DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 07/27/2023 and 11/07/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GR 20210100171, filed on 03/18/2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 9-18 and 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "receiving at least one positioning reference
signal measurement value" in line 9. However, in line 2, claim 9 recites “receiving one or more positioning reference signal measurement values”. It is unclear in the claim whether the claimed receiving “at least one positioning reference signal measurement value” in line 9 is the same as in line 2 or is it different? Thus, the examiner is requesting clarifying the claimed limitations in the claim clearly. However, for the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets that "receiving at least one positioning reference signal measurement value" in line 9 to be "receiving at least one positioning reference signal measurement value of the one or more positioning reference signal measurement values”.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "receiving at least one positioning reference
signal measurement value" in line 15. However, in line 6, claim 24 recites “receiving one or more positioning reference signal measurement values”. It is unclear in the claim whether the claimed receiving “at least one positioning reference signal measurement value” in line 15 is the same as in line 6 or is it different? Thus, the examiner is requesting clarifying the claimed limitations in the claim clearly. However, for the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets that "receiving at least one positioning reference signal measurement value" in line 15 to be "receiving at least one positioning reference signal measurement value of the one or more positioning reference signal measurement values”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
7. Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1, Claim 1 recites series of acts for receiving, determining and sending. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claimed limitation “determining one or more on-demand positioning reference signals to be measured based at least in part on signal identification information associated with each of the plurality of positioning reference signal measurement values” Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, “receiving a plurality of positioning reference signal measurement values from a target user equipment and at least one reference node” are merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)). Also, the additional elements, “sending an indication of the one or more on-demand positioning reference signals to be measured to either of the target user equipment, the at least one reference node, or both” are merely outputting data and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)). Furthermore, the additional elements, “positioning reference signal” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (positioning) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. Under Step 2B, additional element(s)/limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, Prong 2, should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine whether the additional element(s)/limitation(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Specifically, the limitations, “receiving a plurality of positioning reference signal measurement values from at a target user equipment and at least one reference node … sending an indication of the one or more on-demand positioning reference signals to be measured to either of the target user equipment, the at least one reference node, or both” are just receiving/transmitting data over a network, which are mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered as a whole, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 as a whole, is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-8:
Claims 2-8, respectively, depend on claim 1 and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 1. Thus, claims 2-8 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9:
Step 1: Claim 9 recites series of acts for receiving, selecting, determining, and transmitting. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claimed limitation “selecting a reference node based at least in part on signal identification information associated with each of the one or more positioning reference signal measurement values; determining one or more overlapping positioning reference signals to be measured” Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, “receiving one or more positioning reference signal measurement values from a target user equipment; and receiving at least one positioning reference signal measurement value based on the one or more overlapping positioning reference signals to be measured from the target user equipment and the reference node” are merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)). Also, the additional elements, “transmitting an indication of the one or more overlapping positioning reference signals to be measured to either the target user equipment, the reference node, or both” are merely outputting data and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)). Furthermore, the additional elements, “positioning reference signal,” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (positioning) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. Under Step 2B, additional element(s)/limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, Prong 2, should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine whether the additional element(s)/limitation(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Specifically, the limitations, “receiving one or more positioning reference signal measurement values from a target user equipment; and receiving at least one positioning reference signal measurement value based on the one or more overlapping positioning reference signals to be measured from the target user equipment and the reference node.… transmitting an indication of the one or more overlapping positioning reference signals to be measured to either the target user equipment, the reference node, or both” are just receiving/transmitting data over a network, which are mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered as a whole, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 9 as a whole, is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Regarding claims 10-18:
Claims 10-18, respectively, depend on claim 9 and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 9. Thus, claims 10-18 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 9.
Regarding claim 19:
Step 1: Claim 19 recites an apparatus. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1, the limitations, “determine one or more on-demand positioning reference signals to be measured based at least in part on signal identification information associated with each of the plurality of positioning reference signal measurement value,” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, “An apparatus, comprising: a memory; at least one transceiver; at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the least one transceiver” are implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. It invokes a generic computer merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity. (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, “receive a plurality of positioning reference signal measurement values from at a target user equipment and at least one reference node” are merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)). The additional elements, “send an indication of the one or more on-demand positioning reference signals to be measured to either of the target user equipment, the at least one reference node, or both,” are merely outputting data and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)). The additional elements, “positioning reference signal,” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (positioning) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to determine positioning reference signals to be measured using a generic computer as a tool.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. Under Step 2B, additional element(s)/limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, Prong 2, should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine whether the additional element(s)/limitation(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Specifically, the limitations, “receive a plurality of positioning reference signal measurement values from at a target user equipment and at least one reference node … send an indication of the one or more on-demand positioning reference signals to be measured to either of the target user equipment, the at least one reference node, or both” are just receiving/transmitting data over a network and storing, which are mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered as a whole, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 19 as a whole, is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Regarding claims 20-23:
Claims 20-23, respectively, depend on claim 19 and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 19. Thus, claims 20-23 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 19.
Regarding claim 24:
Step 1: Claim 24 recites an apparatus. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1, the limitations, “select a reference node based at least in part on signal identification information associated with each of the one or more positioning reference signal measurement values; determine one or more overlapping positioning reference signals to be measured based at least in part on a coarse location of the target user equipment and a location of the reference node” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, “An apparatus, comprising: a memory; at least one transceiver; at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the least one transceiver,” are implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. It invokes a generic computer merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity. (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, “receive one or more positioning reference signal measurement values from a target user equipment and receive at least one positioning reference signal measurement value based on the one or more overlapping positioning reference signals to be measured from the target user equipment and the reference node” are merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)). The additional elements, “transmit an indication of the one or more overlapping positioning reference signals to be measured to either the target user equipment, the reference node, or both” are merely outputting data and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)). The additional elements, “positioning reference signal,” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (positioning) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to determine positioning reference signals to be measured using a generic computer as a tool.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. Under Step 2B, additional element(s)/limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, Prong 2, should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine whether the additional element(s)/limitation(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Specifically, the limitations, “receive one or more positioning reference signal measurement values from a target user equipment; transmit an indication of the one or more overlapping positioning reference signals to be measured to either the target user equipment, the reference node, or both; and receive at least one positioning reference signal measurement value based on the one or more overlapping positioning reference signals to be measured from the target user equipment and the reference node” are just receiving/transmitting data over a network and storing, which are mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered as a whole, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 24 as a whole, is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Regarding claims 25-30:
Claims 25-30, respectively, depend on claim 24 and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 24. Thus, claims 25-30 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 24.
8. 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.
Please note: Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, and figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teaching of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well.
Applicants are reminded that MPEP 2141.02 states:
A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAEK et al. (US 20230062805) (hereinafter BAEK) in view of Rao et al. (US 20240015686) (hereinafter Rao).
Regarding claims 1 and 19:
As shown in figures 1-21, BAEK discloses an apparatus (100 figure 19), comprising:
a memory (104 figure 19);
at least one transceiver (106 figure 19);
at least one processor (102 figure 19) communicatively coupled to the memory (104 figure 19) and the at least one transceiver (106 figure 19), and configured to:
receive a plurality of positioning reference signal measurement values (plurality of positioning reference signal measurement results interpreted to be positioning reference signal measurement values. See abstract) interpreted to be from a target user equipment (see neighboring UE2 in figure 7) and at least one reference node (base station in figure 7, see positioning PRS transmission between one UE and another UE or between one UE and one gNB-type road-side unit (RSU) in par 0210-0213) (in abstract BAEK teaches “receiving a response PRS corresponding to the request PRS from a neighboring terminal (interpreted to be a target user equipment) through the sidelink channel; receiving a measurement result (interpreted to be measurement values) corresponding to the request PRS from the neighboring terminal”) (also see par 0068, 0107, 0204-0220);
determine one or more on-demand positioning reference signals to be measured based at least in part on signal identification information (PRS ID interpreted to be signal identification information. see par 0031, 0037, 0068, 0107, 0185, 0204-0220) associated with each of the plurality of positioning reference signal measurement values (plurality of positioning reference signal measurement results interpreted to be positioning reference signal measurement values. See abstract) (see par 0031, 0037, 0068, 0107, 0185, 0204-0220).
BAEK discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching send an indication of the one or more on-demand positioning reference signals to be measured to either of the target user equipment, the at least one reference node, or both.
However, Rao in the same field of endeavor teaches send an indication of the one or more on-demand positioning reference signals to be measured to either of the target user equipment, the at least one reference node, or both (par 0077, 0300. 0306, 0339). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the transmission method as taught by Rao to modify the transmission system and method of BAEK in order to request a PRS configuration based on configured triggering conditions (par 0077) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claims 2 and 20:
BAEK further discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of positioning reference signal measurement values received from the target user equipment and the at least one reference node includes a reference signal time difference value associated with a pair of positioning reference signals (par 0166, 0231-0232, 0236-0237).
Regarding claims 3 and 21:
BAEK further discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of positioning reference signal measurement values received from the target user equipment and the at least one reference node includes a receive-transmit time difference of at least one positioning reference signal (par 0166, 0231-0232, 0236-0237).
Regarding claim 4:
BAEK further discloses receiving a first positioning reference signal measurement value from the target user equipment and a second positioning reference signal measurement value from the at least one reference node based on the one or more on-demand positioning reference signals to be measured (also see par 0068, 0107, 0204-0220).
Regarding claims 6 and 22:
BAEK discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching transmitting a positioning reference signal muting pattern to one or more anchor stations.
However, Rao in the same field of endeavor teaches transmitting a positioning reference signal muting pattern to one or more anchor stations (par 0107, 0118, 0122, 0308). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use PRS muting pattern as taught by Rao to modify the PRS configuration of BAEK in order to provide PRS configuration parameters (par 0107) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claim 7:
BAEK further discloses wherein determining the one or more on-demand positioning reference signals to be measured includes constraining the one or more on-demand positioning reference signals to be measured based on a time window (par 0242).
Regarding claims 8 and 23:
BAEK further discloses wherein the indication of the one or more on-demand positioning reference signals to be measured includes assistance data associated with one or more positioning reference signal resources (par 0172).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 5 is 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 and overcome the above 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 101 rejections.
13. Claims 9-18 and 24-30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the above 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 101 rejections.
14. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, BAEK does not teach or suggest determining that the first positioning reference signal measurement value and the second positioning reference signal measurement value are based respectively on a line of sight path condition between an anchor station and the target user equipment, and a line of sight path condition between the anchor station and the at least one reference node.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LY et al. (US 20180220392) disclose method for on-demand UE positioning including transmitting a request, to at least one of a plurality of base stations of a network, to participate in at least one of an uplink UE positioning procedure or a downlink UE positioning procedure, and receiving a configuration for the at least one of the uplink UE positioning procedure or the downlink UE positioning procedure in response to the request.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KABIR A TIMORY whose telephone number is (571)270-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00 AM-3:00 PM.
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, Hannah S Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/KABIR A TIMORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631