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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims 12-19, 21 and 23 are drawn to an invention nonelected without traverse on 4/7/2025. A completely reply to this final office action must include cancellation of nonelected claims or other appropriate action (37 CFR 1.44) See MPEP § 821.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) is submitted 8/4/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. According, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 9/5/2025 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1 and 20 are amended, claims 12-19, 21 and 23 are withdrawn, claims 24-28 are canceled, and claims 1-11, 20 and 22 are currently pending.
Applicant's amendments with respect to figures have been entered and fully considered, therefore drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 22 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been fully considered but is not persuasive. A non-volatile computer readable medium as disclosed in specification Paragraph 0138 and 0149 provides examples of what the non-volatile computer readable medium could be, which could include many other types of computer readable medium. Further, in Paragraph 0157, the paragraph recites “The non-volatile memory may also include, but are not limited to, an electric, a magnetic, an optical, an electromagnetic, an infrared, or a semiconductor system, apparatus, or device or any combination of the above.” Examiner asserts that these options may be interpreted as signal per se. Therefore, claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-11, 20 and 22 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that, with respect to independent claims 1 and 20 (and their respective dependent claims), that Zhang fail to teach or suggest determining whether a geographic region can be mapped onto a region of interest (ROI) associated with the geographical area based on whether a granularity of the geographical area is finer than a cell level granularity according to the geographical area and the ROI, and responsive to determining that the geographic region cannot be mapped onto the ROI, transmitting a second request to a first entity for performing a location serving having a location granularity finer than the cell level granularity.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zhang teaches monitoring event subscription message may indicate a location accuracy higher than a cell level, or a location granularity finer than a cell level (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0041), the AF entity (or SCS/AS) sends a monitoring event subscription message to the NEF (or SCEF) entity via T8 interface, requesting for location reporting of a current location of a UE, with Monitoring Type set to “Location Reporting”, Location Type set to “Current Location” and Accuracy set to e.g., “LCS_GMLC” to indicate integration with GMLC to obtain location information more accurate than the cell level (Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049). a request for setting a geographical fence [Examiner asserts that a geographical fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] for the terminal device based on the last known location is transmitted to the LCS node (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0056), wherein a “lock location” application in which a geo-fence [Examiner asserts that a geo-fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] is set to a cell. Alternatively, the geo-fence can be set differently as desired by the AF entity. Thus Examiner asserts that the geo-fence may be set finer/smaller than a cell (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0051). A request for setting a geographical fence [Examiner asserts that a geographical fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] for the terminal device based on the last known location is transmitted to the LCS node (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0056). Further, Zhang teaches a monitoring event configuration request is transmitted to configure location reporting on an AMF entity (or MME) (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0042). Therefore, Zhang teaches determining whether a geographic region can be mapped onto a region of interest (ROI) associated with the geographical area based on whether a granularity of the geographical area is finer than a cell level granularity according to the geographical area and the ROI, and responsive to determining that the geographic region cannot be mapped onto the ROI, transmitting a second request to a first entity for performing a location serving having a location granularity finer than the cell level granularity, as disclosed in independent claims 1 and 20 (and their respective dependent claims).
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim recites “A non-volatile computer readable medium..." A non-volatile computer readable medium is disclosed in the specification Paragraph 0138 (and similarly disclosed in Paragraph 0149) as “the at least one memory 1620 in the example apparatus 1600 may include at least one storage medium in various forms, such as a volatile memory and/or a non-volatile memory. The volatile memory may include, but not limited to, for example, a random-access memory (RAM), a cache, and so on. The non-volatile memory may include, but not limited to, for example, a read only memory (ROM), a hard disk, a flash memory, and so on”. The language “so on”, when interpreted by the examiner to the broadcast reasonable interpretation, does not exclude transitory propagating signals per se. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a non-volatile computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2. The Examiner is thereby, broadly interpreting the computer readable medium to include transitory computer readable medium which do not fall under statutory subject matter.
The Examiner recommends an amendment to the claims to recite, “A non-transitory computer readable medium...". Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. Appropriate corrections/rewording are required.
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 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 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20210345067 A1 and Zhang hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a method (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0040; a method for facilitating provision of LCS [Location Service]. Figure 4 and Paragraph 0048; Figure 4 is a sequence chart explaining the above method 300) comprising:
receiving a first request to report a behavior of a target apparatus (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0041; a monitoring event subscription message is received from an AF entity (or SCS/AS), requesting for location reporting of a current location [interpreted as a behavior] of a terminal device [interpreted as a target apparatus]. Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the AF entity (or SCS/AS) sends a monitoring event subscription message to the NEF (or SCEF) entity via T8 interface, requesting for location reporting of a current location of a UE, with Monitoring Type set to “Location Reporting”, Location Type set to “Current Location” and Accuracy set to e.g., “LCS_GMLC” to indicate integration with GMLC to obtain location information more accurate than the cell level. Figure 5 and Paragraph 0057; a location report may indicate current location of the terminal device when the terminal device moves out of the geographical fence [Examiner asserts that when the terminal device moves out of the geographical fence may also be interpreted as behavior]) associated with a geographical area (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0051; the above method 300 can be considered as a “lock location” application in which a geo-fence [Examiner asserts that a geo-fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] is set to a cell. Alternatively, the geo-fence can be set differently as desired by the AF entity. Figure 5 and Paragraph 0056; a request for setting a geographical fence [Examiner asserts that a geographical fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] for the terminal device based on the last known location is transmitted to the LCS node);
determining whether a geographic region can be mapped onto a region of interest (ROI) associated with the geographical area based on whether a granularity of the geographical area is finer than a cell level granularity (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0041; monitoring event subscription message may indicate a location accuracy higher than a cell level, or a location granularity finer than a cell level. Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the AF entity (or SCS/AS) sends a monitoring event subscription message to the NEF (or SCEF) entity via T8 interface, requesting for location reporting of a current location of a UE, with Monitoring Type set to “Location Reporting”, Location Type set to “Current Location” and Accuracy set to e.g., “LCS_GMLC” to indicate integration with GMLC to obtain location information more accurate than the cell level) according to the geographical area (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0051; the above method 300 can be considered as a “lock location” application in which a geo-fence [Examiner asserts that a geo-fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] is set to a cell. Alternatively, the geo-fence can be set differently as desired by the AF entity. Thus Examiner asserts that the geo-fence may be set finer/smaller than a cell. Figure 5 and Paragraph 0056; a request for setting a geographical fence [Examiner asserts that a geographical fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] for the terminal device based on the last known location is transmitted to the LCS node) and the ROI (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0051; the above method 300 can be considered as a “lock location” application in which a geo-fence is set to a cell [Examiner asserts that a cell may be interpreted as a ROI associated with the geographical area, in this case the geo-fence]. Alternatively, the geo-fence can be set differently as desired by the AF entity);
responsive to determining that the geographic region cannot be mapped onto the ROI (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0041; monitoring event subscription message may indicate a location accuracy higher than a cell level, or a location granularity finer than a cell level. Figure 3 and Paragraph 0051; the above method 300 can be considered as a “lock location” application in which a geo-fence [Examiner asserts that a geo-fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] is set to a cell. Alternatively, the geo-fence can be set differently as desired by the AF entity. Thus Examiner asserts that the geo-fence may be set finer/smaller than a cell), transmitting a second request to a first entity (Figure 4 and Paragraphs 0046 and 0049; GMLC [interpreted as a first entity]) for performing a location service (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0044 and 0046; a request for the current location [interpreted as perform a location service] of the terminal device is transmitted to an LCS node. In an example, the LCS node can be a GMLC [Examiner asserts the GMLC may be the first entity]. Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the NEF entity sends a request for the current location of the UE to the GMLC [Examiner asserts the GMLC may be the first entity]. Figure 3 and Paragraph 0042; a monitoring event configuration request is transmitted to configure location reporting on an AMF entity (or MME)) having a location granularity finer than the cell level granularity (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0041; monitoring event subscription message may indicate a location accuracy higher than a cell level, or a location granularity finer than a cell level. Figure 3 and Paragraph 0051; the above method 300 can be considered as a “lock location” application in which a geo-fence [Examiner asserts that a geo-fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] is set to a cell. Alternatively, the geo-fence can be set differently as desired by the AF entity. Thus Examiner asserts that the geo-fence may be set finer/smaller than a cell);
receiving a notification from the first entity (Figure 4 and Paragraphs 0046 and 0049; GMLC [interpreted as a first entity]) on the behavior of the target apparatus (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0045-0046; the current location of the terminal device is received from the LCS node. In an example, the LCS node can be a GMLC. Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the GMLC responds to the NEF entity with the current location of the UE. Figure 5 and Paragraph 0057; a location report is received from the LCS node, indicating the current location of the terminal device when the terminal device moves out of the geographical fence) associated with the geographical area (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0051; the above method 300 can be considered as a “lock location” application in which a geo-fence [Examiner asserts that a geo-fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] is set to a cell. Alternatively, the geo-fence can be set differently as desired by the AF entity. Figure 5 and Paragraph 0056; a request for setting a geographical fence [Examiner asserts that a geographical fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] for the terminal device based on the last known location is transmitted to the LCS node); and
reporting the behavior of the target apparatus (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0047; a monitoring event subscription response message containing the current location of the terminal device is transmitted to the AF entity. Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the NEF entity sends a monitoring event subscription response message containing the current location of the UE to the AF entity. Figure 5 and Paragraph 0057; a location report is received from the LCS node, indicating the current location of the terminal device when the terminal device moves out of the geographical fence) associated with the geographical area (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0051; the above method 300 can be considered as a “lock location” application in which a geo-fence [Examiner asserts that a geo-fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] is set to a cell. Alternatively, the geo-fence can be set differently as desired by the AF entity. Figure 5 and Paragraph 0056; a request for setting a geographical fence [Examiner asserts that a geographical fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] for the terminal device based on the last known location is transmitted to the LCS node) based on the notification (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0045-0046; the current location of the terminal device is received from the LCS node. In an example, the LCS node can be a GMLC. Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the GMLC responds to the NEF entity with the current location of the UE).
Even though Zhang does not disclose the claimed invention limitations in a single embodiment, however, Zhang teaches the claimed invention limitations in various embodiments. 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 various embodiments taught by Zhang because it provides higher accuracy or finer granularity in location reporting than the cell level granularity (Zhang, Paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Zhang teaches wherein the behavior of the target apparatus associated with the geographical area includes at least one of moving into the geographical area, moving out the geographical area, and staying in the geographical area (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0057; a location report may indicate current location of the terminal device when the terminal device moves out [Examiner asserts that when the terminal device moves out of the geographical fence may be interpreted as behavior to be monitored for the target apparatus] of the geographical fence [Examiner asserts the geographical fence may be interpreted as geographical area]. Paragraph 0009; once a terminal device is installed, an SCS/AS may want to track if the terminal device has moved. In order to do so, the SCS/AS can set a geographical fence (or geo-fence) and desire to be notified when the terminal device moves out of the geo-fence. Since geographical fence is designed and a request location monitoring for when device moves and also when device moves out of geographical fence, Examiner asserts that location monitoring/reporting may also be requested for moving into the geographical area and moving while staying in the geographical area). 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 various embodiments taught by Zhang because it would provide higher accuracy or finer granularity in location reporting than the cell level granularity (Zhang, Paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Zhang teaches wherein the ROI is represented by at least one of one or more cell identifiers, one or more base station identifiers, and one or more tracking area identifiers (Paragraph 0003; the SCS/AS may also set Accuracy in the Monitoring Request, indicating the desired granularity of accuracy of the requested location information. The supported Accuracy could be at cell level (Cell Global Identification (CGI)/E-UTRAN CGI (ECGI)), evolved NodeB (eNodeB) level, or Tracking Area/Routing Area (TA/RA) level). 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 various embodiments taught by Zhang because it would provide higher accuracy and/or finer granularity in location reporting than the cell level granularity (Zhang, Paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Zhang teaches further comprising: transmitting a third request to a second entity (Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the NEF entity sends a monitoring event configuration request [interpreted as a third request] to the UDM entity (or HSS) via S6t interface, with Event Type set to “Location_Reporting” or “UE_Reachability”, triggering monitoring event configuration on the UDM entity and the AMF entity (or MME). Examiner asserts UDM/HSS/AMF/MME may be interpreted as a second entity) for performing a location service (Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the NEF entity sends a monitoring event configuration request to the UDM entity (or HSS) via S6t interface, with Event Type set to “Location_Reporting” or “UE_Reachability” [interpreted as performing a location service], triggering monitoring event configuration on the UDM entity and the AMF entity (or MME)) having a location granularity coarser than or equal to the cell level granularity (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0043; a monitoring event indication is received from the AMF entity. The monitoring event indication contains an indication of a cell [Examiner asserts this indicates location granularity equal to cell level granularity] in which the terminal device is currently located), in response to determining that the granularity of the geographical area is finer than the cell level granularity (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0041; monitoring event subscription message may indicate a location accuracy higher than a cell level, or a location granularity finer than a cell level). 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 various embodiments taught by Zhang because it would provide higher accuracy or finer granularity in location reporting than the cell level granularity (Zhang, Paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as described above. Further, Zhang teaches wherein the second request is transmitted in response to information from the second entity indicating a presence of the target apparatus in the ROI (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0043; a monitoring event indication is received from the AMF entity. The monitoring event indication contains an indication of a cell [interpreted as ROI] in which the terminal device is currently located [interpreted as indicating a presence]). 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 various embodiments as taught by Zhang because it would provide higher accuracy and/or finer granularity in location reporting than the cell level granularity (Zhang, Paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Zhang teaches further comprising: transmitting a fourth request to a third entity (Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the NEF entity sends a monitoring event configuration request [interpreted as a third request] to the UDM entity (or HSS) via S6t interface, with Event Type set to “Location_Reporting” or “UE_Reachability”, triggering monitoring event configuration on the UDM entity and the AMF entity (or MME). Examiner asserts UDM/HSS/AMF/MME may be interpreted as a third entity) for performing a location service (Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the NEF entity sends a monitoring event configuration request to the UDM entity (or HSS) via S6t interface, with Event Type set to “Location_Reporting” or “UE_Reachability” [interpreted as performing a location service], triggering monitoring event configuration on the UDM entity and the AMF entity (or MME)) having a location granularity coarser than or equal to the cell level granularity (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0043; a monitoring event indication is received from the AMF entity. The monitoring event indication contains an indication of a cell [Examiner asserts this indicates location granularity equal to cell level granularity] in which the terminal device is currently located), in a case where the granularity of the geographical area is coarser than or equal to the cell level granularity (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0051; in a sense the above method 300 can be considered as a “lock location” application in which a geo-fence is set to a cell. Alternatively, the geo-fence can be set differently as desired by the AF entity). 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 various embodiments taught by Zhang because it would provide higher accuracy or finer granularity in location reporting than the cell level granularity (Zhang, Paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, Zhang teaches an apparatus (Figure 8 and Paragraph 0073; an NEF entity 800) comprising:
at least one processor (Figure 8 and Paragraph 0074; the NEF entity 800 includes a processor 820); and
at least one memory (Figure 8 and Paragraph 0074; the NEF entity 800 includes a memory 830) including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform (Figure 8 and Paragraph 0074; the NEF entity 800 includes a memory 830 contains instructions executable by the processor 820 whereby the NEF entity 800 is operative to perform the actions, e.g., of the procedure described earlier in conjunction with FIG. 3).
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 various embodiments taught by Zhang because it would provide higher accuracy or finer granularity in location reporting than the cell level granularity (Zhang, Paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, Zhang teaches a non-volatile computer readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon for causing an apparatus to perform the method of claim 1 (Figure 8 and Paragraph 0074; the NEF entity 800 includes a memory 830 contains instructions executable by the processor 820 whereby the NEF entity 800 is operative to perform the actions, e.g., of the procedure described earlier in conjunction with FIG. 3). 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 various embodiments taught by Zhang because it would provide higher accuracy or finer granularity in location reporting than the cell level granularity (Zhang, Paragraph 0004).
Claims 2, 6, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, as applied in the claims above, further in view of 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; T8 reference point for Northbound APIs; (Release 16), 3GPP TS 29.122 V16.5.0 (2020-03), hereinafter D1.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Zhang teaches wherein the first request (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0041; a monitoring event subscription message is received from an AF entity (or SCS/AS), requesting for location reporting of a current location. Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the AF entity (or SCS/AS) sends a monitoring event subscription message to the NEF (or SCEF) entity via T8 interface, requesting for location reporting of a current location of a UE. Figure 5 and Paragraph 0057; a location report may indicate current location of the terminal device when the terminal device moves out of the geographical fence) includes at least one of an identifier of the target apparatus (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0041; a monitoring event subscription message is received from an AF entity (or SCS/AS), requesting for location reporting of a current location of a terminal device. Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the AF entity (or SCS/AS) sends a monitoring event subscription message to the NEF (or SCEF) entity via T8 interface, requesting for location reporting of a current location of a UE, with Monitoring Type set to “Location Reporting”, Location Type set to “Current Location” and Accuracy set to e.g., “LCS_GMLC” to indicate integration with GMLC to obtain location information more accurate than the cell level. Figure 5 and Paragraph 0057; a location report may indicate current location of the terminal device when the terminal device moves out of the geographical fence. Examiner asserts that in order to request and receive location of a terminal device, an identifier of a terminal device may be required to identify which terminal device location is requested and received), information on the geographical area (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0051; the above method 300 can be considered as a “lock location” application in which a geo-fence [Examiner asserts that a geo-fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] is set to a cell. Alternatively, the geo-fence can be set differently as desired by the AF entity. Figure 5 and Paragraph 0056; a request for setting a geographical fence [Examiner asserts that a geographical fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] for the terminal device based on the last known location is transmitted to the LCS node), and a behavior to be monitored for the target apparatus associated with the geographical area (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0057; a location report may indicate current location of the terminal device when the terminal device moves out [Examiner asserts that when the terminal device moves out of the geographical fence may be interpreted as behavior to be monitored for the target apparatus] of the geographical fence [Examiner asserts the geographical fence may be interpreted as geographical area]. Paragraph 0009; once a terminal device is installed, an SCS/AS may want to track if the terminal device has moved. In order to do so, the SCS/AS can set a geographical fence (or geo-fence) and desire to be notified when the terminal device moves out of the geo-fence). 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 various embodiments taught by Zhang because it would provide higher accuracy or finer granularity in location reporting than the cell level granularity (Zhang, Paragraph 0004).
Zhang does not explicitly teach a periodic reporting interval. In an analogous art, D1 teaches a periodic reporting interval (Pages 66-67 Table 5.3.2.1.2-1: Definition of type MonitoringEventSubscription include the following and more parameters: maximumNumberOfReports identifies the maximum number of event reports to be generated by the HSS, MME/SGSN as specified in subclause 5.6.0 of 3GPP TS 23.682 [2]; and groupReportGuardTime identifies the time for which the SCEF can aggregate the monitoring event reports detected by the UEs in a group and report them together to the SCS/AS, as specified in subclause 5.6.0 of 3GPP TS 23.682 [2]; and minimumReportInterval parameter may be included to identify a minimum time interval between Location Reporting notifications). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang and D1 because provide a uniformed format of way to request monitoring event subscription to monitor an event and provide desired requested information to the entity initiated the request.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Zhang teaches wherein the second request (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0044 and 0046; a request for the current location [interpreted as perform a location service] of the terminal device is transmitted to an LCS node. In an example, the LCS node can be a GMLC. Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the NEF entity sends a request for the current location of the UE to the GMLC [Examiner asserts the GMLC may be the first entity]. Figure 3 and Paragraph 0042; a monitoring event configuration request is transmitted to configure location reporting on an AMF entity (or MME). Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the NEF entity sends a monitoring event configuration request to the UDM entity (or HSS) via S6t interface, with Event Type set to “Location_Reporting” or “UE_Reachability”, triggering monitoring event configuration on the UDM entity and the AMF entity (or MME)) includes at least one of an identifier of the target apparatus (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0041; a monitoring event subscription message is received from an AF entity (or SCS/AS), requesting for location reporting of a current location of a terminal device. Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the AF entity (or SCS/AS) sends a monitoring event subscription message to the NEF (or SCEF) entity via T8 interface, requesting for location reporting of a current location of a UE, with Monitoring Type set to “Location Reporting”, Location Type set to “Current Location” and Accuracy set to e.g., “LCS_GMLC” to indicate integration with GMLC to obtain location information more accurate than the cell level. Figure 5 and Paragraph 0057; a location report may indicate current location of the terminal device when the terminal device moves out of the geographical fence. Examiner asserts that in order to request and receive location of a terminal device, an identifier of a terminal device may be required to identify which terminal device location is requested and received), information on the geographical area (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0051; the above method 300 can be considered as a “lock location” application in which a geo-fence [Examiner asserts that a geo-fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] is set to a cell. Alternatively, the geo-fence can be set differently as desired by the AF entity. Figure 5 and Paragraph 0056; a request for setting a geographical fence [Examiner asserts that a geographical fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] for the terminal device based on the last known location is transmitted to the LCS node), and a behavior to be monitored for the target apparatus associated with the geographical area (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0057; a location report may indicate current location of the terminal device when the terminal device moves out [Examiner asserts that when the terminal device moves out of the geographical fence may be interpreted as behavior to be monitored for the target apparatus] of the geographical fence [Examiner asserts the geographical fence may be interpreted as geographical area]. Paragraph 0009; once a terminal device is installed, an SCS/AS may want to track if the terminal device has moved. In order to do so, the SCS/AS can set a geographical fence (or geo-fence) and desire to be notified when the terminal device moves out of the geo-fence). 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 various embodiments taught by Zhang because it would provide higher accuracy or finer granularity in location reporting than the cell level granularity (Zhang, Paragraph 0004).
Zhang does not explicitly teach a periodic reporting interval. In an analogous art, D1 teaches a periodic reporting interval (Pages 66-67 Table 5.3.2.1.2-1: Definition of type MonitoringEventSubscription include the following and more parameters: maximumNumberOfReports identifies the maximum number of event reports to be generated by the HSS, MME/SGSN as specified in subclause 5.6.0 of 3GPP TS 23.682 [2]; and groupReportGuardTime identifies the time for which the SCEF can aggregate the monitoring event reports detected by the UEs in a group and report them together to the SCS/AS, as specified in subclause 5.6.0 of 3GPP TS 23.682 [2]; and minimumReportInterval parameter may be included to identify a minimum time interval between Location Reporting notifications). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang and D1 because provide a uniformed format of way to request monitoring event subscription to monitor an event and provide desired requested information to the entity initiated the request.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as described above. Further, Zhang teaches wherein the third request (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0044 and 0046; a request for the current location [interpreted as perform a location service] of the terminal device is transmitted to an LCS node. In an example, the LCS node can be a GMLC. Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the NEF entity sends a request for the current location of the UE to the GMLC [Examiner asserts the GMLC may be the first entity]. Figure 3 and Paragraph 0042; a monitoring event configuration request is transmitted to configure location reporting on an AMF entity (or MME). Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the NEF entity sends a monitoring event configuration request to the UDM entity (or HSS) via S6t interface, with Event Type set to “Location_Reporting” or “UE_Reachability”, triggering monitoring event configuration on the UDM entity and the AMF entity (or MME)) includes at least one of an identifier of the target apparatus (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0041; a monitoring event subscription message is received from an AF entity (or SCS/AS), requesting for location reporting of a current location of a terminal device. Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the AF entity (or SCS/AS) sends a monitoring event subscription message to the NEF (or SCEF) entity via T8 interface, requesting for location reporting of a current location of a UE, with Monitoring Type set to “Location Reporting”, Location Type set to “Current Location” and Accuracy set to e.g., “LCS_GMLC” to indicate integration with GMLC to obtain location information more accurate than the cell level. Figure 5 and Paragraph 0057; a location report may indicate current location of the terminal device when the terminal device moves out of the geographical fence. Examiner asserts that in order to request and receive location of a terminal device, an identifier of a terminal device may be required to identify which terminal device location is requested and received), (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0051; the above method 300 can be considered as a “lock location” application in which a geo-fence [Examiner asserts that a geo-fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] is set to a cell. Alternatively, the geo-fence can be set differently as desired by the AF entity. Figure 5 and Paragraph 0056; a request for setting a geographical fence [Examiner asserts that a geographical fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] for the terminal device based on the last known location is transmitted to the LCS node), a behavior to be monitored for the target apparatus associated with the geographical area (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0057; a location report may indicate current location of the terminal device when the terminal device moves out [Examiner asserts that when the terminal device moves out of the geographical fence may be interpreted as behavior to be monitored for the target apparatus] of the geographical fence [Examiner asserts the geographical fence may be interpreted as geographical area]. Paragraph 0009; once a terminal device is installed, an SCS/AS may want to track if the terminal device has moved. In order to do so, the SCS/AS can set a geographical fence (or geo-fence) and desire to be notified when the terminal device moves out of the geo-fence), and information on the ROI (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0051; the above method 300 can be considered as a “lock location” application in which a geo-fence is set to a cell [Examiner asserts that a cell may be interpreted as a ROI associated with the geographical area, in this case the geo-fence]. Alternatively, the geo-fence can be set differently as desired by the AF entity). 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 various embodiments taught by Zhang because it would provide higher accuracy or finer granularity in location reporting than the cell level granularity (Zhang, Paragraph 0004).
Zhang does not explicitly teach a periodic reporting interval. In an analogous art, D1 teaches a periodic reporting interval (Pages 66-67 Table 5.3.2.1.2-1: Definition of type MonitoringEventSubscription include the following and more parameters: maximumNumberOfReports identifies the maximum number of event reports to be generated by the HSS, MME/SGSN as specified in subclause 5.6.0 of 3GPP TS 23.682 [2]; and groupReportGuardTime identifies the time for which the SCEF can aggregate the monitoring event reports detected by the UEs in a group and report them together to the SCS/AS, as specified in subclause 5.6.0 of 3GPP TS 23.682 [2]; and minimumReportInterval parameter may be included to identify a minimum time interval between Location Reporting notifications). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang and D1 because provide a uniformed format of way to request monitoring event subscription to monitor an event and provide desired requested information to the entity initiated the request.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 10, as described above. Further, Zhang teaches wherein the fourth request (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0044 and 0046; a request for the current location [interpreted as perform a location service] of the terminal device is transmitted to an LCS node. In an example, the LCS node can be a GMLC. Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the NEF entity sends a request for the current location of the UE to the GMLC [Examiner asserts the GMLC may be the first entity]. Figure 3 and Paragraph 0042; a monitoring event configuration request is transmitted to configure location reporting on an AMF entity (or MME). Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the NEF entity sends a monitoring event configuration request to the UDM entity (or HSS) via S6t interface, with Event Type set to “Location_Reporting” or “UE_Reachability”, triggering monitoring event configuration on the UDM entity and the AMF entity (or MME)) includes at least one of an identifier of the target apparatus (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0041; a monitoring event subscription message is received from an AF entity (or SCS/AS), requesting for location reporting of a current location of a terminal device. Figure 4 and Paragraph 0049; the AF entity (or SCS/AS) sends a monitoring event subscription message to the NEF (or SCEF) entity via T8 interface, requesting for location reporting of a current location of a UE, with Monitoring Type set to “Location Reporting”, Location Type set to “Current Location” and Accuracy set to e.g., “LCS_GMLC” to indicate integration with GMLC to obtain location information more accurate than the cell level. Figure 5 and Paragraph 0057; a location report may indicate current location of the terminal device when the terminal device moves out of the geographical fence. Examiner asserts that in order to request and receive location of a terminal device, an identifier of a terminal device may be required to identify which terminal device location is requested and received), (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0051; the above method 300 can be considered as a “lock location” application in which a geo-fence [Examiner asserts that a geo-fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] is set to a cell. Alternatively, the geo-fence can be set differently as desired by the AF entity. Figure 5 and Paragraph 0056; a request for setting a geographical fence [Examiner asserts that a geographical fence may be interpreted as associated with a geographical area] for the terminal device based on the last known location is transmitted to the LCS node), a behavior to be monitored for the target apparatus associated with the geographical area (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0057; a location report may indicate current location of the terminal device when the terminal device moves out [Examiner asserts that when the terminal device moves out of the geographical fence may be interpreted as behavior to be monitored for the target apparatus] of the geographical fence [Examiner asserts the geographical fence may be interpreted as geographical area]. Paragraph 0009; once a terminal device is installed, an SCS/AS may want to track if the terminal device has moved. In order to do so, the SCS/AS can set a geographical fence (or geo-fence) and desire to be notified when the terminal device moves out of the geo-fence), and information on the ROI (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0051; the above method 300 can be considered as a “lock location” application in which a geo-fence is set to a cell [Examiner asserts that a cell may be interpreted as a ROI associated with the geographical area, in this case the geo-fence]. Alternatively, the geo-fence can be set differently as desired by the AF entity). 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 various embodiments taught by Zhang because it would provide higher accuracy or finer granularity in location reporting than the cell level granularity (Zhang, Paragraph 0004).
Zhang does not explicitly teach a periodic reporting interval. In an analogous art, D1 teaches a periodic reporting interval (Pages 66-67 Table 5.3.2.1.2-1: Definition of type MonitoringEventSubscription include the following and more parameters: maximumNumberOfReports identifies the maximum number of event reports to be generated by the HSS, MME/SGSN as specified in subclause 5.6.0 of 3GPP TS 23.682 [2]; and groupReportGuardTime identifies the time for which the SCEF can aggregate the monitoring event reports detected by the UEs in a group and report them together to the SCS/AS, as specified in subclause 5.6.0 of 3GPP TS 23.682 [2]; and minimumReportInterval parameter may be included to identify a minimum time interval between Location Reporting notifications). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang and D1 because provide a uniformed format of way to request monitoring event subscription to monitor an event and provide desired requested information to the entity initiated the request.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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 following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Applicant's invention is drawn to receiving a request and reporting a behavior of a target apparatus associated with a geographical area having a location granularity finer than a cell level granularity.
The prior arts of record, Zhang and D1, and a thorough search discloses various aspects and features of applicant's claimed invention but fai