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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 11/12/2025 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 2 and 4-16 are amended, claims 17 and 18 are new, and claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment to drawings have been entered and fully considered, therefore drawings objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment with respect to claims 2, 4 and 16 have been entered and fully considered, therefore claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment with respect to claims 4, 5 and 9 have been entered and fully considered, therefore claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been fully considered but are moot based upon the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant's amendment.
Applicant further argues, with respect to claims 1-15, that the claims, as amended herein without prejudice, are directed to a specific technical implementation for obtaining and refining positions of wireless devices using radio-based communications. Further the claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea and recite an improvement in wireless-positioning technology. Further the claims refer to structural components such as a processor, wireless interface, or arrangement configured to perform specific radio-communication operations. Therefore, withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is therefore respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
These limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). The limitation that recites determining position of first and second terminal device and initiating at least one sidelink based positioning procedure, wherein the positions of the first and second terminal device are received from another network device, can be interpreted as a person A hears from another person B regarding position of a group of people (such as C and D), A then tells C and D to talk to each other so to determine that they are at a same location. Adding a generic computer (such as wireless interface and a processor) does not add additional element to the claim to be significant extra solution. MPEP specifically 2106.05(f). Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recite significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court that in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. V. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221,110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art”). Further while evaluating step 2A if claim recite any additional elements beyond the judicial exception and reviewing MPEP 2106.95 (f) i.e., mere instruction to apply an exception. It is clearly recited that the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electronic Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743. Having that current limitation recites receiving positions of a first and second terminal device and initiate sidelink based positioning procedure, which does not recite how the solution to the problem is accomplished. If the additional elements taken alone or in combination fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim is directed to judicial exception and analysis proceeds to step 2B. However, claim only recites that receive position information and initiate sidelink positioning procedure which does not add additional element identified in Step 2A prong two taken alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are ineligible and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because Abstract recites “for example”. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites “position of a further terminal device” on line 4. Examiner suggest changing the limitation to “position of [[a]] the further terminal device. Further claim 17 recites “thereby” on line 9. Examiner suggest deleting this term.
Claim 18 recites “refined positions obtained from” on line 5. Examiner suggest changing the limitation to “refined positions of the first terminal device and the second terminal device are obtained from” or similar wording.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 6 and 7 are directed to abstract idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, for example receive a position of a first device and a second device from another network device and initiating at least one sidelink-based positioning procedure. Independent claim 8 is directed to abstract idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, for example a terminal device receive a request to perform side-link positioning procedure associated with one further terminal device. Independent claims 13 and 14 are directed to abstract idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, for example a terminal device receive a request to perform side-link positioning procedure associated with one further terminal device, perform the sidelink based positioning by transmitting at least one radio signal and transmit a result of the sidelink based positioning procedure to the network device. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such.
The exemplary method claim 1 recites limitations, “A computer-implemented method, comprising the following steps: determining, by a network device, a position of a first terminal device; determining, by the network device, a position of a second terminal device; and initiating, by the network device, at least one sidelink-based positioning procedure associated with at least one of the first terminal device and the second terminal device; wherein at least one of (a) the determining of the position of the first terminal device and (b) the determining of the position of the second terminal device comprises receiving, by the network device, at least one of the position of the first terminal device and the position of the second terminal device from another network device”. Since the claim is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites determine by receiving position of first and second terminal device; and initiate at least one sidelink-based positioning procedure, etc. (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea = YES).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, reply 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 the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea = YES).
Next the claim 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 there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: NO). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 6-8 and 13-15 are rejected based on similar analysis as discussed above regarding claim 1. Dependent claims 2-5 and 9-12 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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.700-86 V0.3.0 (2022-06), 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on Architecture Enhancement to support Ranging based services and sidelink positioning (Release 18), XP052182536, and hereinafter D1, in view of Hirzallah et al. (US 20230037704 A1 and Hirzallah hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, D1 teaches a computer-implemented method (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1), comprising the following steps:
determining, by a network device (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1; LMF), a position of a first terminal device (Section 6.8.1; a UE1 whose location is to be determined using Uu based positioning. Examiner asserts this UE1 is interpreted as a first terminal device. Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 1; LCS procedures for positioning UE1 are carried out according to TS 23.273);
determining, by the network device (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1; LMF), a position of a second terminal device (Section 6.8.1; a UE2 whose location is available to some degree of accuracy, and supports location service over Uu and ranging-based service/sidelink positioning. Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 3; LMF obtains capability/location information of UE2 either by inquiring PRU info or by carrying out Uu based location estimation); and
initiating, by the network device, at least one sidelink-based positioning procedure associated with at least one of the first terminal device and the second terminal device (Section 6.8.1; discovery of a second UE (UE2) with ranging/sidelink positioning capability which can potentially be exploited as additional reference nodes to enhance Uu based positioning of the first UE (UE1) under insufficient network coverage. Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 4; LMF triggers UE1 to discover UE2 for positioning assistance reusing 5G ProSe Direct Discovery procedure. Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 8; LMF informs UE1 to perform ranging/sidelink positioning operation with UE2).
D1 does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of (a) the determining of the position of the first terminal device and (b) the determining of the position of the second terminal device comprises receiving, by the network device, at least one of the positions of the first terminal device and the position of the second terminal device from another network device. In an analogous art, Hirzallah teaches wherein at least one of (a) the determining of the position of the first terminal device and (b) the determining of the position of the second terminal device comprises receiving, by the network device, at least one of the positions of the first terminal device and the position of the second terminal device from another network device (Paragraph 0148; a first network entity obtain a plurality of positions of one or more user equipments (UEs), the plurality of positions determined based on the plurality of positioning measurements. Paragraph 0149; wherein obtaining the plurality of positioning measurements comprises receiving the plurality of positioning measurements from a second network entity. Paragraph 0150; the second network entity is a base station). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of D1 and Hirzallah because it would provide alternative ways to determine position of terminal devices in current wireless environment that calls for higher data transfer speeds, greater number of connections, and better coverage (Hirzallah, Abstract and Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of D1 and Hirzallah teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further D1 teaches wherein at least one of: a) the determining of the position of the first terminal device (Section 6.8.1; a UE1 whose location is to be determined using Uu based positioning. Examiner asserts this UE1 is interpreted as a first terminal device. Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 1; LCS procedures for positioning UE1 are carried out according to TS 23.273), b) the determining of the position of the second terminal device (Section 6.8.1; a UE2 whose location is available to some degree of accuracy, and supports location service over Uu and ranging-based service/sidelink positioning. Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 3; LMF obtains capability/location information of UE2 either by inquiring PRU info or by carrying out Uu based location estimation), includes performing a positioning procedure that is different than the at least one sidelink-based positioning procedure and that is based on a radio interface between the network device and at least one of the first terminal device and the second terminal device (Section 6.8.1; a UE1 whose location is to be determined using Uu based positioning. A UE2 whose location is available to some degree of accuracy, and supports location service over Uu based positioning. Examiner asserts that Uu based positioning is a positioning procedure based on radio communication interface between a base station and a terminal device).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of D1 and Hirzallah teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further D1 teaches further comprising: evaluating, by the network device, at least one of the position of the first terminal device and the position of the second terminal device with respect to a result of the at least one sidelink-based positioning procedure, wherein the evaluating includes verifying at least one of the position of the first terminal device and the position of the second terminal device based on the result of the at least one sidelink-based positioning procedure (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 9; UE1 and UE2 carries out ranging/sidelink positioning operations over PC5. Step 10; UE1/UE2 provides ranging/sidelink positioning measurements to LMF. Step 11; LMF determines and/or verifies the location estimate of UE1 based on the positioning measurements obtained over both Uu and PC5).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of D1 and Hirzallah teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further D1 teaches further comprising at least one of: a) transmitting, by the network device, a request instructing to perform the at least one sidelink-based positioning procedure associated with at least one of the first terminal device and the second terminal device to at least one of the first terminal device and the second terminal device (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1, Step 3, LMF obtains capability information in terms of LCS and ranging/sidelink positioning and available location information of a number of UEs within a region of interest, e.g., tracking area, geographical zone, and triggers particular UEs to discover UE1 reusing 5G ProSe Direct Discovery procedure. In Step 4, LMF triggers UE1 to discover UE2 for positioning assistance using 5G ProSe Direct Discovery procedure. In Step 8; LMF informs UE1 to perform ranging/sidelink positioning operation with UE2. Section 6.8.2; the LMF may trigger UE1 and UE2 with ranging/sidelink positioning capability), b) receiving, by the network device, a response to the request from at least one of the first terminal device and the second terminal device, wherein the response to the request characterizes an acknowledgement of at least one of the first terminal device and the second terminal device indicating: b1) that the respective terminal device is capable of performing the at least one sidelink-based positioning procedure, and/or b2) that the first terminal device and the second terminal device are configured to communicate directly with each other, over a sidelink interface (This limitation is an alternative or to the limitation a) above, and please refer to the reference mapping recited above. Further, Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 3; LMF obtains capability information in terms of LCS and ranging/sidelink positioning and available location information of a number of UEs within a region of interest. In Step 10; UE1/UE2 provides ranging/sidelink positioning measurement to LMF, thus is a response that the terminal device is capable of performing sidelink-based positioning procedure. Section 6.8.2; LMF triggers UE1 and UE2 with ranging/sidelink positioning capability, and the UE1/UE2 respond with the requested capability information).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of D1 and Hirzallah teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as described above. Further D1 teaches wherein the method comprises the receiving of the response (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 3; LMF obtains capability information in terms of LCS and ranging/sidelink positioning and available location information of a number of UEs within a region of interest. In Step 10; UE1/UE2 provides ranging/sidelink positioning measurement to LMF, thus is a response that the terminal device is capable of performing sidelink-based positioning procedure. Section 6.8.2; LMF triggers UE1 and UE2 with ranging/sidelink positioning capability, and the UE1/UE2 respond with the requested capability information), and at least one of: a) the response characterizes an acknowledgement of the first terminal device indicating that: a1) the first terminal device is capable of performing the at least one sidelink-based positioning procedure, and/or a2) the first terminal device is configured to communicate directly with the second terminal device, over a sidelink interface (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 3; LMF obtains capability information in terms of LCS and ranging/sidelink positioning and available location information of a number of UEs within a region of interest. Section 6.8.2; LMF triggers UE1 and UE2 with ranging/sidelink positioning capability, and the UE1/UE2 respond with the requested capability information), b) the response characterizes an acknowledgement of the second terminal device indicating that: b1) the second terminal device is capable of performing the at least one sidelink-based positioning procedure, and/or b2) the second terminal device is configured to communicate directly with the first terminal device over a sidelink interface (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 3; LMF obtains capability information in terms of LCS and ranging/sidelink positioning and available location information of a number of UEs within a region of interest. Section 6.8.2; LMF triggers UE1 and UE2 with ranging/sidelink positioning capability, and the UE1/UE2 respond with the requested capability information).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, D1 teaches a network apparatus (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1; LMF) comprising:
a wireless interface (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1; LMF can wireless communicate with UE1 and UE2, therefore LMF comprises a wireless interface); and
a processor, wherein the processor is configured to perform functions (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1; steps performed by the LMF. Examiner asserts in order to perform the steps/functions by LMF, the LMF comprises a processor to process these information/steps/functions).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, D1 teaches an apparatus for a network device (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1; LMF), comprising: an arrangement configured to perform (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1; steps performed by the LMF).
Regarding claim 8, D1 teaches a computer-implemented method (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1), comprising the following steps:
receiving, by a terminal device and from a network device, a request instructing the terminal device to perform at least one sidelink-based positioning procedure associated with at least one further terminal device (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 8; LMF informs UE1 to perform ranging/sidelink positioning operation with UE2).
D1 does not explicitly teach wherein a position of the further terminal device has been received by the network device from another network device. In an analogous art, Hirzallah teaches wherein a position of the further terminal device has been received by the network device from another network device (Paragraph 0148; a first network entity obtain a plurality of positions of one or more user equipments (UEs), the plurality of positions determined based on the plurality of positioning measurements. Paragraph 0149; wherein obtaining the plurality of positioning measurements comprises receiving the plurality of positioning measurements from a second network entity. Paragraph 0150; the second network entity is a base station). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of D1 and Hirzallah because it would provide alternative ways to determine position of terminal devices in current wireless environment that calls for higher data transfer speeds, greater number of connections, and better coverage (Hirzallah, Abstract and Paragraph 0003)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of D1 and Hirzallah teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, as described above. Further D1 teaches further comprising: transmitting, by the terminal device, a response to the request (Section 6.8.2; LMF triggers UE with ranging/sidelink positioning capability to monitor the Discvoery message on PC5, and UE responds to the request), wherein the response to the request characterizes an acknowledgement of the terminal device indicating at least one of: a) that the terminal device is capable of performing the at least one sidelink-based positioning procedure (Section 6.8.2; the UE indicate its capability in terms of assisting Uu based positioning as well as ranging/sidelink positioning), and b) that the terminal device is configured to communicate directly with another terminal device over a sidelink interface according to a standard (Section 6.8.2; the UE may indicate capability information of UE, including positioning capability over Uu and ranging/sidelink positioning capability over PC5, and may also include capability of transmitting and/or receiving sidelink positioning signals).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of D1 and Hirzallah teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, as described above. Further D1 teaches further comprising performing the sidelink-based positioning procedure (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 5; UE1 and UE2 perform 5G ProSe Direct Discovery procedure in ranging/sidelink positioning procedure) at least one of: a) in a first configuration in which the terminal device assumes a role of a target terminal device and the at least one further terminal device assumes a role of an anchor terminal device (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 5; if Model A discovery is used, UE2 broadcast a Discovery message containing UE identity, indication of capability information and/or location information as configured by LMF in step 3. UE1 monitors Discovery message), and b) in a second configuration in which the terminal device assumes a role of an anchor terminal device and the at least one further terminal device assumes a role of a target terminal device (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 5; if Model B discovery is used, UE1 broadcast a Discovery message containing UE identity, indication of capability information and/or location information as configured by LMF. UE2 that receives the Discovery message may respond to UE1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of D1 and Hirzallah teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, as described above. Further D1 teaches further comprising: transmitting, by the terminal device, a result of the at least one sidelink-based positioning procedure, to the network device (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 10; UE1/UE2 provides ranging/sidelink positioning measurement to LMF), wherein the transmitting includes at least one of: a) transmitting, by the terminal device, a result of the at least one sidelink-based positioning procedure associated with a first configuration (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 5; Model A discovery and/or Model B discovery is used), to the network device (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 10; UE1/UE2 provides ranging/sidelink positioning measurement to LMF), b) transmitting, by the terminal device, a result of the at least one sidelink-based positioning procedure associated with a second configuration, to the network device (This limitation is an alternative or to the limitation a) above, and please refer to the reference mapping recited above).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of D1 and Hirzallah teaches all of the limitations of claim 10, as described above. Further D1 teaches wherein the terminal device assumes the first configuration and the second configuration sequentially during the at least one sidelink-based positioning procedure (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Steps 4, 8 and 9; the UE1 and UE2 may assume Model A and Mode B during sidelink-based positioning procedure).
Regarding claim 13, D1 teaches a terminal device (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1; UE1 and/or UE2) comprising:
a wireless interface (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1; UE1 can communicate wirelessly with LMF and UE2, therefore UE1 comprises a wireless interface); and
a processor (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1; UE1 performs certain functions described in this section and figure, therefore the UE1 comprises a processor in order to perform these functions), wherein the processor is configured to:
receive, via the wireless interface, a request from a network device to perform a sidelink-based positioning procedure associated with a further terminal device (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 8; LMF informs UE1 to perform ranging/sidelink positioning operation with UE2);
perform the sidelink-based positioning procedure by transmitting at least one radio signal with the further terminal device (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 9; UE1 and UE2 carry out ranging/sidelink positioning operation over PC5. Examiner asserts that UE1 and UE2 communicate with each other in order to carry out ranging/sidelink positioning); and
transmit, via the wireless interface, a result of the sidelink-based positioning procedure to the network device (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 10; UE1/UE2 provides ranging/sidelink positioning measurements to LMF).
D1 does not explicitly teach wherein a position of the further terminal device has been received by the network device from another network device. In an analogous art, Hirzallah teaches wherein a position of the further terminal device has been received by the network device from another network device (Paragraph 0148; a first network entity obtain a plurality of positions of one or more user equipments (UEs), the plurality of positions determined based on the plurality of positioning measurements. Paragraph 0149; wherein obtaining the plurality of positioning measurements comprises receiving the plurality of positioning measurements from a second network entity. Paragraph 0150; the second network entity is a base station). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of D1 and Hirzallah because it would provide alternative ways to determine position of terminal devices in current wireless environment that calls for higher data transfer speeds, greater number of connections, and better coverage (Hirzallah, Abstract and Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites similar features as claim 13, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 13. Further, D1 teaches an apparatus for a terminal device (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1; UE1 and/or UE2), comprising: an arrangement configured to perform (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1; steps performed by the UE1 and/or UE2).
Regarding claim 15, D1 teaches communication system (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1) comprising:
a network device (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1; LMF) comprising:
a first wireless interface (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1; LMF can wireless communicate with UE1 and UE2, therefore LMF comprises a wireless interface); and
a first processor (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1; steps performed by the LMF. Examiner asserts in order to perform the steps/functions by LMF, the LMF comprises a processor to process these information/steps/functions), wherein the first processor is configured to:
determine a position of a first terminal device (Section 6.8.1; a UE1 whose location is to be determined using Uu based positioning. Examiner asserts this UE1 is interpreted as a first terminal device. Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 1; LCS procedures for positioning UE1 are carried out according to TS 23.273);
determine a position of a second terminal device (Section 6.8.1; a UE2 whose location is available to some degree of accuracy, and supports location service over Uu and ranging-based service/sidelink positioning. Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 3; LMF obtains capability/location information of UE2 either by inquiring PRU info or by carrying out Uu based location estimation); and
initiate at least one sidelink-based positioning procedure associated with at least one of the first terminal device and the second terminal device (Section 6.8.1; discovery of a second UE (UE2) with ranging/sidelink positioning capability which can potentially be exploited as additional reference nodes to enhance Uu based positioning of the first UE (UE1) under insufficient network coverage. Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 4; LMF triggers UE1 to discover UE2 for positioning assistance reusing 5G ProSe Direct Discovery procedure. Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 8; LMF informs UE1 to perform ranging/sidelink positioning operation with UE2); and
a terminal device (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1; UE1 and/or UE2) comprising:
a second wireless interface (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1; UE1 can communicate wirelessly with LMF and UE2, therefore UE1 comprises a wireless interface); and
a second processor (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1; UE1 performs certain functions described in this section and figure, therefore the UE1 comprises a processor in order to perform these functions), wherein the second processor is configured to:
receive, via the second wireless interface, a request from the network apparatus to perform a sidelink-based positioning procedure associated with a further terminal device (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 8; LMF informs UE1 to perform ranging/sidelink positioning operation with UE2);
perform the sidelink-based positioning procedure by transmitting at least one radio signal with the further terminal device (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 9; UE1 and UE2 carry out ranging/sidelink positioning operation over PC5. Examiner asserts that UE1 and UE2 communicate with each other in order to carry out ranging/sidelink positioning); and
transmit, via the wireless interface, a result of the sidelink-based positioning procedure to the network apparatus (Section 6.8.3 and Figure 6.8.3-1 Step 10; UE1/UE2 provides ranging/sidelink positioning measurements to LMF).
D1 does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the positions is received from another network device; and wherein a position of the further terminal device has been received by the network apparatus from the other network device. In an analogous art, Hirzallah teaches wherein at least one of the positions is received from another network device; and wherein a position of the further terminal device has been received by the network apparatus from the other network device (Paragraph 0148; a first network entity obtain a plurality of positions of one or more user equipments (UEs), the plurality of positions determined based on the plurality of positioning measurements. Paragraph 0149; wherein obtaining the plurality of positioning measurements comprises receiving the plurality of positioning measurements from a second network entity. Paragraph 0150; the second network entity is a base station). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of D1 and Hirzallah because it would provide alternative ways to determine position of terminal devices in current wireless environment that calls for higher data transfer speeds, greater number of connections, and better coverage (Hirzallah, Abstract and Paragraph 0003).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Manolakos et al. (US 20220065978 A1) discloses user equipment uses positioning reference signals (PRS) and non-PRS sidelink signals for position measurements.
Saur et al. (US 20190230618 A1) discloses positioning estimation of a target user equipment based on the positioning reference signals and the supporting sidelink positioning reference signals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Applicant's invention is drawn to determination of a position of a terminal device using at least one sidelink-based positioning procedure.
The prior arts of record, D1, Hirzallah, Manolakos, Saur, and a thorough search discloses various aspects and features of applicant's claimed invention but fail to explicitly or implicitly teach or disclose
moving, by the terminal device, within an area of coverage of a base station of a network, wherein the base station is configured to obtain a rough position of the terminal device and a rough position of a further terminal device and to determine that a distance between the rough positions of the terminal device and the further terminal device is below a predefined safety distance threshold, the receiving of the request occurring responsive to the determination by the base station that the distance is below the predefined safety distance threshold; responding, by the terminal device, to the request by transmitting at least one radio signal with the further terminal device, thereby obtaining a refined position of the terminal device and a refined position of the further terminal device; and performing an automated mechanical operation of the terminal device according to the refined position, as disclosed in dependent claim 17; and
determining, by the network device, that a distance between the positions of the first and second terminal devices determined in accordance with claim 1 is below a predefined safety-distance threshold and responsively initiating the at least one sidelink-based positioning procedure, wherein refined positions obtained from the sidelink-based positioning procedure cause an automated mechanical operation of at least one of the terminal devices, as disclosed in dependent claim 18.
These functions, in combination of remaining functions are neither taught nor disclosed by the prior art. Accordingly, dependent claims 17 and 18 would be allowed. Dependent claim 16 would be allowed by the virtue of dependency from would-be allowed dependent claim 17.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 Jing Gao whose telephone number is (571)270-7226. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 6pm M-F.
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 Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. 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.
/Jing Gao/
Examiner, Art Unit 2647