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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument in regards to at least independent claim 1, that the reference Yerramalli et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20240172169) fails to show certain features of applicant’s invention (i.e. transmitting information indicative of a plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by a network and an indication of an order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations).
In this case, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, and kindly reminds the Applicant that during patent examination the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. See also MPEP §2111. Furthermore, 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).
First, as discussed in the previous rejections, the Applicant’s claimed invention recited in at least the independent claims does not perform any significant function and/or improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The at least claimed limitation merely described at a high level of generality, the concept of “transmitting information” (i.e. plurality of configurations of signals that enables positioning and/or indication of order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations). (Emphasis Added). Thus, the Applicant’s claimed invention is merely an abstract idea, utilizing or applying generic computer performing generic computer functions.
Secondly, on pg. 8-9 of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argued and/or stated that “the current application as originally filed, the transmission or announcement of the "plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by a network" and the "order of preference for undertaking the plurality of configurations by the network" by a node apparatus enables improvement of the probability of a UE request for PRS resources to be undertaken or accepted by the network, therefore reducing latency”. Furthermore, the Applicant argued and/or stated that “the specification states that "when a UE 110 requests PRS resources it is not guaranteed that the network 100 will accept the request" (lines 26-27)”.
In response, as highlighted above, nothing in at least independent claim 1 and 24 suggest that the UE requested PRS resources and/or whether or not the network accepted or undertook. Given the at least claim it’s broadest reasonable interpretations, the at least claimed limitations in summary, simply discussed “a node apparatus” or “a network apparatus” transmitting information, and the description of the information transmitted (i.e. plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by a network and an indication of an order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations).
Thus, as suggested to the Applicant in the previous rejection on record, the at least claimed limitation in question is broad, vague, and/or unclear. Furthermore, 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).
Now, with respect to the applied prior art, Yerramalli, e.g. fig. 8, fig. 15, discussed the concept of transmitting plurality of positioning reference signal configurations may be associated with a lapsed timer and/or positioning reference signal configuration information may include a timer value indicating a timeframe when a positioning reference signal configuration is available (see also pp0006). As shown in fig. 15, PRS configuration includes timer or timeframe which is indicates or classifies each PRS to certain priority (see also pp0135 and pp0136).
Therefore, contrary to the Applicant’s arguments, since the plurality of positioning reference signal configurations including the indication of a timer value indicating a timeframe (which correlates or is associated with different priorities) is transmitted from a network device (i.e. network), the Examiner believes that the network undertakes (i.e. supports or accepts) the plurality of positioning reference signal configurations transmitted by the network device (e.g. gNB) (see fig. 8).
Thirdly, on pg. 11 of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argued and/or stated that “FIG. 15 of Yerramalli, a copy of which is provided below, clearly shows that the priority is related to the symbols onto which the PRS configurations 1, 2, or 3 can be mapped, and not to the PRS configurations themselves”.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant’s arguments as discussed above. Yerramalli, e.g. fig. 8, fig. 15, and pp0006, discussed the concept wherein the network transmits positioning reference signal configurations including the indication of a timer value indicating a timeframe (which correlates or is associated with different priorities). Therefore, the at least claimed limitation “an indication of an order of preference” has not been uniquely and/or particularly claimed so as to distinguish from the applied prior art. During patent examination, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. See also MPEP §2111. The at least claimed limitation in question does not state whether “the indication of order of preference” is directly or indirectly mapped to the PRS (see also pp0135 and pp0136). Therefore, at least claimed limitations are broadly claimed, therefore, fairly characterized as discussed above. Thus, the previous rejection is maintained.
In regards to independent claim 17, the Applicant argued that the prior art references (Yerramalli and Fischer) failed to teach the at least claimed limitations (i.e. “according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations" not to mention "obtaining [by the UE] an indication of an order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations”).
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant’s arguments and kindly directs the Applicant to the same and/or similar reasons as discussed in independent claim 1 above.
Furthermore, on pg. 13 of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argued and/or stated that “Fischer does not amount to "an order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations”.
In response, claim does not uniquely and particularly define the at least claimed limitations in question so as to distinguish from the applied prior art. During patent examination, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. See also MPEP §2111. The at least claimed limitations are broadly claimed, therefore, fairly characterized as discussed in Fischer, e.g. fig. 1, fig. 8, and pp0119. The UE transmit request (i.e. DL-PRS configuration to a network device), wherein the request includes DL-PRS Configuration Identifier/Index of a desired on-demand DL-PRS configuration (or a list of desired DL-PRS Configuration Identifications/Indices sorted according to priority). Therefore, similar to the discussion above, since the network device (or network) undertakes (i.e. receives or accepts) the request, indicating (a list of desired DL-PRS Configuration Identifications/Indices sorted according to priority), the Examiner believes that Fischer teaches the at least claimed limitations as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yerramalli with the teachings of Fischer to achieve the goal of efficiently and accurately realizing higher positioning accuracy and/or lower latency positioning requirements in a communication system.
Therefore, the previous rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 17, 19, 21, 24-26, 33, and 34, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a node apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by-the at least one processor. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites step (a) transmitting information indicative of a plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by a network and an indication of an order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations.
Steps (a), recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process that may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and/or with a pen and paper. In this case, the claimed invention merely recited plurality of information that can enable positioning and an indication of an order of preference of the plurality of information. This data information can be observed or evaluated with the human mind and/or written on a paper. Thus, steps (a) fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A, Prong One: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Claim 1 is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception., such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The current claim recited step (a) transmitting information indicative of a plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by a network and an indication of an order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations.
The step (a) of “transmitting” is mere data gathering at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, “undertaken by a network” or “the network undertakes” is used to generally apply the abstract idea on a generic computer, and provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer (i.e. “apply it” (or an equivalent)). See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the step (a) merely indicates a field of use or technological environment (i.e. positioning) in which the judicial exception is performed and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). These additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two: No), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: Claim 1 as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. In the current scenario, the additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer at a high level of generality which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: No).
Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
In regards to independent claim 24, the claim recited a network apparatus comprising the same and/or similar limitations as discussed in the apparatus of claim 1. Thus, claim 24 is rejected for the same or similar reasons as discussed in claim 1 above.
In regards to independent claim 17, the claim recited a User Equipment (UE) performing i.e. step (a) obtaining a plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by a network; step (b) obtaining an indication of an order of preference according to which the network undertakes for undertaking the plurality of configurations by the network; and step (c) transmitting one or more requests to the network indicating at least some of the plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning and the order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations.
Step 1: Claim 17 recites a User Equipment (UE) comprising; at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 17 is analyzed similarly to the analysis of claim 1 above. Thus, fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A, Prong One: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Claim 17, is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception., such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The current claim recited step (a), (b), and (c), is mere data gathering and outputting (i.e. obtaining and/or transmitting) at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, receiving or transmitting data over a network are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Also, “the network” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Furthermore, “by a network” or “the network undertakes” is used to generally apply the abstract idea on a generic computer, and provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer (i.e. “apply it” (or an equivalent)). See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the steps merely indicate a field of use or technological environment (i.e. positioning) in which the judicial exception is performed and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). These additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two: No), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: Claim 17 as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. In the current scenario, the additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer at a high level of generality which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: No).
Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
In regards to dependent claims, the dependent claims do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
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)(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) 1-3, 5-13, 24, 25 and 33, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yerramalli et al. (US Publication No. 20240172169).
