) UE GNSS, 2) OTDOA, and 3) C-PLANE LCS in a prioritized order. Figure 18 and Paragraphs 0061 and 0062; priority order is based on measurement accuracy [thus measurement quality] of positioning signal).
Regarding claim 5, Johansson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Johansson teaches wherein after measuring the positioning signal, the method further comprises: reporting positioning information corresponding to a target object for which the priority information is configured, based on at least one reporting mode, wherein the reporting mode comprises: aperiodic reporting, periodic reporting, semi-persistent reporting, event-triggered reporting, immediate reporting, early fix reporting, and non-connected state reporting (Paragraph 0035; for immediate MDT, measurements are performed by the UEs in CONNECTED state for E-UTRA. The collected information is either measured directly in the network or measured in the UE and reported to the network immediately as it becomes available. Figure 7 and Paragraph 0046; parameters for MO-LR may be hardcoded or provided in the MDT location request, e.g., for periodic location, periodicity would typically be given or deduced from parameters in MDT location request).
Regarding claim 6, Johansson teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as described above. Further, Johansson teaches wherein the priority information comprises a priority of the reporting mode, and the priority of the reporting mode comprises at least one of the following: a priority of the aperiodic reporting is higher than a priority of the periodic reporting; a priority of the aperiodic reporting is higher than a priority of the semi-persistent reporting; a priority of the aperiodic reporting is higher than a priority of the immediate reporting; a priority of the aperiodic reporting is higher than a priority of the early fix reporting; a priority of the semi-persistent reporting is higher than a priority of the periodic reporting; or a priority of the early fix reporting is higher than a priority of the immediate reporting, or wherein the priority information comprises a priority of reporting the positioning information and a priority of the reporting mode, and the reporting positioning information corresponding to a target object for which the priority information is configured, based on at least one reporting mode comprises: reporting the positioning information corresponding to the target object for which the priority information is configured, based on a first reporting mode, wherein a priority of the first reporting mode matches a priority of the positioning information (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0044; MDT feature received from network comprises MDT configuration including MDT measurements, reporting and logging, therefore the priority information included in the received MDT feature also include the priority of reporting and logging. Paragraph 0035; for immediate MDT, measurements are performed by the UEs in CONNECTED state for E-UTRA. The collected information is either measured directly in the network or measured in the UE and reported to the network immediately as it becomes available. For logged MDT, measurements are performed and logged by the UEs in IDLE state for E-UTRA. The UEs may report the collected and logged information to the network at a later point of time. Paragraph 0007; maximize the reuse of existing positioning functionality that ties together the current MDT best effort location concept, the on-demand/requested location concept, and the enhanced best effort location. Paragraph 0046; parameters are provided in the MDT location request, e.g., for periodic location, periodicity would typically be given or deduced from the parameters in MDT location request. Johansson teaches all of the claimed invention except the specific order of the priority. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a desired order based on objective of the positioning request such as illustrated in Figures 17-19, because Applicant has not disclosed that specific order provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with any reasonable priority order because based on different objective a different ordering is expected. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Johansson to obtain the invention as specified in this claim).
Regarding claim 7, Johansson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Johansson teaches wherein the priority information comprises a priority of the positioning signal, and the measuring a positioning signal based on the priority information comprises: in a case that a first positioning signal is unavailable, measuring a second positioning signal, wherein a priority of the second positioning signal is lower than a priority of the first positioning signal, or the priority information comprises a priority of reporting the positioning information, and after measuring the positioning signal, the method further comprises: in a case that first positioning information is unavailable, reporting second positioning information, wherein a priority of the second positioning information is lower than a priority of the first positioning information (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0044; the UE receives the MDT location request comprises an MDT location option configuration. The MDT location option configuration contains multiple location options. For example, the location options are 1) UE GNSS, 2) OTDOA, and 3) C-PLANE LCS in a prioritized order. UE check feasibility for first location option (e.g., GNSS) is unsuccessful, the UE checks feasibility for the second option (e.g., OTDOA). If the check is successful, the UE determines location acquisition and MDT feature is started according to received MDT configuration including MDT measurements, reporting and logging).
Regarding claim 8, Johansson teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as described above. Further, Johansson teaches further comprising: reporting a reason correspond to the first positioning signal is unavailable to the network-side device, or reporting a reason correspond to the first positioning information is unavailable to the network-side device (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0044; when the UE checks feasibility for all location option has failed, the network receives a response that indicates the failure of the MDT location request).
Regarding claim 11, Johansson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Johansson teaches wherein the priority information comprises a measurement priority of the positioning signal, and the measuring a positioning signal based on the priority information comprises at least one of the following: performing a first operation, wherein the first operation is: measuring a positioning signal with a measurement priority higher than a first preset priority (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0044; the UE receives the MDT location request comprises an MDT location option configuration. The MDT location option configuration contains multiple location options. For example, the location options are 1) UE GNSS, 2) OTDOA, and 3) C-PLANE LCS in a prioritized order. In step 512, the UE checks feasibility for the first location option (e.g., UE GNSS). If the UE supports GNSS, then the UE determines that location acquisition is controlled according to the successfully checked UE GNSS in step 516. In step 517, MDT feature is started according to received MDT configuration including MDT measurements, reporting and logging. On the other hand, if the UE does not support GNSS, then the UE checks feasibility for the second location option (e.g., OTDOA) in step 513. If the check is successful, then the UE goes to steps 516 and 517); or performing a second operation, wherein the second operation is: not measuring a positioning signal with a measurement priority not higher than a second preset priority (Examiner asserts this limitation is in alternative OR format, since the rejection has been met for the limitation above, the rejection for the claim has been met).
Regarding claim 12, Johansson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Johansson teaches wherein the priority information comprises a priority of reporting the positioning information, and after measuring the positioning signal, the method further comprises at last one of the following: performing a third operation, wherein the third operation is: reporting positioning information with a priority higher than a third preset priority; or performing a fourth operation, wherein the fourth operation is: not reporting positioning information with a priority not higher than a fourth preset priority (Paragraph 0035; for immediate MDT, measurements are performed by the UEs in CONNECTED state for E-UTRA. The collected information is either measured directly in the network or measured in the UE and reported to the network immediately as it becomes available. For logged MDT, measurements are performed and logged by the UEs in IDLE state for E-UTRA. The UEs may report the collected and logged information to the network at a later point of time).
Regarding claim 13, Johansson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Johansson teaches wherein before the obtaining priority information of positioning, the method further comprises: reporting priority information of positioning that is expected by the terminal to the network-side device (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0044; the UE receives the MDT location request comprises an MDT location option configuration. The MDT location option configuration contains multiple location options. For example, the location options are 1) UE GNSS, 2) OTDOA, and 3) C-PLANE LCS in a prioritized order. Figure 9 and Paragraph 0048; RAN 902 performs feasibility check for the location options in priority order, for example, if the requested location options can be supported by UE 901 (e.g., UE GNSS), then RAN 902 forwards the request to UE 901).
Regarding claim 14, Johansson teaches a positioning measurement method performed by a network-side device (Figure 9), comprising:
sending priority configuration information to a terminal, wherein the priority configuration information comprises priority information of positioning (Figure 9 and Paragraphs 0009 and 0048; a UE or an eNB receives an MDT location request comprises an MDT location option configuration having one or more location options, and each location option is associated with a priority. Examiner asserts the priority configuration/information is received by the UE from a network-side device. Paragraph 0048; RAN 902 receives an MDT location request from the core or OAM network 903. The MDT location request contains multiple location options. For example, the location options are 1) C-PLANE LCS, 2) UTDOA, and 3) E-CID. In step 912, RAN 902 performs feasibility check for the location options in priority order. RAN 902 forwards the request to UE 901 in step 915. Upon receiving the request, in step 921, UE 901 performs feasibility check for the requested options. If successful, then location is controlled according to the successfully checked option (step 923). In step 931, MDT feature is started according to received configuration for MDT measurements, reporting, and logging with location information. Paragraph 0044; the network sends an MDT location request to a UE. In step 511, the UE receives the MDT location request comprises an MDT location option configuration. The MDT location option configuration contains multiple location options. For example, the location options are 1) UE GNSS, 2) OTDOA, and 3) C-PLANE LCS in a prioritized order); and
the priority information is used to measure a positioning signal (Figure 5 and Paragraphs 0009 and 0044; the UE or eNB determines a first location option based on the MDT location option configuration and initiates positioning for MDT measurements);
wherein the priority information is configured for positioning signal resource sets, and an order of the positioning signal resource sets in the corresponding object list is determined based on the priority information; or the priority information is configured for transmission and reception points (TRPs), and an order of the TRPs in the corresponding object list is determined based on the priority information (Figures 17-19 and Paragraphs 0059, 0061 and 0063; Figures 17-19 illustrate different embodiments for determining a priority order of various positioning objective. The available positioning signal resource sets including Wi-Fi signals used in WiFi positioning, LTE signals used in LTE OTDOA positioning, satellite systems/signals used in GNSS positioning [These signals are disclosed in Paragraph 0057. Examiner asserts that these signals are interpreted as positioning signal resource sets]. These signals are prioritized based on the positioning objective. For example, in Figure 17, when the positioning objective is response time, the available signal resource sets of WiFi signals used in Wi-Fi location procedure, cellular signals used in LTE OTDOA location procedure, and satellite signals used in GNSS location procedure are ranked in order. Whereas in Figure 18, a different positioning objective wherein accuracy is the objective, the available positioning resource sets [such as Wi-Fi, cellular and satellite signals] are arranged in different priority order).
Regarding claim 15, Johansson teaches all of the limitations of claim 14, as described above. Claim 15 recites similar features as claim 4, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, Johansson teaches all of the limitations of claim 14, as described above. Claim 16 recites similar features as claim 5, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, Johansson teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as described above. Claim 17 recites similar features as claim 6, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, Johansson teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as described above. Further, Johansson teaches wherein the terminal is configured with a plurality of reporting modes, the priority information comprises a priority of reporting the positioning information and a priority of the reporting mode, and the priority of the reporting mode for reporting the positioning information matches the priority of the positioning information (Paragraph 0035; for immediate MDT, measurements are performed by the UEs in CONNECTED state for E-UTRA. The collected information is either measured directly in the network or measured in the UE and reported to the network immediately as it becomes available. For logged MDT, measurements are performed and logged by the UEs in IDLE state for E-UTRA. The UEs may report the collected and logged information to the network at a later point of time. Figure 5 and Paragraph 0044; MDT feature is started according to received MDT configuration including MDT measurements, reporting and logging).
Regarding claim 19, Johansson teaches all of the limitations of claim 14, as described above. Claim 19 recites similar features as claim 13, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 13.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites similar features as claims 1 and 14, but in alternative format (either claim 1 or claim 14), therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1 or claim 14. Further, Johansson teaches an electronic device (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0044; UE), comprising:
a processor (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0041; controller); and
a memory storing a program or an instruction that is executable on the processor, wherein the program or the instruction, when executed by the processor, causes the electronic device to perform functions (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0041; computer readable medium that have programming codes for determining how to acquire location information).
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 of this title, 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 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson, as applied to claims above, further in view of Hao et al. (US 20210120442 A1, and Hao hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, Johansson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Johansson teaches after measuring the positioning signal (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0044; when UE check feasibility for location option is successful, the UE performs location measurement according to received MDT configuration that indicates priority order of the location options), the method further comprises: reporting, based on the priority information, the positioning information (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0044; when UE check feasibility for location option is successful, the UE performs location measurement according to received MDT configuration that indicates priority order of the location options, and the UE further performs reporting [the measured location] and logging after measuring).
Johansson does not explicitly teach in a case that a resource required for all the positioning information exceeds an uplink resource, reporting part of the positioning information that can be carried in the uplink resource. In an analogous art, Hao teaches in a case that a resource required for all the positioning information exceeds an uplink resource, reporting part of the positioning information that can be carried in the uplink resource (Paragraphs 0010 and 0045; a UE may include determining that one or more uplink reference signal resources, of a plurality of uplink reference signal resources, are to be preempted; and based at least in part on the determination, selectively: canceling transmission of an uplink reference signal, or transmitting the uplink reference signal based at least in part on at least a portion of the plurality of uplink reference signal resources. Figure 3C and Paragraph 0063; when not all CMR resources are preempted and the remaining resources are sufficient for channel measurement, then the UE may determine and transmit the measurement report according to valid CMR resources of the UE. Figure 5 and Paragraph 0076; the UE may transmit the measurement report based at least in part on at least a portion of the plurality of measurement reference resources). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Johansson and Hao because there exists a need for further improvements in LTE and NR technologies, and more particularly related to techniques and apparatuses for channel state determination or reference signaling with traffic preemption (Hao, Paragraphs 0002 and 0005).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Johansson and Hao teaches all of the limitations of claim 9, as described above. Further, Hao teaches wherein after the reporting, based on the priority information, part of the positioning information that can be carried in the uplink resource (Paragraphs 0010 and 0045; a UE may include determining that one or more uplink reference signal resources, of a plurality of uplink reference signal resources, are to be preempted; and based at least in part on the determination, selectively: canceling transmission of an uplink reference signal, or transmitting the uplink reference signal based at least in part on at least a portion of the plurality of uplink reference signal resources. Figure 3C and Paragraph 0063; when not all CMR resources are preempted and the remaining resources are sufficient for channel measurement, then the UE may determine and transmit the measurement report according to valid CMR resources of the UE. Figure 5 and Paragraph 0076; the UE may transmit the measurement report based at least in part on at least a portion of the plurality of measurement reference resources), the method further comprises: performing any of the following operations on unreported positioning information: delaying reporting the unreported positioning information; reporting the unreported positioning information based on an indication of the network-side device; and canceling reporting the unreported positioning information (Paragraphs 0010 and 0045; based at least in part on the determination, selectively: canceling transmission of an uplink reference signal. Figure 5 and Paragraph 0076; the UE may selectively cancel transmission of a measurement report or transmit the measurement report based at least in part on the determination of block 510. In some aspects, the UE may cancel transmission of the measurement report). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Johansson and Hao because there exists a need for further improvements in LTE and NR technologies, and more particularly related to techniques and apparatuses for channel state determination or reference signaling with traffic preemption (Hao, Paragraphs 0002 and 0005).
Pertinent Reference
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Papadimitriou et al. (US 6385458 B1) discloses takes a location request, and, with a precision that is dependent on an assigned priority level, estimates the location of a mobile phone.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jing Gao whose telephone number is (571)270-7226. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 6pm M-F.
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 Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. 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.
/Jing Gao/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647