DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the amendments to claims 25 and 28 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections (response page 10, first two paragraphs), Examiner agrees, and the rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Priyanto fails to disclose or suggest at least “wherein the expected angle of arrival is an angle determined based on a combination of the range of angles and a range of distance values between the user device and a serving network apparatus” as recited in amended claims 25-27 (response pages 12-13), Examiner agrees, and the prior art rejection of claims 25-27 in view of Priyanto is withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Priyanto and Silverman fail to disclose or suggest at least “wherein the measurement report comprises a measured angle of arrival indicating an angle, or range of angles, corresponding to a direction to which the user device is located relative to the serving network apparatus” as recited in amended claims 21 and 28, but that Priyanto page 16 lines 20-29 disclose that the measurement report includes beam information, and that the beam information may include a beam index which corresponds to a predetermined beam configuration, but does not include a measured angle of arrival indicating an angle, or range of angles corresponding toa direction to which the UE 100 is located relative to the RAN nodes 110 (response pages 16-17, esp. page 17 lines 5-15), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Priyanto page 16 lines 20-29 disclose “RAN nodes 110 may include beam information in the measurement report... beam information may include a beam index that corresponds to... observed or estimated beam parameters (e.g....AoA...)”. The beam information therefore comprises a measured angle of arrival as claimed.
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.
Claims 21, 22, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priyanto (WO 2020167890 A1, cited on IDS) in view of Silverman (US 20200326405 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Priyanto (WO 2020167890 A1, cited on IDS) teaches [NOTE: limitations added by amendment are underlined; limitations not taught by Priyanto are lined through] a method for a location management apparatus (positioning computation node 105, Fig. 1 or 130, Fig. 7 in view of page 20 lines 21-22 “positioning computation node 130, which may be similar to positioning computation node 105”; page 1 lines 7-9 “uplink-based positioning”) in a wireless communication system, (page 1 lines 7-9 “wireless communications network”), comprising:
obtaining, at the location management apparatus (positioning computation node 105, Fig. 1 or 130, Fig. 7), information indicating an approximate location of a user device (Measurement reports 170 received at 130, Fig. 7 are used to determine positioning estimate 172, Fig. 7 and therefore indicate an approximate location);
generating a network assistance signaling (abstract “A positioning computation node (105) sends configuration information to … the one or more receivers (110)”, where the configuration information that is sent meets the claimed “network assistance signaling” and is inherently “generated”)
sending the network assistance signaling to a first network apparatus in the wireless communications system (abstract “A positioning computation node (105) sends configuration information to … the one or more receivers (110)”, where the configuration information meets the claimed “network assistance signaling” and one of the receivers 110 meets the claimed “first network apparatus”),
wherein the generating of the network assistance signaling comprises determining at least an expected angle of arrival for the first network apparatus and including the expected angle of arrival in the network assistance signaling (page 4 lines 11-12 “the configuration information indicates at least beam information for receiving the uplink reference signal”; page 16 line 26-28 “beam information may include a beam index that corresponds to… AoA”), and,
wherein the expected angle of arrival being an angle, or a range of angles, corresponding to a direction to which the user device (100, Fig. 1, 5; 136, Fig. 7) is located relative to the first network apparatus (page 16 line 26-28 “beam information may include a beam index that corresponds to… AoA”, where in the case of beam information for receiving an uplink reference signals as taught at page 4 lines 11-12 “the configuration information indicates at least beam information for receiving the uplink reference signal”, the AoA corresponds to such direction; Examiner notes that an uplink signal is transmitted by the user device and received at 110 – see abstract “For uplink-based positioning, a transmission of an uplink reference signal via a transmit beam at a user equipment (UE) (100) is coordinated with a respective receive beams at one or more receivers (110)”),
wherein the obtaining information indicating an approximate location of a user device comprises receiving a measurement report (170, Fig. 7) from a serving network apparatus serving the user device (Serving gNB/LMU 132, Fig. 7 in view of page 20 lines 24-25 “The serving and neighbor base stations may be similar to RAN nodes 110 described above”), and
wherein the measurement report comprises a measured angle of arrival indicating an angle, or range of angles, corresponding to a direction to which the user device is located relative to the serving network apparatus (page 16 lines 20-29 “RAN nodes 110 may include beam information in the measurement report… beam information may include a beam index that corresponds to… observed or estimated beam parameters (e.g…. AoA” in view of page 20 lines 24-25 “The serving and neighbor base stations may be similar to RAN nodes 110 described above”).
As indicated by the lined through language above, Priyanto does not teach generating the network assistance signaling in response to the obtained information of the approximate location of the user device. Instead, Priyanto generates the network assistance signaling arrival based on channel quality measurements (page 5 lines 4-5 “determining a configuration for uplink-based positioning, based on the channel quality measurement report” in view of page 4 lines 11-12 “the configuration information indicates at least beam information for receiving the uplink reference signal” and page 16 line 26-28 “beam information may include a beam index that corresponds to… AoA”; 150 and 152, Fig. 7).
Silverman, in analogous art (abstract), teaches generating network assistance signaling comprising an expected angle of arrival in response to obtained information of an approximate location of a user device by determining the expected angle of arrival based at least on an approximate location of the user device and a location of a first network apparatus (para. [0031] “To reduce the 3D AoA search complexity …at the AP, the cloud can use previous client locations to predict an AoA search area for each AP, and send the restricted search area definition back to each AP”, where “previous client locations” meet the claimed approximate location of the user device, the “AP” meets the claimed “first network apparatus”, and use of the AP locations is considered inherent, as the AoA search area for an AP must be determined with respect to the AP location).
It would have been obvious to modify Priyanto according to Silverman because it is a simple substitution of one known method of determining expected angle of arrival for another to obtain predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. The predictable result is determining expected AoA based on locations of the user device and first network apparatus, which may improve efficiency compared to channel quality measurements.
Alternatively, Silverman’s method could be used in addition to Priyanto’s method in order to provide an additional determination of expected angle of arrival. This would be a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., where the predictable result is increasing the confidence in the determined angle of arrival.
Regarding claim 22, Priyanto teaches determining the approximate location of the user device at least based on the measurement report and a location of the serving network apparatus (positioning estimate 172, Fig. 7, computed at positioning computation node 130; page 20 lines 21-22 “positioning computation node 130, which may be similar to positioning computation node 105”). The receiving is performed at positioning computation node 130, which corresponds to positioning computation node 105, identified as the claimed “location management apparatus” in claim 21 above.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, in addition to what has already been discussed with respect to claims 21-22, Priyanto teaches the location management apparatus (positioning computation node 105, Figs. 1, 4) comprising at least one memory and at least one processor (Fig. 4 processor 124, memory 126).
Claims 23, 24, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priyanto (WO 2020167890 A1, cited on IDS) in view of Silverman (US 20200326405 A1) as applied to claims 22 and 29 above, and further in view of Hanzo (“Handbook of Position Location” pages 175-176 and 361).
Regarding claim 23 and 30, Priyanto does not teach wherein the measurement report comprises at least one of the following: an estimated distance or a range of estimated distances from the user device to the serving network apparatus, an approximate location of the user device calculated by the serving network apparatus, or a cell coverage of the serving network apparatus.
However, Priyanto teaches wherein the measurement report comprises, in addition to beam information, a timing measurement and/or a power measurement (page 4 lines 13-15 “the positioning measurement report includes a timing measurement, a power measurement, and/or beam information for the uplink reference signal received”), and it is well-known to derive, from a timing measurement or a power measurement, an estimated distance or range for the purpose of determining location. For example, for a timing measurement see Hanzo pages 175-176 “TOA measurements can be used to determine the position of the mobile based on the fact that the time a signal takes to travel from point A to point B (often termed the time of flight) is directly related to the distance between the two points, d = c τ , where c is the speed of light 2.98 × 10 8 m/s and τ is the time of flight”, and for a power measurement see Hanzo page 361 “consider a typical source localization problem as follows... RSS measurements are translated into the distance... to the signal source using a radio propagation model”.
It would have been obvious to further modify Priyanto in view of Hanzo in order to provide additional measurements for the determination of approximate location, thereby improving the quality of the determined location. This is a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., where the predictable result is increasing the confidence in the determined angle of arrival.
Regarding claims 24 and 31, as discussed above with respect to claims 21 and 28, Priyanto teaches determining the expected angle of arrival based on channel quality measurements (page 5 lines 4-5 “determining a configuration for uplink-based positioning, based on the channel quality measurement report” in view of page 4 lines 11-12 “the configuration information indicates at least beam information for receiving the uplink reference signal” and page 16 line 26-28 “beam information may include a beam index that corresponds to… AoA”). Priyanto does not teach determining the expected angle of arrival based at least on the approximate location of the user device and the location of the first network apparatus.
Silverman, in analogous art (abstract), teaches determining an expected angle of arrival based at least on an approximate location of a user device and a location of a first network apparatus (para. [0031] “To reduce the 3D AoA search complexity …at the AP, the cloud can use previous client locations to predict an AoA search area for each AP, and send the restricted search area definition back to each AP”, where “previous client locations” meet the claimed “approximate location”, the “AP” meets the claimed “first network apparatus”, and use of the AP locations is considered inherent, as the AoA search area for an AP must be determined with respect to the AP location). Examiner notes that Priyanto provides what will become a “previous client location” with the passage of time at 172, Fig. 7.
As above, it would have been obvious to modify Priyanto according to Silverman because it is a simple substitution of one known method of determining expected angle of arrival for another to obtain predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. The predictable result is determining expected AoA based on locations of the user device and first network apparatus, which may improve efficiency compared to channel quality measurements. Also as above, Silverman’s method could alternatively be used in addition to Priyanto’s method in order to provide an additional determination of expected angle of arrival. This is a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., where the predictable result is increasing the confidence in the determined angle of arrival.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-27 are allowed because the claim amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections in the 1/15/2026 final rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 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, WILLIAM KELLEHER can be reached at (571)272-7753. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648