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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/25/2025 has been entered. In the Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 11/25/2025, the applicant states that “Claims 34-37, 40, 41, 47, 57, 58, 60-64, and 66 have been amended. No new subject matter has been added.” However, the claims filed 11/25/2025 do not reflect an amendment made to claim 63. Claims 1-68 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Main Argument
Applicant argues “For example, Rao does not disclose or suggest at least the feature of ‘transmitting, while in the RRC inactive state, an acknowledgment to the network entity in response to reception of the positioning paging message,’ as recited in independent claim 1. As can be seen from the above, FIG. 2 and paragraph [0201] of Rao are unrelated to FIG. 11 and paragraphs [0498]-[0501] of Rao - the former refers to measuring downlink PRS for a downlink positioning method and the latter refers to transmitting uplink SRS for an uplink positioning method. As would be appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art, the disclosure that a WTRU transmits a RACH Preamble after measuring PRS for a downlink positioning method in no way discloses or suggests that a WTRU transmits a RACH Preamble after transmitting SRS for an uplink positioning method.
Further, contrary to the Examiner's allegations, there is no paging message disclosed in FIG. 2 or paragraph [0201] of Rao, nor is there any disclosure or suggestion that the RACH Preamble is an acknowledgement of a paging message (or anything else). Rather, as clearly shown in paragraph [0201] of Rao, the WTRU transmits the RACH Preamble after receiving ‘a PRS configuration 212 and Location Request 216’ and measuring (220) a PRS (218). There is simply no disclosure or suggestion in Rao that the RACH Preamble is an acknowledgement, much less of a paging message. That is, after reception of the ‘SRSp config update in a RAN paging message (1132),’ ‘the WTRU updates its RNA/SRSp accordingly (1134)’ and ‘transmits the SRSp (1136).’ There is no disclosure or suggestion in Rao that the WTRU transmits an acknowledgement of the ‘RAN paging message (1132).’ Nor is there any disclosure or suggestion in Rao that the SRSp is an acknowledgment of the ‘SRSp config update in a RAN paging message (1132).’ There is no disclosure or suggestion in Rao that a WTRU transmits an acknowledgement ‘in response to reception of the positioning paging message’ that updates an SRSp configuration.
Accordingly, Rao does not disclose or suggest the feature of ‘transmitting, while in the RRC inactive state, an acknowledgment to the network entity in response to reception of the positioning paging message,’ as recited in independent claim 1, much less ‘in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim.’”
Reply
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In FIG. 11 and paragraph [0504], Rao teaches the transmission of the SRSp 1128, which is triggered by the reception of the activate SRSp (positioning) indicator in a RAN paging message 1128. The transmission of the SRSp 1128 by the WTRU acts as the acknowledgement of reception of the activate SRSp indicator RAN paging message 1126, because the SRSp 1128 would not be transmitted if the WTRU did not receive the activate SRSp Ran paging message 1126.
Therefore, Rao teaches the claimed features of “transmitting, while in the RRC inactive state, an acknowledgment to the network entity in response to reception of the positioning paging message.”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: each limitation in claim 67.
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, 5, 11-22, 29, 32, 34, 35, 38, 44-55, 62, 65, and 67-68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rao et al. (US 20230379860 A1), hereinafter Rao.
For claim 1,
Rao teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising ([FIG. 1A], wireless communication and UEs):
monitoring one or more physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidates in a search space while in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state ([0324] and [0327], monitoring PDCCH n search space while in RRC inactive state);
receiving, while in the RRC inactive state, a positioning paging message from a network entity on at least one PDCCH candidate of the one or more PDCCH candidates ([0156-0157], received PRS/SRSp data in paging message while monitoring PDCCH),
the positioning paging message configured to trigger an update to one or more parameters associated with an ongoing positioning session involving the UE ([FIG. 11], [0162-0163], [0159], and [0498-0504], WTRU receives paging message containing a trigger to update the resources/SRSp configuration and may contain the new SRSp configuration data);
applying, while in the RRC inactive state, the update to the one or more parameters ([0165], applying received positioning related configuration after receiving trigger); and
transmitting, while in the RRC inactive state, an acknowledgment to the network entity in response to reception of the positioning paging message ([FIG. 11] and [0504], transmission of the SRSp 1128, which is triggered by reception of activate SRSp (positioning) indicator in a RAN paging message, acts as the acknowledgement of reception of the activate SRSp indicator RAN paging message 1126, because the SRSp 1128 would not be transmitted if the WTRU did not receive activate SRSp Ran paging message 1126.).
For claim 2, Rao teaches claim 1,
Rao further teaches the search space is a cell-specific search space, and the receiving comprises receiving the positioning paging message on the at least one PDCCH candidate in the cell-specific search space ([0489], group paging to a group of WRTUs using group identifier (positioning Group-RNTI) implies a cell-specific search space).
For claim 5, Rao teaches claim 2,
Rao further teaches wherein the UE is identified by a positioning paging radio network temporary identifier (pos-P-RNTI) in the at least one PDCCH candidate ([0489], WTRU assigned positioning P-RNTI).
For claim 11, Rao teaches claim 1,
Rao further teaches wherein the one or more parameters comprise: a configuration of a positioning reference signal ([FIG. 6] updating the PRS config, and [0498], receiving paging message to update the resource/SRSp configurations).
For claim 12, Rao teaches claim 11,
Rao further teaches wherein the configuration of the positioning reference signal comprises: a resource set identifier for the positioning reference signal ([0185], WTRU receives identifier of PRS).
For claim 13, Rao teaches claim 11,
Rao further teaches wherein the positioning reference signal comprises a downlink positioning reference signal (DL PRS) or a sounding reference signal (SRS) ([0165] and [0335], WTRU may apply PRS configurations for both PRS and SRSp for UL and DL-based positioning).
For claim 14, Rao teaches claim 11,
Rao further teaches wherein the applying comprises: updating a TA of the UE based on the TA parameter ([0173] and [0503], WTRU may determine to apply TA update after receiving paging message).
For claim 15, Rao teaches claim 1,
Rao further teaches wherein the receiving comprises receiving the positioning paging message on the at least one PDCCH candidate in downlink control information (DCI) ([0527], WTRU receives paging indication from PDCCH (e.g. DCI)).
For claim 16, Rao teaches claim 1,
Rao further teaches wherein the network entity is a potential serving base station ([0369], WTRU indicates information to the serving gNB to be sent).
For claim 17, Rao teaches claim 1,
Rao further teaches wherein the UE is identified by an inactive radio network temporary identifier (I-RNTI) or a serving temporary mobile subscriber identity (S-TMSI) in the at least one PDCCH candidate ([0465], WTRU ID may include S-TMSI or I-RNTI).
For claim 18, Rao teaches claim 17,
Rao further teaches wherein a plurality of UEs, including the UE, are addressed in the positioning paging message ([0489], group paging with a group of WTRUS using a positioning Group-RNTI implying that the plurality of UEs are addressed).
For claim 19, Rao teaches claim 18,
Rao further teaches wherein the positioning paging message is interpreted differently by each of the plurality of UEs based on a configuration of the positioning paging message ([0489], WTRUs can be addressed separately when receiving PRS during paging, implying that each WTRU can interpret the paging message differently).
For claim 20, Rao teaches claim 1,
Rao further teaches wherein the UE is identified in a UE-specific DCI within the at least one PDCCH candidate ([0171-0172], PDCCH (DCI included) includes scrambling ID for the WTRU, and the scrambling ID is specific to each WTRU so that only a WTRU with the correct scrambling ID can descramble the PRS).
For claim 21, Rao teaches claim 20,
Rao further teaches wherein the UE-specific DCI is scrambled by an identifier unique to the UE ([0171-0172] and [0324], PDCCH includes scrambling ID, which can be I-RNTI, for the WTRU. The scrambling ID is specific to each WTRU so that only a WTRU with the correct scrambling ID can descramble the PRS.).
For claim 22, Rao teaches claim 21,
Rao further teaches wherein the identifier unique to the UE is an I-RNTI associated with the UE ([0324] and [0464], WTRU ID can be I-RNTI).
For claim 29, Rao teaches claim 1,
Rao further teaches transmitting, while in the RRC inactive state, an indication that the UE has moved from a coverage area of a first cell to a coverage area of a second cell ([0484], WTRU sends an RNAU or tracking area update after measuring DL PRS to indicate that it has moved from the coverage of one cell to another); and
receiving one or more random access preambles for neighbor cells of the UE ([FIG. 6] and [0484], RNAU is sent after trigger positioning mobility event, and the RAN updates the WTRU RNA based on information received from surrounding cells, implying that information includes random access preambles because of initial access RNAU or TAU messages).
For claim 32, Rao teaches claim 29,
Rao further teaches wherein the one or more random access preambles are received in the positioning paging message ([0203], WTRU returns the RACH preamble).
For claim 34, is rejected on the same basis as claim 1 with the additional limitations of a memory, at least one transceiver, and at least one processor couple to the memory and the at least one transceiver ([FIG. 1B], memory, transceiver, processor).
For claim 68, is rejected on the same basis as claim 1 with the additional limitations a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions ([0559], computer-readable storage medium storing instructions).
For claims 35, 38, 44-55, 62, 65, and 67, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1-2, 5, 11-22, 29, and 32 above.
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) 6, 23, 39, and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao.
For claim 6, Rao teaches claim 1,
Rao does not explicitly teach wherein the positioning paging message configured to trigger the update to the one or more parameters associated with the ongoing positioning session comprises one or more additional bits in the positioning paging message compared to a non-positioning paging message.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that a positioning paging message would have one or more additional bits compared to a non-positioning paging message. Paging messages are intentionally kept as small as possible to reduce the resources used for their transmission. A positioning paging message carries more information (i.e. positioning information), than a non-positioning paging message which implies that the positioning paging message are larger (i.e. have one or more additional bits) than non-positioning paging messages.
For claim 23, Rao teaches claim 20,
Rao does not explicitly teach wherein a length of the UE-specific DCI is specific to the UE.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that a length of the UE-specific DCI is specific to the UE. DCIs can vary in length, and a UE-specific DCI would have parameters specific to a specific UE. Therefore, the length of a UE-specific DCI would be specific to the UE it is designated for.
For claims 39 and 56, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 6 and 23, respectively.
Claim(s) 3 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao, in view of Agiwal et al. (US 20200137666 A1), hereinafter Agiwal.
For claim 3, Rao teaches claim 2,
Rao does not explicitly teach receiving a configuration of the one or more PDCCH candidates in the cell- specific search space in a system information block (SIB).
However, Agiwal teaches receiving a configuration of the one or more PDCCH candidates in the cell- specific search space in a system information block (SIB) ([0010], configuration information needed by UE to perform SI request is received in SIB).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Rao for receiving information in a cell-specific search space with the method of Agiwal for receiving PDCCH configuration information in an SIB to ensure all relevant information related to SI is received by the UE.
For claim 36, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 10, 24-28, 30, 31, 33, 37, 40, 43, 57-61, 63-64, and 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao, in view of Kim et al. (US 20220232659 A1), hereinafter Kim.
For claim 4, Rao teaches claim 2,
Rao does not explicitly teach receiving a configuration of the one or more PDCCH candidates in the cell- specific search space in an RRC release message.
However, Kim teaches receiving a configuration of the one or more PDCCH candidates in the cell- specific search space in an RRC release message ([0560], suspend configuration parameters received in RRC_Releace include PDCCH configuration in RRC_Inactive state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Rao for receiving information in a cell-specific search space with the method of Kim for receiving PDCCH configuration information in an RRC_Release message to ensure all relevant information related to SI is received by the UE.
For claim 7, Rao teaches claim 1.
Rao does not explicitly teach wherein: the search space is a UE-specific search space, and the receiving comprises receiving the positioning paging message on the at least one PDCCH candidate in the UE-specific search space.
However, Kim teaches wherein: the search space is a UE-specific search space, and the receiving comprises receiving the positioning paging message on the at least one PDCCH candidate in the UE-specific search space ([0127] and [0111], the search space may be UE specific or a common search space, and the UE monitors the search space for paging messages).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Rao for receiving paging messages with the method of Kim for receiving paging messages in a UE-specific search space so the paging messages can be assigned specifically to individual UEs rather than the entire group to save power and resources.
For claim 10, Rao and Kim teach claim 7,
Rao does not explicitly teach wherein the UE-specific search space is a common search space for a group of UEs.
However, Kim further teaches wherein the UE-specific search space is a common search space for a group of Ues ([0127], the search space may be UE-Specific or common search space usable by a plurality of Ues).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Rao for receiving paging messages in a UE-specific search space with the method of Kim for the search space being a common search space for a group of Ues so the paging messages can be assigned to a group of Ues at once to save resources and power.
For claim 24, Rao teaches claim 1,
Rao does not explicitly teach receiving a configuration of physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resources on which to transmit the acknowledgment, wherein the transmitting comprises transmitting the acknowledgment to the network entity on the PUCCH resources.
However, Kim teaches receiving a configuration of physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resources on which to transmit the acknowledgment ([0210] and [0128], receiving configuration parameters for PUCCH resources, [0141], acknowledgments can be transmitted on PUCCH),
wherein the transmitting comprises transmitting the acknowledgment to the network entity on the PUCCH resources ([0208], UE may transmit acknowledgments via PUCCH).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Rao for wireless communication by a UE with the method of Kim for receiving a configuration of PUCCH resources and transmitting the acknowledgement to allow the UE to send acknowledgment to the network entity to confirm receipt of a transmission.
For claim 25, Rao and Kim teach claim 24,
Rao does not explicitly teach wherein: the UE receives resource selection information for the PUCCH resources in a DCI within the at least one PDCCH candidate, and
the UE receives configuration information for the PUCCH resources in remaining minimum system information (RMSI).
However, Kim further teaches wherein: the UE receives resource selection information for the PUCCH resources in a DCI within the at least one PDCCH candidate ([0211], UE determines PUCCH resources based on a PUCCH resource indicator in a DCI), and
the UE receives configuration information for the PUCCH resources in remaining minimum system information (RMSI) ([0151], RMSI includes an SIB1, and the SIB1 contains information (such as pucchconfigcommon) required by the UE to access the cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Rao for receiving configuration information for PUCCH and transmitting acknowledgments with the method of Kim for receiving recourse selection information for PUCCH in a DCI and receiving configuration information for the PUCCH in RMSI so the UE knows which resources to use for transmission of the acknowledgment.
For claim 26, Rao and Kim teach claim 25,
Rao does not explicitly teach wherein the PUCCH resources comprise one or more symbols, one or more slots, or one or more subframes after the DCI.
However, Kim further teaches wherein the PUCCH resources comprise one or more symbols, one or more slots, or one or more subframes after the DCI ([0209], multiple symbols used in differing PUCCH resource formats).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Rao for receiving recourse selection information for PUCCH in a DCI and receiving configuration information for the PUCCH in RMSI with the method of Kim for the resources comprising one or more symbols after the DCI so the UE has time to process the DCI and determine the PUCCH resources.
For claim 27, Rao teaches claim 1,
Rao does not teach receiving an assignment of a dedicated random-access preamble for the network entity,
wherein the transmitting comprises transmitting the dedicated random-access preamble as the acknowledgment.
However, Kim teaches receiving an assignment of a dedicated random-access preamble for the network entity ([FIGs. 13A-13C] and [0191], preamble to be used for Msg1 is assigned to the UE),
wherein the transmitting comprises transmitting the dedicated random-access preamble as the acknowledgment ([0231], random access preamble is sent to serving cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Rao for wireless communication by a UE with the method of Kim for assigning and sending a random-access preamble so the UE know which preamble to use for communication and to avoid interference with other UEs or cells.
