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 .
Art Unit- Location
The Art Unit location of your application in the USPTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2642.
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 09/04/2025. Claims 1-22 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 1/30/2026, 01/05/2026, 12/02/2025, 10/22/2025, 08/07/2025 and 07/15/2025, 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 § 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li Publication of CN.:(113301594A) and its priority CN :(202010108939.5) using as translation the US Patent Application No.:( US 2022/0417887 A1) hereinafter referred as Li.
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)) and a request for expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information is valid ( paragraph [0043], lines 1-8 discloses the integrity auxiliary monitoring of the integrity risk alerting the valid time); and
receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node ( paragraph [0043], lines 8-10 discloses the QOS index containing the integrity acquiring a measurement value).
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)) and a request for expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information is valid ( paragraph [0043], lines 1-8 discloses the integrity auxiliary monitoring of the integrity risk alerting the valid time);
evaluating one or more related integrity metrics based on at least one of 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); and
providing a report of the one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics to the location server or location management function (LMF) (paragraph [0175], lines 10-13) and (paragraph [0190]-[0191], lines 1-3).
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)) and a request for expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information is valid ( paragraph [0043], lines 1-8 discloses the integrity auxiliary monitoring of the integrity risk alerting the valid time); and
receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node ( paragraph [0043], lines 8-10 discloses the QOS index containing the integrity acquiring a measurement value).
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)) and a request for expiry time or validity duration indicating a time period during which a reported information is valid ( paragraph [0043], lines 1-8 discloses the integrity auxiliary monitoring of the integrity risk alerting the valid time);
evaluating one or more related integrity metrics based on at least one of 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); and
providing a report of the one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics to the location server or location management function (LMF) ) (paragraph [0175], lines 10-13) and (paragraph [0190]-[0191], lines 1-3).
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 indicating a time period during which a reported information is valid; and receiving a report of one or more evaluated integrity-related metrics from the at least one RAN node.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/04/2025, with respect to claims 1 and 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on page 8 of the remarks that Li does not teach in claims 1 and 15, "facilitates the LMF to obtain integrity-related information associated with a positioning session from the RAN node”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with such assertion. (See below for further clarification).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., [ the LMF to obtain integrity-related information associated with a positioning session… ]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant asserts on page 8 of the remarks that Li does not teach in claims 9 and 18, " transmitting, to at least one RAN node, a request for expiry time or validity duration”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with such assertion. (See below for further clarification).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., transmitting, to at least one RAN node, a request for expiry time or validity duration … ]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant asserts on page 8 of the remarks that Li does not teach in claims 1 and 15, ", a request for expiry time or validity duration”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with such assertion. (See below for further clarification).
In response to the preceding argument examiner respectfully submits that Li et al teaches " a request for expiry time or validity duration”. Li performs auxiliary measurement function and integrity auxiliary monitoring according to one or a combination of the integrity risk requirement, the horizontal location alert limit, the vertical location alert limit, the reliability requirement indication, the horizontal location alert valid time, and the vertical location alert valid time in the QoS index requirement containing integrity, and then acquires a measurement value as disclosed in paragraph [0043]. Therefore, the valid timer requested will be performed by the auxiliary measurement function and integrity auxiliary.
Applicant asserts on page 8 of the remarks that Li does not teach in claims 1 and 15, " improving avoidance of integrity risks”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with such assertion. (See below for further clarification).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., improving avoidance of integrity risks … ]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The prior art should be considered as a whole. See also MPEP § 2141.02 [R-5] Paragraph VI. Claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during examination and limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim (See M.P.E.P. 2111 [R-l]).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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