DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/26/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The amendments to the specification filed 5/26/2026 are accepted.
Examiner’s Comment
The citation of Kass US 5,392,052 in the final office action has been changed herein to Kass US 5,389,934, consistent with Examiner’s discussion with Applicant in the 4/21/2026 interview, Applicant’s remarks on page 12 of the 5/26/2026 response, and the 3/26/2026 Notice of References Cited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the amended claims address the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 10 (response page 13), Examiner agrees, and the rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the cited prior art does not teach or make obvious “over a sidelink signaling radio bearer (SRB)” as recited in the amended independent claims (response pages 13-15), a new secondary reference, Pan (US 20260181675 A1), has been introduced as evidence that this feature is an obvious modification of Korneluk.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that claims 13 and 24 are patentable because the cited references fail to disclose the elements recited in these claims (response page 15), Pan (US 20260181675 A1) has been introduced as evidence that these elements are obvious modifications of Korneluk.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 31 recites “wherein, to transmit the GNSS assistance data, the at least one processor is configured to: transmit, for the first UE, the GNSS assistance data for the sidelink positioning session”. However, claim 21, on which claim 31 depends, already recites “transmit, for the first UE, the GNSS assistance data for the sidelink positioning session” in lines 8-9. Claim 31 therefore does not appear to further limit the subject matter of claim 21.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19, 21-27, and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korneluk (US 7277049 B2) in view of Pan (US 20260181675 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 29, Korneluk teaches [NOTE: limitation not taught by Korneluk are lined through] an apparatus for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE) (100, Fig. 1; 202, Fig. 2), comprising:
at least one memory (112, Fig. 1); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (132, Fig. 1) and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor is configured to:
obtain, via a sidelink message, global navigation satellite system (GNSS) assistance data for a sidelink positioning session with one or more second UEs (abstract “satellite positioning assistance information”, “The mobile communication device receives the assistance information from a peer mobile communication device (204, 206) over a direct link”) , wherein the GNSS assistance data is included in an information element (IE) that mirrors a GNSS IE including second assistance data in an access link (the assistance data mirrors second assistance data receive in an access link between the network node 206 and communication base station 208 as shown in Fig. 2, reproduced below, and as per 4:63-67 “Peer mobile communication device 206 is within range of base station 208, and is therefore able to receive satellite positioning assistance information from the base station, if the such functionality is supported by the base station and communication system”);
calculate, based on the GNSS assistance data for the sidelink positioning session, a position of at least one of the first UE or the one or more second UEs (308, Fig. 3 after info received at 310, Fig. 3); and
output an indication of the calculated position of at least one of the first UE or the one or more second UEs (1:30-34 “mobile communication devices include a means for determining their own location and reporting it when necessary”).
Examiner notes that obtaining GNSS assistance data via a sidelink message and calculating UE position based thereon is considered to comprise a sidelink positioning session.
As indicated by the lined through language above, Korneluk does not teach that the sidelink message comprising the assistance data is obtained over a sidelink signaling radio bearer (SRB).
Pan (US 20260181675 A1), in analogous art, teaches assistance data obtained over a sidelink SRB (para. [0022] "A SLPP message may carry positioning information of a UE, and it usually has ... assistance data transfer" and "SLPP message can be transmitted as a SL-SRB (signaling radio bearer)").
It would have been obvious to modify Korneluk such that the assistance data is obtained over a sidelink SRB as taught by Pan because the assistance data must be obtained over the sidelink in some manner and a sidelink SRB is known to be used for obtaining data, including positioning assistance data, and could be used with predictable results. This is a matter of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claims 21, 30, and 31, Korneluk teaches [NOTE: limitations not taught by Korneluk are lined through] an apparatus for wireless communication at a network node (100, Fig. 1; 206, Fig. 2), comprising:
at least one memory (112, Fig. 1); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (132, Fig. 1) and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor is configured to:
configure global navigation satellite system (GNSS) assistance data for a sidelink positioning session between a first user equipment (UE) and one or more second UEs (6:12-15 “the mobile communication device can then form a set of assistance parameters, which may be shared with other mobile communication devices, if permitted, as indicated by block 314”; 202 and 204, Fig. 2, comprise the first and second UEs); and
transmit, for the first UE, the GNSS assistance data for the sidelink positioning session between the first UE and the one or more second UEs (6:16-21 “If the mobile communication device is designed to share assistance information... the mobile communication device may transmit the assistance information to another mobile communication device, such as by broadcast, as indicated by block 316”)wherein the GNSS assistance data for the sidelink positioning sessions between the first UE and the one or more second UEs is included in an information element (IE) that mirrors a GNSS IE including second assistance data in an access link (the assistance data mirrors second assistance data receive in an access link between the network node 206 and communication base station 208 as shown in Fig. 2, reproduced below, and as per 4:63-67 “Peer mobile communication device 206 is within range of base station 208, and is therefore able to receive satellite positioning assistance information from the base station, if the such functionality is supported by the base station and communication system”).
Examiner notes that obtaining GNSS assistance data via a sidelink message and calculating UE position based thereon is considered to comprise a sidelink positioning session.
As indicated by the lined through language above, Korneluk does not teach that the sidelink message comprising the assistance data is obtained over a sidelink signaling radio bearer (SRB).
Pan (US 20260181675 A1), in analogous art, teaches assistance data obtained over a sidelink SRB (para. [0022] "A SLPP message may carry positioning information of a UE, and it usually has ... assistance data transfer" and "SLPP message can be transmitted as a SL-SRB (signaling radio bearer)").
It would have been obvious to modify Korneluk such that the assistance data is obtained over a sidelink SRB as taught by Pan because the assistance data must be obtained over the sidelink in some manner and a sidelink SRB is known to be used for obtaining data, including positioning assistance data, and could be used with predictable results. This is a matter of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claim 2, Korneluk teaches a transceiver (124, Fig. 1) coupled to the at least one processor (132, Fig. 1), wherein, to obtain the GNSS assistance data, the at least one processor is configured to receive the GNSS assistance data via the transceiver (abstract “The mobile communication device receives the assistance information from a peer mobile communication device (204, 206) over a direct link” in view of 3:40-41 “data received over the RF transceiver”), and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
establish, prior to the obtainment of the GNSS assistance data, the sidelink positioning session with the one or more second UEs (8:23-30 “establishing an information link directly with a peer mobile communication device”), wherein to obtain the GNSS assistance data, the at least one processor is configured to obtain the GNSS assistance data for the established sidelink positioning session (8:30-33 “If a peer mobile communication device responds... receiving the current satellite positioning assistance information from the peer mobile communication device over the information link”).
Regarding claim 3, Korneluk’s GNSS assistance data appears to necessarily be either obtained via one of common signaling or dedicated signaling.
Regarding claim 4, Korneluk teaches wherein the GNSS assistance data includes GNSS data types and GNSS data elements associated with the GNSS data types (7:44-46 “The satellite positioning assistance information may include satellite ephemeris, satellite almanac, approximate position, present time of day, or any combination thereof”).
Regarding claim 5, Korneluk teaches wherein the GNSS data types include one or more of: GNSS common assistance data (7:44-46 “The satellite positioning assistance information may include satellite ephemeris, satellite almanac, approximate position, present time of day, or any combination thereof”), observed time difference of arrival (OTDOA) assistance data, barometric assistance data, time difference of arrival-based system (TBS) assistance data, or New Radio (NR) downlink time difference of arrival / downlink angle of arrival (DL-TDOA/DL-AoD) assistance data.
Regarding claim 7, Korneluk teaches wherein the at least one processor, is further configured to: establish, prior to the obtainment of the GNSS assistance data, sidelink communication with the one or more second UEs (8:23-30 “establishing an information link directly with a peer mobile communication device”), wherein to obtain the GNSS assistance data, the at least one processor is configured to obtain the GNSS assistance data for the established sidelink communication (8:30-33 “If a peer mobile communication device responds... receiving the current satellite positioning assistance information from the peer mobile communication device over the information link”).
Regarding claim 8, Korneluk teaches wherein, to obtain the GNSS assistance data, the at least one processor is configured to: receive, from a network node, the GNSS assistance data for the sidelink positioning session (GNSS assistance data is received by 202 from 206 as per 6:16-21 “If the mobile communication device is designed to share assistance information... the mobile communication device may transmit the assistance information to another mobile communication device, such as by broadcast, as indicated by block 316”).
Regarding claim 9, Korneluk’s network node 206 can be considered at least a third UE, a sidelink device, or a wireless device.
Regarding claims 11 and 23, Korneluk teaches wherein, to obtain or transmit the GNSS assistance data, the at least one processor is configured to: obtain or transmit the GNSS assistance data via one of a sidelink unicast message (5:56-60 “targeted to another particular mobile communication device”), a sidelink groupcast message, or a sidelink broadcast message (5:56-60 “broadcast to all mobile communication device within radio range”).
Regarding claims 13 and 24, Korneluk teaches GNSS assistance data obtained via a sidelink unicast meassage (5:56-60 “targeted to another particular mobile communication device”), and Pan teaches obtaining assistance data via PDCP SDU over SRB (para. [0022] "A SLPP message may carry positioning information of a UE, and it usually has ... assistance data transfer" and "SLPP message can be transmitted as a SL-SRB (signaling radio bearer)"; paras. [0057]-[0058] "different layers for transmission of the SLPP message is describe as follows", "PDCP SDU", and "SRB"; para. [0068] "the Rx UE may determine whether to send the PDCP SDU..."; para. [0061] "the SLPP message/PDCP... SDU/SL-SRB"). It would have been obvious to further modify Korneluk by obtaining the assistance data via PDCP SDU over SRB as taught by Pan because the assistance data must be obtained over the sidelink unicast in some manner and PDCP SDU over SRB is known to be used for obtaining data, including positioning assistance data, and could be used with predictable results. This is a matter of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claims 14 and 25, the PC5-RRC IE and PC5-S IE are recited only in the alternative in claims 13 and 24, on which claims 14 and 25 depend, respectively. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 14 and 25 therefore does not require these elements.
Regarding claims 17 and 27, Korneluk teaches GNSS assistance data obtained via a sidelink broadcast message (5:56-60 “broadcast to all mobile communication device within range”). Koreneluk does not teach the assistance data obtained in a PDCP SDU over the sidelink SRB.
Pan teaches obtaining assistance data via PDCP SDU over SRB (para. [0022] "A SLPP message may carry positioning information of a UE, and it usually has ... assistance data transfer" and "SLPP message can be transmitted as a SL-SRB (signaling radio bearer)"; paras. [0057]-[0058] "different layers for transmission of the SLPP message is describe as follows", "PDCP SDU", and "SRB"; para. [0068] "the Rx UE may determine whether to send the PDCP SDU..."; para. [0061] "the SLPP message/PDCP... SDU/SL-SRB").
It would have been obvious to further modify Korneluk by obtaining the assistance data via PDCP SDU over SRB as taught by Pan because the assistance data must be obtained over the sidelink in some manner and PDCP SDU over SRB is known to be used for obtaining data, including positioning assistance data, and could be used with predictable results. This is a matter of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Claims 15 and 26 differ from claims 17 and 27 in reciting a groupcast message. As discussed above, Korneluk teaches unicast and broadcast messages. Korneluk does not teach groupcast messages. However, groupcast messages, like unicast and broadcast, are well-known. For example Pan teaches groupcast in para. [0025] "the SLPP message may support all cast types of transmissions, including broadcast, group cast, and/or, unicast". Groupcast provides a message to a desired group of devices, while unicast provides a message to a single device, and broadcast to all devices within receiving range. It would have been obvious to further modify Korneluk by implementing groupcast messages in order to provide messages to a desired group. This is a simple substitution of one type of transmission for another to obtain predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claim 19, Korneluk’s sidelink positioning session is inherently associated with a sidelink positioning protocol (SLPP). For example the Fig. 3 flowchart can be considered to comprise such protocol.
Regarding claim 22, Korneluk teaches a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (124, Fig. 1), wherein, to transmit the GNSS assistance data, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the GNSS assistance data via the transceiver (6:18-21 “the mobile communication device may transmit the assistance information to another mobile communication device, such as by broadcast, as indicated by block 316”, where use of the transceiver is implied), and wherein the network node is at least one of:
a roadside unit (RSU), a base station, a third UE, a sidelink device, or a wireless device (the network node comprises a third UE 206 as shown in Fig. 2, or can also be considered a sidelink device or a wireless device).
Regarding claim 32, Korneluk teaches:
establishing, prior to the obtainment of the GNSS assistance data, the sidelink positioning session with the one or more second UEs (8:23-30 “establishing an information link directly with a peer mobile communication device”), wherein obtaining the GNSS assistance data comprises:
obtaining the GNSS assistance data for the established sidelink positioning session (8:30-33 “If a peer mobile communication device responds... receiving the current satellite positioning assistance information from the peer mobile communication device over the information link”).
Regarding claim 33, Korneluk’s GNSS assistance data appears to necessarily be either obtained via one of common signaling or dedicated signaling.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korneluk (US 7277049 B2) in view of Pan (US 20260181675 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 20250168818 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Korneluk does not teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, via a PC5-sidelink (PC5-S), a request message requesting the indication of the calculated position, and wherein, to output the indication of the calculated position, the at least one processor is configured to: output, in response to the request message, the indication of the calculated position.
Zhang, in analogous art, teaches a processor (UE1, Fig. 8) configured to receive, via a PC5-sidelink (PC5-S) (Fig. 4 and para. [0073] “PC5”), a request message requesting the indication of a calculated position (“5. Sidelink location request”, Fig. 8), and wherein, to output the indication of the calculated position, the at least one processor is configured to: output, in response to the request message, the indication of the calculated position (“7. Sidelink location request (Positioning result)”). Zhang teaches that terminal positioning performance is thereby improved (para. [0065]).
It would have been obvious to modify Korneluk in view of Zhang in order to provide improved positioning performance.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korneluk (US 7277049 B2) in view of Pan (US 20260181675 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Haverkam (US 20080111737 A1) or Gordin (US 8768382 B1)].
Regarding claim 10, Korneluk’s memory 112 comprises a storage medium that is inherently associated with the positioning application illustrated in Fig. 3.
Regarding “obtain, from a storage medium, the GNSS assistance data for the sidelink positioning session”, this is well-known in the art - for example, see:
Haverkam para. [0034] “the stored location aiding parameters... are retrieved” and Gordin 4:55-56 “retrieve and use the stored AGPS data”.
It would have been obvious modify Korneluk in view of Haverkam or Gordin by storing said data in memory 112, Fig. 1, and subsequently obtaining it, in order to store the assistance data for use at a later time.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korneluk (US 7277049 B2) in view of Pan (US 20260181675 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Hirata (US 5257195 A) or Kass (US 5389934 A)].
Regarding claim 20, Korneluk does not teach wherein, to output the indication of the position of at least one of the first UE or the one or more second UEs, the at least one processor is configured to: transmit, to the one or more second UEs, the indication of the position of at least one of the first UE or the one or more second UEs, or store, in the at least one memory or a cache, the indication of the position of at least one of the first UE or the one or more second UEs.
However, it is well known at least to output an indication of position by storing it in a memory or a cache – for example, see:
Hirata’s GPS data memory unit 7, Fig. 2, and 4:57-59 “The data processing unit 1 stores the successive GPS data in the GPS data memory unit 7”; and
Kass’ claim 7 “a memory unit for storing location information supplies by said global positioning system”.
It would have been obvious to modify Korneluk by outputting the indication of the position to at least one memory or a cache as taught by Hirata or Kass in order to store the indication for use at a later time.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korneluk (US 7277049 B2) in view of Pan (US 20260181675 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Eckermann (“Cooperative Validation of CAM Position Information Using C-V2X”).
Regarding claim 28, Korneluk’s sidelink positioning session is inherently associated with a sidelink positioning protocol (SLPP). For example the Fig. 3 flowchart can be considered to comprise such protocol.
Further, it is well known, in sidelink positioning systems such as Korneluk’s, for a network node (i.e. 206, Fig. 2) to receive, from a first UE (i.e. 202, Fig. 2), an indication of a position of at least one of the first UE or the one or more second UEs. For example, Eckermann’s abstract teaches, with respect to C-V2X, “the vehicles typically exchange location data obtained by on-board positioning modules such as satellite receivers”, and the Introduction teaches “The exchange of positioning information is a foundational function of many cooperative intelligent systems”, such that “agents [can] be aware of agents outside of their own sensor range”. It would have been obvious to modify Korneluk as claimed because it is a well-known feature with the advantage of providing situational awareness. In Korneluk’s case, one would further expect the indications of position to be based on the GNSS assistance data provided for the sidelink positioning session.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, RESHA DESAI can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights