DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, Examiner agrees and the rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the amended claims recite significantly more, Examiner agrees, and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Modarres Razavi does not disclose or make obvious to amended claim features, Examiner agrees. A secondary reference, Soldati, has been introduced as evidence that the amended features are an obvious modification of Modarres Razavi.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modarres Razavi (US 20230180171 A1) in view of Soldati (US 20240314638 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Modarres Razavi teaches [Note: language added by amendment is underlined; language not taught by Modarres Razavi is lined through] a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (UE 110, Fig. 5), the method comprising:
receiving, from a location server (location sever 130, Fig. 5), a message including a target integrity risk (TIR) (202, Fig. 5 “Determine… Integrity Risk (IR) parameters” and 203 “Positioning assistance information with… IR”, where the assistance information is provided from the location server 130 to the UE 110), ;
determining integrity information, based on the TIR (205, Fig. 5 “Compute Protection Level (PL) parameter” in view of para. [0093] “The Protection Level can be computed in accordance with the received Integrity Risk parameter (step 205)”);
and
transmitting, to the location server, the integrity information (206, Fig. 5 “Positioning-related report and PL”)
Modarres Razavi does not teach: (1) receiving, from the location server, information indicating a type of a positioning integrity result report and configuration information for the positioning integrity result report;
(2) identifying the type of the positioning integrity result report as one of a one-shot report, a periodic report and an event-triggered report, based on the information indicating the type of the positioning integrity result report; and
(3) the integrity information transmitted based on the identified type of the positioning integrity result report and the configuration information for the positioning integrity result report.
Regarding (1)-(3), Soldati (US 20240314638 A1), in analogous art, teaches a user device receiving information indicating a type of report (para. [0019] “transmitting... to the user device... an indication of a type of reporting requested by the network node”) and configuration information for the report (para. [0019] “one or more indications of a start time, a periodicity, or a duration of reporting”), identifying the type of the positioning integrity result report as one of a one-shot report, a periodic report and an event-triggered report, based on the information indicating the type of the positioning integrity result report (para. [0019] “the type of reporting comprises one or more of periodic reporting, aperiodic reporting, or event-triggered reporting”; para. [0136] “aperiodic reporting (one-shot)”, where identifying the type by the user device is considered inherent), where information is transmitted based on the identified type of the positioning integrity result report and the configuration information for the positioning integrity result report (implied by para. [0019] “reporting”). Soldati teaches that communication links between a user device and a network node are thereby optimized (abstract “Optimizing link adaptation for a communication session with a user device is disclosed herein”).
It would have been obvious to modify Modarres Razavi in view of Soldati in order to optimize the communication link between Modarres Razavi’s UE and the location server.
Regarding claim 2, Soldati teaches wherein in case that the type of the positioning integrity result report is identified as the one-shot report, the integrity information is transmitted once (inherent to “one-shot” taught in Soldati para. [0136]). As above, it would have been obvious to modify Modarres Razavi in view of Soldati in order to optimize the communication link between the user device and the location server.
Regarding claim 3, Soldati teaches wherein in case that the type of the positioning integrity result report is identified as the periodic report, the integrity information is transmitted periodically based on a period indicated by the configuration information for the positioning integrity result report (para. [0019] “one or more indications of... a periodicity... of reporting”). As above, it would have been obvious to modify Modarres Razavi in view of Soldati in order to optimize the communication link between the user device and the location server.
Regarding claim 4, Modarres Razavi teaches transmitting, to the location server, information associated with an integrity related capability supported by the UE (201, Fig. 5 “Device integrity capabilities response”).
Regarding claim 5, Modarres Razavi teaches wherein the information associated with the integrity related capability is transmitted via a message indicating capabilities of the UE (201, Fig. 5 “Device integrity capabilities response”).
Regarding claims 8-12, in addition to what has already been discussed with respect to claims 1-5, Modarres Razavi teaches a UE (110, Figs. 5, 9) comprising at least one transceiver (510, Fig. 9) and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one transceiver (520, Fig. 9), and at least one memory, communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (530, Fig. 9).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Soldati teaches wherein in case that the type of the positioning integrity result report is identified as the event-triggered report, the integrity information is transmitted in case that a condition indicated by the configuration information for the positioning integrity result report is fulfilled (para. [0142] “An event triggered reporting in some embodiments may involve the user device being configured with an event that will trigger a state information report (configured to report the user device's fast fading state). The user device can be configured to update the state information if its value has changed, or changed with a certain threshold”). As above, it would have been obvious to modify Modarres Razavi in view of Soldati in order to optimize the communication link between the user device and the location server.
Regarding claim 15, Modarres Razavi teaches a method performed by a location server (130, Fig. 5) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), a message including a target integrity risk (TIR) (203, Fig. 5 “Positioning assistance information with… IR”, where IR is integrity risk parameters),
and
receiving, from the UE, integrity information associated with the TIR (206, Fig. 5 “Positioning-related report and PL” is received at server 130 from UE 110 and is associated with the TIR in view of para. [0093] “The Protection Level can be computed in accordance with the received Integrity Risk parameter (step 205)”),
Modarres Razavi does not teach the location server
(1) transmitting, to the UE, information indicating a type of a positioning integrity result report and configuration information for the positioning integrity result report,
(2) wherein the type of the positioning integrity result report is one of a one-shot report, a periodic report and an event-triggered report, and
(3) wherein the reception of the integrity information is associated with the type of the positioning integrity result report and configuration information for the positioning integrity result report.
Soldati (US 20240314638 A1), in analogous art, teaches a network node transmitting to a UE information indicating a type of a report (para. [0019] “transmitting... to the user device... an indication of a type of reporting requested by the network node”) and configuration information for the report (para. [0019] “one or more indications of a start time, a periodicity, or a duration of reporting”) wherein the type of the report is one of a one-shot report, a periodic report and an event-triggered report (para. [0019] “the type of reporting comprises one or more of periodic reporting, aperiodic reporting, or event-triggered reporting”; para. [0136] “aperiodic reporting (one-shot)”, where identifying the type by the user device is considered inherent) and wherein the reception of the report is necessarily associated with the type of the report and the configuration information.
Soldati teaches that communication links between a user device and a network node are thereby optimized (abstract “Optimizing link adaptation for a communication session with a user device is disclosed herein”).
It would have been obvious to modify Modarres Razavi in view of Soldati in order to optimize the communication link between Modarres Razavi’s UE and the location server.
Regarding claim 16, Modarres Razavi teaches receiving, from the UE, information associated with an integrity related capability supported by the UE (201, Fig. 5 “Device integrity capabilities response” is received at server 130 from UE 110).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modarres Razavi (US 20230180171 A1) in view of Soldati (US 20240314638 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Edge (US 10567943 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Modarres Razavi teaches a location management function (LMF 130A, Fig. 1), and it appears to be included with the location server, as the LMF (LMF 130A, Fig. 1) and the location server (130, Fig. 5) share the reference number 130. However, in case Applicant disagrees, it is well-known for a location server to include a LMF. For example, see Edge 7:11-13 "A location server 185 may further comprise a Location Management Function (LMF)". If not inherent, it would have been obvious to modify Modarres Razavi by including the LMF with the location server as taught by Edge because it is a well-known arrangement that could be used with the predictable results of reducing latency and simplifying network architecture.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, WILLIAM KELLEHER can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648