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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-10, 13-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perez et al. WO 2021/032907 A1, hereinafter, ‘Perez’.
Consider Claims 9, and as applied to Claim 1(e.g., see architecture in at least figures 1 and 2) and Claim 16, Perez teaches a method performed by a radio access network (e.g., see at least RAN in figures 4 and 5 – page 10 line 9 “Method may be performed by a radio access network(RAN) device) apparatus, the method comprising: determining, by the apparatus, that position information of a user equipment is needed for one or more functions to be performed at the apparatus (e.g., page 10 lines 34-36 “the LMC may be able to support location service requests from functions internal to the RAN node, for purposes such as Radio Resource Management(RRM), Minimization of Drive Tests (MDT), etc.); and triggering a location procedure for obtaining positioning information of the user equipment, in response to the determining that position information of the user equipment is needed (e.g., see figures 4 -5, “406 triggering RCP”, “triggering of the location session may be performed by the RAN node itself”, in step 406, based on RCPAI and a trigger (such as a local trigger, e.g., RI-RL) to start RCP, the RAN node decides whether to use RCP or not…in step 408, if RCP is used as decided in step 406, the RAN node may initiate positioning procedures for the target UE” ).
Consider Claims 2, 10 and 17, Perez teaches wherein the apparatus is caused to perform: acting as a Location Control Session Client(e.g., see figures 4 -5, “406 triggering RCP”, “triggering of the location session may be performed by the RAN node itself”, in step 406, based on RCPAI and a trigger (such as a local trigger, e.g., RI-RL) to start RCP, the RAN node decides whether to use RCP or not…in step 408, if RCP is used as decided in step 406, the RAN node may initiate positioning procedures for the target UE” )..
Consider Claims 5, 13 and 20, Perez teaches wherein the apparatus is caused to perform: checking positioning capability information of the user equipment, in response to the determining that position information of the user equipment is needed, and performing the triggering a location procedure in a manner dependent on the capability information (e.g., see at least page 11 lines 6-9, “the RAN device, such as the LMC, may have capabilities for: receiving location service requests for a target UE from the serving AMF or from an internal function of the serving RAN node (e.g., RRM, MDT, etc.); decide on the position method(s) to be used… Page 17, lines 6-10).
Consider Claims 6 and 14, Perez teaches wherein the apparatus is caused to perform; sending a request for the positioning capability information of the user equipment (e.g., see page 15 lines 23-25, the target device may provide its positioning capabilities …possibly based on RRC request from the RAN, see also modes/capabilities on page 14 lines 26-34 ).
Consider Claim 7, Perez teaches wherein the apparatus is caused to perform: receiving the positioning capability information of the user equipment without having sent a request(e.g., see page 15 lines 23-25, the target device may provide its positioning capabilities …possibly based on RRC request from the RAN, see also modes/capabilities on page 14 lines 26-34 ).
Consider Claim 8, Perez teaches wherein the positioning capability information of the user equipment comprises information of a positioning mode capability or a positioning method capability(e.g., see page 15 lines 23-25, the target device may provide its positioning capabilities …possibly based on RRC request from the RAN, see also modes/capabilities on page 14 lines 26-34).
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) 3-4, 11-12 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. WO 2021/032907 A1, hereinafter, ‘Perez’ in view of Lee at al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2023/0148189 A1, hereinafter, ‘Lee’.
Consider Claims 3, 11 and 18, Perez teaches the claimed invention except wherein the apparatus is caused to perform: sending a request to a core network entity for the positioning information of the user equipment.
In analogous art, Lee teaches wherein the apparatus is caused to perform: sending a request to a core network entity for the positioning information of the user equipment (e.g., see figure 9, 901b RAN induced location request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the apparatus is caused to perform: sending a request to a core network entity for the positioning information of the user equipment for the purpose of determining location information.
Consider Claims 4, 12 and 19, Perez teaches the claimed invention except wherein the request to the core network comprises a Location Control Session Quality of Service threshold value.
In analogous art, Lee teaches wherein the request to the core network comprises a Location Control Session Quality of Service threshold value (e.g., see figure 9, 903 location QoS information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the request to the core network comprises a Location Control Session Quality of Service threshold value for the purpose of determining location information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646