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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/03/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 04/02/2026 and 05/28/2026, are in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, have been considered by the Examiner, and made of record in the application file.
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 (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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
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.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Li et al US Patent Application No.:( US 2022/0417887 A1) hereinafter referred as Li, in view of Dwivedi et al US Patent Application No.:( US 2015/0208267 A1) hereinafter referred as Dwivedi.
For claim 1, LI teaches a method, comprising:
transmitting or providing, to at least one radio access network (RAN) node, information relating to at least one positioning integrity requirement (101 figure 1) (201 figure 2) (paragraph [0010], lines 1-5 the radio access network (RAN) is part of a mobile telecommunication system. It implements a radio access technology. Conceptually, it resides between a device such as a mobile phone, a computer, or any remotely controlled machine and provides connection with its core network (CN)). However, Li disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of the request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid; and receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node, the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration as recited in claim 1.
Dwivedi from the same or analogous art teaches the request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid ( page 8, lines 1-6); and
receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node( page 12, lines 7-19), the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration ( page 17, lines 4-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid; and receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node, the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration as taught by Dwivedi into the location service processing and medium of Li.
The request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid; and receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node, the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration can be modify/implemented by combining the request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid; and receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node, the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Dwivedi into the location service processing and medium of Li. As disclosed in Dwivedi, the motivation for the combination would be to request for expiry time associated with a positioning measurement, the expiry time indicates a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement helping the parameters to manage a resource management and accuracy retention becoming more efficient and reliable for a better communication.
For claim 2, LI teaches the method, wherein the information relating to the at least one positioning integrity requirement may include an alert limit of at least one client, application, or device that requires positioning information, wherein the alert limit comprises a maximum position estimation error that is tolerable by the at least one client, application, or device ( paragraph [0121]-[0122], lines 1-8 ).
For claim 3, LI teaches the method, further comprising transmitting a request for at least one integrity metric that the at least one RAN node should report (paragraph [0190], lines 8-12).
For claim 4, LI teaches the method, wherein the report comprises measurement and/or positioning estimate reporting (paragraph [0175], lines 10-13).
For claim 5, LI teaches the method, wherein the receiving comprises receiving the expiry time or validity duration from the at least one RAN node (paragraph [0234], lines 1-3); or the transmitting comprises transmitting a request for a certain integrity metric and the receiving comprises receiving a protection level or an indication of whether there is an integrity risk with regards to a protection level (paragraphs [0221] and [0234], lines 3-7).
For claim 6, LI teaches the method, further comprising evaluating if there is an integrity risk based on the received protection level (PL) (paragraph [0113]-[0114], lines 1-5).
For claim 7, LI teaches the method, wherein the receiving comprises receiving a request or recommendation, from the at least one RAN node, to apply or adjust a measurement periodicity and/or reporting periodicity; or the receiving comprises receiving a location correction (LC) and/or measurement report from the at least one RAN node (paragraphs [0175], [0181]-[0182] and [0234], lines 1-6).
For claim 8, LI teaches the method, wherein the measurement periodicity comprises a transmission periodicity of at least one reference signal ( The QOS index is a numerical measure used to evaluate the performance and reliability of a service, such as a network, cloud computing service, or even a healthcare system. It helps quantify how well a service meets user expectations and requirements. A higher index score generally indicates better QoS. Key aspects of QoS paragraph [0011], lines 1-3) and (paragraph [0051], lines 1-3).
For claim 9, LI teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, from a location server or location management function (LMF), information relating to at least one positioning integrity requirement (101 figure 1) (201 figure 2) (paragraph [0010], lines 1-5 the radio access network (RAN) is part of a mobile telecommunication system. It implements a radio access technology. Conceptually, it resides between a device such as a mobile phone, a computer, or any remotely controlled machine and provides connection with its core network (CN)); evaluating one or more related integrity metrics based on the positioning integrity requirement provided by the location server or location management function (LMF) and/or based on factors affecting integrity of a positioning estimate (paragraph [0135] and [0139], lines 1-5). However, Li disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of the request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid; and receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node, the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration as recited in claim 9.
Dwivedi from the same or analogous art teaches the request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid ( page 8, lines 1-6); and
receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node( page 12, lines 7-19), the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration ( page 17, lines 4-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid; and receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node, the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration as taught by Dwivedi into the location service processing and medium of Li.
The request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid; and receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node, the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration can be modify/implemented by combining the request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid; and receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node, the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Dwivedi into the location service processing and medium of Li. As disclosed in Dwivedi, the motivation for the combination would be to request for expiry time associated with a positioning measurement, the expiry time indicates a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement helping the parameters to manage a resource management and accuracy retention becoming more efficient and reliable for a better communication.
For claim 10, LI teaches the method, wherein the report further comprises measurement reporting in the case where the a position estimation is performed at the location server or location management function (LMF) (paragraph [0132]-[0135], lines 1-6).
For claim 11, LI teaches the method, wherein the evaluating comprises performing position measurement or estimation and deriving the expiry time or validity duration (paragraph [0043], lines 10-13); and the transmitting providing comprises providing the position measurement or estimation and the expiry time or validity duration to the location server or location management function (LMF) (Paragraph [0194]-[0195], lines 10-13).
For claim 12, LI teaches the method, wherein: the receiving comprises receiving a request for a certain integrity metric (paragraph [0175], lines 1-9); the evaluating comprises performing position measurement or estimation and deriving the requested integrity metric including a protection level (paragraph [0175], lines 9-11); and the transmitting providing comprises transmitting the protection level or an indication of whether there is an integrity risk with regards to a protection level to the location server or location management function (LMF) (paragraph [0176], lines 1-10).
For claim 13, LI teaches the method, wherein: the evaluating comprises evaluating whether a measurement periodicity or reporting periodicity should be updated to ensure that the protection level is below an alert limit (paragraph [0179], lines 1-6); the transmitting providing comprises transmitting a request or recommendation, to the location server or location management function (LMF), to apply or adjust at least one of the measurement and/or reporting periodicity (paragraphs [0180]-[0182], lines 1-5).
For claim 14, LI teaches the method, wherein: the receiving comprises receiving a message containing at least a maximum error tolerance (paragraph [0122], lines 1-3); the evaluating comprises using the error tolerance to compute a timing limit and to perform a check against a reporting periodicity (paragraph [0122], lines 3-8); and when the reporting periodicity is larger than the timing limit, the evaluating further comprises computing a location correction (LC) (paragraph [0127], lines 4-7); and the transmitting providing comprises transmitting at least one of the location correction (LC) and/or measurement report to the location server or location management function(LMF) (paragraph [0161], lines 1-6) and (paragraph [0217], lines 1-6).
For claim 15, LI teaches an apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory comprising computer program code,
the at least one memory and computer program code configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to perform:
transmitting or providing, to at least one radio access network (RAN) node, information relating to at least one positioning integrity requirement (101 figure 1) (201 figure 2) (paragraph [0010], lines 1-5 the radio access network (RAN) is part of a mobile telecommunication system. It implements a radio access technology. Conceptually, it resides between a device such as a mobile phone, a computer, or any remotely controlled machine and provides connection with its core network (CN)). However, Li disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of the request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid; and receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node, the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration as recited in claim 15.
Dwivedi from the same or analogous art teaches the request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid ( page 8, lines 1-6); and
receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node( page 12, lines 7-19), the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration ( page 17, lines 4-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid; and receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node, the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration as taught by Dwivedi into the location service processing and medium of Li.
The request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid; and receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node, the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration can be modify/implemented by combining the request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid; and receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node, the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Dwivedi into the location service processing and medium of Li. As disclosed in Dwivedi, the motivation for the combination would be to request for expiry time associated with a positioning measurement, the expiry time indicates a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement helping the parameters to manage a resource management and accuracy retention becoming more efficient and reliable for a better communication.
For claim 16, LI teaches the apparatus, wherein the information relating to the at least one positioning integrity requirement may include an alert limit of at least one client, application, or device that requires positioning information, wherein the alert limit comprises a maximum position estimation error that is tolerable by the at least one client, application, or device ( paragraph [0121]-[0122], lines 1-8 ).
For claim 17, LI teaches the apparatus, wherein the receiving comprises receiving the expiry time or validity duration from the at least one RAN node; or the transmitting comprises transmitting a request for a certain integrity metric and the receiving comprises receiving a protection level or an indication of whether there is an integrity risk with regards to a protection level (paragraphs [0221] and [0234], lines 3-7).
For claim 18, LI teaches an apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory comprising computer program code,
the at least one memory and computer program code configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to perform:
receiving, from a location server or location management function (LMF), information relating to at least one positioning integrity requirement (101 figure 1) (201 figure 2) (paragraph [0010], lines 1-5 the radio access network (RAN) is part of a mobile telecommunication system. It implements a radio access technology. Conceptually, it resides between a device such as a mobile phone, a computer, or any remotely controlled machine and provides connection with its core network (CN));
evaluating one or more related integrity metrics based on the positioning integrity requirement provided by the location server or location management function (LMF) and/or based on factors affecting integrity of a positioning estimate (paragraph [0135] and [0139], lines 1-5). However, Li disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of the request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid; and receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node, the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration as recited in claim 18.
Dwivedi from the same or analogous art teaches the request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid ( page 8, lines 1-6); and
receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node( page 12, lines 7-19), the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration ( page 17, lines 4-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid; and receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node, the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration as taught by Dwivedi into the location service processing and medium of Li.
The request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid; and receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node, the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration can be modify/implemented by combining the request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid; and receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node, the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Dwivedi into the location service processing and medium of Li. As disclosed in Dwivedi, the motivation for the combination would be to request for expiry time associated with a positioning measurement, the expiry time indicates a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement helping the parameters to manage a resource management and accuracy retention becoming more efficient and reliable for a better communication.
For claim 19, LI teaches the method, 19. (Currently Amended) The apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the evaluating comprises performing position measurement or estimation and deriving the expiry time or validity duration (paragraph [0043], lines 10-13); and the transmitting providing comprises providing the position measurement or estimation and the expiry time or validity duration to the location server or location management function (LMF) (Paragraph [0194]-[0195], lines 10-13).
For claim 20, LI teaches the method, 20. (Currently Amended) The apparatus according to claim 18, wherein: the receiving comprises receiving a request for a certain integrity metric (paragraph [0175], lines 1-9); the evaluating comprises performing position measurement or estimation and deriving the requested integrity metric including a protection level (paragraph [0175], lines 9-11); and the transmitting providing comprises transmitting the protection level or an indication of whether there is an integrity risk with regards to a protection level to the location server or location management function (LMF) (paragraph [0176], lines 1-10).
For claim 21, LI teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions stored thereon which, when executed on at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out (Claims 21 has been analyzed and rejected with the same rationale as claim 1 applied above).
For claim 22, LI teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions stored thereon which, when executed on at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out (Claims 22 has been analyzed and rejected with the same rationale as claim 9 applied above).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S Patent No. (US 11,933,908 B2). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
For claim 1, the claim 1 of the U.S Patent No. (US 11,933,908 B2) discloses:
Current Application
1. A method, comprising: transmitting or providing, to at least one radio access network (RAN) node, information relating to at least one positioning integrity requirement and a request for expiry time or validity duration associated with a positioning measurement or estimate, the expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information associated with the positioning measurement or estimate is valid; and receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node, the report comprising information relating to the expiry time or validity duration.
11,933,908
1. A method, comprising: transmitting at least one positioning integrity requirement to at least one radio access network node; and receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one radio access network node, the report comprising information relating to an expiry time for the one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics.
Nonetheless, the removal of said limitations from the claim 1 of the present application made claim 1 a broader version or same version of claim 1. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184( 1963), claim 1 is not patentably distinct from claim 1. Same rejection applied above is applied to claims 9, 15 and 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH AREVALO whose telephone number is (571)270-3121. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on (571)272-7915. 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.
/JOSEPH AREVALO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights