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
The IDS has been considered by the examiner.
The specification and drawings have been accepted by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 11, 15-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2022/0272592) in view of Hasegawa (US 20250081142).
Referring to claim 1, Choi discloses a user device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (FIG. 1, Par. 3, 31, 35, “UE 105”, “wireless communication device includes: a transceiver; a memory; and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory and configured to: transmit”, Par. 27, “a device (e.g., a user equipment (UE), a roadside unit, etc.) as a substitute anchor for a positioning session with a target UE for determining a location of the target UE”, note that wireless device and UE are used interchangeably and they are equivalent to user device), cause the apparatus at least to perform:
receiving a downlink position reference signal from a network node (Par. 93, “The TRPs may send DL-PRS signals that are received by the UEs”, note that DL-PRS stands for Downlink position reference signal and it is sent by network node (TRPs) to the UEs and the UE (user device) receives the downlink position signal) of a non-terrestrial network (FIG. 1, Par. 35, “The communication system 100 may utilize information from a constellation 185 of satellite vehicles (SVs) 190, 191, 192, 193 for a Satellite Positioning System (SPS)”, note that as shown in figure 1, the communication system is a satellite communication network that includes satellites (equivalent to non-terrestrial));
determining whether the user device is in either line-of-sight or non-line-of-sight with respect to a network node of a non-terrestrial network (FIG. 10, steps 1010 and 1050, Par. 111, 115, “other techniques may be used to determine whether the target UE 600 and the original anchor 700 are LOS or NLOS”, “determine the NLOS relationship or LOS relationship of the target UE 600 and the original anchor 700, e.g., by receiving and analyzing the post-PRS messages 1122, 1123”, “whether the target UE 600 and the original anchor 700 have an LOS relationship (i.e., are LOS or NLOS)”, “determine that the target UE 600 and the original anchor 700 are LOS (i.e., have an LOS relationship) ”, note that PRS (or position reference signal) is transmitted on the downlink to the target UE and then post-PRS signaling is transmitted and based on the PRS and post-PRS the LOS or NLOS relationship is determined).
Choi is not relied on disclosing the claim language: performing at least one of:
based on determining that the user device is in line-of-sight, transmitting a sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node; and based on determining that the user device is in non-line-of-sight, transmitting the sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node for a number of repetitions.
In an analogous art, Hasegawa discloses performing at least one of:
based on determining that the user device is in line-of-sight, transmitting a sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node; and based on determining that the user device is in non-line-of-sight, transmitting the sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node for a number of repetitions (Hasegawa, Par. 425, “the UE to determine the order of transmission of uplink reference signals for positioning (e.g., SRS for positioning) based on LOS indicator for downlink reference signals”. Par. 380, 381, “UE may determine the LOS indicator based on measurements made from PRS”, “The UE may determine to include the LOS indicator in a measurement report. In case the UE is requested to measure RSRP for a PRS resource and the UE is requested to include the LOS indicator for the PRS”, “the UE may determine to receive LOS indicator(s) per TRP or PRS”. Note that based on the alternative claim language “performing at least one of”, it is sufficient for prior art to disclose only one of the alternatives, in this case the alternative: based on determining that the user device is in line-of-sight, transmitting a sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node. Also note that uplink PRS is equivalent to SRS. Further, note that the UE determines whether or not the downlink PRS signals indicate line-of-sight (LOS) or non-line-of-sight (NLOS) relationship and in based on determining that it is LOS the UE selects the SRS for positioning based on LOS indicator).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Choi by incorporating the teachings of Hasegawa so that the SRS is configured based on the LOS association, motivation being, for the purpose of increasing location accuracy when there are no obstacles between the UE and network. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Choi/Hasegawa discloses the user device of claim 1, wherein the user device is configured with one or more transmission opportunities (Choi, Par. 3, 6, “a transceiver; a memory; and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory and configured to: transmit, via the transceiver, a capability message indicating a capability of the wireless communication device”).
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Choi/Hasegawa discloses the user device of claim 1, wherein the number of repetitions is transmitted based on a regular pattern or an agreed pattern between the user device and the network node (Hasegawa, Par. 425, “the UE to determine the order of transmission of uplink reference signals for positioning (e.g., SRS for positioning) based on LOS indicator for downlink reference signals”. Note that claim 1 includes the alternative language format that indicated the alternatives “performing at least one of”: (a) based on determining that the user device is in line-of-sight, transmitting a sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node and (b) based on determining that the user device is in non-line-of-sight, transmitting the sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node for a number of repetitions. The rejection of claim 1 addressed only one of the alternatives, particularly the alternative, “based on determining that the user device is in line-of-sight, transmitting a sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node”. The alternative “based on determining that the user device is in non-line-of-sight, transmitting the sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node for a number of repetitions” was not considered. The limitations of claim 7 falls under the alternative that was not chosen, thus, it is an alternative limitation that’s not considered. Since claim 1 included alternative claim language “performing at least one of”, it is sufficient for prior art to disclose only one of the alternatives, in this case the alternative: based on determining that the user device is in line-of-sight, transmitting a sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node).
Referring to claim 11, Choi discloses a method (FIG. 1, Par. 3, 31, 35, “UE 105”, “wireless communication device includes: a transceiver; a memory; and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory and configured to: transmit”, Par. 27, “a device (e.g., a user equipment (UE), a roadside unit, etc.) as a substitute anchor for a positioning session with a target UE for determining a location of the target UE”, note that wireless device and UE are used interchangeably and they are equivalent to user device) comprising:
receiving a downlink position reference signal from a network node (Par. 93, “The TRPs may send DL-PRS signals that are received by the UEs”, note that DL-PRS stands for Downlink position reference signal and it is sent by network node (TRPs) to the UEs and the UE (user device) receives the downlink position signal) of a non-terrestrial network (FIG. 1, Par. 35, “The communication system 100 may utilize information from a constellation 185 of satellite vehicles (SVs) 190, 191, 192, 193 for a Satellite Positioning System (SPS)”, note that as shown in figure 1, the communication system is a satellite communication network that includes satellites (equivalent to non-terrestrial));
determining whether the user device is in either line-of-sight or non-line-of-sight with respect to a network node of a non-terrestrial network (FIG. 10, steps 1010 and 1050, Par. 111, 115, “other techniques may be used to determine whether the target UE 600 and the original anchor 700 are LOS or NLOS”, “determine the NLOS relationship or LOS relationship of the target UE 600 and the original anchor 700, e.g., by receiving and analyzing the post-PRS messages 1122, 1123”, “whether the target UE 600 and the original anchor 700 have an LOS relationship (i.e., are LOS or NLOS)”, “determine that the target UE 600 and the original anchor 700 are LOS (i.e., have an LOS relationship) ”, note that PRS (or position reference signal) is transmitted on the downlink to the target UE and then post-PRS signaling is transmitted and based on the PRS and post-PRS the LOS or NLOS relationship is determined).
Choi is not relied on disclosing the claim language: performing at least one of:
based on determining that the user device is in line-of-sight, transmitting a sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node; and based on determining that the user device is in non-line-of-sight, transmitting the sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node for a number of repetitions.
In an analogous art, Hasegawa discloses performing at least one of: based on determining that the user device is in line-of-sight, transmitting a sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node; and based on determining that the user device is in non-line-of-sight, transmitting the sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node for a number of repetitions (Hasegawa, Par. 425, “the UE to determine the order of transmission of uplink reference signals for positioning (e.g., SRS for positioning) based on LOS indicator for downlink reference signals”. Par. 380, 381, “UE may determine the LOS indicator based on measurements made from PRS”, “The UE may determine to include the LOS indicator in a measurement report. In case the UE is requested to measure RSRP for a PRS resource and the UE is requested to include the LOS indicator for the PRS”, “the UE may determine to receive LOS indicator(s) per TRP or PRS”. Note that based on the alternative claim language “performing at least one of”, it is sufficient for prior art to disclose only one of the alternatives, in this case the alternative: based on determining that the user device is in line-of-sight, transmitting a sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node. Also note that uplink PRS is equivalent to SRS. Further, note that the UE determines whether or not the downlink PRS signals indicate line-of-sight (LOS) or non-line-of-sight (NLOS) relationship and in based on determining that it is LOS the UE selects the SRS for positioning based on LOS indicator).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Choi by incorporating the teachings of Hasegawa so that the SRS is configured based on the LOS association, motivation being, for the purpose of increasing location accuracy when there are no obstacles between the UE and network. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Referring to claim 15, the combination of Choi/Hasegawa discloses method of claim 11, wherein the number of repetitions is transmitted based on a regular pattern or an agreed pattern between the user device and the network node (Choi, Par. 3, 6, “a transceiver; a memory; and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory and configured to: transmit, via the transceiver, a capability message indicating a capability of the wireless communication device”).
