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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 12/1/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant’s arguments regarding the traversal of Group II is persuasive. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement of Group III, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Groups I and II (claims 1-19) are pending. Group III (claim 27) is withdrawn from consideration. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 3-4 and 16-17 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.
Claims 3 and 4 recite “The method of claim 2 wherein said information identifies…” however claim 1 recites “location information” and claim 2 recites “information associated with the location request message”. Thus a proper antecedent basis is missing.
Claims 16-17 correspond to claims 3-4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-6 and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Manolakos et al. (2022/0039056) hereinafter “Manolakos”.
As to claim 1, (Currently amended) Manolakos discloses A method carried out in a user equipment (UE) (UE 105), for generating location information to a location server in a wireless network (see Figs 5-6), the method comprising:
Receiving ([0140]: “At stage 12, the LMF 120 sends an LPP Request Location Information message to UE 105 to request te UE 105 perform positioning measurements, which may be based on the priority list…”), from the location server (501), a location request message identifying a request for location information based on a UE-determined positioning method;
obtaining location information ([0141]: “At stage 13, the UE 105 performs the positioning measurements requested… at stage 12” – [0142]: “… the UE 105 may determine its location based on the positioning measurements obtained at stage 13 and the assistance data received…”) using a positioning method selected by the UE out of a plurality of available positioning methods, based on the location request message, (note that it is considered that the positioning method is selected by the UE given that it sets the priority lists ([0131], etc) and also has discretion of which to perform ([0141]);
transmitting ([0143]: “At stage 15, the UE 105 sends an LPP Provide Location Information message to the LMF 120 and includes the positioning measurements obtained at stage 13 and/or the location estimate determined at stage 14”) the location information to the location server.
As to claim 2, (Original) Manolakos discloses The method of claim 1, comprising: wherein the used positioning method is selected based on information associated with the location request message. See [0131], [0141].
As to claim 3, (Original) Manolakos discloses The method of claim 2, wherein said information identifies at least one location criterion or location context. See [0140], etc.
As to claim 4, (Currently amended) Manolakos discloses The method of claim 2, wherein said information identifies at least one location determination use case. See [0140], Fig 6, etc.
As to claim 5, (Currently amended) Manolakos discloses The method of claim 1, comprising: transmitting an indication of the used positioning method to the location server. See [0143].
As to claim 6, (Currently amended) Manolakos discloses The method of claim 1, comprising: transmitting capability information to the wireless network, indicating a capability of the UE to optimize location information obtainment by selective use of a positioning method dependent on information associated with a location request message. See [0131].
As to claim 12, (Currently amended) Manolakos discloses The method of claim 1, wherein said location information is a location estimate of the UE, determined by the UE. See [0142].
As to claim 13, (Currently amended) Manolakos discloses The method of claim 1, wherein said location information is location measurement obtained by the UE, for assisting the location server to determine a location estimate of the UE. See [0141] & [0143].
As to claims 14-19, (Currently amended) Manolakos discloses A method carried out in a location server for obtaining location information for a user equipment (UE), connected through a wireless network, (reciprocally as applied above to claims 1-6, respectively).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niemenmaa et al. (2007/0178913), hereinafter “Niemenmaa”.
As to claim 7, (Currently amended) Manolakos discloses The method of claim 1, is silent yet in an analogous art Niemenmaa discloses comprising,
obtaining a machine learning model associated with the location request message;
determining the selected positioning method based on at least said machine learning model. See [0007], [0015], etc. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Manolakos to include the steps of obtaining and determining as taught by Niemenmaa for the purpose of obtaining high accuracy while minimizing resources as suggested by Niemenmaa [0019].
As to claim 11, (Currently amended) The combination of Manolakos and Niemenmaa discloses the method of claim 7, Niemenmaa discloses comprising: transmitting update information associated with the machine learning model to the location server. Fig 4, steps 130-140, [0050]. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Manolakos to include the step of transmitting as taught by Niemenmaa for the purpose of completeness.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos and Niemenmaa as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sundararajan et al. (2022/0044091), hereinafter “Sundararajan”.
As to claim 8, (Original) The combination of Manolakos and Niemenmaa discloses the method of claim 7, is silent yet in an analogous art Sundararajan discloses wherein said machine learning model is based on location information obtained for a multitude of UEs having a context in common with said UE. See [0246]. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Manolakos wherein said machine learning model is based on location information obtained for a multitude of UEs having a context in common with said UE as taught by Sundararajan for the purpose of improving performance.
As to claim 9, (Original) the combination discloses The method of claim 8, Sundararajan discloses wherein said context comprises a physical area (location / region).
As to claim 10, (Currently amended) the combination discloses The method of claim 8 Sundararajan discloses wherein said context comprises a location determination use case [0246].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kumar et al. (2023/0296718) provide for UE prioritized positioning method selection in Figs 5-6 and 9.
Yerramalli et al. (2021/0321221) provide for the use of a neural network to optimize parameters for UE.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER KINCAID whose telephone number is (571)272-7922. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7-5.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
LESTER G. KINCAID
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2649
/LESTER G KINCAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649