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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/18/26 have been fully considered.
Examiner thanks applicant for noting the omission of King from the PTO-892 form. This omission has been corrected.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 10, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection to claim 4 have been fully considered and in light of amendment are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection to claim 4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, starting on page 10, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claims 1,4-8,14-15 and 18 filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15 applicant argues that Cha in view of Ren do not disclose the features of the instant claim because Cha is directed towards only unidirectional Rx delay and thus does not teach the bidirectional RX-TX time difference as in the instant claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 465 of Cha is directed towards only Rx, however also cited paragraph 489 is directed towards Rx/Tx, and thus it is clear in context that both Rx and Tx compensation is occurring. Tx compensation is also explicitly described in paragraph 464. Thus, Cha does disclose the instant feature.
Also regarding claims 1, 8, and 15 applicant argues that Cha in view of Ren do not disclose the features of the instant claim because Ren does not disclose (1) an indication that reference points are antennas and (2) an indication of a specific TX chain or its timing delay error level. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on applicant’s arguments, applicant seems to be interpreting “an indication that reference points are at antennas and an indication of a transmission (TX) chain, or a timing delay error level of the TX chain” as “an indication that reference points are at antennas” AND (“an indication of a transmission (TX) chain” OR “a timing delay error level of the TX chain”). However, examiner does not believe that this is the only interpretation. Rather, examiner believes that the language would generally be interpreted as (“an indication that reference points are at antennas” AND “an indication of a transmission (TX) chain”) OR “a timing delay error level of the TX chain,” and thus teaching only “a timing delay error level of the TX chain” suffices for teaching this feature of the instant claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a specific hardware transmission (TX) chain”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Ren in paragraph 245 discloses transmitting sending timing error information to the LMF. This sending timing error would necessarily be for some sort of Tx chain. Thus, Ren does disclose this feature of the claims, and thus Cha in view of Ren do disclose all the features of the instant claim.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the remaining claims are based on their dependence to claims 1, 8, and 15 and are respectfully disagreed with for similar reasons.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (US 20230142084 A1) in view of Ren (US 20240057007 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cha discloses:
“A method of wireless communication of a user equipment (UE), comprising: measuring, at a baseband of the UE, a UE RX−TX time difference at-baseband;” ([para 0489]: “For example, the UE Rx-Tx time difference (measured) may be obtained as a time difference between the time when the first signal is processed by the UE in the baseband and the time when the second signal is generated by the UE in the baseband.”)
“compensating the UE RX−TX time difference at-baseband to estimate a UE RX−TX time difference at-antenna; and” ([para 0465]: “For example, in terms of signal reception, a time delay may be present in between the time when an RF signal arrives at the Rx antenna and the time when the signal is digitized and time-stamped in the baseband. For example, to support positioning, the UE/TRP may implement/perform internal calibration/compensation of the Rx time delay before reporting measurements acquired from the DL PRS/UL SRS, which may include calibration/compensation of a relative time delay between different RF chains of the same UE/TRP.” Also see similar paragraph 464 for Tx.)
“sending, to a network, the UE RX−TX time difference at-antenna” ([para 0347]: “For example, the UE may report the UE Rx-Tx time difference measurement to the gNB/location server/LMF, and the gNB may report the gNB/TRP Rx-Tx time difference measurement to the location server/LMF.”)
Cha does not explicitly disclose “with an indication that reference points are at antennas and an indication of a transmission (TX) chain, or a timing delay error level of the TX chain, intended to be used by the UE during the measuring or the compensating.”
However, Ren discloses the missing feature “with an indication that reference points are at antennas and an indication of a transmission (TX) chain, or a timing delay error level of the TX chain, intended to be used by the UE during the measuring or the compensating.” ([para 0245]: “The indication method of the sending and receiving timing error information of the UE or gNB proposed in this solution can indicate information, parameters or measurement value related to the sending and receiving timing error of the UE or gNB, to assist the LMF or UE to determine whether there is a time measurement error in the time-based positioning measurement and the specific value of the error…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Cha and Ren, to modify the timing errors as disclosed by Cha, to be transmitted to the LMF as disclosed by Ren. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved positioning accuracy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Cha with Ren to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Cha in view of Ren discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Cha further discloses “sending, to the network, a timing advance (TA) adjustment associated with a TA used by the UE for transmitting a second uplink slot containing SRSs.” ([para 0297]: “As an example for introduction of the average TA according to various embodiments, use of a specific periodic DL RS resource and periodic UL RS resource may be considered. For example, the UE may receive a configuration/indication of a pair of a specific DL RS resource (e.g., CSI-RS resource, SS/PBCH block, PRS resource, etc.) periodically transmitted from the gNB/location server/LMF and a specific UL RS resource (e.g., SRS resource, etc.) periodically transmitted by the UE, and/or may be configured/instructed to report the average of UE Rx-Tx time difference measurements based on measurement performed several times.”)
Regarding claim 7, Cha in view of Ren discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Cha further discloses “sending, to the network, an indication of a TX chain, or a timing delay error level of the TX chain, used by the UE to transmit a second uplink slot containing SRSs.” ([para 0328]: “Additionally/alternatively, according to various embodiments, the UE may be configured/instructed to report error information such as an average error in consideration of the fluctuation/variation of the UL transmission timing of the SRS resource.”)
Regarding claim 8, Cha discloses:
“A method of wireless communication of a base station comprising: measuring, at a baseband of the base station, a base-station RX−TX time difference at-baseband;” ([para 0490]: “For example, the gNB Rx-Tx time difference (measured) may be obtained as a time difference between the time when the second signal is processed by the TRP in the baseband and the time when the first signal is generated by the TRP in the baseband.”)
“compensating the base-station RX−TX time difference at-baseband to estimate a base-station RX−TX time difference at-antenna of a transmission and reception point (TRP) of the base station;” ([para 0465]: “For example, in terms of signal reception, a time delay may be present in between the time when an RF signal arrives at the Rx antenna and the time when the signal is digitized and time-stamped in the baseband. For example, to support positioning, the UE/TRP may implement/perform internal calibration/compensation of the Rx time delay before reporting measurements acquired from the DL PRS/UL SRS, which may include calibration/compensation of a relative time delay between different RF chains of the same UE/TRP.” Also see similar paragraph 464 for Tx.)
“sending, to a location management function, the base-station RX−TX time difference at-antenna” ([para 0347]: “For example, the UE may report the UE Rx-Tx time difference measurement to the gNB/location server/LMF, and the gNB may report the gNB/TRP Rx-Tx time difference measurement to the location server/LMF.”)
Cha does not explicitly disclose “with an indication that reference points are at antennas and an indication of a transmission (TX) chain, or a timing delay error level of the TX chain, intended to be used by the UE during the measuring or the compensating.”
However, Ren discloses the missing feature “with an indication that reference points are at antennas and an indication of a transmission (TX) chain, or a timing delay error level of the TX chain, intended to be used by the UE during the measuring or the compensating.” ([para 0245]: “The indication method of the sending and receiving timing error information of the UE or gNB proposed in this solution can indicate information, parameters or measurement value related to the sending and receiving timing error of the UE or gNB, to assist the LMF or UE to determine whether there is a time measurement error in the time-based positioning measurement and the specific value of the error…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Cha and Ren, to modify the timing errors as disclosed by Cha, to be transmitted to the LMF as disclosed by Ren. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved positioning accuracy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Cha with Ren to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (US 20230142084 A1) in view of Ren (US 20240057007 A1) and further in view of King (US 20220053435 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Cha in view of Ren discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Cha in view of Ren does not explicitly disclose “measuring a delay sum of a TX group delay and a RX group delay for each pair of TX and RX chains of the UE.”
However, King discloses the missing feature “measuring a delay sum of a TX group delay and a RX group delay for each pair of TX and RX chains of the UE.” ([para 0004]: “The closed loop may be a near field radiated closed loop between one or more pairs of antennas in an antenna array of the mobile device. The delay based on the time of transmission of a signal and the time of reception of the signal may be measured for a plurality of pairs, from which the transmit and receive group delay within a single path may be determined. “)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Cha, Ren, and King to modify the technique as disclosed by Cha, to measure delay sums of chain pairs as disclosed by King. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved compensation, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Cha with Ren and King to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, Cha in view of Ren discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Cha in view of Ren does not explicitly disclose “measuring a delay sum of a TX group delay and a RX group delay for each pair of TX and RX chains of the TRP.”
However, King discloses the missing feature “measuring a delay sum of a TX group delay and a RX group delay for each pair of TX and RX chains of the TRP.” ([para 0004]: “The closed loop may be a near field radiated closed loop between one or more pairs of antennas in an antenna array of the mobile device. The delay based on the time of transmission of a signal and the time of reception of the signal may be measured for a plurality of pairs, from which the transmit and receive group delay within a single path may be determined. “)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Cha, Ren, and King to modify the technique as disclosed by Cha, to measure delay sums of chain pairs as disclosed by King. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved compensation, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Cha with Ren and King to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (US 20230142084 A1) in view of Ren (US 20240057007 A1) and further in view of Akkarakaran (US 20200205104 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Cha discloses:
“A method of operating a location management function, comprising: receiving, from a base station of a UE, a UE RX−TX time difference at-antenna with an indication that reference points associated with the UE RX−TX time difference at-antenna are at antennas of the UE;” ([para 0489]: “For example, the UE Rx-Tx time difference (measured) may be obtained as a time difference between the time when the first signal is processed by the UE in the baseband and the time when the second signal is generated by the UE in the baseband.”)
“receiving, from the base station, a base-station RX−TX time difference at-antenna with an indication that reference points associated with the base-station RX−TX time difference at-antenna are at antennas of a transmission and reception point (TRP) of the base station…” ([para 0490]: “For example, the gNB Rx-Tx time difference (measured) may be obtained as a time difference between the time when the second signal is processed by the TRP in the baseband and the time when the first signal is generated by the TRP in the baseband.”)
Cha does not explicitly disclose “receiving a first association indication that the base-station RX−TX time difference at-antenna is associated with a TX chain or a timing delay error level of that TX chain; receiving a second association indication that the UE RX−TX time difference at-antenna is associated with a TX chain or a timing delay error level of that TX chain;”
However, Ren discloses the missing feature “receiving a first association indication that the base-station RX−TX time difference at-antenna is associated with a TX chain or a timing delay error level of that TX chain; receiving a second association indication that the UE RX−TX time difference at-antenna is associated with a TX chain or a timing delay error level of that TX chain” ([para 0245]: “The indication method of the sending and receiving timing error information of the UE or gNB proposed in this solution can indicate information, parameters or measurement value related to the sending and receiving timing error of the UE or gNB, to assist the LMF or UE to determine whether there is a time measurement error in the time-based positioning measurement and the specific value of the error…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Cha and Ren, to modify the timing errors as disclosed by Cha, to be transmitted to the LMF as disclosed by Ren. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved positioning accuracy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Cha with Ren to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Ren also does not disclose “determining a time of flight of a signal transmitted between the TRP and the UE based on the UE RX−TX time difference at-antenna and the base-station RX−TX time difference at-antenna.”
However, Akkarakaran discloses the missing feature “determining a time of flight of a signal transmitted between the TRP and the UE based on the UE RX−TX time difference at-antenna and the base-station RX−TX time difference at-antenna.” ([para 0008]: “Round trip time (RTT) is another technique for determining a position of a mobile device. RTT is a two-way messaging technique (network node to mobile device and mobile device to network node), with both the mobile device and the network node reporting their receive-to-transmit (Rx-Tx) time differences to a positioning entity, such as a location server or location management function (LMF), that computes the mobile device's position. This allows for computing the back-and-forth flight time between the mobile device and the network node.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Cha and Ren, to modify the technique as disclosed by Cha, to be used to determine ToF as disclosed by Akkarakaran. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved positioning accuracy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Cha with Ren and Akkarakaran to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, Cha in view of Ren and Akkarakaran discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Chen does not disclose “selecting the UE RX−TX time difference at-antenna and the base-station RX−TX time difference at-antenna based on (a) associations with the TX chain of the TRP and the TX chain of the UE or (b) associations with timing delay error level s of the TX chain of the TRP and the TX chain of the UE; and performing a calculation of combining the UE RX−TX time difference at-antenna and the base-station RX−TX time difference at-antenna to determine the time of flight between the TRP and the UE.”
However, Akkarakaran discloses the missing feature “selecting the UE RX−TX time difference at-antenna and the base-station RX−TX time difference at-antenna based on (a) associations with the TX chain of the TRP and the TX chain of the UE or (b) associations with timing delay error level s of the TX chain of the TRP and the TX chain of the UE; and performing a calculation of combining the UE RX−TX time difference at-antenna and the base-station RX−TX time difference at-antenna to determine the time of flight between the TRP and the UE.” ([para 0008]: “Round trip time (RTT) is another technique for determining a position of a mobile device. RTT is a two-way messaging technique (network node to mobile device and mobile device to network node), with both the mobile device and the network node reporting their receive-to-transmit (Rx-Tx) time differences to a positioning entity, such as a location server or location management function (LMF), that computes the mobile device's position. This allows for computing the back-and-forth flight time between the mobile device and the network node.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Cha and Ren, to modify the technique as disclosed by Cha, to be used to determine ToF as disclosed by Akkarakaran. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved positioning accuracy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Cha with Ren and Akkarakaran to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 9-13, and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, of the closest prior arts Cha (US 20230142084 A1) in view of Ren (US 20240057007 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim as discussed previously in this action. However, Cha in view of Ren does not disclose the additional features of dependent claim 2. The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 2 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claims 3-4 depend on claim 2 and contain allowable subject matter based on their dependence.
Regarding claim 9, of the closest prior arts Cha (US 20230142084 A1) in view of Ren (US 20240057007 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim as discussed previously in this action. However, Cha in view of Ren does not disclose the additional features of dependent claim 9. The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 9 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claims 10-13 depend on claim 9 and contain allowable subject matter based on their dependence.
Regarding claim 16, of the closest prior arts Cha (US 20230142084 A1) in view of Ren (US 20240057007 A1) and further in view of Akkarakaran (US 20200205104 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim as discussed previously in this action. However, Cha in view of Ren and Akkarakaran does not disclose the additional features of dependent claim 16. The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 16 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claim 17 depends on claim 16 and contains allowable subject matter based on its dependence.
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 SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412