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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 26-74 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II (claims 26-74), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/20/2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 23, paragraph 00121, line 3 recites “transmit the PRS to reference UE 102-4”; it should be corrected to “transmit the PRS to reference UE 102-6”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 13, 15, and 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) Regarding claim 2:
Line 1 recites “at least one of the relative AoA and the AoD”; the examiner suggests changing to “the at least one of the relative AoA and the relative AoD”.
(2) Regarding claim 13:
Line 2 recites “at least one second one”; the examiner suggests changing to “the at least one second one”.
(3) Regarding claim 15:
Line 2 recites “at least one second one”; the examiner suggests changing to “the at least one second one”.
Line 3 recites “the communication system”; the examiner suggests changing to “the side-link communication system”.
(4) Regarding claim 21:
Line 2 recites a parameter comprises variables ID,seq and SL-PRS, the examiner suggests define the variables in the claim.
(5) Regarding claim 22:
Line 4 recites “associated with the PRS”; the examiner suggests changing to “associated with the at least one PRS”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-11, 13, and 16-25 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.
(1) Regarding claim 3
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the Reference Signal Time (RST) per path" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(2) Regarding claim 7:
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the Reference Signal Time (RST) per path" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(3) Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 depends on claim 6, and claim 6 recites “the data related to at least one positioning measurement is determined by the at least one third node, using at least one PRS received from at least one of the at least one first node and the at least one second node”. Claim 10 further limiting claim 6 and recites “the at least one PRS is transmitted by at least one of the at least one first node, the at least one second node, and the at least one third node”. The recitation in claim 10 is contradicting the limitation in claim 6 because claim 6 recites the at least one PRS is received from at least one of the at least one first node and the at least one second node.
(4) Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 depends on claim 8, and claim 8 recites “the data related to at least one positioning measurement is determined by the at least one first node, using at least one PRS received from at least one of the at least one second node and the at least one third node”. Claim 11 further limiting claim 8 and recites “the at least one PRS is transmitted by at least one of the at least one first node, the at least one second node, and the at least one third node”. The recitation in claim 11 is contradicting the limitation in claim 8 because claim 8 recites the at least one PRS is received from at least one of the at least one second node and the at least one third node.
(5) Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the location of the at least one first node" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(6) Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the at least one side-link positioning server " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(7) Regarding claim 21:
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the higher layer of the transmitting node" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(8) Regarding claim 24:
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the RB" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Line 3 recites “the at least one PRS symbol”, there is a lack of antecedent basis, the examiner suggests changing to “the at least one PRS”.
(9) Regarding claim 25:
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the at least one PRS symbol in the slot” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Michalopoulos et al. (US 2023/0012712 A1).
(1) Regarding claim 1:
Michalopoulos discloses a method of positioning a target node in a side-link communication system, the method comprising:
establishing, by at least one first node, a communication link with at least one second node and at least one third node (step 42 in figure 4, target user device 32 receives positioning reference signal from each of a plurality of nodes, para. 0057, 0061, 0064);
measuring, by the at least one first node, at least one of a relative Angle of Arrival (AoA) and a relative Angle of Departure (AoD) of the at least one third node with respect to the at least one second node, wherein the target node is one of the at least one first node, the at least one second node and the at least one third node (operation 44, relative angles of arrival of positioning reference signals between a first plurality of pairs of said nodes are determined (para. 0058, 0061, 0064)), and
estimating, by the at least one first node, a position of the at least one target node based on at least one of a data related to at least one positioning measurement, the relative AoA, and the relative AoD (At operation 46, a collinearity indication for each of the pairs of nodes of the first plurality is determined, wherein each collinearity indication is based on the respective determined relative angles of arrival of said positioning reference signals. The collinearity indication may be a binary indication (e.g. whether the degree of collinearity is above or below a threshold). Alternatively, the collinearity indication may be based on multiple threshold, be based on a sliding scale, or be expressed in some other way. At operation 48, at least some of the plurality of pairs of nodes are selected for use in determining or refining a position of the target user device, wherein the selecting is based, at least in part, on the collinearity determined in operation 46 (e.g. whether the collinearity is above or below a threshold). The pairs of nodes may be selected in the operation 48 by adding and/or removing pairs of nodes from a candidate list, as discussed in detail below, para. 0059-0060).
(2) Regarding claim 2:
Michalopoulos discloses all subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses at least one of the relative AoA and the AoD is measured using the data related to at least one positioning measurement (A relative angle of arrival can therefore be determined based on difference between angles of arrival of the corresponding positioning reference signals with respect to a common orientation direction (e.g. the boresight direction of the target user device 51), para. 0061).
(3) Regarding claim 7:
Michalopoulos discloses all subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses obtaining, by the at least one first node, the data related to at least one positioning measurement, wherein the data related to at least one positioning measurement is at least one of Time of Arrival (ToA), Time Difference of Arrival (TDoA), Reference time of arrival(RToA), Rx-Tx time difference, Reference Signal Time Difference of Arrival (RTDoA), Reference Signal Carrier Phase (RSCP), Reference Signal Carrier Phase Difference (RSCPD), the Reference Signal Time (RST) per path, Received Signal Strength (RSRP) per path, Line of Sight (LoS) probability, a timestamp corresponding to at least one of positioning measurements, relative synchronization time difference, synchronization source, AOA, and AoD (A relative angle of arrival can therefore be determined based on difference between angles of arrival of the corresponding positioning reference signals with respect to a common orientation direction (e.g. the boresight direction of the target user device 51), para. 0061).
(4) Regarding claim 8:
Michalopoulos discloses all subject matter of claim 7, and further discloses the data related to at least one positioning measurement, is obtained by the at least one first node, using at least one PRS received from at least one of the at least one second node and the at least one third node (The method 40 starts at operation 42, where positioning reference signals are received at the target user device 32 from each of a plurality of nodes of a mobile communication system. The positioning reference signals include first positioning reference signals received from each of one or more fixed nodes of the mobile communication system (such as TRP1 36a and TRP2 36b ) and second positioning reference signals received from each of one or more mobile nodes of the mobile communication system (such as first to fourth supportive user devices 32a-d), para. 0057; A relative angle of arrival can therefore be determined based on difference between angles of arrival of the corresponding positioning reference signals with respect to a common orientation direction (e.g. the boresight direction of the target user device 51), para. 0061).
(5) Regarding claim 12:
Michalopoulos discloses all subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses the position of the at least one target node is estimated with respect to at least one of reference location (A first position estimate is generated in the operation 112 of the method 110. The first position estimate may be generated based on first positioning reference signals received from selected pairs of fixed nodes (e.g. TRPs) of a mobile communication system, para. 0101; the examiner interprets the location of TRP as the claimed reference location).
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 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalopoulos et al. (US 2023/0012712 A1) in view of Manolakos et al. (US 2023/0006790 A1).
(1) Regarding claim 11:
Michalopoulos discloses all subject matter of claim 8, but fails to disclose the at least one PRS is transmitted by at least one of the at least one first node, the at least one second node, and the at least one third node orthogonally in at least one of time, frequency, code, and space.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Manolakos discloses the different TRPs are frequency-division multiplexed to use different subcarriers to transmit PRS signals such that the PRS signals from different TRPs transmitted concurrently are frequency orthogonal help prevent collisions between the PRS signals, para. 0091.
It is desirable for the at least one PRS is transmitted by at least one of the at least one first node, the at least one second node, and the at least one third node orthogonally in at least one of time, frequency, code, and space because it prevent collisions between the PRS signals, para. 0091. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching of Manolakos in the method of Michalopoulos for the benefit of reducing collisions between the PRS signals.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalopoulos et al. (US 2023/0012712 A1) in view of Baek et al. (US 2022/0365163 A1).
(1) Regarding claim 12:
Michalopoulos discloses all subject matter of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose the position of the at least one target node is estimated with respect to at least one of reference location.
However, in the same field of endeavor of positioning, Baek teaches a method of UE measures the timings of the received DL signals using positioning assistance data received from a location server. The location of the UE may be determined based on the measurement results and the geographical coordinates of neighboring TPs (para. 0152).
It is desirable for the position of the at least one target node is estimated with respect to at least one of reference location because it improves the accuracy of the estimated location of the target node. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching of Baek for the benefit of improving the accuracy of the estimated location of the target node.
(2) Regarding claim 13:
Michalopoulos and Baek together disclose all subject matter of claim 12, and Baek further discloses the at least one reference location is one of a global coordinate, the location of the at least one first node, at least one second node, and the at least one third node (In a conventional NR system, location information of a UE is measured and acquired through an infrastructure such as a BS or a GPS, para. 0169; the examiner interprets GPS as the claimed global coordinate; para. 0189-0190).
It is desirable for the at least one reference location is one of a global coordinate because it improves the accuracy of the estimated location of the target node. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching of Baek for the benefit of improving the accuracy of the estimated location of the target node.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalopoulos et al. (US 2023/0012712 A1) in view of Gulati et al. (US 2023/0199699 A1).
(1) Regarding claim 14:
Michalopoulos discloses all subject matter of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose transmitting, by the at least one first node, the position of the at least one target node to at least one side-link positioning server.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gulati disclose in figure 6, step 640 the UE A 120 may transmit, and the S-LMF 605 may receive, positioning measurements associated with the UE A 120 (para. 0083).
It is desirable to transmit by the at least one first node, the position of the at least one target node to at least one side-link positioning server because it reduces workload for the UE A 120 in determining the location of UE A 120. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching of Gulati in the method of Michalopoulos for the benefit of reducing work load and power consumption of the UE.
(2) Regarding claim 15:
Michalopoulos discloses all subject matter of claim 14, and Gulati further discloses the at least one side-link positioning server resides in at least one of the at least one first node, at least one second node, the at least one third node, and a cellular network of the communication system (as shown in figure 6, the S-LMF is within the network as shown in figure 6).
(3) Regarding claim 16:
Michalopoulos discloses all subject matter of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose receiving, by the at least one side-link positioning server, the data related to the at least one position measurement of the at least one target node from at least one first node; and estimating, by the at least one side-link positioning server, the position of the at least one target node based on the data related to the at least one position measurement.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gulati discloses a method comprises:
receiving, by the at least one side-link positioning server, the data related to the at least one position measurement of the at least one target node from at least one first node (step 640 in figure 6, UE-A forward positioning measurements to S-LMF 605, para. 0083); and
estimating, by the at least one side-link positioning server, the position of the at least one target node based on the data related to the at least one position measurement (As shown by reference number 645, the S-LMF 605 may determine a position of the UE A 120. In some aspects, the S-LMF 605 may determine the position of the UE A 120 based at least in part on one or more of the positioning measurements received from the UE A 120. In some aspects, the S-LMF 605 may determine the position of the UE A 120 based at least in part on the assistance data received from the UE A 120 such as by interpreting the positioning measurements in the context of the assistance data. As shown by reference number 650, the S-LMF 605 may transmit, and the UE A 120 may receive, an indication of the position of the UE A 120 (para. 0083-0084).
It is desirable to receive, by the at least one side-link positioning server, the data related to the at least one position measurement of the at least one target node from at least one first node; and estimate, by the at least one side-link positioning server, the position of the at least one target node based on the data related to the at least one position measurement because it reduces workload for the UE A 120 in determining the location of UE A 120. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching of Gulati in the method of Michalopoulos for the benefit of reducing work load and power consumption of the UE.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalopoulos et al. (US 2023/0012712 A1) in view of Barbu et al. (US 2025/0167865 A1).
(1) Regarding claim 3:
Michalopoulos discloses all subject matter of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose receiving, by the at least one first node from at least one of the at least one second node and the at least one third node, the data related to at least one positioning measurement, wherein the data related to at least one positioning measurement is at least one of Time of Arrival (ToA), Time Difference of Arrival (TDoA), Reference Time of Arrival (RToA), Rx-Tx time difference, Reference signal Time Difference of Arrival (RTDoA), Reference Signal Carrier Phase (RSCP), Reference signal Carrier Phase Difference (RSCPD), the Reference Signal Time (RST) per path, Received Signal Strength (RSRP) per path, Line of Sight (LoS) probability, and a timestamp corresponding to at least one of positioning measurements, relative synchronization time difference, synchronization source, AOA, and AoD.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Barbu discloses in figure 2, the target UE 100 transmit a SL-PRS (Step 206) to supporting UE 110 and receives SPR measurements (Step 210) from the supporting UE 110 (para. 0069); wherein the data related to at least one positioning measurement is at least one of Time of Arrival (ToA), Time Difference of Arrival (TDoA), Reference Time of Arrival (RToA), Rx-Tx time difference, Reference signal Time Difference of Arrival (RTDoA), Reference Signal Carrier Phase (RSCP), Reference signal Carrier Phase Difference (RSCPD), the Reference Signal Time (RST) per path, Received Signal Strength (RSRP) per path, Line of Sight (LoS) probability, and a timestamp corresponding to at least one of positioning measurements, relative synchronization time difference, synchronization source, AOA, and AoD (The supporting UE measurements may further include timestamps corresponding to reception of the transmitted signals at the supporting UE and/or timestamps corresponding to transmission by the supporting UE of a reply to the signals. In some examples, the supporting UE measurements may include a time-difference (TD) between the reception of the transmitted signals and transmission of the supporting UE's reply. In some such examples, the TD may be referred to as a Rx-Tx time difference; para. 0069-0070).
It is desirable to receive, by the at least one first node from at least one of the at least one second node and the at least one third node, the data related to at least one positioning measurement, wherein the data related to at least one positioning measurement is at least one of Time of Arrival (ToA), Time Difference of Arrival (TDoA), Reference Time of Arrival (RToA), Rx-Tx time difference, Reference signal Time Difference of Arrival (RTDoA), Reference Signal Carrier Phase (RSCP), Reference signal Carrier Phase Difference (RSCPD), the Reference Signal Time (RST) per path, Received Signal Strength (RSRP) per path, Line of Sight (LoS) probability, and a timestamp corresponding to at least one of positioning measurements, relative synchronization time difference, synchronization source, AOA, and AoD because it enables the target UE to determine the location of itself by using the measurement by the at least one second node and the at least one third node. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching of Barbu in the method of Michalopoulos for the benefit determining the location of the target UE.
(2) Regarding claim 4:
Michalopoulos and Barbu together disclose all subject matter of claim 3, and Barbu further discloses reporting the data related to at least one positioning measurement by at least one of the at least one second node and the at least one third node (Barbu discloses in figure 2, the target UE 100 transmit a SL-PRS (Step 206) to supporting UE 110 and receives SPR measurements (Step 210) from the supporting UE 110 (para. 0069)).
(3) Regarding claim 5:
Michalopoulos and Barbu together disclose all subject matter of claim 4, and Barbu further discloses the data related to at least one positioning measurement, is determined by the at least one second node, using at least one Positioning Reference Signal (PRS) received from at least one of the at least one first node and the at least one third node (Barbu discloses in figure 2, the target UE 100 transmit a SL-PRS (Step 206) to supporting UE 110 and receives SPR measurements (Step 210) from the supporting UE 110 (para. 0069); the examiner interprets the UE 110 as the claimed second node).
(4) Regarding claim 6:
Michalopoulos and Barbu together disclose all subject matter of claim 4, and Barbu further discloses the data related to at least one positioning measurement, is determined by the at least one third node, using at least one PRS received from at least one of the at least one first node and the at least one second node (Barbu discloses in figure 2, the target UE 100 transmit a SL-PRS (Step 206) to supporting UE 110 and receives SPR measurements (Step 210) from the supporting UE 110 (para. 0069); the examiner interprets the UE 110 as the claimed third node).
Claims 9-10, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalopoulos et al. (US 2023/0012712 A1) in view of Barbu et al. (US 2025/0167865 A1) as applied to claims 5-6; and further in view of Kumar et al. (US 2025/0106878 A1).
(1) Regarding claim 9:
Michalopoulos and Barbu together disclose all subject matter of claim 5, but fails to disclose the at least one PRS is transmitted by at least one of the at least one first node, the at least one second node, and the at least one third node orthogonally in at least one of time, frequency, code, and space.
However, Kumar discloses using the pseudo-random gold sequence (orthogonal codes) used for generating the SL-PRS signal for different UE (para. 0182, 0184).
It is desirable to generate the at least one PRS, based on at least one of a sequence design because it avoids collision between SL-PRS from different UE (para. 0184). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching of Kumar in the method of Michalopoulos for the benefit of reducing interference between SL-PRS.
(2) Regarding claim 10:
Michalopoulos and Barbu together disclose all subject matter of claim 6, but fails to disclose the at least one PRS is transmitted by at least one of the at least one first node, the at least one second node, and the at least one third node orthogonally in at least one of time, frequency, code, and space.
However, Kumar discloses using the pseudo-random gold sequence (orthogonal codes) used for generating the SL-PRS signal for different UE (para. 0182, 0184).
It is desirable to generate the at least one PRS, based on at least one of a sequence design because it avoids collision between SL-PRS from different UE (para. 0184). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching of Kumar in the method of Michalopoulos for the benefit of reducing interference between SL-PRS.
(3) Regarding claim 17:
Michalopoulos and Barbu disclose all subject matter of claim 5, but fails to disclose generating the at least one PRS, based on at least one of a sequence design, a frequency domain pattern, a time domain pattern, a time domain behavior, and supported bandwidth to minimize error in channel estimation due to fading in time and frequency due to doppler and multipath.
However, Kumar discloses using the pseudo-random gold sequence (orthogonal codes) used for generating the SL-PRS signal (para. 0184).
It is desirable to generate the at least one PRS, based on at least one of a sequence design because it avoids collision between SL-PRS from different UE (para. 0184). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching of Kumar in the method of Michalopoulos and Barbu for the benefit of reducing interference between SL-PRS.
Michalopoulos, Barbu, and Kumar discloses all subject matter except explicitly disclose generating the at least one PRS, based on at least one of a sequence design would minimize error in channel estimation due to fading in time and frequency due to doppler and multipath.
However, such limitation is an obvious result by generating the at least one PRS, based on at least one of a sequence design because it reduces interference between different SL-PRS, therefore, the limitation of generating the at least one PRS, based on at least one of a sequence design would minimize error in channel estimation due to fading in time and frequency due to doppler and multipath would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the benefit of improving the integrity of the SL-PRS.
(4) Regarding claim 18:
Michalopoulos and Barbu disclose all subject matter of claim 6, but fails to disclose generating the at least one PRS, based on at least one of a sequence design, a frequency domain pattern, a time domain pattern, a time domain behavior, and supported bandwidth to minimize error in channel estimation due to fading in time and frequency due to doppler and multipath.
However, Kumar discloses using the pseudo-random gold sequence (orthogonal codes) used for generating the SL-PRS signal (para. 0184).
It is desirable to generate the at least one PRS, based on at least one of a sequence design because it avoids collision between SL-PRS from different UE (para. 0184). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching of Kumar in the method of Michalopoulos and Barbu for the benefit of reducing interference between SL-PRS.
Michalopoulos, Barbu, and Kumar discloses all subject matter except explicitly disclose generating the at least one PRS, based on at least one of a sequence design would minimize error in channel estimation due to fading in time and frequency due to doppler and multipath.
However, such limitation is an obvious result by generating the at least one PRS, based on at least one of a sequence design because it reduces interference between different SL-PRS, therefore, the limitation of generating the at least one PRS, based on at least one of a sequence design would minimize error in channel estimation due to fading in time and frequency due to doppler and multipath would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the benefit of improving the integrity of the SL-PRS.
(5) Regarding claim 20:
Michalopoulos, Barbu, and Kumar discloses all subject matter of claim 17 and Kumar further discloses the at least one PRS is generated using pseudo random gold sequence (para. 0184).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalopoulos et al. (US 2023/0012712 A1) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2025/0106878 A1).
Michalopoulos discloses all subject matter of claim 8, but fails to disclose generating the at least one PRS, based on at least one of a sequence design, a frequency domain pattern, a time domain pattern, a time domain behavior, and supported bandwidth to minimize error in channel estimation due to fading in time and frequency due to doppler and multipath.
However, Kumar discloses using the pseudo-random gold sequence (orthogonal codes) used for generating the SL-PRS signal (para. 0184).
It is desirable to generate the at least one PRS, based on at least one of a sequence design because it avoids collision between SL-PRS from different UE (para. 0184). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching of Kumar in the method of Michalopoulos for the benefit of reducing interference between SL-PRS.
Michalopoulos and Kumar discloses all subject matter except explicitly disclose generating the at least one PRS, based on at least one of a sequence design would minimize error in channel estimation due to fading in time and frequency due to doppler and multipath.
However, such limitation is an obvious result by generating the at least one PRS, based on at least one of a sequence design because it reduces interference between different SL-PRS, therefore, the limitation of generating the at least one PRS, based on at least one of a sequence design would minimize error in channel estimation due to fading in time and frequency due to doppler and multipath would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the benefit of improving the integrity of the SL-PRS.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haustein et al. (US 2024/0215054 A1) discloses communication systema and user device.
Khlat et al. (US 2023/0296753 A1) discloses hybrid
Yoon (US 2024/0364473 A1) discloses method and apparatus for performing sidelink positioning based on SRS in wireless communication system.
Farag (US 2023/0232429 A1) discloses method and apparatus for SL positioning within network coverage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIU M LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1083. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 8:30-7:00.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/SIU M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632 11/8/2025