As to claims 1 and 24, Yerramalli teaches a network apparatus and a node apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (fig. 1 and fig. 8), cause the node apparatus to perform at least the following: transmitting information indicative of a plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by the network (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, and pp0136, the UE 200 may receive posSIBs including a plurality of PRS configurations such as a first PRS configuration 1504, a second PRS configuration 1506, and a third PRS configuration 1508) and an indication of an order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations by the network (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, pp0135, pp0136, UE 200 may be configured to associate the symbol sets 1512, 1514, 1516 with relative priority values, pp0136, i.e. the first PRS configuration 1504 is associated with 1514 (priority 2), the second PRS configuration 1506 is associated with 1516 (priority 3), and the third PRS configuration 1508 is associated with 1512, 1516. The UE 200 may be configured to request the second PRS configuration 1506 because the third set of symbols 1516 is classified as Priority 3, and pp0006).
As to claim 2, Yerramalli teaches wherein the at least one memory further stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the node to perform at least one of: receiving the information indicative of the plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by the network from a network apparatus configured to determine locations of one or more User Equipments (UEs) (fig. 1, fig. 8, pp0118, the LMF 120 may provide one or more positioning System Information Blocks (posSIBs) containing a set of possible on-demand DL-PRS configurations to the gNB 110a in an NRPPa Assistance Information Control message for broadcast in positioning System Information, and pp0060, the UE 105 may obtain location measurements and send the measurements to a location server (e.g., the LMF 120) for computation of a location estimate for the UE 105); or receiving a request indicating the plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by the network from the network apparatus configured to determine locations of the one or more UEs.
As to claim 3, Yerramalli teaches wherein the network apparatus configured to determine location of one or more UEs comprises a Location Management Function (LMF) (fig. 1, fig. 8, pp0118, the LMF 120 may provide one or more positioning System Information Blocks (posSIBs) containing a set of possible on-demand DL-PRS configurations to the gNB 110a in an NRPPa Assistance Information Control message for broadcast in positioning System Information, and pp0060, the UE 105 may obtain location measurements and send the measurements to a location server (e.g., the LMF 120) for computation of a location estimate for the UE 105).
As to claim 5, Yerramalli teaches wherein the at least one memory further stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the node apparatus to perform receiving the information indicative of the plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by the network in a positioning protocol message (fig. 1, fig. 8, pp0118, the LMF 120 may provide one or more positioning System Information Blocks (posSIBs) containing a set of possible on-demand DL-PRS configurations to the gNB 110a in an NRPPa Assistance Information Control message for broadcast in positioning System Information).
As to claim 6, Yerramalli teaches wherein the information indicative of the plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by the network is transmitted by the node apparatus to one or more UEs (fig. 1, fig. 8, pp0118, at steps 1a and 1b the LMF 120 may provide one or more positioning System Information Blocks (posSIBs) containing a set of possible on-demand DL-PRS configurations to the gNB 110a in an NRPPa Assistance Information Control message for broadcast in positioning System Information).
As to claim 7, Yerramalli teaches wherein the information indicative of the plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by the network is transmitted by the node apparatus using a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message (fig. 1, fig. 8, 1b, RRC system information).
As to claim 8, Yerramalli teaches wherein the plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning comprise at least one of: configurations that are available at the node apparatus and at one or more neighbouring node apparatus (fig. 1, fig. 8, pp0035, the UE may be configured to request a DL-PRS configuration from multiple neighboring stations (e.g., the same DL-PRS configuration may be available at different stations in the network)); or Positioning Reference Signal (PRS) configurations.
As to claim 9, Yerramalli teaches wherein the plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning are determined based on data provided by the node apparatus and one or more neighbouring node apparatus (fig. 1, fig. 8, pp0035, the UE may be configured to request a DL-PRS configuration from multiple neighboring stations (e.g., the same DL-PRS configuration may be available at different stations in the network)).
As to claim 10, Yerramalli teaches wherein the order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations is configured so as to substantially optimize efficiency of network resources (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, pp0035, the positioning reference signal configuration request may be generated based at least in part on the priority value to increase the accuracy of the resulting position estimates and reduce the impact of positioning on other connection and control signaling).
As to claim 11, Yerramalli teaches wherein the information indicative of the plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by the network and the indication of the order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations are transmitted at regular intervals (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, transmit time and duration information in the plurality of positioning reference signal configurations).
As to claim 12, Yerramalli teaches wherein the information indicative of the plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by the network and the indication of the order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations are transmitted in response to a trigger event (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, pp0091, Positioning techniques may be characterized and/or assessed based on one or more criteria such as position determination accuracy and/or latency. Latency is a time elapsed between an event that triggers determination of position-related data, and pp0098, positioning techniques using PRS (Positioning Reference Signal) signals (e.g., TDOA and RTT), PRS signals sent by multiple TRPs).
As to claim 13, Yerramalli teaches wherein the plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by the network are specific to a subset of UEs (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, UEs).
As to claim 25, Yerramalli teaches wherein the at least one memory further stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the network apparatus to perform receiving, from a plurality of node apparatus, data indicative of configurations of signals that enable positioning undertaken by the plurality of node apparatus (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, pp0063, Information provided by the gNBs 110a, 110b, and/or the ng-eNB 114 to the LMF 120 using NRPPa may include timing and configuration information for directional SS or PRS transmissions and location coordinates) and using the data indicative of configurations of signals that enable positioning undertaken by the plurality of node apparatus to determine the plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by the network (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, pp0063, Information provided by the gNBs 110a, 110b, and/or the ng-eNB 114 to the LMF 120 using NRPPa may include timing and configuration information for directional SS or PRS transmissions and location coordinates, and pp0136, posSIBs including a plurality of PRS configurations such as a first PRS configuration 1504, a second PRS configuration 1506, and a third PRS configuration 1508) and the order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, pp0063, Information provided by the gNBs 110a, 110b, and/or the ng-eNB 114 to the LMF 120 using NRPPa may include timing and configuration information for directional SS or PRS transmissions and location coordinates, and pp0135, symbols which identifiers priority values of PRS configurations).
As to claim 33, Yerramalli teaches wherein the order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations is used by a user equipment (UE) to select one or more configurations of the plurality of configurations (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, pp0135, pp0136, UE 200 may be configured to associate the symbol sets 1512, 1514, 1516 with relative priority values, pp0136, i.e. the first PRS configuration 1504 is associated with 1514 (priority 2), the second PRS configuration 1506 is associated with 1516 (priority 3), and the third PRS configuration 1508 is associated with 1512, 1516. The UE 200 may be configured to request (i.e. select) the second PRS configuration 1506 because the third set of symbols 1516 is classified as Priority 3).
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) 17, 19, 21, 26, and 34, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerramalli et al. (US Publication No. 20240172169) in view of Fischer et al. (US Publication No. 20230243913).
As to claim 17, Yerramalli teaches a User Equipment (UE) comprising; at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (fig. 1, fig. 8), cause the UE to perform at least the following: obtaining a plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by a network (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, and pp0136, the UE 200 may receive posSIBs including a plurality of PRS configurations such as a first PRS configuration 1504, a second PRS configuration 1506, and a third PRS configuration 1508); obtaining an indication of an order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, pp0135, pp0136, UE 200 may be configured to associate the symbol sets 1512, 1514, 1516 with relative priority values, pp0136, i.e. the first PRS configuration 1504 is associated with 1514 (priority 2), the second PRS configuration 1506 is associated with 1516 (priority 3), and the third PRS configuration 1508 is associated with 1512, 1516. The UE 200 may be configured to request the second PRS configuration 1506 because the third set of symbols 1516 is classified as Priority 3, and pp0006); and transmitting one or more requests to the network indicating at least some of the plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, pp019, pp0150, UE 200 may generate a MO-LR Request including the preferred PRS configuration parameters 902 and/or a DL-PRS configuration identifier based on at least one of the plurality of PRS configurations provided at stage 1802. In an embodiment, the UE 200 may provide a request for a preferred PRS configuration, then provide the PRS configuration request to the gNB 110a, or other network entity, via a signaling protocol such as the MO-LR request). However, fails to explicitly teach transmitting the order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Fischer teaches the concept of transmitting the order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations (fig. 1, fig. 8, pp0119, the UE 105 may have one or more preconfigured or predefined DL-PRS configurations available which may be requested on-demand. The LPP Request Assistance Data message may include the DL-PRS Configuration Identifier/Index of a desired on-demand DL-PRS configuration (or a list of desired DL-PRS Configuration Identifications/Indices sorted according to priority), pp0117, additional parameters for indicating preferences for DL-PRS, and Clm. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yerramalli with the teachings of Fischer to achieve the goal of efficiently and accurately realizing higher positioning accuracy and/or lower latency positioning requirements in a communication system (Fischer, pp0031).
As to claim 19, Yerramalli in view of Fischer teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Yerramalli further teaches wherein the user equipment obtains information indicative of the plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by the network from at least one of: a node apparatus or a network apparatus (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, and pp0136, the UE 200 may receive posSIBs including a plurality of PRS configurations such as a first PRS configuration 1504, a second PRS configuration 1506, and a third PRS configuration 1508).
As to claim 21, Yerramalli in view of Fischer teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Yerramalli further teaches wherein the user equipment generates a list of the plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by the network and the order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, pp0149, generating the PRS configuration request. In an embodiment, at step 2a in the message flow 800, the UE 200 may be configured to associate the essential signals with relative priority values, the UE 200 may generate a MO-LR Request including the preferred PRS configuration parameters 902 and/or a DL-PRS configuration identifier based on at least one of the plurality of PRS configurations provided at stage 1802).
As to claim 26, Yerramalli teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Yerramalli further teaches wherein the at least one memory further stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the network apparatus is storing instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the network apparatus to perform receiving one or more positioning requests from one or more user equipment wherein the one or more positioning requests indicate at least some of the plurality of configurations of signals that enable positioning (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, pp019, pp0150, UE 200 may generate a MO-LR Request including the preferred PRS configuration parameters 902 and/or a DL-PRS configuration identifier based on at least one of the plurality of PRS configurations provided at stage 1802. In an embodiment, the UE 200 may provide a request for a preferred PRS configuration, then provide the PRS configuration request to the gNB 110a, or other network entity, via a signaling protocol such as the MO-LR request). However, fails to explicitly teach transmitting the order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Fischer teaches the concept of transmitting the order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations (fig. 1, fig. 8, pp0119, the UE 105 may have one or more preconfigured or predefined DL-PRS configurations available which may be requested on-demand. The LPP Request Assistance Data message may include the DL-PRS Configuration Identifier/Index of a desired on-demand DL-PRS configuration (or a list of desired DL-PRS Configuration Identifications/Indices sorted according to priority), pp0117, additional parameters for indicating preferences for DL-PRS, and Clm. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yerramalli with the teachings of Fischer to achieve the goal of efficiently and accurately realizing higher positioning accuracy and/or lower latency positioning requirements in a communication system (Fischer, pp0031).
As to claim 34, Yerramalli in view of Fischer teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Yerramalli further teaches wherein the at least one memory further stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the UE to perform selecting the at least some of the plurality of configurations based on the order of preference according to which the network undertakes the plurality of configurations (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, pp0135, pp0136, UE 200 may be configured to associate the symbol sets 1512, 1514, 1516 with relative priority values, pp0136, i.e. the first PRS configuration 1504 is associated with 1514 (priority 2), the second PRS configuration 1506 is associated with 1516 (priority 3), and the third PRS configuration 1508 is associated with 1512, 1516. The UE 200 may be configured to request (i.e. select) the second PRS configuration 1506 because the third set of symbols 1516 is classified as Priority 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMONIYI OBAYANJU whose telephone number is (571)270-5885. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 10:30-7pm.
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.
/OMONIYI OBAYANJU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights