Detailed Action
1. The Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 07/08/2026. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
2. In Remarks, applicant argues mainly for the amended claim limitations “transmitting, to a base station, a request message associated with a positioning, the request message including information on a first validity area, wherein a sounding reference signal (SRS) configuration for the positioning based on the information on the first validity area is for a user equipment (UE) in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state”.
Initially, it’s to note that “a first validity area” is reasonably interpreted in light of specification as “cell, cell ID, cell list, tracking area code, tracking area, base station ID, network node ID, tracking area identity, MNC, MCC, etc.,” unless claim specifically define what are required to be the first validity area. In addition, claim does not specifically define what are included in the request message to indicate “information on a first validity area, wherein a sounding reference signal (SRS) configuration for the positioning based on the information on the first validity area is for a user equipment (UE) in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state”. In accordance with MPEP 2111, similarly, the request message simply can be “positioning information request”. Applicant is suggested to specifically define which part in the message is indicating the amended claim limitation. In practice, messages are short and concrete to save network resources, for instance, 1 on the designated bit may carry such an information. Accordingly, the amended claims are considered obvious by the rationales found in the newly cited prior art as explained in the claim rejection section set forth below.
It’s to note that the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching or suggestion to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoda Pub. No.: US 2023/0269700 A1 in view of Si et al. Pub. No.: US 2024/0031934 A1 and Quan et al. Pub. No.: US 2023/0300942 A1.
Claim 1
Shimoda discloses a method (fig. 1-3 depict for measuring positioning signal) performed by a location management function (LMF) entity (LMF in fig. 14-31) in a wireless communication system (a wireless communication system in fig. 1-31), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
698
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
transmitting to a base station (serving gNB in fig. 14), a request message associated with a positioning (ST1405 in fig. 14),wherein a sounding reference signal (SRS) configuration (SRS in par. 0213) for the positioning based on the information for a user equipment (UE) (UE fig. 2-7, & 14-31) in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state (RRC_Inactive in par. 0133-0134 & 0158); and
receiving, from the base station, a second response message including the SRS configuration (ST1411 in fig. 14 and par. 0219).
Although Shimoda does not disclose: “the request message including information on a first validity area, wherein a sounding reference signal (SRS) configuration for the positioning based on the information on the first validity area is for a user equipment (UE) in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state; and information indicating associated with a second validity area associated with the SRS configuration”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to address the obviousness of the claims “the request message including information on a first validity area, wherein a sounding reference signal (SRS) configuration for the positioning based on the information on the first validity area is for a user equipment (UE) in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state”, it’s to note that claim does not specifically define what are involved in information and what are required to be a first validity area. In accordance with MPEP 2111, “the information on a first validity area” could be reasonably interpreted as “cell list, cell ID including preferred list, serving cell, target cell, etc., location area code or identifier LAC or LAI, tracking area code or identity TAC or TAI, MMC, MNC. In fact, Shimoda discloses RRC_INACTIVE (par. 0133-0134 & 0158), a list of tracking areas and the cell belonging to a tracking area in which the UE is registered (par. 0154, 0157) and tracking area identity TAI, MCC, MNC and TAC (par. 0165), and SRS configuration and positioning signal (par. 0213 & 0218 and see fig. 14-31). If these teaching from Shimoda are compared to the addressing claim limitations, Shimoda may not explicitly explain SRS configuration for UE in RRC inactive state. However, these can be found in Si. In particular, Si teaches SRS configuration for UE in RRC inactive state (fig. 5 in view of fig. 2 and see par. 0084-0085 and Table 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
550
1070
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify positioning SRS transmission of Cui by providing positioning method for terminal and network side as taught in Si. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment UE a positioning method to perform measurement in RRC inactive state so that the positioning performance would have sustained in low power consumption as suggested in par. 0003-000- & 0054 of Si.
Secondly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitations “information indicating associated with a second validity area associated with the SRS configuration”, recall that Shimoda discloses that service gNB responds positioning information to LMF and SRS configuration to UE (ST1409-1411 in fig. 14) and the UE in an area where covers by the different cell (fig. 26). Similarly, Si depicts that serving cell gNB sends SRS configuration to the terminal and the positioning response (steps 3a-4 in fig. 5), and UE may not know accurately where UE is located during in the inactive state (par. 0079) and the pre-configured valid area of the configuration information (par. 0297). Additionally, Si discloses the location event associated with an area where UE detects or has entered or is located within the specified area (par. 0339, 0391, 0705, pre-configured valid area, a certain cell, a certain cell list). It means that SRS configuration of Shimoda and Si could have been rendered “a second valid area associated with the SRS configuration” obvious, for instance, a serving cell and a target cell or neighbor cell. To advance the prosecution, the evidence could be seen in the previously applied prior art Quan. In particular, Quan teaches SRS resource configuration information including a physical resource of an SRS, and the valid positioning area configured for SRS with a cell or a cell list, a tracking area TA or a TA list (par. , 0253 & 0256 and fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify positioning SRS transmission of Cui in view of Si by providing uplink signal location as taught in Quan. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment UE in an idle state to use an uplink signal location so that the UE location accuracy would not be jeopardized and measurement time could have been saved too as suggested in par. 0002-0009 of Quan.
Claim 2
Shimoda, in view of Si and Quan, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the information on the first validity area includes a cell list (Shimoda, TAI, the tracking area list in par. 0165; Si, cell list in par. 0297; Quan, cell list in par. 0185), and wherein the cell list includes at least one cell identifier (ID) (Shimoda, CGI, ECGI in par. 0031, PCI in par. 0161 and see par. 0165; Si, par. 0079, Pcell ID; and hence, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 3
Shimoda, in view of Si and Quan, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the SRS configuration for the positioning in the RRC inactive state is valid in the second validity area (Consider UE is moving into the second area, as in fig. 5-7 & 26 of Shimoda, UE is moving into other cell coverage, see tracking area list and the cell belonging to tracking area in which the UE is registered in par. 0154, and the tracking area list when UE is in an inactive state in par. 0158; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 4
Shimoda, in view of Si and Quan, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second validity area is configured for the UE within the information on the first validity area (Shimoda, consider fig. 13, the first validity area is 750 and the validity second area is one of 751-1, … 751-8, and similarly, see fig. 26; for these reasons, the combined prior art meets the claim condition).
Claim 5
Shimoda, in view of Si and Quan, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second validity area is same as the first validity area (Shimoda, consider fig. 26, UE could be in the valid area of 2603, other possibilities that, UE could be in 2602, or 2603, or 2604 but 2602-2604 are identified under 2601; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim).
Claim 6
Shimoda discloses a method (fig. 1-31 depict for measuring positioning signal) performed by a base station (serving gNB in fig. 14-31) in a wireless communication system (a wireless communication system in fig. 1-31), the method comprising:
receiving, from a location management function (LMF) entity (LFM), a request message associated with a positioning (ST1405 in fig. 14), the request message including information (position information in ST1405 in fig. 14);
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE) (UE in fig. 14), sounding reference signal (SRS) configuration (SRS in par. 0213) for the positioning and information on a second validity area, wherein the SRS configuration is for the UE in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state (RRC_Inactive in par. 0133-0134 & 0158); and
transmitting, to the LMF entity, a third response message including the SRS configuration (ST1411 in fig. 14 and par. 0219).
Although Shimoda does not disclose: “the request message including information on a first validity area, a sounding reference signal (SRS) configuration for the positioning based on the information on the first validity area is for a user equipment (UE) in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state; and information indicating the second validity area associated with the SRS configuration”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to address the obviousness of the claims “the request message including information on a first validity area, a sounding reference signal (SRS) configuration for the positioning based on the information on the first validity area is for a user equipment (UE) in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state”, it’s to note that claim does not specifically define what are involved in information and what are required to be a first validity area. In accordance with MPEP 2111, “the information on a first validity area” could be reasonably interpreted as “cell list, cell ID including preferred list, serving cell, target cell, etc., location area code or identifier LAC or LAI, tracking area code or identity TAC or TAI, MMC, MNC. In fact, Shimoda discloses RRC_INACTIVE (par. 0133-0134 & 0158), a list of tracking areas and the cell belonging to a tracking area in which the UE is registered (par. 0154, 0157) and tracking area identity TAI, MCC, MNC and TAC (par. 0165), and SRS configuration and positioning signal (par. 0213 & 0218 and see fig. 14-31). If these teaching from Shimoda are compared to the addressing claim limitations, Shimoda may not explicitly explain SRS configuration for UE in RRC inactive state. However, these can be found in Si. In particular, Si teaches SRS configuration for UE in RRC inactive state (fig. 5 in view of fig. 2 and see par. 0084-0085 and Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify positioning SRS transmission of Cui by providing positioning method for terminal and network side as taught in Si. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment UE a positioning method to perform measurement in RRC inactive state so that the positioning performance would have sustained in low power consumption as suggested in par. 0003-000- & 0054 of Si.
Secondly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitations “information indicating associated with a second validity area associated with the SRS configuration”, recall that Shimoda discloses that service gNB responds positioning information to LMF and SRS configuration to UE (ST1409-1411 in fig. 14) and the UE in an area where covers by the different cell (fig. 26). Similarly, Si depicts that serving cell gNB sends SRS configuration to the terminal and the positioning response (steps 3a-4 in fig. 5), and UE may not know accurately where UE is located during in the inactive state (par. 0079) and the pre-configured valid area of the configuration information (par. 0297). Additionally, Si discloses the location event associated with an area where UE detects or has entered or is located within the specified area (par. 0339, 0391, 0705, pre-configured valid area, a certain cell, a certain cell list). It means that SRS configuration of Shimoda and Si could have been rendered “a second valid area associated with the SRS configuration” obvious, for instance, a serving cell and a target cell or neighbor cell. To advance the prosecution, the evidence could be seen in the previously applied prior art Quan. In particular, Quan teaches SRS resource configuration information including a physical resource of an SRS, and the valid positioning area configured for SRS with a cell or a cell list, a tracking area TA or a TA list (par. , 0253 & 0256 and fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify positioning SRS transmission of Cui in view of Si by providing uplink signal location as taught in Quan. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment UE in an idle state to use an uplink signal location so that the UE location accuracy would not be jeopardized and measurement time could have been saved too as suggested in par. 0002-0009 of Quan.
Claim 7
Shimoda, in view of Si and Quan, discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the information on the first validity area includes a cell list (Shimoda, TAI, the tracking area list in par. 0165; Si, cell list in par. 0297; Quan, cell list in par. 0185), and wherein the cell list includes at least one cell identifier (ID) (Shimoda, CGI, ECGI in par. 0031, PCI in par. 0161 and see par. 0165; Si, par. 0079, Pcell ID; and hence, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 8
Shimoda, in view of Si and Quan, discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the SRS configuration for the positioning in the RRC inactive state is valid in the second validity area (Consider UE is moving into the second area, as in fig. 5-7 & 26 of Shimoda, UE is moving into other cell coverage, see tracking area list and the cell belonging to tracking area in which the UE is registered in par. 0154, and the tracking area list when UE is in an inactive state in par. 0158; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 9
Shimoda, in view of Si and Quan, discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the second validity area is configured for the UE within the information on the first validity area (Shimoda, consider fig. 13, the first validity area is 750 and the validity second area is one of 751-1, … 751-8, and similarly, see fig. 26; for these reasons, the combined prior art meets the claim condition).
Claim 10
Shimoda, in view of Si and Quan, discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the second validity area is same as the first validity area (Shimoda, consider fig. 26, UE could be in the valid area of 2603, other possibilities that, UE could be in 2602, or 2603, or 2604 but 2602-2604 are identified under 2601; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim).
Claim 11-15
Claims 11-15 are structure claims for LMF corresponding the method claims 1-5 performed by LMF. All of the limitations in claims 11-15 are found reciting the structures of the same scopes of the respective limitations of claims 1-5. Accordingly, claims 11-15 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the claim rejection of claims 1-5 respectively set forth above.
Accordingly, Shimoda teaches a location management function (LMF) entity (LMF in fig. 14) in a wireless communication system (wireless communication in fig. 1), the LMF entity comprising: a transceiver (LMF would include at least a transceiver to transmit and receive the steps in fig. 14); and at least one controller coupled with the transceiver (LMF of fig. 14 would include at least a controller internally connected to the transceiver to perform the steps in fig. 14).
Claim 16-20
PNG
media_image3.png
512
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 16-20 are structure claims for a base station corresponding the method claims 6-10 performed by the base station. All of the limitations in claims 16-20 are found reciting the structures of the same scopes of the respective limitations of claims 6-10. Accordingly, claims 16-20 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claims 6-10 respectively set forth above.
Additionally, Shimoda discloses a base station (serving cell gNB in fig. 14 and see fig. 9 for detailed structure) in a wireless communication system (wireless communication system in fig. 1-31), the base station comprising: a transceiver (communication units 401-402 & 412 in fig. 9); and at least one controller (control unit 411 and protocol processing unit 403 in fig. 9) coupled with the transceiver (as depicted in fig. 9, control unit, protocol unit and communication units are internally connected).
Conclusion
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 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, Jinsong Hu can be reached on 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights