DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN 202211196026.9, filed on 09/28/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 04/03/2024 and 02/12/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
4. 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.
Please note: Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, and figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teaching of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well.
Applicants are reminded that MPEP 2141.02 states:
A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 21 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 21:
Step 1, Claim 21 recites series of acts for identifying, transmitting and performing. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claimed limitation “identifying that the terminal is capable of serving as a positioning reference unit (PRU) and performing a positioning measurement” Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements, “transmitting an indication indicating that the terminal is capable of serving as the PRU” are merely outputting data and insignificant (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional elements, “reporting a result of the positioning measurement to a location server” are merely outputting data and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
Under Step 2B, additional element(s)/limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, Prong 2, should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine whether the additional element(s)/limitation(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Specifically, the limitations, “transmitting an indication indicating that the terminal is capable of serving as the PRU…… reporting a result of the positioning measurement to a location server” are just transmitting data over a network, which are mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered as a whole, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 21 as a whole, is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Regarding claim 31:
Step 1: Claim 31 recites a terminal. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1, the limitations, “identify that the terminal is capable of serving as a positioning reference unit (PRU) and performing a positioning measurement” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements, “a terminal, comprising: a transceiver; and at least one processor” are implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. It invokes a generic computer merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity. (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements, “identify that the terminal is capable of serving as a positioning reference unit (PRU) and performing a positioning measurement” are merely outputting data and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional elements, “reporting a result of the positioning measurement to a location server” are merely outputting data and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to perform a positioning measurement using a generic computer as a tool.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. Under Step 2B, additional element(s)/limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, Prong 2, should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine whether the additional element(s)/limitation(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Specifically, the limitations, “transmitting an indication indicating that the terminal is capable of serving as the PRU…… and reporting a result of the positioning measurement to a location server” transmitting and outputting data over a network, which are mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered as a whole, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 31 as a whole, is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OPSHAUG et al. (US 20200145955) (hereinafter OPSHAUG).
Regarding claims 21 and 31:
As shown in figures 1-12, OPSHAUG discloses a terminal (see mobile device 120 in figures 1-2 and 6), in a communication system (figures 1-2), the terminal comprising:
a transceiver (1110 in figure 11); and
at least one processor (1102 in figure 11) configured to:
identify that the terminal is capable of serving as a positioning reference unit (PRU) (in par 0006 OPSHAUG teaches “a mobile device capable of supporting estimating a position of the mobile device),
transmitting (602 in figure 6A) an indication indicating that the terminal is capable of serving as the PRU (in par 0087 OPSHAUG teaches at stage 602, the mobile device 120 sends a Provide Capabilities message (e.g. an LPP Provide Capabilities message) to the location server 150 to provide the positioning capabilities of mobile device 120), and
performing a positioning measurement (606-608 in figure 6A) and reporting (610 in figure 6A) a result of the positioning measurement to a location server (150 in figure 6A) (par 0091-0093).
Regarding claims 26 and 36:
As shown in figures 1-12, OPSHAUG discloses an entity served as a location server (150 in figures 1-2 and 6) in a communication system (figures 1-2), the entity comprising:
a network interface (1230 in figure 12) (par 0196); and
at least one processor (1202 in figure 12) (par 0196) configured to:
receive (602 in figure 6A), from a terminal (120 in figure 6A), an indication indicating that the terminal is capable of serving as a positioning reference unit (PRU) (in par 0087 OPSHAUG teaches at stage 602, the mobile device 120 sends a Provide Capabilities message (e.g. an LPP Provide Capabilities message) to the location server 150 to provide the positioning capabilities of mobile device 120), and
receive (610 in figure 6A), from the terminal (120 in figure 6A), a result of a positioning measurement by the terminal served as the PRU (150 in figure 6A) (par 0091-0093).
Regarding claims 22, 27, 32 and 37:
OPSHAUG further discloses wherein the result of the positioning measurement includes at least one of a reference signal received power, a phase of arrival, a phase difference of arrival, or a time difference of arrival (par 0040-0041).
Regarding claims 23, 28, 33 and 38:
OPSHAUG further discloses receiving, from the location server, time window information for a positioning reference signal, wherein the time window information includes time resource information for the positioning reference signal (table 1 shows PRS periodicity (interpreted to be time window information for a positioning reference signal) that includes time resource information for the positioning reference signal).
Regarding claims 24, 29, 34 and 39:
OPSHAUG further discloses wherein the positioning reference signal corresponds to a sounding reference signal (abstract).
Regarding claims 25, 30, 35 and 40:
OPSHAUG further discloses wherein the result of the positioning measurement is used by the location server to correct a measurement result (see 612 in figure 6A, par 0094).
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MANOLAKOS et al. (US 20250039828) disclose a method for radiofrequency (RF)-based position determination (or positioning) of an electronic wireless device. More specifically, the present disclosure relates to ultra-wideband (UWB)-based positioning.
REDDY et al. (US 20250039826) disclose a mobile device may receive a UWB positioning session configuration message from each of one or more UWB anchor devices. The mobile device may determine to perform hybrid NR/UWB positioning of the mobile device and may initiate the hybrid NR/UWB positioning of the mobile device. Initiating the hybrid NR/UWB positioning of the mobile device may comprise: conducting an NR positioning session with a Location Management Function (LMF) of a NR network and conducting a UWB positioning session with each of at least a subset of the one or more UWB anchor devices.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KABIR A TIMORY whose telephone number is (571)270-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00 AM-3:00 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, Hannah S Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/KABIR A TIMORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights