DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/29/2026 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 18, 20-22, 24-31, and 33-40 are presented for examination. This Action is made FINAL.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18, 20-22, 24-31, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edge et al. (US Pub. 20190053010 A1).
For claims 18 and 31, Edge discloses a method [0004-6], comprising:
receiving, by a terminal device (105), request location information from a location management function device (152) [0185-203],
wherein the request location information requests a positioning location and comprises integrity information [0185-203], and
the integrity information comprises information indicating a requirement on positioning integrity (Fig. 13, stage 10 and 14, i.e., ultra high location accuracy or privacy requirements) [0185-203]; and
sending, by the terminal device, provide location information to the location management function device, the provide location information indicating the positioning location (Fig. 13, Stage 11 and 14) [0199-201, 0272-0275];
wherein the provide location information comprises a protection level, and the protection level represents a statistical value of a positioning error of the positioning location (Fig. 13, step 10 and 14) [0042-45, 0108, 0147, 0201].
See below for more explanation: (In particular, see stage 10 and 14, par. 195, "At stage 10, the LMF 152 may notify the UE 105 of the location request and verify UE 105 privacy requirements based on any privacy requirements received from the HGMLC 155H in stages 4-6. If this occurs, the LMF 152 sends a supplementary services Location Notification invoke to the UE 105 via the serving AMF 154 using the Namf_Communication_N1N2MessageTransfer service operation. It is noted that transfer of supplementary services messages and positioning messages between the LMF 152 and UE 105 for stages 10, 11 and 14 may be based on the procedure in FIG. 6 or may use a similar procedure in the case of non-3GPP access by UE 105 (e.g. WLAN access), in which supplementary services messages and positioning messages are transferred between the LMF 152 and UE 105 via an AMF 154, N3IWF and AN.", par. 201, "The continuation of the positioning session following a change of AMF at stage 14 as just described may avoid additional delay to restart the MT-LR request following a change of AMF (e.g. by a VGMLC 155Vor HGMLC 155H) or failure of the MR-LR request if there is insufficient response time left to restart the MR-LR request. This may be significant to a request from an external client 130 at stage 1 for ultra high location accuracy (e.g. 10 centimeters location error or less) where high location reliability and/or low response time is also needed. For example, this may apply in a factory where a UE 105 is associated with a moving part or product that is being assembled or in the process of shipment. For example, the continuation of the positioning session following the change of AMF may help ensure that the ultra high location accuracy with high reliability and/or low response time can be supported')
For claims 20 and 33, Edge discloses receiving, by the terminal device, assistance information from the location management function device, wherein the assistance information is configured to assist in determining the protection level (Fig. 13, step 10 and 14; see location error) [0185-203].
For claims 21 and 35, Edge discloses the integrity information comprises an integrity risk (location error less than 10 cm) [0201].
For claim 22, Edge discloses a method [0004-6], comprising:
receiving, by a location management function device (152), a request message [0185-203],
wherein the request message requests to position a terminal device (105), the request message comprises integrity information of positioning [0185-203], and
the integrity information comprises information indicating a requirement on positioning integrity (Fig. 13, stage 10 and 14, i.e., ultra high location accuracy or privacy requirements) [0185-203]; and
positioning, by the location management function device, the terminal device based on the request message (Fig. 13, Stage 11 and 14) [0199-201, 0272-0275].
See below for more explanation: (In particular, see stage 10 and 14, par. 195, "At stage 10, the LMF 152 may notify the UE 105 of the location request and verify UE 105 privacy requirements based on any privacy requirements received from the HGMLC 155H in stages 4-6. If this occurs, the LMF 152 sends a supplementary services Location Notification invoke to the UE 105 via the serving AMF 154 using the Namf_Communication_N1N2MessageTransfer service operation. It is noted that transfer of supplementary services messages and positioning messages between the LMF 152 and UE 105 for stages 10, 11 and 14 may be based on the procedure in FIG. 6 or may use a similar procedure in the case of non-3GPP access by UE 105 (e.g. WLAN access), in which supplementary services messages and positioning messages are transferred between the LMF 152 and UE 105 via an AMF 154, N3IWF and AN.", par. 201, "The continuation of the positioning session following a change of AMF at stage 14 as just described may avoid additional delay to restart the MT-LR request following a change of AMF (e.g. by a VGMLC 155Vor HGMLC 155H) or failure of the MR-LR request if there is insufficient response time left to restart the MR-LR request. This may be significant to a request from an external client 130 at stage 1 for ultra high location accuracy (e.g. 10 centimeters location error or less) where high location reliability and/or low response time is also needed. For example, this may apply in a factory where a UE 105 is associated with a moving part or product that is being assembled or in the process of shipment. For example, the continuation of the positioning session following the change of AMF may help ensure that the ultra high location accuracy with high reliability and/or low response time can be supported')
For claim 24, Edge discloses sending, by the location management function device, assistance information to the terminal device, wherein the assistance information is configured to assist in determining the protection level (Fig. 13, step 10 and 14; see above location error explanation) [0185-203].
For claim 25, Edge discloses the integrity information comprises an integrity risk (Fig. 13, step 10 and 14; see location error) [0185-203].
For claim 26, Edge discloses the request message comprises a quality of service (QoS), and the integrity information belongs to the QoS ("The Nlmf_ProvideLocation service operation in Table 3 may enable a Network Function (NF) such as a GMLC 155 to request location information for a target UE 105. For example, the service operation may allow an NF to request the current geodetic or civic location of a target UE 105 from an LMF 152 and may allow the LMF 152 to return the requested location information to the NF. The requesting NF may include the SUP/ for the UE 105 and an external client type in a request and may optionally include a location Quality of Service (QoS) and/or supported Geographical Area Description (GAD) shapes. The LMF 152 may return a Success/Failure indication and optionally a geodetic location, civic location, position methods used, and/or a failure cause.") [0182].
For claim 27, Edge discloses the integrity information comprises a key performance indicator of integrity [0182, 0306, 0320-321].
For claim 28, Edge discloses determining, by the location management function device based on an alert limit and a protection level, whether an alert message needs to be sent, and in response to determining the alert message needs to be sent, sending, by the location management function device, the alert message to an access and mobility management function device (Fig. 15, step 14) [0223, 0200].
For claim 29, Edge discloses receiving, by the location management function device, assistance information from an access network device or the terminal device, wherein the assistance information is configured to assist in determining the location of the terminal device or determining a protection level ("In addition, in some implementations, base stations (e.g. similar to or based on a gNB 110 or ng-eNB 114) may function as positioning only beacons and transmit signals (e.g. PRS) to assist positioning of a UE 105 but not receive signals.") [0064].
For claim 30, Edge discloses the assistance information comprises at least one of the following: information indicating whether a positioning reference signal (PRS) is available, a PRS error model, a downlink positioning error model, an uplink positioning error model, a measurement error model, a measurement error, or a sounding reference signal (SRS) error model, wherein the downlink positioning error model is used by the terminal device to assist in determining the positioning location during downlink positioning, and the uplink positioning error model is used by the terminal device to assist in determining the positioning location during uplink positioning (e.g. similar to or based on a gNB 110 or ng-eNB 114) may function as positioning only beacons and transmit signals (e.g. PRS) to assist positioning of a UE 105 but not receive signals.") [0064].
For claim 34, Edge discloses using the assistance information to determine the protection level (Fig. 13, step 10 and 14; see location error) [0064, 0185-203].
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 of this title, 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) 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge et al. (US Pub. 20190053010 A1) in view of Modarres et al. (US Pub. 20230224849 A1).
For claims 36 and 38, Edge discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Edge doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Modarres.
Modarres discloses the integrity information comprises a key performance indicator of integrity [0125].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing positioning accuracy used in a mobile network; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Edge with Modarres to ensure positioning error in accuracy can be compensated, thus, improving positional information for the network.
For claims 37 and 39, Edge discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Edge doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Modarres.
Modarres discloses the protection level is for checking whether the positioning error is within an alert interval [0055-56].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing positioning accuracy used in a mobile network; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Edge with Modarres to ensure positioning error in accuracy can be compensated, thus, improving positional information for the network.
For claim 40, Edge, as modified by Modarres, Modarres further discloses the alert interval is an interval in which the positioning error is greater than an alert limit [0055-58]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's latest filed arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the references failing to teach every element recited in the independent claims; the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments by the Applicant. Even though, the Examiner acknowledges Applicant's invention may possess some novel features, the claims are written too broad that can be read on the current cited prior art(s). Further actions must be taken to explicitly claim those novel features of the current application.
With regards to the argument for the limitation “…wherein the provide location information comprises a protection level, and the protection level represents a statistical value of a positioning error of the positioning location…”, the Examiner asserts that Edge discloses, on Fig. 13, the provided location information comprises a protection level representing a statistical value of positioning error because it discloses that the location information includes accuracy and confidence-related parameters associated with the location estimate. Specifically, paragraph [0147] teaches that the service operation includes the “location estimate, its age and accuracy,” thereby establishing that the provided location information includes accuracy information associated with the estimated location, which corresponds to a protection level parameter that characterizes positioning uncertainty. Further, paragraph [0045] teaches that the UE location may be expressed as an area or volume “within which the UE is expected to be located with some probability or confidence level (e.g., 67%, 95%, etc.),” which represents a statistical characterization of the positioning error because such confidence levels define probabilistic bounds on the difference between the estimated location and the true UE location. Since a protection level represents a statistical bound on positioning error, the disclosed accuracy and confidence level parameters constitute a protection level as claimed, because they statistically quantify the positioning uncertainty associated with the provided location information [0042-45, 0147]. Moreover, Because a "protection level" in positioning is a statistical characterization of the uncertainty of a location estimate, the disclosed use of QoS parameters and specific location error thresholds (e.g., 10 cm) also constitutes a protection level as claimed, as they statistically quantify the positioning uncertainty associated with the provided location information [0108, 0201].
As discussed above, it is apparent that the Applicant's cited limitations, elements, and arguments have already been disclosed by the relevant prior art(s) or were thoroughly addressed by the Examiner. Additionally, the current Office Action provides further elaboration on the explicit and implicit teachings of the aforementioned disclosed reference(s). It is important to note that any justifications and citations utilized in the preceding Office Action which were not contested by the Applicant shall be regarded as an implicit admission by the Applicant on the matter at hand.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409