Referring to claim 16, Choi discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (FIG. 2, Par. 12, “non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium) carrying one or more sequences of one or more instructions which, when executed by one or more processors (Par. 13-14, “processor-readable instruction configured to cause,”), cause an apparatus to perform:
receiving a downlink position reference signal from a network node (Par. 93, “The TRPs may send DL-PRS signals that are received by the UEs”, note that DL-PRS stands for Downlink position reference signal and it is sent by network node (TRPs) to the UEs and the UE (user device) receives the downlink position signal) of a non-terrestrial network (FIG. 1, Par. 35, “The communication system 100 may utilize information from a constellation 185 of satellite vehicles (SVs) 190, 191, 192, 193 for a Satellite Positioning System (SPS)”, note that as shown in figure 1, the communication system is a satellite communication network that includes satellites (equivalent to non-terrestrial));
determining whether the user device is in either line-of-sight or non-line-of-sight with respect to a network node of a non-terrestrial network (FIG. 10, steps 1010 and 1050, Par. 111, 115, “other techniques may be used to determine whether the target UE 600 and the original anchor 700 are LOS or NLOS”, “determine the NLOS relationship or LOS relationship of the target UE 600 and the original anchor 700, e.g., by receiving and analyzing the post-PRS messages 1122, 1123”, “whether the target UE 600 and the original anchor 700 have an LOS relationship (i.e., are LOS or NLOS)”, “determine that the target UE 600 and the original anchor 700 are LOS (i.e., have an LOS relationship) ”, note that PRS (or position reference signal) is transmitted on the downlink to the target UE and then post-PRS signaling is transmitted and based on the PRS and post-PRS the LOS or NLOS relationship is determined).
Choi is not relied on disclosing the claim language: performing at least one of:
based on determining that the user device is in line-of-sight, transmitting a sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node; and based on determining that the user device is in non-line-of-sight, transmitting the sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node for a number of repetitions.
In an analogous art, Hasegawa discloses performing at least one of: based on determining that the user device is in line-of-sight, transmitting a sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node; and based on determining that the user device is in non-line-of-sight, transmitting the sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node for a number of repetitions (Hasegawa, Par. 425, “the UE to determine the order of transmission of uplink reference signals for positioning (e.g., SRS for positioning) based on LOS indicator for downlink reference signals”. Par. 380, 381, “UE may determine the LOS indicator based on measurements made from PRS”, “The UE may determine to include the LOS indicator in a measurement report. In case the UE is requested to measure RSRP for a PRS resource and the UE is requested to include the LOS indicator for the PRS”, “the UE may determine to receive LOS indicator(s) per TRP or PRS”. Note that based on the alternative claim language “performing at least one of”, it is sufficient for prior art to disclose only one of the alternatives, in this case the alternative: based on determining that the user device is in line-of-sight, transmitting a sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node. Also note that uplink PRS is equivalent to SRS. Further, note that the UE determines whether or not the downlink PRS signals indicate line-of-sight (LOS) or non-line-of-sight (NLOS) relationship and in based on determining that it is LOS the UE selects the SRS for positioning based on LOS indicator).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Choi by incorporating the teachings of Hasegawa so that the SRS is configured based on the LOS association, motivation being, for the purpose of increasing location accuracy when there are no obstacles between the UE and network. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Referring to claim 20, the combination of Choi/Hasegawa discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the number of repetitions is transmitted based on a regular pattern or an agreed pattern between the apparatus and the network node (Hasegawa, Par. 425, “the UE to determine the order of transmission of uplink reference signals for positioning (e.g., SRS for positioning) based on LOS indicator for downlink reference signals”. Note that claim 1 includes the alternative language format that indicated the alternatives “performing at least one of”: (a) based on determining that the user device is in line-of-sight, transmitting a sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node and (b) based on determining that the user device is in non-line-of-sight, transmitting the sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node for a number of repetitions. The rejection of claim 1 addressed only one of the alternatives, particularly the alternative, “based on determining that the user device is in line-of-sight, transmitting a sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node”. The alternative “based on determining that the user device is in non-line-of-sight, transmitting the sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node for a number of repetitions” was not considered. The limitations of claim 7 falls under the alternative that was not chosen, thus, it is an alternative limitation that’s not considered. Since claim 1 included alternative claim language “performing at least one of”, it is sufficient for prior art to disclose only one of the alternatives, in this case the alternative: based on determining that the user device is in line-of-sight, transmitting a sounding reference signal for positioning to the network node).
Claim(s) 2, 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2022/0272592) in view of Hasegawa (US 20250081142), and further in view of Lee (US 2024/0291577).
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Choi/Hasegawa discloses the user device of claim 1.
The above combination is not relied on the limitation: wherein the determining of whether the user device is in either line-of-sight or non-line-of-sight is based comparing a power of the downlink position reference signal, a Reference Signal Received Power of a cell, or a combination thereof to a threshold.
In an analogous art, Lee discloses determining of whether the user device is in either line-of-sight or non-line-of-sight is based comparing a power of the downlink position reference signal, a Reference Signal Received Power of a cell, or a combination thereof to a threshold (FIG. 7 and claim 1, “the determining of, based on the reference signal, whether the channel is the LOS or the NLOS in each of the multiple bands comprises: determining a delay power value of a reference signal received in a first frequency band … delay power value of the reference signal received in the second frequency band is greater than a threshold power value determined for the second frequency band, determining the channel as the LOS channel,” note that based on the alternative claim language format, it is sufficient for prior art to disclose only one alternative. Further note that the power value of the reference signal is compared to a threshold and when it is greater than the threshold value, it is determined to be LOS, which reads on alternative limitation, determining of whether the user device is in either line-of-sight or non-line-of-sight is based comparing a power of the downlink position reference signal).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination by incorporating the teachings of Lee, motivation being, for the purpose of determining whether or not the relationship is line of sight by using an efficient approach of signal propagation delay based on distance. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Regarding claims 12 and 17:
Dependent claim 12 and 17 recite features analogous to the feature of dependent claim 2, thus, they are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6, 8-10, 13, 14, 18 and 19 is/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 the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 18:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “wherein the user device is caused to further perform: based on determining that the user device is in non-line-sight, decreasing the threshold after a period of time; and re-determining whether the user device is in either line-of-sight or non-line-of-sight based on the decreased threshold”, as recited in claims 3, 13 and 18, along with the limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 19:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “wherein the user device is caused to further perform: based on determining that the user device is in non-line-of-sight, adding a waiting time between the receiving of the downlink position reference signal and the transmitting of the sounding reference signal for positioning; and initiating the transmitting of the sounding reference signal for positioning based on determining that the user device is in line-of-sight after the waiting time”, as recited in claims 4,14 and 19, along with the limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Regarding claim 6:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “wherein the one or more transmission opportunities restrict the transmitting of the sounding reference signal for positioning such that the network node has information on one or more transmission instants on from the user device”, as recited in claim 6, along with the limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Regarding claim 8:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “wherein a waiting time is included until a first repetition of the number of repetitions”, as recited in claim 8, along with the limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Regarding claim 9:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations wherein the user device is configured to further perform: providing a time between the number of repetitions, a waiting time before the transmitting of the sounding reference signal for positioning, or a combination to the network node”, as recited in claim 9, along with the limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Regarding claim 10:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “wherein the user device is configured to further perform: providing an identifier per repetition of the number of repetitions to the network node”, as recited in claim 10, along with the limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED A CASCA whose telephone number is (571)272-7918. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9 to 5. 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, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at (571) 270-5371. 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).
/FRED A CASCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644