For claim 28, Rao and Kim teach claim 27,
Rao does not explicitly teach wherein the receiving the assignment comprises receiving the assignment of the dedicated random-access preamble in a DCI within the at least one PDCCH candidate.
However, Rao further teaches wherein the receiving the assignment comprises receiving the assignment of the dedicated random-access preamble in a DCI within the at least one PDCCH candidate ([FIG. 13B] and [0191], indication of the preamble is received via PDCCH which implies that a DCI was used).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Rao for receiving an assignment of a random-access preamble with the method of Kim for receiving the assignment in a DCI so the assignment can be transported over PDCCH to facilitate DRX for power saving.
For claim 30, Rao teaches claim 29,
Rao does not explicitly teach wherein the indication comprises a dedicated random-access preamble transmitted on one or more preconfigured time and frequency resources.
However, Kim teaches wherein the indication comprises a dedicated random-access preamble transmitted on one or more preconfigured time and frequency resources ([0180], a time frequency resource for transmission of the Msg 1 (preamble)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Rao for transmitting an indication that UE has moved from one coverage area to another with the method of Kim for transmitting a random-access preamble on a time and frequency resource to avoid collisions and interference with other transmissions, UEs, and cells.
For claim 31, Rao teaches claim 29,
Rao does not explicitly teach wherein the transmitting the indication comprises transmitting the indication periodically or in response to an event.
However, Kim teaches wherein the transmitting the indication comprises transmitting the indication periodically or in response to an event ([0115], RAN notification area update is triggered in response to the UE moving from one cell to another cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Rao for transmitting an indication that UE has moved from one coverage area to another with the method of Kim for transmitting the indication based on an event in order to save power and resources.
For claim 33, Rao teaches claim 29,
Rao does not teach wherein the transmitting the indication comprises transmitting the indication to the network entity.
However, Kim teaches wherein the transmitting the indication comprises transmitting the indication to the network entity ([0115], the notification area update is done with the RAN so the network entity knows where the UE is located).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Rao for transmitting an indication that UE has moved from one coverage area to another with the method of Kim for the indication being transmitted to the network entity so the entity knows that the transfer has taken place and where the UE is now located.
For claims 37, 40, 43, 57-61, 63-64, and 66, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 4, 7, 10, 24-28, 30, 31, and 33, respectively.
Claim(s) 8-9, and 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao, in view of Kim, and further in view of Murray et al. (US 20200404617 A1), hereinafter Murray.
For claim 8, Rao and Kim teach claim 7,
Rao and Kim do not explicitly teach transmitting an indication of a number of receive beams used by the UE to receive positioning paging messages.
However, Murray teaches transmitting an indication of a number of receive beams used by the UE to receive positioning paging messages ([0221] and [0390], the number of transmitting beams is indicated, and the transmitted beams are paired with receiving beams).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Rao and Kim for receiving paging messages with the method of Murray for indicating the number of receive beams the UE would use for receiving the paging messages so the BS knows how many paging messages to send and how many responses to expect.
For claim 9, Rao and Kim and Murray teach claim 8,
Rao and Kim do not explicitly teach wherein the positioning paging message is transmitted by the network entity at least once for each of the number of receive beams.
However, Murray further teaches wherein the positioning paging message is transmitted by the network entity at least once for each of the number of receive beams ([0221] and [0390], beam sweeping is used to transmit the paging message to each receive beam at least once).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Rao and Kim for indicating the number of receive beams the UE would use for receiving the paging messages with the method of Murray for using beam sweeping to transmit the paging message to each receive beam at least once so the signal with the strongest power can be used.
For claim 41-42, are rejected on the same basis as claims 8 and 9, respectively.
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 Benjamin T. Ranew whose telephone number is (571)272-2746. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (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.
/BENJAMIN T. RANEW/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights