DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 11/26/2025. The amendment has been entered and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 7-10, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 15 recites the limitation "the activation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 12, 13, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al “Lin” US 2021/0105739.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Lin teaches a method and a terminal, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or instructions stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein the program or instructions are executed by the processor to perform:
receiving first configuration information and/or second configuration information of an uplink positioning reference signal from a network-side device (the UE receives configuration information with respect to PRS; Paragraph 153. The configuration information regarding the PRS is indicated by the service cell (i.e. network-side device));
wherein the receiving first configuration information and/or second configuration information of an uplink positioning reference signal from a network-side device comprises at least one of the following:
receiving the first configuration information and/or the second configuration information from the network-side device through a radio resource control release RRC release message and receiving the first configuration information and/or the second configuration information from the network-side device through a radio resource control release with suspend (RRC release with suspend) message (information regarding the PRS is included in a SuspendConfig in RRC release messages; Paragraph 160).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Lin teaches the information includes resource set ID information or resource ID information (Paragraphs 159-160 teach the information includes sets of PRS blocks being available or not).
Regarding claim 21, Lin teaches in a case the terminal enters an inactive state, receiving the RRC release message (when a UE switches from RRC_Connected to RRC_Idle, the UE receives the RRCRelease message; Paragraph 160).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 7-9, 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Khoryaev et al. “Khoryaev” US 2022/0110085.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Lin does not teach before receiving the configuration information, sending a request to the network side device to request the configuration information which is sent through msg3, msgA or SDT; however, Khoryaev teaches a UE sends a request in MsgA (302 see figure 3) with respect to PRS. In response to the request, configuration information is sent (308) and Paragraph 61. See also Paragraphs 64 and 66 and corresponding Figures 4 and 5 for the request msgA sent for PRS).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Lin to include sending a request in msgA before getting the configuration information as taught by Khoryaev.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that a proper RACH can be achieved for UL PRS-based positioning as taught by Khoryaev; Paragraph 61).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, while Lin teaches activation information (Paragraphs 159-160), Lin does not teach sending request information before the activation information is received wherein the request includes one of a preamble, sent through msg3, SDT or msgA. Khoryaev teaches MsgA from a UE includes a PRACH preamble; Paragraph 56.Further, the request can be for activation; Paragraph 58. Thus one can see the request is sent prior to receiving activation information.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Lin to include sending a second request in msgA with a specific preamble before receiving activation information as taught by Khoryaev.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that a proper RACH can be achieved for UL PRS-based positioning as taught by Khoryaev; Paragraph 61).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Lin does not teach sending the second request when a first specific event occurs which includes an area event where the terminal does not enter the connected state upon determining the terminal has entered, left or remains within the range of a target area. Khoryaev teaches the UE is Idle/Inactive (i.e. not in the connected state) when it is within range to communicate with the base station. The UE then sends the request for location information; Paragraph 61.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Lin to include sending a second request in response to the area event as taught by Khoryaev.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that a proper RACH can be achieved for UL PRS-based positioning as taught by Khoryaev; Paragraph 61).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Lin does not teach sending the first request when a second specific event occurs which includes the presence of an UL positioning operation of update configuration. Khoryaev teaches the UE sends a request in MsgA (302 see figure 3) with respect to PRS; Paragraph 61. This is viewed as sending the request message when the presence of an UL positioning operation.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Lin to include sending a first request in response to the second event as taught by Khoryaev.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that a proper RACH can be achieved for UL PRS-based positioning as taught by Khoryaev; Paragraph 61).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Lin teaches in case that a third event occurs, releasing the configuration/resource of the UL PRS wherein the network side device indicates to the UE to release the configuration/resource (information regarding the PRS is included in a SuspendConfig in RRC release messages; Paragraph 160. Thus the UE releases the resources as indicated by the base station).
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Khoryaev and further in view of Liu et al. “Liu” US 2022/0116902.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, the prior art does not teach sending a target indication through a PHY layer or RRC layer after releasing the resources which indicates the UL PRS has been released or become invalid; however, Liu teaches a base station sends a release command of the PRS to the UE and the UE then releases the resources; Paragraph 116-117, see Figure 6. These claims further limit an option not selected in claim 9 and thus under BRI, is not required.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to disclose informing the network of the release of PRS as taught by Liu.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that UE can properly release the resources or transmit using the UL PRS based on the paging message; Paragraph 117.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Khoryaev and further in view of Kim US 2020/0236506.
Regarding claim 22, the prior at does not teach a periodicity of the UL PRS and a BWP configuration; however, Kim teaches configuration information includes BWP information for UL PRS as well periodicity; Paragraph 136. Examiner notes as set forth in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) herein, limitations in dependent claims that further limit an unselected option for the “” are not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include configuration information includes periodicity and BWP information as taught by Kim.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can properly receive configuration information for UL PRS transmission as taught by Kim; Paragraph 136.
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Khoryaev and further in view of Saily et al. “Saily” US 2023/0379865.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, the prior art does not teach the use of a resume ID; however, Saily teaches a UE and network performing a PRS procedure. Wherein the UE requests RRC resumption with respect to I-RNTI (i.e. resume ID); Paragraph 64.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include sending a resume ID in the request as taught by Saily.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE and base station can perform a proper PRS procedure as taught by Saily; Paragraph 64.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 12-19, 12-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm EST.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights