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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed April 28, 2026. Claims 1-18 are still pending. Claims 1-8 and 16-18 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 9-15 are examined in the present application. 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 9 -11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edge et al. (US 2022/0007150, “Edge”).
Regarding claim 9, Edge teaches an apparatus of a second network entity ([0155] LMF 152S) configured to expose a location service for a terminal in a mobile network, the apparatus comprising
at least one processor, at least one memory including computer program code, and at least one interface configured for communication with at least another apparatus ([0286]), the at least one processor, with the at least one memory and the computer program code, being configured to cause the apparatus to:
receive, from a first network entity (AMF 154S) configured to handle connection and mobility management tasks in said mobile network, a second message indicative of completion of a mobility procedure with respect to said terminal ([0155] “after handover is complete, the source AMF 154S invokes the Namf_EventExposure_Notify service operation towards the source LMF 152S to notify the source LMF 152S of the handover”),
decide, based on said completion of said mobility procedure with respect to said terminal, to continue a location service related procedure ([0156] “the source LMF 152S may continue the location session if the target node is an AMF (i.e. for intra-RAN handover) and if the source LMF 152S will continue to function as the target LMF”).
Regarding claim 10, Edge teaches claim 9 and further teaches to transmit at least one of:
a first request message requesting transmission point information from a fourth network entity configured to provide access to said mobile network,
a second request message requesting location service assistance data from said fourth network entity, or
a third request message requesting location service measurements ([0004] “The LMF may receive a location service request for the UE using an SBI and may communicate with another entity in the network, through a second entity, to obtain location information for the UE measured by the other entity. The LMF may determine a location for the UE based on the location information” Note: “communicate with another entity… to obtain location information” teaches claimed requesting message).
Regarding claim 11, Edge teaches claim 9 and further teaches to: receive, from said first network entity, a request for a location report for said terminal ([0275] “first location server that is an LMF (e.g. LMF 152) may receive a location service request for an NI-LR from an AMF (e.g. AMF 154)… a first location server that is an LMF (e.g. LMF 152) may communicate with a first entity that is a UE (e.g. UE 105) to obtain the location information”).
Regarding claim 13, Edge teaches claim 9 and further teaches to: receive, from a third network entity configured to handle connection and mobility management tasks in said mobile network, a request for a location report for said terminal ([0153] “In the case of handover to another AMF. ”[0275] “a first location server that is an LMF (e.g. LMF 152) may receive a location service request for an MR-LR from a GMLC (e.g. GMLC 155V or GMLC 155H) using an LMF SBI and an Nlmf_ProvideLocation_Request service operation…. first location server that is an LMF (e.g. LMF 152) may receive a location service request for an NI-LR from an AMF (e.g. AMF 154)… a first location server that is an LMF (e.g. LMF 152) may communicate with a first entity that is a UE (e.g. UE 105) to obtain the location information”).
Regarding claim 15, Edge teaches claim 9 and further teaches wherein said mobility procedure with respect to said terminal is any one of a handover procedure, a redirection procedure, or a radio access network based notification area update procedure ([0155] “after handover is complete, the source AMF 154S invokes the Namf_EventExposure_Notify service operation towards the source LMF 152S to notify the source LMF 152S of the handover”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge in view of Hao et al . (US 2023/0337139, “Hao”).
Regarding claim 12, Edge teaches claim 11 and but does not teach to: receive a fifth message from a fifth network entity configured to provide access to said mobile network, the fifth message being indicative of a start of said mobility procedure with respect to said terminal.
Hao teaches to: receive a fifth message from a fifth network entity configured to provide access to said mobile network, the fifth message being indicative of a start of said mobility procedure with respect to said terminal ([00394] “ The terminal device may indicate, to the LMF by using the LPP message, that the terminal device has performed cell reselection or the cell change… The terminal device may send an RRC message to a fourth access network device… The RRC message herein may include a NAS message sent to an AMF and a routing ID. The NAS message may include an LPP PDU. The LPP PDU includes the LPP message sent to the LMF. The AMF may forward, based on the routing ID, the LPP message included in the LPP PDU to the corresponding LMF. The LPP message may be used to request to update an SRS configuration for the terminal device, or indicate that the terminal device has moved out of the cell, or indicate that the terminal device has performed cell reselection or the cell changes”. It is understood LMF receives LLP message from “fourth access network device” corresponding to the claimed “fifth network entity”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature to: receive a fifth message from a fifth network entity configured to provide access to said mobile network, the fifth message being indicative of a start of said mobility procedure with respect to said terminal, as taught by Hao in Edge, to avoid power consumption waste for a terminal device.
Regarding claim 14, Edge teaches claim 13 and but does not teach to: receive a fifth message from said first network entity, the fifth message being indicative of a start of said mobility procedure with respect to said terminal.
Hao teaches to: receive a fifth message from said first network entity, the fifth message being indicative of a start of said mobility procedure with respect to said terminal ([00394] “ The terminal device may indicate, to the LMF by using the LPP message, that the terminal device has performed cell reselection or the cell change… The terminal device may send an RRC message to a fourth access network device… The RRC message herein may include a NAS message sent to an AMF and a routing ID. The NAS message may include an LPP PDU. The LPP PDU includes the LPP message sent to the LMF. The AMF may forward, based on the routing ID, the LPP message included in the LPP PDU to the corresponding LMF. The LPP message may be used to request to update an SRS configuration for the terminal device, or indicate that the terminal device has moved out of the cell, or indicate that the terminal device has performed cell reselection or the cell changes”. It is understood terminal device sends the message via a access network device).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature to: receive a fifth message from a fifth network entity configured to provide access to said mobile network, the fifth message being indicative of a start of said mobility procedure with respect to said terminal, as taught by Hao in Edge, to avoid power consumption waste for a terminal device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 9, Applicant argues “With respect to claim 9, Edge does not teach or suggest “…decide, based on said completion of said mobility procedure with respect to said terminal, to continue a location service related procedure" (Remarks, page 8) because “the determination of whether the LMF will continue functioning is actually made by the source AMF 154S (the claimed first network entity), not the LMF 152S” (Remarks, page 9)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Edge teaches the decision on the suitability of the source LMF made by AMF can be avoided. Paragraph [0153] recites “[t]he suitability of a source LMF 155S to function as a target LMF for different target AMFs might be configured in the source AMF 154S. Such configuration can be avoided if all LMFs in 5GCN 150 can serve as a target LMF for all AMFs in 5GCN 150 or if the source LMF 152S is always assumed to change to a different target LMF following handover” (emphasis added).
On the other hand paragraph [0156] recites “the source LMF 152S may continue the location session if the target node is an AMF (i.e. for intra-RAN handover) and if the source LMF 152S will continue to function as the target LMF. Otherwise, for an inter-RAN handover (e.g. to E-UTRAN connected to EPC) or where the source LMF 152S will not function as the target LMF, the source LMF 152S aborts the location session” (emphasis added). The Examiner submits, the decision whether to continue the location session is made entirely by LMF 152S.
Therefore, the Examiner submits Edge teaches all limitations of claim 9
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Edge (US 2018/0199160) control plane location.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOC THAI NGOC VU whose telephone number is (571)270-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached at 571-272-7915. 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.
/QUOC THAI N VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights