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 .
Claim Interpretation
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the “or” language, the condition would also not occur and the step or function claimed would never be realized, hence the claim does not require to perform the step or function. See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, at 4-5 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2011, 2011 WL 1211248 at 2 (BPAI Mar. 25, 2011); see also In re Johnston, 435 f.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006)( "optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted”). “Or” conditions are not limitations against which prior art must be found. Under the broadest scenario, the steps or functions dependent on the “or” condition would not be invoked, and such, the Examiner is not required to find these limitations in the prior art in order to render the claim anticipated. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 f.3d 1359, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the steps of partially process at least one of the first subset of the plurality of PRS resources using at least one of a reduced time domain allocation or a reduced frequency domain allocation, wherein the PRS measurement report includes a third indication that the one or more first measurements resulted from partial processing of at least one of the first subset of the plurality of PRS resources or fully process the first subset of the plurality of PRS resources using a full time domain allocation or a full frequency domain allocation, wherein the PRS measurement report includes a fourth indication that the one of the one or more first measurements resulted from full processing must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16 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.
The claim language is ambiguous. It is unclear whether there is a third indication. The use of “or” does not specify whether these alternatives are mutually exclusive or may coexist. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine, with reasonable certainty, the scope of the claimed invention, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and as interpreted by Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014). The alternative claims a fourth indication, which leaves a first, second, and fourth indications and no third indication. Is there must be four different and separate indications or is there only three? This ambiguity is further reflected in dependent claims 8, 12, 16, which rely on the unclear antecedent basis, there might be no third indication, compounding the indefiniteness. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to clarify the relationship between the alternatives, specify whether both types of addresses can be present, and provide clear antecedent basis to resolve the ambiguity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 9,10, 13, 14, 37-40 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Although it is very clear to Applicant and to the Examiner why the subject matter is allowable because the Applicant and the Examiner agrees as plainly stated by Applicant’s previous response, but a future reviewer of the application may not take the record of this application as a whole or totally miss or ignore Applicant’s very clear and concise response. To make the record clear, the Examiner, will repeat Applicant’s response.
Applicant states, “Independent claim 1, as amended, recites as follows:
“A user equipment (UE) comprising:
“transceiver;
“memory; and
“processor, communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory,
“configured to:
“measure a plurality of positioning reference signal (PRS) resources received via the transceiver, wherein the plurality of PRS resources comprises a first subset of the plurality of PRS resources and a second
“subset of the plurality of PRS resources; and
“transmit, via the transceiver to a network entity, a PRS measurement report including a first indication of one or more first measurements of the measured first subset of the plurality of PRS resources and including second indication of one or more PRS resources of the measured second subset of the plurality of PRS resources, wherein the PRS measurement report omits any indication of one or more second measurements of the measured second subset of the plurality of PRS resources.
“The Office alleges that TS 38.305 discloses "transmitting, from the UE to a network entity, a PRS measurement report including one or more first measurements of one or more first PRS resources of the plurality of PRS resources and including an indication of one or more second PRS resources of the plurality of PRS resources corresponding to one or more second measurements made by the UE and omitted from the PRS measurement report." See NFOA dated 2026-02-20, pg. 8, lines 1-12. However, TS 38.305 instead discloses "[t]he UE then sends an LPP Provide Location Information message to the LIMF, before the Response Time provided in step (1) elapsed, and includes the obtained OTDOA measurements. If the UE is unable to perform the requested measurements, or the Response Time elapsed before any of the requested measurements were obtained, the UE returns any information that can be provided in an LPP message of type Provide Location Information which includes a cause indication for the not provided location information." See TS 38.305, § 8.2.3.3.1. Indeed, TS 38.305 fails to disclose a PRS measurement report including an indication of measurements of a subset of a plurality of measured PRS resources and an indication of PRS resources that were measured, but were not included in the PRS measurement report. In short, TS 38.305 fails to disclose, inter alia, transmit, via the transceiver to a network entity, a PRS measurement report including a first indication of one or more first measurements of the measured first subset of the plurality of PRS resources and including second indication of one or more PRS resources of the measured second subset of the plurality of PRS resources, wherein the PRS measurement report omits any indication of one or more second measurements of the measured second subset of the plurality of PRS resources, as recited in amended independent claim 1.
“The Opshaug and Axmon references fail to remedy the above defects of TS 38.305 with respect to amended independent claim 1. The Office fails to allege, and Applicant is unable to discern, how Opshaug or Axmon, either individually or together with TS 38.305, disclose the above-referenced limitations with respect to amended independent claim 1. In short, Opshaug and Axmon, both individually or in combination with TS 38.305, fail to disclose, inter alia, transmit, via the transceiver to a network entity, a PRS measurement report including a first indication of one or more first measurements of the measured first subset of the plurality of PRS resources and including second indication of one or more PRS resources of the measured second subset of the plurality of PRS resources, wherein the PRS measurement report omits any indication of one or more second measurements of the measured second subset of the plurality of PRS resources, as recited in amended independent claim 1.
“For at least the aforementioned reasons, Applicant submits that amended independent claim 1 is allowable over the cited references and respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1.
“Independent claims 5, 9, and 13 include limitations similar to those presented in independent claim 1 discussed above. As such, the arguments for the patentability of claim 1 above apply to claims 5, 9, and 13 with equal force.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The USPTO will not accept requests for consideration under the AFCP 2.0 filed after December 14, 2024.
If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant's representative.
If applicants request an interview after this final rejection, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search will be denied.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm.
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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
WILLIAM D. CUMMING
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2645
/WILLIAM D CUMMING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights