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 conditional “if” 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”). “If” conditions are not limitations against which prior art must be found because the step or function only occurs “if” the answer is positive. A conditional limitation is a claim feature that depends on a certain condition being present. For example, when or if condition X is present, feature Y is implemented or has effect. Without condition X, feature Y may be dormant or have no effect. It was not necessary for the Examiner to show that both paths of a conditional limitation were anticipated or obvious over prior art. Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016). Conditional limitations that are not recited as structure that is capable of or configured to perform the conditional function may render the conditional limitation as “optional” and not truly “conditional.” The M.P.E.P. provides, “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” See M.P.E.P § 2111.04; see also M.P.E.P §§ 2103(C) and 2173.05(h). Furthermore, all alternative conditional limitations in system claims that are not limited to a particular structure may also be given no patentable weight if every alternate limitation is interpreted as “optional.” See MPHJ Tech. Invs., LLC v. Ricoh Ams. Corp., 847 F.3d at 1379. Under the broadest scenario, the steps or functions dependent on the “if” 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).
In the context of patent claims, "one of A and B" generally means "one of A and one of B," requiring the presence of at least one of each element, not just one or the other. Ex parte Jung, 2016-008290 PTAB Mar. 22, 2017 and SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
It has been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of" performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
“Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (footnote omitted). Claim limitations directed to the content of information are not entitled to patentable weight unless that information has a "functional relationship" to its substrate. As a general proposition, the Examiner need not give patentable weight to non-functional descriptive material absent a new and nonobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010); and Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2111.05 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018). In Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888 (BPAI 2008) (precedential), the Board held that the nature of the information being manipulated by the computer should not be given patentable weight absent evidence that the information is functionally related to the process “by changing the efficiency or accuracy or any other characteristic” of the steps. See also Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274 (BPAI 2005) (non-precedential) (holding “wellness-related” data stored in a database and communicated over a network was non-functional descriptive material as claimed because the data “does not functionally change” the system).
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP § 2111.01 for more information on the plain meaning of claim language. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect:
(A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble,
(B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses,
(C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses,
(D) contingent limitations,
(E) printed matter, or
(F) terms with associated functional language.
This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
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).
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.
The specification does not original support and/or inadequately describes the now claimed detecting a transmission condition comprising one of an available transmission opportunity and a set of triggering criteria. The specification supports only detecting a transmission condition comprising one of an available transmission opportunity or a set of triggering criteria, not both.
The specification does not original support and/or inadequately describes the now claimed processor transmit a request for positioning assistance data at least partially over an unlicensed carrier based on the transmission condition. According to the specification, that is done by the transceiver.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without a transceiver, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). A processor, by definition, only processes data, it cannot transmit or receive any radio signal. According to the specification, that is done by the transceiver.
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 16-20 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.
“A claim which describes the most crucial element in a ‘new’ combination in terms of what it will do, rather than in terms of its own physical characteristics or its arrangement in the new combination, is invalid as a violation of [the indefiniteness requirement].” Halliburton v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1 (1946). A purely functional claim language is not allowable unless done within the scope of 112(f). This general prohibition against the use of “purely functional claim language” (and the more specific Halliburton rule) has not been completely eliminated. Rather, “purely functional claim language” is now permissible but only under the conditions of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), i.e., if its scope is limited to the corresponding structure, material, or act disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof. Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (B.P.A.I. 2008).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3,14, 15, 16, 17, 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2017/0289933 (Segev, et al).
Segev, et al discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising detecting a transmission condition comprising one of an available transmission opportunity and a set of triggering criteria (figure 11, #1105, ¶123, claim 25) and transmitting a request for positioning assistance data at least partially over an unlicensed carrier based on the transmission condition (claim 3, figures 1, 4, 10, ¶20, 40, 45, 118 etc.).
Regarding claims 2, 3,14, 17, 18, these claims are optional. Note paragraph 2 above.
Regarding claims 12 and 16, this is the inherent apparatus of the above claim method since this claim has the same functions of the method and is rejected for the same reasons above. Also note figure 2. #202, 204, 206. For claim 16, the Examiner is taking the claim to mean “a processor for controlling a wireless communication to…”.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0327706 (Agnihotri, et al).
Agnihotri, et al an apparatus for performing a network function (#110A, 110B),the apparatus comprising at least one memory (#358, 368) and at least one processor (#354, 364) coupled with the at least one memory (#358, 368) and configured to cause the apparatus to receive a request for positioning over unlicensed or licensed assisted access capabilities (¶55, 56, 58, 66, 67, 70, 116-118, figures 3 and 9, #902, 904) and transmit a response to a location management function server with unlicensed positioning capabilities (¶66, 67, 70, 116-118).
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 4-11, 13, 19, 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2017/0289933 (Segev, et al) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0327706 (Agnihotri, et al).
Claims 5, 13, 20, Segev, et al discloses all subject matter, note the above paragraphs, except for a no- LBT procedure based on the triggering criteria. Agnihotri, et al teaches the use of a method performed by a user equipment (UE) (figure 3, #120). The method comprising detecting an available transmission opportunity or a set of triggering criteria (figure 3, 5, 7, ¶ 66, 70, 72-73, etc.) and a no- LBT procedure based on the triggering criteria, note ¶41, 66-75. 141, etc and figure 3, for the purpose of assisting a position determination of a UE communicating over a shared communication medium in unlicensed spectrum includes measuring, by the UE at a first PRS measurement time during a first positioning occasion. Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use of a no- LBT procedure based on the triggering criteria for the purpose of assisting a position determination of a UE communicating over a shared communication medium in unlicensed spectrum includes measuring, by the UE at a first PRS measurement time during a first positioning occasion, as taught by Agnihotri, et al in the a method performed by a user equipment (UE) of Segev, et al in order to determining a position of a UE communicating over a shared communication medium in unlicensed spectrum includes receiving, at a location server from a first eNB for a first secondary cell of a plurality of secondary cells.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, providing the triggering criteria based on location service requirements and UE capabilities, note ¶66-75, figure 5 and 6 in Agnihotri, et al.
Claim 6 is optional, note paragraph 5 above, since the transmitting can be other than non-LBT procedure. Also note ¶66-75, 141, figure 3 in Agnihotri, et al.
Regarding claim 7, transmitting the request for positioning assistance data comprises transmitting to a licensed network node and a transmission to an unlicensed network node, note ¶59, 62, 66-76, 98 etc. and figures 3, 5, 7, in Agnihotri, et al.
Regarding claim 8, transmitting the request for positioning assistance data comprises transmitting the request for positioning assistance data to a single network node capable of receiving licensed and unlicensed transmissions, note ¶59, 62, 66-76, 98 etc. and figures 3, 5, 7, in Agnihotri, et al.
Regarding claim 9, transmitting the request for positioning assistance data comprises transmitting the request for positioning assistance data to a single network node dedicated to receiving unlicensed transmissions, note ¶59, 62, 66-76, 98 etc. and figures 3, 5, 7, in Agnihotri, et al.
Regarding claim 10, transmitting the request for positioning assistance data is performed using long term evolution (LTE) positioning protocol (LPP) signaling, medium access control element (MAC CE) signaling, or radio resource control (RRC) signaling; and further comprising receiving positioning assistance data in response to the request for positioning assistance data via LPP dedicated signaling, RRC signaling, or broadcast signaling, ¶3, 5, 7, 70-88, in Agnihotri, et al.
Regarding claim 11, receiving a request for positioning over unlicensed or licensed assisted access positioning capabilities; and transmitting a response to a location management function (LMF) server with the unlicensed positioning capabilities, note ¶66-80, 97-101, in Agnihotri, et al.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 and 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed April 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Anticipatory reference need not duplicate, word for word, what is in claims; anticipation can occur when claimed limitation is "inherent" or otherwise implicit in relevant reference (Standard Havens Products Incorporated v. Gencor Industries Incorporated, 21 USPQ2d 1321). “...a reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘d[oes] not expressly spell out’ all of the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, (Fed. Cir. 2015). Thus, “a reference may still anticipate if that reference teaches that the disclosed components or functionalities may be combined and one of skill in the art would be able to implement the combination.” This was an anticipation, without resort to obviousness, because the reference sufficiently disclosed making the combination, though not expressed a single embodiment or example, Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2016). During examination before the Patent and Trademark Office, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation and limitations from the specification may not be imputed to the claims (Ex parte Akamatsu, 22 USPQ2d, 1918; In re Zletz, 13 USPQ2d 1320, In re Priest, 199 USPQ 11). During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, "[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim." See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTVEnterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In response to Applicant's argument, the law of anticipation requires that a distinction be made between the invention described or taught and the invention claimed. It does not require that the reference "teach" what the subject patent teaches. Assuming that a reference is properly "prior art," it is only necessary that the claims under consideration "read on" something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or "fully met" by it. It was held in In re Donohue, 226 USPQ 619, that, "It is well settled that prior art under 35 USC §102(b) must sufficiently describe the claimed invention to have placed the public in possession of it...Such possession is effected if one of ordinary skill in the art could have combine the description of the invention with his own knowledge to make the claimed invention." Clear inference to the artisan must be considered, In re Preda, 159 USPQ 342. A prior art reference must be considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, In re Samour, 197 USPQ 1. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” Claim term is not limited to single embodiment disclosed in specification, since number of embodiments disclosed does not determine meaning of the claim term, and applicant cannot overcome "heavy presumption" that term takes on its ordinary meaning simply by pointing to preferred embodiment (Teleflex Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp., CA FC, 6/21/02, 63 USPQ2d 1374). Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA1969). “Arguments that the alleged anticipatory prior art is nonanalogous art’ or teaches away from the invention’ or is not recognized as solving the problem solved by the claimed invention, [are] not germane’ to a rejection under section 102.” Twin Disc, Inc. v. United States, 231 USPQ 417, 424 (Cl. Ct. 1986) (quoting In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982)). A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it. The question whether a reference “teaches away” from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir.1998).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. LMF is a 5G NR core network entity which employs an E-SMLC architecture) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s attorney’s argument that, “The concept of a network node reporting unlicensed positioning capabilities to an LMF server in response to a capability request is entirely absent from Agnihotri”, the reference clearly states, “[0010] In an aspect, a method for assisting a position determination of a UE communicating over a shared communication medium in unlicensed spectrum includes transmitting, by an eNB for a secondary cell, a PRS on the shared communication medium at a positioning occasion according to a PRS configuration, and sending, by the eNB to a location server, a PRS transmission time at which the eNB transmitted the PRS.
“[0011] In an aspect, an apparatus for assisting a position determination of a UE communicating over a shared communication medium in unlicensed spectrum includes at least one processor of the UE configured to: measure, at a first PRS measurement time during a first positioning occasion, a first PRS from a first eNB for a first secondary cell of a plurality of secondary cells, wherein the first eNB transmits the first PRS on the shared communication medium, and wherein the first PRS is configured according to a PRS configuration, measure, at a second PRS measurement time during a second positioning occasion, a second PRS from a second eNB for a second secondary cell of the plurality of secondary cells, wherein the second eNB transmits the second PRS on the shared communication medium, and wherein the second PRS is configured according to the PRS configuration, and cause a transceiver of the UE to report the measurement of the first PRS, the measurement of the second PRS, the first PRS measurement time, and the second PRS measurement time to a location server.
“[0012] In an aspect, an apparatus for determining a position of a UE communicating over a shared communication medium in unlicensed spectrum includes a communication device of a location server configured to: receive, from a first eNB for a first secondary cell of a plurality of secondary cells, a first PRS transmission time at which the first eNB transmitted a first PRS, wherein the first eNB transmits the first PRS on the shared communication medium according to a PRS configuration, receive, from a second eNB for a second secondary cell of the plurality of secondary cells, a second PRS transmission time at which the second eNB transmitted a second PRS, wherein the second eNB transmits the second PRS on the shared communication medium according to the PRS configuration, and receive, from the UE, a first measurement of the first PRS, a second measurement of the second PRS, a first PRS measurement time at which the first measurement was taken, and a second PRS measurement time at which the second measurement was taken, and at least one processor of the location server configured to: determine that the UE measured the first PRS from the first eNB and the second PRS from the second eNB based on the first PRS measurement time and the second PRS measurement time received from the UE and the first PRS transmission time and the second PRS transmission time received from the first eNB and the second eNB, and determine the position of the UE based at least in part on the first measurement, the second measurement, a location of the first eNB, and a location of the second eNB.
“[0013] In an aspect, an apparatus for assisting a position determination of a UE communicating over a shared communication medium in unlicensed spectrum includes a transceiver of an eNB for a secondary cell configured to: transmit a PRS on the shared communication medium at a positioning occasion according to a PRS configuration, and send, to a location server, a PRS transmission time at which the eNB transmitted the PRS.
“[0014] In an aspect, a UE apparatus for assisting a position determination of a UE communicating over a shared communication medium in unlicensed spectrum includes a means for measuring, at a first PRS measurement time during a first positioning occasion, a first PRS from a first eNB for a first secondary cell of a plurality of secondary cells, wherein the first eNB transmits the first PRS on the shared communication medium, and wherein the first PRS is configured according to a PRS configuration, means for measuring, at a second PRS measurement time during a second positioning occasion, a second PRS from a second eNB for a second secondary cell of the plurality of secondary cells, wherein the second eNB transmits the second PRS on the shared communication medium, and wherein the second PRS is configured according to the PRS configuration; and means for reporting the measurement of the first PRS, the measurement of the second PRS, the first PRS measurement time, and the second PRS measurement time to a location server.
“[0015] In an aspect, a location server apparatus for determining a position of a UE communicating over a shared communication medium in unlicensed spectrum includes means for receiving, from a first eNB for a first secondary cell of a plurality of secondary cells, a first PRS transmission time at which the first eNB transmitted a first PRS, wherein the first eNB transmits the first PRS on the shared communication medium according to a PRS configuration, means for receiving, from a second eNB for a second secondary cell of the plurality of secondary cells, a second PRS transmission time at which the second eNB transmitted a second PRS, wherein the second eNB transmits the second PRS on the shared communication medium according to the PRS configuration, means for receiving, from the UE, a first measurement of the first PRS, a second measurement of the second PRS, a first PRS measurement time at which the first measurement was taken, and a second PRS measurement time at which the second measurement was taken, means for determining that the UE measured the first PRS from the first eNB and the second PRS from the second eNB based on the first PRS transmission time, the PRS transmission second time, the first PRS measurement time, and the second PRS measurement time, and means for determining the position of the UE based at least in part on the first measurement, the second measurement, a location of the first eNB, and a location of the second eNB.
“[0016] In an aspect, an eNB apparatus for a secondary cell for assisting a position determination of a UE communicating over a shared communication medium in unlicensed spectrum includes means for transmitting a PRS on the shared communication medium at a positioning occasion according to a PRS configuration, and means for sending, to a location server, a PRS transmission time at which the eNB transmitted the PRS.
“[0017] In an aspect, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions for assisting a position determination of a UE communicating over a shared communication medium in unlicensed spectrum includes computer-executable instructions comprising at least one instruction instructing the UE to measure, at a first PRS measurement time during a first positioning occasion, a first PRS from a first eNB for a first secondary cell of a plurality of secondary cells, wherein the first eNB transmits the first PRS on the shared communication medium, and wherein the first PRS is configured according to a PRS configuration, at least one instruction instructing the UE to measure, at a second PRS measurement time during a second positioning occasion, a second PRS from a second eNB for a second secondary cell of the plurality of secondary cells, wherein the second eNB transmits the second PRS on the shared communication medium, and wherein the second PRS is configured according to the PRS configuration, and at least one instruction instructing the UE to report the measurement of the first PRS, the measurement of the second PRS, the first PRS measurement time, and the second PRS measurement time to a location server.
“[0018] In an aspect, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions for determining a position of a UE communicating over a shared communication medium in unlicensed spectrum includes computer-executable instructions comprising at least one instruction instructing a location server to receive, from a first eNB for a first secondary cell of a plurality of secondary cells, a first PRS transmission time at which the first eNB transmitted a first PRS, wherein the first eNB transmits the first PRS on the shared communication medium according to a PRS configuration, at least one instruction instructing the location server to receive, from a second eNB for a second secondary cell of the plurality of secondary cells, a second PRS transmission time at which the second eNB transmitted a second PRS, wherein the second eNB transmits the second PRS on the shared communication medium according to the PRS configuration, at least one instruction instructing the location server to receive, from the UE, a first measurement of the first PRS, a second measurement of the second PRS, a first PRS measurement time at which the first measurement was taken, and a second PRS measurement time at which the second measurement was taken, at least one instruction instructing the location server to determine that the UE measured the first PRS from the first eNB and the second PRS from the second eNB based on the first PRS transmission time, the second PRS transmission time, the first PRS measurement time, and the second PRS measurement time, and at least one instruction instructing the location server to determine the position of the UE based at least in part on the first measurement, the second measurement, a location of the first eNB, and a location of the second eNB.
“[0019] In an aspect, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions for assisting a position determination of a UE communicating over a shared communication medium in unlicensed spectrum includes computer-executable instructions comprising at least one instruction instructing an eNB for a secondary cell to transmit a PRS on the shared communication medium at a positioning occasion according to a PRS configuration, and at least one instruction instructing the eNB to send, to a location server, a PRS transmission time at which the eNB transmitted the PRS.”
It seems that attorney thinks that an anticipatory reference needs to duplicate, word for word, what is in claims.
Applicants have not presented any substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in each group, except as will be noted in this action. In the absence of a separate argument with respect to those claims, they now stand or fall with the representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The Examiner wishes to pass this application to allowance, but in light of attorney’s remarks and the multiple new rejections caused by the amendment, this application in no way in any condition of allowance.
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.
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.
The USPTO will not accept requests for consideration under the AFCP 2.0 filed after December 14, 2024.
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