DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 10 and 14, the rejection of claim 14 is withdrawn. However the rejection of claim 10 has been rewritten in view of the claim amendments. Claim 10 is also newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as reciting new matter.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Korneluk does not disclose “wherein the GNSS assistance data is included in an information element (IE) that mirrors a GNSS IE including a second assistance data in an access link” as recited in amended claims 1, 21, 29, and 30, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Korneluk discloses a first UE 202 receiving GNSS assistance data from a second UE 204 or 206 (abstract, Fig. 2). Korneluk further discloses UE 206 receiving assistance information from base station 208 (“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”), where the connection between UE 206 and base station 208 meets the claimed “access link”. In the case where UE 206 receives GNSS assistance data from base station 208, and where UE 202 receives GNSS assistance data from UE 206, the GNSS assistance data received by UE 202 “mirrors”, or is the same as, assistance data in the access link between base station 208 and UE 206, meeting the language. Further, any of Korneluk’s assistance data comprises information and can therefore be considered to be included in an information element IE.
PNG
media_image1.png
708
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Applicant’s traversal of official notice in the rejections of claims 10 and 20, Examiner has now provided evidence of the conventionality of the recited limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the scope of “receive, from a storage medium via the sidelink message, the GNSS assistance data for the sidelink positioning session” cannot be clearly determined.
Applicant has cited paras. [0109] and Fig. 11 in support of the amended language. Para. [0109] describes Fig. 11 as follows (emphasis added):
[0109] The first UE 1102 may obtain, via a sidelink message, GNSS assistance data for a sidelink positioning session with the second UE 1106. In some examples, the first UE 1102 may, at 1114, obtain the GNSS assistance data from the network node 1104. In some examples, the first UE 1102 may, at 1116, obtain the GNSS assistance data from a storage medium, which may be a memory (e.g., the memory 1130) or a cache.
PNG
media_image2.png
510
796
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The specification therefore does not appear to describe receiving GNSS assistance data “from a storage medium via the sidelink message”, and one of ordinary skill would not understand what is meant.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, as discussed above with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b), “receive, from a storage medium via the sidelink message, the GNSS assistance data for the sidelink positioning sessions” does not appear to be described in the specification as originally filed and therefore comprises new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the /CASSI J GALT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648 art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co.v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
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 1-5, 7-9, 11, 19, 21-23, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korneluk (US 7277049 B2).
Regarding claims 1 and 29, Korneluk teaches 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.
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 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 claims 21 and 30, Korneluk teaches 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”).
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.
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 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”).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korneluk (US 7277049 B2) in view of [Haverkam (US 20080111737 A1) or Gordin (US 8768382 B1)].
Regarding claim 10, Korneluk’s memory 112 is inherently associated with the positioning application illustrated in Fig. 3.
Regarding “receive, from a storage medium via the sidelink message, the GNSS assistance data for the sidelink positioning session”, this language has been rejected as indefinite. As best understood, Applicant appears to intend for the GNSS assistance data to be received via the sidelink message, stored in a storage medium, and retrieved therefrom. This is well-known in the art - for example, see:
Haverkam para. [0034] “acquires the location aiding information from the selected TCNs” and “the stored location aiding parameters... are retrieved” and
Gordin Fig. 1 showing transmission of AGPS, LAI to mobile station 200, and 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, in order to preserve 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 [Hirata (US 5257195 A) or Kass (US 5392052 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 preserve the indication for use at a later time.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korneluk (US 7277049 B2) 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.
Claims 13, 14, 17, 18, 24, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korneluk (US 7277049 B2) in view of Li (US 20220015107 A1).
Regarding claims 13, 17, 18, 24 and 27, Korneluk teaches sidelink unicast (5:56-60 where unicast is implied by “targeted to another particular mobile communication device”) and sidelink broadcast (5:56-60 “broadcast to all mobile communication device within radio range”) messages for obtaining and transmitting the GNSS assistance data, and further teaches the sidelink performed in ISM bands (5:5-11) or “in other bands using other protocols” (5:11-13). Korneluk does not teach obtaining or transmitting the GNSS assistance data via the sidelink unicast or broadcast message in at least one of: V2X over DRB, PDCP SDU over SRB, PC5-RRC IE over SRB, or PC5-S over SRB. However these are well-known protocols for transmitting sidelink messages. For example, Li, in analogous art (abstract “An operating method of a first terminal in a wireless communication system... may include transmitting sidelink data to a second terminal”) teaches sidelink unicast using V2X over DRB (Fig. 1 in view of para. [0003] “sidelink” and “Fig. 1 shows a V2X communications architecture”, and paras. [0004]-[0005] “V2X”, “DRB”, “unicast”). It would have been obvious to modify Korneluk by obtaining or transmitting the GNSS assistance data via the sidelink unicast or broadcast message in V2X over DRB because it is a simple substitution of one known communication protocol for another to obtain predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claims 14 and 25, Korneluk’s GNSS assistance data, which is based on the second assistance data in the access link with the network node as discussed above with respect to claim 23, will, when modified according to Li as discussed above with respect to claim 24, be incorporated in the V2X layer payload. The remaining claim limitations are directed to elements recited only in the alternative in claims 13 and 24, on which claims 14 and 25 depend.
Claims 15, 16, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korneluk (US 7277049 B2) in view of Li (US 20220015107 A1) and further in view of Nguyen (US 20190007974 A1).
Regarding claims 15, 16, and 26, Korneluk teaches a sidelink unicast message (5:56-60 where unicast is implied by “targeted to another particular mobile communication device”) or a sidelink broadcast message (5:56-60 “broadcast to all mobile communication device within radio range”) for obtaining and transmitting the GNSS assistance data, and further teaches the sidelink performed in ISM bands (5:5-11) or “in other bands using other protocols” (5:11-13), where the sidelink message incorporates the GNSS assistance data based on the second assistance data in the access link with the network node as discussed with respect to claims 23-25 above.
Korneluk does not teach (1) obtaining and transmitting the GNSS assistance data in at least one of: V2X over DRB or PDCP SDU over SRB, or (2) sidelink groupcast.
Regarding (1), Li, in analogous art (abstract “An operating method of a first terminal in a wireless communication system... may include transmitting sidelink data to a second terminal”) teaches sidelink signaling using V2X over DRB (Fig. 1 in view of para. [0003] “sidelink” and “Fig. 1 shows a V2X communications architecture”, and paras. [0004]-[0005] “V2X”, “DRB”, “unicast”). It would have been obvious to modify Korneluk by transmitting the GNSS assistance data in V2X over DRB because it is a simple substitution of one known communication protocol for another to obtain predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding (2), sidelink groupcast is well-known. For example, Nguyen teaches sidelink groupcast in para. [0101]. It would have been obvious to further modify Korneluk according to Nguyen by implementing sidelink groupcast in order provide the assistance data to a defined group of users.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korneluk (US 7277049 B2) 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, WILLIAM KELLEHER can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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