DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. Please note that parent claim only require the reception of information, it does not need to do anything with the information and any antenna or device may receive the same information. Just the reception of information does not differentiate the device from the prior art. The examiner recommends focusing on what the device does with the received information.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 20 are 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. The claims recite the limitation: “wherein parameter configuration of the downlink positioning reference signal received inside of the initial downlink BWP is same as that of the initial downlink BWP, or the parameter configuration of the downlink positioning reference signal received outside of the initial downlink BWP is different from that of the initial downlink BWP”; it is unclear the scope of the limitation, it is unclear what is “that”. Please explain. For examination purposes since the parameter configuration of the downlink positioning reference signal received inside of the initial downlink BWP is same as that of the initial downlink BWP, since it appears that they referring to the same configuration. Also, the claim recites “a positioning method”; however, there is no positioning, it is unclear how it can be a positioning method when there is no positioning. Please explain.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over QUALCOMM INCORPORATED: "Positioning of UEs in RRC Idle/Inactive State", as cited by applicant. in view of Zhou 20240314693.
As to claim 1, a positioning method, comprising:
receiving, by a terminal in an inactive state and configured with an initial downlink Bandwidth Part (BWP),a downlink positioning reference signal inside or outside of the initial downlink BWP (since the reference disclose positioning where the UE is in RRC IDLE/RRC INACTIVE state, therefore it is implied that it operates/ it is active on the initial Downlink BWP; section 1). As indicated in the 112 rejection it is unclear the scope of the limitation wherein parameter configuration of the downlink positioning reference signal received inside of the initial downlink BWP is same as that of the initial downlink BWP, or the parameter configuration of the downlink positioning reference signal received outside of the initial downlink BWP is different from that of the initial downlink BWP; thereby, it is unclear if the primary reference does disclose the limitation. In an analogous art, Zhou discloses wherein parameter configuration of the downlink reference signal received inside of the initial downlink BWP is same as that of the initial downlink BWP, or the parameter configuration of the downlink reference signal received outside of the initial downlink BWP is different from that of the initial downlink BWP (see abstract; 0137). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of sending and modifying the configuration for the terminal to correctly work in the variable environment.
Regarding claim 20 is the corresponding device claim of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Positioning of UEs in RRC Idle/Inactive State in view of Zhou and further in view of Takeda WO-2019186724-A1.
As to claim 2, Positioning of UEs in RRC Idle/Inactive State discloses everything as disclosed above except for wherein the first signal comprises at least one of the following: System Information Block 1 (SIB 1), other System Information Blocks (SIBs) than SIB 1, Random Access Response (RAR) (Msg2),contention resolution identifier (Msg4), acknowledgement information (MsgB), a Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) scheduling SIB 1, or a Synchronization Signal Block (SSB). In an analogous art, Zhou discsloses for wherein the first signal comprises at least one of the following: System Information Block 1 (SIB 1), other System Information Blocks (SIBs) than SIB 1, Random Access Response (RAR) (Msg2),contention resolution identifier (Msg4), acknowledgement information (MsgB), a Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) scheduling SIB 1, or a Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) (see par. 0158). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of compatibility with existing standards. The previous reference fails to disclose stopping receiving, by the terminal, the downlink positioning reference signal, in response to detecting that the downlink positioning reference signal and a first signal are repeated, collided, or transmitted in the same symbol. In an analogous art, Takeda discloses stopping receiving, by the terminal, the downlink positioning reference signal, in response to detecting that the downlink positioning reference signal and a first signal are repeated, collided, or transmitted in the same symbol [the UE stops receiving the DL channel repeatedly transmitted] (see par. 0056). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to stop receiving repeated information for the simple purpose of saving power.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Positioning of UEs in RRC Idle/Inactive State in view of Zhou and further in view of Wang 20220394526.
As to claim 3, Positioning of UEs in RRC Idle/Inactive State discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the receiving the downlink reference signal comprises:
receiving and measuring the downlink positioning reference signal according to a relation between the downlink reference signal, indicated by a network-side device, between the downlink reference signal for positioning (Figure 1, step 13a and respective description on page 5). The previous reference fails to disclose SSB. In an analogous art Wang discloses according to a spatial beam relation between the downlink reference signal and a SSB, wherein the spatial beam relation between the downlink reference signal and the SSB is obtained by a spatial QCL relation (see par. 0064), indicated by a network-side device (see fig.2-3), between the downlink reference signal and the SSB (see par. 0144, 0152); or [not required conditions]
obtained by a default relation between a downlink reference signal resource and an SSB actually transmitted in SSB under a TRP where the downlink reference signal resource is located.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of using the bandwidth efficiently and save the finite wireless resources.
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 MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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 at (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 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights