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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application is a National Stage entry of PCT/IB2021/059533 (International Filing Date: 10/15/2021), which claims priority from Provisional Application 63092624
(filed 10/16/2020).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-12, 22, 27, 56, 63, 67 and 71-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by MANOLAKOS et al. (US 2021/0185632 A1, hereinafter MANOLAKOS).
Regarding claim 1, MANOLAKOS teaches a method performed by a wireless device, the method comprising (in general, see fig. 14 and its para. 152-166, along with fig. 4-5 and their para. at least 125-133; note that fig. 8-9 disclose relevant and additional embodiments):
receiving, from a network, an indication indicating whether the wireless device can jointly process two or more downlink (DL) positioning reference signal (PRS) resources as aggregated DL PRS resources, the indication comprising at least one condition that must be met before the two or more DL PRS resources can be jointly processed by the UE (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 157-158 in view of para. 129, for one non-limiting example, “…At stage 5a, the UE receives a number of PRS components, illustrated with separate arrows, for an aggregated DL PRS transmissions from the TRP1 105a…”, note that “...All DL-PRS Resources within a DL-PRS Resource Set instance are muted for a DL-PRS Resource Set instance that is indicated to be muted by the bitmap. In a second option, each bit in the bitmap corresponds to a single repetition index for each of the DL-PRS Resources within an instance of a DL-PRS Resource Set, e.g., the length of the bitmap is equal to DL-PRS-ResourceRepetitionFactor. The second option may apply to all instances of the DL-PRS Resource Set that the above DL-PRS Resources are part of...”);
and
transmitting, to the network, a measurement produced by joint processing of the two or more DL PRS resources processed by the wireless device as aggregated DL PRS resources (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 165, “...At stage 10, the UE 115 send a Provide Location Information message to the location server 196
and includes the PRS based positioning measurements obtained at stage 8 and/or the UE location determined at optional stage 9...”, note that “...At stage 8, the UE 115 may perform the desired position measurements using the acquired and processed aggregated DL PRS received from TRP1 105 a, TRP2 105 b and TRP3
105 c...”),
and
wherein the at least one condition requires the two or more DL PRS resources being jointly processed to be configured with a same value of a repetition factor (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 157-158 in view of para. 129, note that “...In a second option, each bit in the bitmap corresponds to a single repetition index for each of the DL-PRS Resources within an instance of a DL-PRS Resource Set, e.g., the length of the bitmap is equal to DL-PRS-ResourceRepetitionFactor...”).
Regarding claim 2, MANOLAKOS teaches comprising performing joint processing of the aggregated DL PRS resources to produce a measurement, wherein performing the joint processing is based on determining that the at least one condition for jointly processing the two or more DL PRS resources have been met. (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 163 in view of para. 129, e.g., “…At stage 8, the UE 115 may perform the desired position measurements using the acquired and processed aggregated DL PRS received from TRP1 105 a…”)
Regarding claim 3, MANOLAKOS teaches comprising performing joint processing of the aggregated DL PRS resources to produce a measurement, wherein performing the joint processing is based on determining that the at least one condition has been met, and wherein the at least one condition requires the two or more DL PRS resources being jointly processed to be transmitted from a same transmission and reception point (TRP). (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 157-158 in view of para. 129, for one non-limiting example, “…At stage 5a, the UE receives a number of PRS components, illustrated with separate arrows, for an aggregated DL PRS transmissions from the TRP1 105a…”, note that “...All DL-PRS Resources within a DL-PRS Resource Set instance are muted for a DL-PRS Resource Set instance that is indicated to be muted by the bitmap. In a second option, each bit in the bitmap corresponds to a single repetition index for each of the DL-PRS Resources within an instance of a DL-PRS Resource Set, e.g., the length of the bitmap is equal to DL-PRS-ResourceRepetitionFactor. The second option may apply to all instances of the DL-PRS Resource Set that the above DL-PRS Resources are part of...”)
Regarding claim 4, MANOLAKOS teaches comprising performing joint processing of the aggregated DL PRS resources to produce a measurement, wherein performing the joint processing is based on determining that the at least one condition has been met, and wherein the at least one condition requires the two or more DL PRS resources being jointly processed to be received by the wireless device in a same time slot. (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 157-158 in view of para. 144 of fig. 9, for one non-limiting example, “…At stage 5a, the UE receives a number of PRS components, illustrated with separate arrows, for an aggregated DL PRS transmissions from the TRP1 105a. It should be understood that while the PRS components are illustrated with separate arrows, the PRS components are separated in the frequency domain…”)
Regarding claim 5, MANOLAKOS teaches performing the joint processing is further based on determining that the two or more DL PRS resources being jointly processed to be received by the wireless device in a same symbol within the same time slot. (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 157 along with fig. 9 and para. 125, not that “…For example, the PRS components may be transmitted by the TRP1 105 a on one or more different component carriers, bands, frequency layers,…”)
Regarding claim 7, MANOLAKOS teaches comprising performing joint processing of the aggregated DL PRS resources to produce a measurement, wherein performing the joint processing is based on determining that the at least one condition has been met, and wherein the at least one condition requires the two or more DL PRS resources being jointly processed to be received by the wireless device with the same quasi co-location (QCL) information. (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 157, “…a same quasi-colocation (QCL) information,…”)
Regarding claim 8, MANOLAKOS teaches comprising performing joint processing of the aggregated DL PRS resources to produce a measurement, wherein performing the joint processing is based on determining that the at least one condition has been met, and wherein the at least one condition requires the two or more DL PRS resources being jointly processed to belong to different frequency layers. (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 157 along with fig. 9, for one example, but not limited to, “…For example, the PRS components may be transmitted by the TRP1 105 a on one or more different component carriers, bands, frequency layers, or bandwidths in a same band…”)
Regarding claim 9, MANOLAKOS teaches comprising performing joint processing of the aggregated DL PRS resources to produce a measurement, wherein performing the joint processing is based on determining that the at least one condition has been met, and wherein the at least one condition requires the two or more DL PRS resources being jointly processed to use a same subcarrier spacing. (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 157, “…a same subcarrier spacing,…”)
Regarding claim 10, MANOLAKOS teaches indicating, to the network, at least one measurement produced by the joint processing of the aggregated DL PRS resources. (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 165, “…At stage 10, the UE 115 send a Provide Location Information message to the location server 196 and includes the PRS based positioning measurements obtained at stage 8…”)
Regarding claim 11, MANOLAKOS teaches the at least one measurement is indicated to a location node. (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 152 along with para. 165, “…Location server 196 may be, e.g., an LMF for a 5G NR network. Location server 196 may be located remotely in the core network, e.g., core network 190 shown in FIG. 1 or may be coincident with a TRP, such as a serving TRP 105 a…”)
Regarding claim 12, MANOLAKOS teaches the at least one measurement is indicated to a radio network node. (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 152 along with para. 165, “…Location server 196 may be, e.g., an LMF for a 5G NR network. Location server 196 may be located remotely in the core network, e.g., core network 190 shown in FIG. 1 or may be coincident with a TRP, such as a serving TRP 105 a…”)
Regarding claim 22, MANOLAKOS teaches the indication indicating whether the wireless device can jointly process the two or more DL PRS resources comprises a first index associated with a first DL PRS resource and a second index associated with a second DL PRS resource, and wherein the at least one condition is met when the first index is the same as the second index. (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 157 in view of para. 124-126 of fig.4, for one non-limiting example, “...The PRS components transmitted by TRP1 105a are configured with the same, or similar (within a predetermined threshold) constraints, such as ... subframes that are not separated by more than a predefined number of subframes, a same periodicity, a same comb type, a same number of symbols...”, note that “...FIG. 4 illustrates a first instance 410 a of PRS resource set 1 410, a second instance 410 b of PRS resource set 1 410, and a Trep instance 410 a of PRS resource set 1 410. The PRS resource set 1 410 is defined with an occasion of NPRS=2, a periodicity TRPs, and Nsymb=2...”)
Regarding claim 27, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1. To be more specific, although reciting subject matters slightly different, one skilled in the art would have known claim 27 performs reverse (or corresponding) procedures of claim 1. For example, it would be a network node of claim 27 that performs the reverse (or corresponding) receiving from and transmitting to the wireless device of claim 1. Hence, the examiner applies the same rejection reasoning as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 56, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 27. To be more specific, although reciting subject matters slightly different, one skilled in the art would have known claim 56 performs reverse (or corresponding) procedures of claim 27. For example, it would be a radio network node of claim 56 that performs the reverse (or corresponding) receiving from and transmitting to a location node or from a wireless device of claim 27. Hence, the examiner applies the same rejection reasoning as set forth in claim 27.
Regarding claim 63, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in apparatus claim format.
To be more specific, MANOLAKOS also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising circuities for processor, transceiver, and memory (MANOLAKOS, see at least fig. 20-21), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Regarding claim 67, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 56 except this claim is in apparatus claim format.
To be more specific, MANOLAKOS also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising circuities for processor, transceiver, and memory (MANOLAKOS, see at least fig. 20-21), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Regarding claim 71, MANOLAKOS teaches receiving the indication comprises receiving a DL PRS configuration, the DL PRS configuration comprises a first index value for a first DL PRS resource and a second index value for a second DL PRS resource. (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 157 in view of para. 124-126 of fig.4, for one non-limiting example, “...The PRS components transmitted by TRP1 105a are configured with the same, or similar (within a predetermined threshold) constraints, such as ... subframes that are not separated by more than a predefined number of subframes, a same periodicity, a same comb type, a same number of symbols...”, note that “...FIG. 4 illustrates a first instance 410 a of PRS resource set 1 410, a second instance 410 b of PRS resource set 1 410, and a Trep instance 410 a of PRS resource set 1 410. The PRS resource set 1 410 is defined with an occasion of NPRS=2, a periodicity TRPs, and Nsymb=2...”)
Regarding claim 72, MANOLAKOS teaches the at least one condition is met when the first index value is the same as the second index value. (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 157 in view of para. 124-126 of fig.4, for one non-limiting example, “...The PRS components transmitted by TRP1 105a are configured with the same, or similar (within a predetermined threshold) constraints, such as ... subframes that are not separated by more than a predefined number of subframes, a same periodicity, a same comb type, a same number of symbols...”, note that “...FIG. 4 illustrates a first instance 410 a of PRS resource set 1 410, a second instance 410 b of PRS resource set 1 410, and a Trep instance 410 a of PRS resource set 1 410. The PRS resource set 1 410 is defined with an occasion of NPRS=2, a periodicity TRPs, and Nsymb=2...”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 13-14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MANOLAKOS, in view of Akkarakaran et al. (US 2020/0351047 A1, hereinafter Akkarakaran).
Regarding claim 13, MANOLAKOS teaches the at least one condition is based on a first carrier associated with a first DL PRS resource and a second carrier associated with a second DL PRS resource. (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 157, “...the PRS components may be transmitted by the TRP1 105a on one or more different component carriers, bands, frequency layers, or bandwidths in a same band...”)
MANOLAKOS differs from the claim, in that, it does not specifically disclose a phase difference between a first carrier associated with a first DL PRS resource and a second carrier associated with a second DL PRS resource.
.Akkarakaran, for example, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches a phase difference between a first carrier associated with a first DL PRS resource and a second carrier associated with a second DL PRS resource (in general, see fig. 6 and its paragraphs 172-189, in particular, see at least para. 181, for example, but not limited to, “…At 610, base station 105-e may transmit coherence information. The coherence information may indicate which downlink signals across component carriers can be assumed to be phase coherent. In some examples, the coherence information may include control signaling indicating multiple component carriers on which the PRS is phase coherent based on the capability indicator received by base station 105-e at 605…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Akkarakaran into the method of MANOLAKOS for increasing system efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, MANOLAKOS in view of Akkarakaran teaches the at least one condition is met when the phase difference indicates that the first carrier and the second carrier are sufficiently coherent. (Akkarakaran, see at least para. 181, for example, but not limited to, “…At 610, base station 105-e may transmit coherence information. The coherence information may indicate which downlink signals across component carriers can be assumed to be phase coherent. In some examples, the coherence information may include control signaling indicating multiple component carriers on which the PRS is phase coherent based on the capability indicator received by base station 105-e at 605…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Akkarakaran into the method of MANOLAKOS for increasing system efficiency.
Regarding claim 16, MANOLAKOS in view of Akkarakaran teaches the indication indicating whether the wireless device can jointly process the two or more DL PRS resources is received from a location node. (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 152 along with para. 165, “…Location server 196 may be, e.g., an LMF for a 5G NR network. Location server 196 may be located remotely in the core network, e.g., core network 190 shown in FIG. 1 or may be coincident with a TRP, such as a serving TRP 105 a…”; Akkarakaran, see at least para. 181, for example, but not limited to, “…At 610, base station 105-e may transmit coherence information…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Akkarakaran into the method of MANOLAKOS for increasing system efficiency.
Regarding claim 17, MANOLAKOS in view of Akkarakaran teaches the indication indicating whether the wireless device can jointly process the two or more DL PRS resources is received via non-access stratum (NAS) signaling. (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 64, “…The E-SMLC 164 may support location determination of the UEs, e.g., using the 3GPP control plane (CP) location solution…”; Akkarakaran, see at least para. 118, “…The control plane entity may manage non-access stratum (NAS) functions such as mobility, authentication, and bearer management for UEs 115 served by base stations 105 associated with the core network 130…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Akkarakaran into the method of MANOLAKOS for increasing system efficiency.
Regarding claim 18, MANOLAKOS in view of Akkarakaran teaches the indication indicating whether the wireless device can jointly process the two or more DL PRS resources is received according to a positioning protocol or an Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) message. (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 64, “…The E-SMLC 164 may support location determination of the UEs, e.g., using the 3GPP control plane (CP) location solution…”; Akkarakaran, see at least para. 118, “…The control plane entity may manage non-access stratum (NAS) functions such as mobility, authentication, and bearer management for UEs 115 served by base stations 105 associated with the core network 130…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Akkarakaran into the method of MANOLAKOS for increasing system efficiency.
Regarding claim 19, MANOLAKOS in view of Akkarakaran teaches the indication indicating whether the wireless device can jointly process the two or more DL PRS resources is received from a radio network node. (Akkarakaran, see at least para. 181, for example, but not limited to, step 610)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Akkarakaran into the method of MANOLAKOS for increasing system efficiency.
Regarding claim 20, MANOLAKOS in view of Akkarakaran teaches the indication indicating whether the wireless device can jointly process the two or more DL PRS resources is received via radio resource control (RRC) signaling. (Akkarakaran, see at least para. 144, for example, but not limited to, via RRC signaling)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Akkarakaran into the method of MANOLAKOS for increasing system efficiency.
Regarding claim 21, MANOLAKOS in view of Akkarakaran teaches the indication indicating whether the wireless device can jointly process the two or more DL PRS resources is received via downlink control information (DCI). (Akkarakaran, see at least para. 144, for example, but not limited to, by DCI)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Akkarakaran into the method of MANOLAKOS for increasing system efficiency.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MANOLAKOS in view of Akkarakaran, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of HADASCHIK et al. (US 2019/0253282 A1, hereinafter HADASCHIK).
Regarding claim 15, MANOLAKOS in view of Akkarakaran teaches all of the subject matters in claim 14, except the first carrier and the second carrier are sufficiently coherent when a coherency value exceeds a threshold.
HADASCHIK, for example, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches the first carrier and the second carrier are sufficiently coherent when a coherency value exceeds a threshold (in general, see fig. 6 and its paragraphs 172-189, in particular, see at least para. 181, for example, but not limited to, “…At 610, base station 105-e may transmit coherence information. The coherence information may indicate which downlink signals across component carriers can be assumed to be phase coherent. In some examples, the coherence information may include control signaling indicating multiple component carriers on which the PRS is phase coherent based on the capability indicator received by base station 105-e at 605…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate HADASCHIK into the method of MANOLAKOS in view of Akkarakaran for allowing for a more precise direct position detection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner provides response in following sections.
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant argues that (applicant’s emphasis included, if any):
“For example, Manolakos does not disclose, teach, or suggest "receiving, from a network, an indication ... the indication comprising at least one condition that must be met before the two or more DL PRS resources can be jointly processed by the UE ... wherein the at least one condition requires the two or more DL PRS resources being jointly processed to be configured with a same value of a repetition factor," as recited in amended Claim 1. The Office Action cites paragraphs 157-158 and 129 of Manolakos as disclosing the recited features. (Office Action, pages 4-5). Applicant respectfully disagrees.
The cited portion of Manolakos merely discloses that the UE receives a number of PRS components, which may be transmitted by the TRP1 and are "configured with the same or similar (within a predetermined threshold) constraints, such as one or more of symbol indices..., slot indices ..., frames ...., subframes ..., a same periodicity, a same comb type, a same number of symbols, a same quasi-colocation (QCL) information, start physical resource block (PRB) ..., a same cyclic prefix (CP), muting configuration, and bandwidths hat are within a predefined threshold, or a combination thereof." (Manolakos, para. 157). Thus, paragraph 157 of Manolakos discloses that two or more DL PRS resources may be configured with the same constraints and it lists certain example restraints, though the common repetition factor is not one of them.
Paragraph 129 of Manolakos does not cure the deficiencies of paragraph 157 of Manolakos. Rather, the cited portion of Manolakos discloses:
...
(Manolakos, para. 129). Applicant notes that paragraph 129 is the only place RepetitionFactor is even mentioned in Manolakos. Additionally, Applicant submits that the above reproduced paragraph is not about aggregation or joint processing at all. Rather, it is a description for conventional DL PRS muting. Specifically, Manolakos discloses that a bitmap for DL PRS muting may be configured for a DL PRS Resource Set, with bitmap size values of 2, 4, 8, 16 or 32 bits. The cited portion of Manolakos also describes two options for the bitmap's applicability: in the first each bit corresponds to a configurable number of consecutive instances of a DL-PRS Resource Set, and in the second each bit corresponds to a single repetition index for each of the DL-PRS Resources within an instance of a DL-PRS Resource Set, "e.g., the length of the bitmap is equal to DL-PRS-ResourceRepetitionFactor." (Manolakos, para. 129). Thus, Manolakos discloses that there is an equality between a bitmap length and a repetition factor within a single resource set. There is no disclosure of a condition requiring two or more DL PRS resources being jointly processed to be configured with the same value of a repetition factor. Further, the bitmap disclosed in Manolakos is configured for one DL PRS Resource Set, and the second option applies to all instances of that set. There is no comparison of a repetition factor value between two resources, and no disclosure of performing any processing decision on such a comparison. Accordingly, for at least these reasons, there is no disclosure in Manolakos that either of the assistance data or the request for measurements includes at least one condition that must be met before the two or more DL PRS resources can be jointly processed and that such condition includes requires the two or more DL PRS resources being jointly processed to be configured with a same value of a repetition factor.
Returning to paragraph 157, Applicant notes that this is where Manolakos actually recites the conditions for joint processing, and a repetition factor is absent from the disclosure. The PRS components transmitted by TRP1 are said to be configured with the same, or similar (within a predetermined threshold) constraints, "such as one or more of' symbol indices that are not separated by more than a predefined number of symbols, slot indices, frames, subframes, a same periodicity, a same comb type, a same number of symbols, a same quasi- colocation (QCL) information, start PRB within a predefined threshold, a same subcarrier spacing, a same cyclic prefix (CP), muting configuration, and bandwidths within a predefined threshold, or a combination thereof. That same enumerated list is repeated verbatim throughout Manolakos in its summary and in its own claims, which recite nothing about a repetition
factor. The constraint list in the claims is the same periodicity/comb type/number of symbols/QCL/SCS/CP/muting-configuration list. Thus, when Manolakos wanted to specify which parameters must match before aggregated PRS components are jointly processed, it listed them with particularity and did not include a repetition factor. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Manolakos does not disclose, teach, or suggest "receiving, from a network, an indication ... the indication comprising at least one condition that must be met before the two or more DL PRS resources can be jointly processed by the UE ... wherein the at least one condition requires the two or more DL PRS resources being jointly processed to be configured with a same value of a repetition factor," as recited in amended Claim 1.” (Remarks, page, in part, 10-13)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. For one example (but not unlimited to only such example), Manolakos in para. 157 discloses the PRS components transmitted by TRP1 105a are configured with, amongst other things, muting configuration. Para. 129 of Manolakos discloses such muting configuration which uses bitmap and its length is equal to DL-PRS-ResourceRepetitionFactor. With that said, at least para. 131 and fig. 5A disclose how such bitmap is used. For example, a bit of a bitmap being “1” indicates at least TRP 1 sending two or more DL-PRS to a UE. Hence, Manolakos indeed teaches “...wherein the at least one condition requires the two or more DL PRS resources being jointly processed to be configured with a same value of a repetition factor.” Note that para. 157 discloses stage 5a where the PRS are transmitted. Para. 158 then discloses stage 5b where the UE 115 jointly processes the PRS components of the aggregated DL PRS received at stage 5a that are configured with the same constraints. Therefore, Manolakos indeed teaches or suggests the argued features of “receiving, from a network, an indication... the indication comprising at least one condition that must be met before the two or more DL PRS resources can be jointly processed by the UE ... wherein the at least one condition requires the two or more DL PRS resources being jointly processed to be configured with a same value of a
repetition factor," as recited in claim 1.
Regarding independent claims 27, 56, 63, and 67, while no arguments are presented, the traversal grounds would have been the same or similar as those presented in claim 1 above. Therefore, in view of the response above, examiner also respectfully disagrees and has maintained the rejection as presented.
Accordingly, all pending dependent claims of the independent claims 1, 27, 56, 63, and 67, in view of the response above, the examiner has maintained the rejection as presented and believes all rejections are proper and should be sustained.
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 YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights