DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 23 March 2026.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 were pending in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 23 December 2025.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 16, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 remain pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument on pages 6-7 of Applicant remarks that, in substance, the independent claims (claims 1 and 16) have been amended, specifically, removing “if” terminology, to make the claims definite, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant. This is an objective one because it is not dependent on the views of the inventor or any particular individual, but is evaluated in the context of whether the claim is definite — i.e., whether the scope of the claim is clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP § 2171.
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. See MPEP § 2111.01.
When making an amendment, Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure, which includes the claims. See MPEP §§ 714.02 and 2163.06.
Here, the independent claims previously required transmitting a request (R) including a parameter based on a received DL-PRS configuration (D), a measurement reporting configuration (M), or a quality of service of a positioning service (Q) and an indication (I) if the request initiates an SL-PRS transmission/reception for another WTRU (SL-PRStx/rx_WTRU2). Written another way the claims could have been interpreted as requiring a WTRU to transmit R including a parameter based on: (D, M, or (Q and (if R initiates SL-PRStx/rx_WTRU2 [Wingdings font/0xE0] I))), transmitting: R including a parameter based on (D, M, or Q) and (if R initiates SL-PRStx/rx_WTRU2 [Wingdings font/0xE0] I). Thus, the claims didn’t define whether the indication was necessary if Q wasn’t included in the request, whether the indication would be required at all even if the request included Q.
As the claims are currently written, the claims remain undefined due to lack of punctuation and/or clarifying language, and new issues with definiteness may have been introduced. The independent claims now appear to require transmitting a request (R) including a parameter based on a received DL-PRS configuration (D), a measurement reporting configuration (M), or a quality of service of a positioning service (Q) and an indication (I) indicating the request initiates an SL-PRS transmission for at least one other WTRU (Tx_WTRU2) or an SL-PRS reception for at least one other WTRU (Rx_WTRU2). Written another way, the claims require a WTRU to transmit:
R including a parameter based on D, M, Q and I indicating Tx_WTRU2 or Rx_WTRU2.
The claims may be interpreted as requiring a WTRU to transmit either
(1) R including [a parameter based on [D, M, or Q]] and I indicating [Tx_WTRU2 or Rx_WTRU2],
(2) R including [a parameter based on [D, M, or [Q and [I indicating [Tx_WTRU2] or Rx_WTRU2]]]], or
(3) R including [a parameter based on [D, M, or [Q and I indicating [Tx_WTRU2 or RX_WTRU2]]]].
To help make the issues clearer, interpretations (1), (2), and (3) may be rewritten as follows and still be equivalent to the corresponding interpretations provided above — the claims require a WTRU to transmit:
I indicating [Tx_WTRU2 or Rx_WTRU2] and R including [a parameter based on [D, M, or Q]],
R indicating [a parameter based on [D, M, or [[Rx_WTRU2 or I indicating [Tx_WTRU2]] and Q]]], or
R indicating [a parameter based on [D, M, or [I indicating [Tx_WTRU2 or RX_WTRU2] and Q]]].
Since the claims must be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation, the original disclosure must be considered.
Support for the amendments to the claims does not appear to be cited by applicant in Applicant Remarks, and such support is not immediately apparent upon review of the original disclosure. For example, the terms “indicating,” “initiate,” “initiated,” “initiating” do not appear in the original disclosure, and use of the term “indication” in the original disclosure does not appear to be related to a WTRU transmitting a request and indication or a request possibly including an indication. Thus, the plain meaning of the claims as they are currently written cannot be determined in light of the Specification. Support in the Drawings for the subject matter at issue is likewise not apparent. Therefore, the closest the original disclosure comes to disclosing the claims as they are currently written is the original claim set, which does not disclose or describe what the claimed indication indicates. See Non-Final Rejection.
Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is maintained, and the claims are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of written description as necessitated by amendment and further detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 16, the original disclosure does not appear to disclose or describe a first WTRU transmitting an indication indicating a request initiating a sidelink (SL) positioning reference signal (PRS) transmission for another WTRU or a SL-PRS reception for the other WTRU, depending on the interpretation. Indications by a first WTRU do not appear to be described in the original Specification or Drawings as originally filed. The claims, as originally filed, at best appeared to require the transmission of an indication depending on whether a request initiated a SL-PRS transmission for another WTRU or a SL-PRS reception for the other WTRU. However, the original claims do not appear to describe what the indication actually indicated. Therefore, claiming what the indication indicates does not appear to be supported by the original disclosure.
Regarding Claims 2-15 and 17-20, by ultimately depending on claims 1 or 16, claims 2-15 and 17-20 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claim(s), and do not appear to remedy the deficiencies explained above.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 16, a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) is now required by the claims to transmit something that cannot be readily understood in view of the original disclosure. In view of the original disclosure, the claims may fairly be interpreted as requiring the WTRU to transmit:
(1) a request and an indication,
(2) a request possibly including a quality of service of a positioning service and an indication indicating sidelink-positioning reference signal (SL-PRS) transmission for another WTRU or SL-PRS reception for the other WTRU, or
(3) a request possibly including a quality of service of a positioning service, an SL-PRS reception for another WTRU, or an indication indicating SL-PRS transmission for the other WTRU.
These alternative interpretations are further detailed in the Response to Arguments above. Since how the claims should be interpreted is not defined, and the claims may fairly be interpreted to encompass undefined subject matter, the claims are not defined, and further consideration of the claims against prior art is precluded.
Regarding Claims 2-15 and 17-20, by ultimately depending on claims 1 or 16, claims 2-15 and 17-20 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claim(s), and do not appear to remedy the deficiencies explained above.
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 THOMAS R CAIRNS whose telephone number is (571)270-0487. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM ET M-F.
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, MARCUS SMITH can be reached at (571) 270-1096. 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.
/Thomas R Cairns/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights