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 .
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 10-13 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”. Claim(s) 10-13 is/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 for example using measurement received from a mobile device, transmitting, receiving and delivering from the source relay node to a donor access node.
The method claim 10 recites limitation, “transmitting, on a sidelink interface from a first user equipment (UE) to a second UE, a first message requesting a measurement of a reference signal that is transmitted from the first UE based on a reference signal configuration; transmitting, on the sidelink interface from the first UE, the reference signal based on the reference signal configuration; receiving, on the sidelink interface from the second UE at the first UE, a second message including a measurement result of the reference signal transmitted from the first UE; and delivering the measurement result to a positioning calculation entity (PCE)”. Since the claim is directed to a process and a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites transmitting, on a sidelink interface from a first user equipment (UE) to a second UE; transmitting, on the sidelink interface from the first UE, the reference signal; receiving, on the sidelink interface from the second UE at the first UE, a second message including a measurement result of the reference signal transmitted from the first UE; and delivering the measurement result to a positioning calculation entity (PCE). The transmitting of the first message and then transmitting of reference signal, receiving a second message including a measurement result and delivering the measurement result without showing the detail of how a solution to a problem is accomplished recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of transmitting and receiving, etc. See MPEP 2106.04 (a) III A i.e., a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea=Yes).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea=Yes).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim requires the additional limitation of a computer with the central processing unit, memory, a printer, an input and output terminal and a program. These generic computer components are claimed to perform the basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the program that enables. In the current scenario, there are no 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 (Step 2B: No). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, dependent claims does not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 10-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11659515 B2 in view of Wang et al. Pub. No. US 20210219103 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in pending application are transparently found in U.S. Patent No. 11659515 B2 in view of Wang et al. Pub. No. US 20210219103 A1 with obvious wording variation. For example, compare Claim 10 of pending application with claim 13 of U.S. U.S. Patent No. 11659515 B2 in view of Wang et al. Pub. No. US 20210219103 A1, they both recite
A method, comprising (A method, comprising):
transmitting, on a sidelink interface from a first user equipment (UE) to a second UE, a first message requesting a measurement of a reference signal that is transmitted from the first UE based on a reference signal configuration ( sending, to a target user equipment (UE) by a server user equipment (UE), a message comprising a configuration for transmitting a first set of reference signals over a sidelink interface);
transmitting, on the sidelink interface from the first UE, the reference signal based on the reference signal configuration (sending, to each of one or more peer UEs, a message comprising a configuration for measuring a second set of reference signals);
receiving, on the sidelink interface from the second UE at the first UE, a second message including a measurement result of the reference signal transmitted from the first UE (receiving, from the one or more peer UEs, measurement results of the second set of reference signals).
U.S. Patent No. 11659515 B2 does not specifically disclose
delivering the measurement result to a positioning calculation entity (PCE).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wang et al. Pub. No. US 20210219103 A1 teaches If the location request is originated from the network, the target UE reports the location update to the location server in CN i.e., delivering the measurement result to a positioning calculation entity (PCE) (Para 216).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of U.S. Patent No. 11659515 B2 with the method of Wang et al. Pub. No. US 20210219103 A1 so that the position of the target UE can be improved (See Wang Para 7).
Further, analyzing and comparing dependent claims 11-13 of the pending application with claims 14-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11659515 B2 in view of Wang et al. Pub. No. US 20210219103 A1 it was found that they recite the same limitation with wording changes.
Note the issued claims of U.S. Patent No. 11659515 B2 in view of Wang et al. Pub. No. US 20210219103 A1 are narrower in scope such that the claimed limitations as recited in pending application are encompassed by U.S. Patent No. 11659515 B2 in view of Wang et al. Pub. No. US 20210219103 A1.
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 (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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Wang et al. Pub. No. US 20210219103 A1 over Gulati et al. Pub. No. US 20230199699 A1.
Regarding Claim 10, Wang teaches a method () comprising:
transmitting (Fig. 18 Unit 1701 Assisting UE), on a sidelink interface (Para 210, signaling procedure which is used for sidelink-assisted UE-based positioning) from a first user equipment (UE) (Fig. 18 Unit 1701 Assisting UE) to a second UE (Fig. 18 Unit 100 target UE) a first message requesting a measurement of a reference signal that is transmitted from the first UE based on a reference signal configuration (Para 210, The assisting UE 1701 determines the sidelink RefSig configuration and informs the target UE about the RefSig configuration i.e., a first message requesting a measurement of a reference signal that is transmitted from the first UE based on a reference signal configuration);
transmitting, on the sidelink interface from the first UE, the reference signal based on the reference signal configuration (Para 210, The assisting UE 1701 transmits sidelink RefSig 1702 to the target UE according to the RefSig configuration i.e., transmitting, on the sidelink interface from the first UE, the reference signal based on the reference signal configuration).
Wang teaches that the target UE obtains radio signal measurements based on the RefSig 1702 received from the assisting UE. The target UE calculates its position based on at least the sidelink radio signal measurements. The positioning method may be indicated by the network. As an alternative, the UE may choose any positioning method to fuse any kinds of measurements for its own benefits. If the location request is originated from the network, the target UE reports the location update to the location server in CN. Otherwise, the location report is optional i.e., calculating the measurement result of the reference signal transmitted from the first UE and delivering the measurement results to the PCE.
Wang does not specifically teach
receiving, on the sidelink interface from the second UE at the first UE, a second message including a measurement result of the reference signal transmitted from the first UE ().
delivering the measurement result to a positioning calculation entity (PCE).
However, in the same filed of endeavor Gulati teaches
receiving, on the sidelink interface from the second UE at the first UE, a second message including a measurement result of the reference signal transmitted from the first UE (Fig. 6 and Para 81-82, reference number 625, the UE A 120 and the UE B 120 may engage in a PRS exchange. In some aspects, the PRS exchange may include the UE B 120 transmitting a first PRS to the UE A 120. In some aspects, the first PRS may be based at least in part on the first set of assistance data. In some aspects, the PRS exchange may include the UE A 120 transmitting a second PRS to the UE B 120. In some aspects, the second PRS may be based at least in part on the second set of assistance data. ] As shown by reference number 630, the UE A 120 may obtain positioning measurements associated with the UE A 120 i.e., receiving, on the sidelink interface from the second UE at the first UE, a second message including a measurement result of the reference signal transmitted from the first UE).
delivering the measurement result to a positioning calculation entity (PCE) (Fig. 6 Step 635 and Para 83, the UE A 120 may transmit, and the S-LMF 605 may receive, the assistance data exchanged between the UE A 120 and the UE B 120 i.e., delivering the measurement result to a positioning calculation entity (PCE)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Wang with the method of Gulati so as to improve position accuracy (See Gulati Para 64).
Regarding Claim 11, Wang teaches wherein the first message includes a description of the reference signal configuration (Para 212-213).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang does not specifically teach further comprising: receiving, on the sidelink interface from the second UE, a third message including a request for a description of the reference signal configuration; transmitting, on the sidelink interface to the second UE, a fourth message including the description of the reference signal configuration.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gulati teaches from Fig. 7 and Step 745, the UE A 120 may transmit, and the UE B 120 may receive, positioning measurements associated with the UE A 120 and obtained by the UE A 120, one or more errors associated with the positioning measurements i.e., receiving, on the sidelink interface from the second UE, a third message including a request for a description of the reference signal configuration and Para 98 disclose that the UE A 120 may determine the position of the UE A 120 by decoding one or more of the positioning report transmissions from UE B 120 and/or UE C 120. In some aspects, the indication of the position of the UE A 120 received from the UE B 120 may be different than the indication of the position of the UE A 120 received from the UE C 120. In some aspects, the UE A 120 may determine the position of the UE A 120 based at least in part on the indications of the positions received from the UE B 120 and the UE C 120. In some aspects, the UE A 120 may determine the position by considering errors indicated by the UE B 120 and/or the UE C 120, motion information associated with the UE B 120 and/or the UE C 120 i.e., transmitting, on the sidelink interface to the second UE, a fourth message including the description of the reference signal configuration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Wang with the method of Gulati so as to improve position accuracy (See Gulati Para 64).
Regarding Claim 13, Wang does not specifically teach wherein the first message includes an LTE Positioning Protocol (LPP) Request Location Information message.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gulati teaches UE communicates with the S-LMF via an LPP (Para 116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Wang with the method of Gulati so as to improve position accuracy (See Gulati Para 64).
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Tenny et al. Pub. No. US 20220015059 A1 over Gulati et al. Pub. No. US 20230199699 A1.
Regarding Claim 10-13, Tenny teaches a method (Para 46 and Fig. 9, FIG. 9, UE2 triggers a positioning operation) comprising:
transmitting (Para 46 and Fig. 9 and 11 Step 4A and 4b, UE2 instructs UE3 and UE4, respectively, to measure the reference signals from UE1), on a sidelink interface (Fig. 11 and Para 49, Step 1101, a server UE sends, to a target UE, a message comprising a configuration for transmitting a first set of reference signals over a sidelink interface) from a first user equipment (UE) (Fig. 9 UE2) to a second UE (Fig. 8 Unit UE3 and UE4) a first message requesting a measurement of a reference signal (Fig. 9 Step 4A and 4B, request measurement) that is transmitted from the first UE (Fig. 9 UE2) based on a reference signal configuration (Fig. 11 and Para 49, Step 1101, a server UE sends, to a target UE, a message comprising a configuration for transmitting a first set of reference signals over a sidelink interface);
transmitting, on the sidelink interface from the first UE, the reference signal based on the reference signal configuration (Fig. 11 and Step 1102, the server UE sends i.e., transmitting, to each of one or more peer UEs, a message comprising a configuration for measuring a second set of reference signals);
receiving, on the sidelink interface from the second UE at the first UE, a second message including a measurement result of the reference signal transmitted from the first UE (Para 49 and fig. 11 Step 1103, step 1103, the server UE receives, from the one or more peer UEs, measurement results of the second set of reference signals).
Tenny teaches that after the server UE receives UE measurement results of the second set of reference signal, the server UE computes, based at least in part on the contents of the measurement results, a location estimates for the target UE but does not disclose delivering the measurement result to a positioning calculation entity (PCE).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gulati teaches from Fig. 6 Step 630 and Para 82 that UE A 120 may obtain positioning measurements associated with the UE A 120 and then Para 83 and Fig. 6 Step 635, that the UE A 120 may transmit, and the S-LMF 605 may receive, the assistance data exchanged between the UE A 120 and the UE B 120. Then at Step 640, the UE A 120 may transmit, and the S-LMF 605 may receive, positioning measurements associated with the UE A 120 i.e., delivering the measurement result to a positioning calculation entity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Tenny with the method of Gulati so as to improve position accuracy (See Gulati Para 64).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is arguing that with regards to 35 USC 101 rejection, the claimed invention cannot be performed in the human mind and cannot be performed mentally and are inherently tied to physical radio transmissions, physical-layer measurements, and protocol messaging between networks. Further, the claim is rooted in wireless positioning technology, not pen and paper logic. However, examiner disagrees and point applicant to Sec 2106.04 (d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application where it is clearly defined the Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible). See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69, 1970 (2012) (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found ‘‘the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,’’ but the Court in Gottschalk v. Benson ‘‘held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle’’) i.e., UE to UE signaling where UE is generic computer. Similarly, in a growing body of decisions, the Federal Circuit has distinguished between claims that are ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception (which require further analysis to determine their eligibility) and those that are not (which are therefore patent eligible), e.g., claims that improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.06(b) (summarizing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and other cases that were eligible as improvements to technology or computer functionality instead of being directed to abstract ideas). In the current scenario, there is no improvement to technology or computer functionality except transmitting from first UE to second UE first message, transmitting from first UE, reference signal and then receiving from the second UE, a second message and then delivering the measurement result to a positioning calculation entity which can be read as I gave you an empty box requesting for candies i.e., requesting a measurement report of a reference signal. You put the candies into the box and send it back to me i.e., receiving a measurement results of the reference signal and I forwarded candies to third party i.e., delivering a measurement result to a positioning calculating entity which can be performed in the human mind because when you received the empty box, you did not check the size of the box or determine how many candies can be put in the box or performed some action to integrate those principles into practical application which can be read as according to MPEP 2106.04 (a) III A i.e., a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant is arguing that Step 2A, Prong Two and suggest that claim 10 integrate into a practical application because it recites a specific technical mechanism for coordinating sidelink reference signal measurement for positioning. However, MPEP clearly recites from Sec. 2106.05 (f) that 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 exception 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, 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. 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. 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 draftsman’s art"). Further MPEP Sec. 2106.05 (f) (1) suggest that whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished and suggest 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, 1743-44 (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. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")). Therefore, claim 10 does not integrate the practical application because it does not recite specific technical mechanism for coordinating side link reference signal measurement for position.
Further, as per applicant argument, the specification articulates a concrete technical problem in side link positioning, MPEP disclose that it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitation that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For at least the above reasons, applicant argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Third, Step 2B, applicant is arguing that UE includes generic computer hardware, the “significantly more” here is a particular radio/protocol interaction. However, claim does not disclose in detail radio/protocol interaction. All claim recites as explained above sending, transmitting, receiving and delivering step without showing solution activity of apply it. For at least the above reasons, applicant argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant is arguing that double patenting rejection should be traversed because in Patent ‘515 recites a method performed by a Server UE; measurement results are reported to the Server UE, not the target UE. The Server UE acts as the central node that orchestrates the positioning and perform the calculation. However, examiner disagree. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Having said that Patent 11659515 B2 teaches sending, to a target user equipment (UE) by a server user equipment (UE), a message comprising a configuration for transmitting a first set of reference signals over a sidelink interface i.e., transmitting, on a sidelink interface from a first user equipment (UE) to a second UE, a first message requesting a measurement of a reference signal that is transmitted from the first UE based on a reference signal configuration. Sending, to each of one or more peer UEs, a message comprising a configuration for measuring a second set of reference signals i.e., transmitting, on the sidelink interface from the first UE, the reference signal based on the reference signal configuration) and then receiving, from the one or more peer UEs, measurement results of the second set of reference signals i.e., receiving, on the sidelink interface from the second UE at the first UE, a second message including a measurement result of the reference signal transmitted from the first UE. As applicant argued U.S. Patent No. 11659515 B2 does not specifically disclose delivering the measurement result to a positioning calculation entity (PCE). Wang et al. Pub. No. US 20210219103 A1 teaches If the location request is originated from the network, the target UE reports the location update to the location server in CN i.e., delivering the measurement result to a positioning calculation entity (PCE) (Para 216). For at least the above reasons, combination of U.S. Patent No. 11659515 B2 in view of Wang et al. Pub. No. US 20210219103 A1 reads on applicant claimed invention and for those reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant is arguing that Wang does not teach at least two core elements of Claim 10 (and i) the Office Action's mapping is internally inconsistent) Figure 18 of Wang disclose: The target UE is triggered by a location request;The target UE discovers assisting UEs and requests a sidelink reference signal; The assisting UE determines the RefSig configuration, informs the target UE, and transmits the RefSig
The target UE obtains measurements and calculates its own position (optionally reports a location update. Examiner disagrees and bring it to the attention of the applicant that during patent examination, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 2111. Further In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Having said that Wang teaches from Fig. 18 that Assisting UE Unit 1701 where SL RefSig Req is received from the target UE 100 and Para 210 teaches signaling procedure which is used for sidelink-assisted UE-based positioning (RRC at assisting UE) and which can be performed by the positioning device 100. The assisting UE 1701 determines the sidelink RefSig configuration and informs the target UE about the RefSig configuration i.e., a first message requesting a measurement of a reference signal that is transmitted from the first UE based on a reference signal configuration. Wang teaches that The assisting UE 1701 transmits sidelink RefSig 1702 to the target UE according to the RefSig configuration i.e., transmitting, on the sidelink interface from the first UE, the reference signal based on the reference signal configuration.
Wang teaches that the target UE obtains radio signal measurements based on the RefSig 1702 received from the assisting UE. The target UE calculates its position based on at least the sidelink radio signal measurements. The positioning method may be indicated by the network. As an alternative, the UE may choose any positioning method to fuse any kinds of measurements for its own benefits. If the location request is originated from the network, the target UE reports the location update to the location server in CN. Otherwise, the location report is optional i.e., calculating the measurement result of the reference signal transmitted from the first UE and delivering the measurement results to the PCE. Wang does not specifically teach receiving, on the sidelink interface from the second UE at the first UE, a second message including a measurement result of the reference signal transmitted from the first UE and delivering the measurement result to a positioning calculation entity (PCE). To overcome the deficiency of Wang, Gulati teaches from Fig. 6 and Para 81-82, reference number 625, the UE A 120 and the UE B 120 may engage in a PRS exchange. In some aspects, the PRS exchange may include the UE B 120 transmitting a first PRS to the UE A 120. In some aspects, the first PRS may be based at least in part on the first set of assistance data. In some aspects, the PRS exchange may include the UE A 120 transmitting a second PRS to the UE B 120. In some aspects, the second PRS may be based at least in part on the second set of assistance data. As shown by reference number 630, the UE A 120 may obtain positioning measurements associated with the UE A 120 i.e., receiving, on the sidelink interface from the second UE at the first UE, a second message including a measurement result of the reference signal transmitted from the first UE) and then further teaches from Fig. 6 Step 635 and Para 83, the UE A 120 may transmit, and the S-LMF 605 may receive, the assistance data exchanged between the UE A 120 and the UE B 120 i.e., delivering the measurement result to a positioning calculation entity (PCE)). For at least the above reasons, applicant argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant is further arguing that Figure 6 of Gulita UE A "obtains" measurements-it does not describe UE B sending UE B's measurement results of UE A's PRS back to UE A as a sidelink "measurement result message. S-LMF reporting of measurements, which Gulati's cited portion supports UE First UE measurement reporting of the first UE's is not Second UE transmitted reference signal (as Claim 10 requires). However, as explained above that MPEP clearly cite that in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For at least the above reasons, applicant argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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 NIZAR N SIVJI whose telephone number is (571)270-7462. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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 at (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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
NIZAR N. SIVJI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/NIZAR N SIVJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647