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 species I, claims 2-3, 5-7 in the reply filed on 4-3-2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “position estimation target identification unit”,” position estimation policy setting unit”, “position estimation unit” in claims 1-3, 5-7 and 15-16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo 20220053294.
As to claim 1, Guo discloses a communication control apparatus comprising at least one processor (See figures 1, 3A-5 & paragraphs 0051, 0054, 0061, 0076-0081, 0085-0096, 0098, 0104-0116, 0124-0130; The GMLC, AMF and LMF can be considered as one core network device 13 (i.e the claimed communication control apparatus), according to figure 1 '13' & paragraphs 0051, 0054. The core network device receives (performed by one of the GMLC entities of the core network device, see also paragraphs 0051 and 0054 regarding the GMLC) a positioning request (from an external client) for a UE (i.e. thus, the core network device implicitly identifies a position estimation target), selects a positioning method from a plurality of available methods based on certain criteria (i.e. a positioning estimation policy), such as precision requirements, performance requirements, response time etc. and ultimately also determines the location of the terminal device (performed by the LMF entity of the core network device). Note: Regarding the plurality of network entities being considered as a single core network device, it is brought to the attention of the applicant that the current application also isn't clear about whether the claimed communication control apparatus is a single network entity or a combination of more than one (see e.g. paragraph 0036 of the present application: " ... each of the functional units 3A to 3D of the communication control apparatus 3 is realized by AF (Application Function) outside the 5GC and NEF (Network Exposure Function) and/or NWDAF inside the 5GC.", which appears to also be mapping the different sub-units of the claimed device to different network entities.).) that performs:
by a position estimation target identification unit, identifying a position estimation target equipped with a communication function (See figures 1, 3A-5 & paragraphs 0051, 0054, 0061, 0076-0081, 0085-0096, 0098, 0104-0116, 0124-0130; Same reasoning as above);
by a position estimation policy setting unit, setting a position estimation policy for the identified position estimation target (See figures 1, 3A-5 & paragraphs 0051, 0054, 0061, 0076-0081, 0085-0096, 0098, 0104-0116, 0124-0130; Same reasoning as above); and by a position estimation unit, estimating a position of the position estimation target in accordance with the set position estimation policy (See figures 1, 3A-5 & paragraphs 0051, 0054, 0061, 0076-0081, 0085-0096, 0098, 0104-0116, 0124-0130; Same reasoning as above). Guo discloses units in multiple devices. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to integrate the units, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article, which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together, involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). The term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to integrate the units to minimize cost and enhance reliability; thereby, increasing customer satisfaction.
As to claim 2, Guo discloses the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the position estimation policy setting unit selects and sets the position estimation policy of the identified position estimation target from a plurality of position estimation policies (See paragraphs 0076-0081, 0085-0096; i.e. the positioning requirements).
As to claim 3, Guo discloses the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the position estimation policy specifies estimation basis information to be used in the estimation of position by the position estimation unit (See paragraphs 0076-0081, 0085-0096; i.e. the positioning requirements).
As to claim 5, Guo discloses the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the position estimation policy specifies a calculation method in the estimation of position by the position estimation unit (See paragraphs 0076-0081, 0085-0096; i.e. the multiple available positioning methods, from which the network device selects one).
As to claim 6, Guo discloses the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the position estimation policy specifies estimation accuracy of the position by the position estimation unit (See paragraphs 0076-0081, 0085-0096; i.e. the positioning requirements).
As to claim 7, Guo discloses the communication control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the position estimation policy specifies position estimation information to be output by the position estimation unit (See paragraphs 0076-0081, 0085-0096; i.e. the positioning requirements).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, they are the corresponding method and computer-readable medium of apparatus claim 1. Therefore, claims 15-16 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights