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 the present application claims priority to U.S. provisional patent application serial number 63/382,185, filed November 3, 2022.
Examiner's Notes
3. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of information disclosure statement (IDS), dated on May 17, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Application Status
5. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of the instant application, dated November 2, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending. This communication is considered fully responsive and sets forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
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.
(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.
8. Claims 1-3, 9-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mueck (US 2022/0038902).
Regarding claim 1, Mueck teaches the apparatus (paragraph [0286] lines 1-26; Examiner’s Notes: network access node (NAN) 1731 depicted in FIG. 17 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “apparatus” in the instant application) comprising:
at least one processor (paragraph [0286] lines 1-26; Examiner’s Notes: a processor in the apparatus is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on the teaching of “apparatus.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977)); and
at least one memory storing instructions that (paragraph [0286] lines 1-26; Examiner’s Notes: one memory in the apparatus is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on the teaching of “apparatus.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977)), when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive, from a network entity, a request for assessing utilization of a set of resource blocks outside a measurement gap of the apparatus (paragraph [0287] lines 1-21; Examiner’s Notes: edge compute node 1736a depicted in FIG. 17 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “a network entity;”
outside of a specific timestamp/time period in the prior art teaches the limitation of “outside a measurement gap;”
in fact, receiving, from edge compute node 1736a, a message/request for resource utilization outside of a specific time period, as illustrated in FIG. 17 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive, from a network entity, a request for assessing utilization of a set of resource blocks outside a measurement gap of the apparatus” in the instant application);
perform measurements indicative of the utilization of the set of resource blocks based on the request (paragraph [0288] lines 1-35; Examiner’s Notes: performing measurements on the usage of resources based on the request, e.g., for the resource allocation in handover, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “perform measurements indicative of the utilization of the set of resource blocks based on the request” in the instant application); and
transmit, to the network entity, a report of the measurements (paragraph [0287] lines 71-75; Examiner’s Notes: transmitting, to edge compute node 1736a, a measurement report, as illustrated in FIG. 17 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmit, to the network entity, a report of the measurements” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 2, Mueck teaches the apparatus, wherein the apparatus is further caused to:
receive, from the network entity, information indicating how to use the set of resource blocks for positioning of the apparatus (paragraph [0287] lines 1-38; Examiner’s Notes: receiving, from edge compute node 1736a, message/information indicating the resource utilization for positioning, as illustrated in FIG. 17 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive, from the network entity, information indicating how to use the set of resource blocks for positioning of the apparatus” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 3, Mueck teaches the apparatus, wherein the apparatus is further caused to:
defer, based on the information, usage of the set of resource blocks for the positioning of the apparatus (paragraph [0287] lines 1-38; Examiner’s Notes: based on the message, delaying the resource usage for positioning in the prior art teaches the limitation of “defer, based on the information, usage of the set of resource blocks for the positioning of the apparatus” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 9, Mueck further teaches the apparatus, wherein the apparatus comprises a terminal device and/or the network entity comprises a location management entity (paragraph [0286] lines 1-26; Examiner’s Notes: network access node (NAN) 1731 depicted in FIG. 17 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “apparatus;”
a terminal in the apparatus is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on the teaching of “apparatus.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977);
consequently, the cited art reads on the limitation of “wherein the apparatus comprises a terminal device and/or the network entity comprises a location management entity” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 10, Mueck teaches the apparatus (paragraph [0286] lines 1-26; Examiner’s Notes: network access node (NAN) 1731 depicted in FIG. 17 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “apparatus” in the instant application) comprising:
at least one processor (paragraph [0286] lines 1-26; Examiner’s Notes: a processor in the apparatus is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on the teaching of “apparatus.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977)); and
at least one memory storing instructions that (paragraph [0286] lines 1-26; Examiner’s Notes: one memory in the apparatus is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on the teaching of “apparatus.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977)), when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
indicate, to a network device, a set of resource blocks outside a measurement gap of a terminal device (paragraph [0287] lines 1-21; Examiner’s Notes: edge compute node 1736a depicted in FIG. 17 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “a network entity;”
UE 1721a depicted in FIG. 17 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “a terminal device;”
outside of a specific time period in the prior art teaches the limitation of “outside a measurement gap;”
in fact, messaging/indicating, to edge compute node 1736a, resource utilization outside of a specific time period for UE 1721a, as illustrated in FIG. 17 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “indicate, to a network device, a set of resource blocks outside a measurement gap of a terminal device” in the instant application);
obtain, from the network device, information relating to channel occupancy on the set of resource blocks (paragraph [0287] lines 1-21; Examiner’s Notes: receiving, from edge compute node 1736a, a message/information for channel utilization on resources, as illustrated in FIG. 17 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “obtain, from the network device, information relating to channel occupancy on the set of resource blocks” in the instant application); and
determine, based on the information, how to use the set of resource blocks for positioning of the terminal device (paragraph [0287] lines 1-38; Examiner’s Notes: based on the message, determining the resource usage for positioning of UE 1721a, as illustrated in FIG. 17 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determine, based on the information, how to use the set of resource blocks for positioning of the terminal device” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 11, Mueck further teaches the apparatus, wherein the channel occupancy on the set of resource blocks indicates traffic of one or more terminal devices scheduled at the network device on the set of resource blocks (paragraph [0295] lines 1-22; Examiner’s Notes: the RAN node scheduling packets for UE 1721a, as illustrated in FIG. 17, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “traffic of one or more terminal devices scheduled at the network device;”
In fact, the channel information indicating the transmission to UE 1721a scheduled by the RAN node on resources, as illustrated in FIG. 17, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the channel occupancy on the set of resource blocks indicates traffic of one or more terminal devices scheduled at the network device on the set of resource blocks” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 12, Mueck further teaches the apparatus, wherein the information comprises at least one of the followings:
information indicative of locations of the one or more terminal devices, or
traffic direction for the traffic of the one or more terminal devices scheduled by the network device on the set of resource blocks, or
at least one of transmit power or link quality associated with the traffic of the one or more terminal devices scheduled by the network device on the set of resource blocks, or
identities of the one or more terminal devices (paragraph [0287] lines 1-9; Examiner’s Notes: the location information of UE 1721a, as illustrated in FIG. 17, of the prior art teaches the limitation of “information indicative of locations of the one or more terminal devices” in the instant application;
consequently, location information of UE 1721a, as illustrated in FIG. 17, of the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the information comprises at least one of the followings:
information indicative of locations of the one or more terminal devices, or
traffic direction for the traffic of the one or more terminal devices scheduled by the network device on the set of resource blocks, or
at least one of transmit power or link quality associated with the traffic of the one or more terminal devices scheduled by the network device on the set of resource blocks, or
identities of the one or more terminal devices” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 13, Mueck further teaches the apparatus, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: request the terminal device to perform measurements on the set of resource blocks (paragraph [0288] lines 1-35; Examiner’s Notes: requesting UE 1721a to perform measurements on the resources as illustrated in FIG. 17 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “request the terminal device to perform measurements on the set of resource blocks” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 14, Mueck further teaches the apparatus, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: receive, from the terminal device, a report of the measurements (paragraph [0287] lines 71-75; Examiner’s Notes: receiving, from UE 1721a, a measurement report, as illustrated in FIG. 17 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive, from the terminal device, a report of the measurements” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 15, Mueck further teaches the apparatus, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: defer, based on the report, usage of the set of resource blocks for the positioning of the terminal device (paragraph [0287] lines 1-38; Examiner’s Notes: based on the message/report, delaying the resource usage for positioning of UE 1721a, as illustrated in FIG. 17, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “defer, based on the report, usage of the set of resource blocks for the positioning of the terminal device” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 16, Mueck further teaches the apparatus, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: implement, based on the report, partial utilization of the set of resource blocks comprising at least one of lowering transmit power or using a subset of the set of resource blocks for the positioning of the terminal device (paragraph [0164] lines 1-11; Examiner’s Notes: controlling power level for transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “lowering transmit power;”
In fact, based on the message/report, utilizing partial resources based on controlling power level of transmission for positioning of UE 1721a, as illustrated in FIG. 17, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “implement, based on the report, partial utilization of the set of resource blocks comprising at least one of lowering transmit power or using a subset of the set of resource blocks for the positioning of the terminal device” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 17, Mueck further teaches the apparatus, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: implement, based on the report, full power transmissions on the set of resource blocks for the positioning of the terminal device (paragraph [0164] lines 1-11; Examiner’s Notes: based on the message/report, controlling power to the maximum level of transmissions on the resources for positioning of UE 1721a, as illustrated in FIG. 17, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “implement, based on the report, full power transmissions on the set of resource blocks for the positioning of the terminal device” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 18, Mueck further teaches the apparatus, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: transmit, to the network device, a transmission power per positioning reference signal resource (paragraph [0164] lines 1-11; Examiner’s Notes: transmitting, to edge compute node 1736a, a transmission power for a positioning reference signal resource in the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmit, to the network device, a transmission power per positioning reference signal resource” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 20, Mueck teaches the apparatus (paragraph [0286] lines 1-26; Examiner’s Notes: network access node (NAN) 1731 depicted in FIG. 17 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “apparatus” in the instant application) comprising:
at least one processor (paragraph [0286] lines 1-26; Examiner’s Notes: a processor in the apparatus is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on the teaching of “apparatus.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977)); and
at least one memory storing instructions that (paragraph [0286] lines 1-26; Examiner’s Notes: one memory in the apparatus is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on the teaching of “apparatus.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977)), when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive, from a network entity, an indication indicating a set of resource blocks outside a measurement gap of a terminal device (paragraph [0287] lines 1-21; Examiner’s Notes: edge compute node 1736a depicted in FIG. 17 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “a network entity;”
UE 1721a depicted in FIG. 17 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “a terminal device;”
outside of a specific timestamp/time period in the prior art teaches the limitation of “outside a measurement gap;”
in fact, receiving, from edge compute node 1736a, information indicating resource utilization outside of a specific time period of UE 1721a, as illustrated in FIG. 17, inf the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive, from a network entity, an indication indicating a set of resource blocks outside a measurement gap of a terminal device” in the instant application); and
transmit, to the network entity, information relating to channel occupancy on the set of resource blocks (paragraph [0287] lines 71-75; Examiner’s Notes: transmitting, to edge compute node 1736a, information relating to channel usage on the resources, as illustrated in FIG. 17, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmit, to the network entity, information relating to channel occupancy on the set of resource blocks” in the instant application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 of this title, 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.
10. Claims 4-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueck (US 2022/0038902) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2023/0269048).
Regarding claim 4, Mueck teaches the apparatus without explicitly teaching obtaining a positioning processing window.
Kumar et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: obtain a positioning processing window (paragraph [0169] lines 1-8; Examiner’s Notes: implementing/obtaining a search window for positioning in the prior art teaches the limitation of “obtain a positioning processing window” in the instant application); and
receive a positioning reference signal on at least one physical resource block of the set of resource blocks within the positioning processing window (paragraph [0163] lines 1-4; Examiner’s Notes: the positioning reference signal (PRS) in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a positioning reference signal;”
in fact, receiving a PRS on the resources within the search window for positioning in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive a positioning reference signal on at least one physical resource block of the set of resource blocks within the positioning processing window” in the instant application), and
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Kumar et al. in the system of Mueck.
The motivation for implementing obtaining a positioning processing window, is to enhance the mechanism of user equipment (UE) positioning, including receiving positioning assistance data associated with a Transmission Reception Point (TRP), such as an expected Reference Signal Time difference (RSTD) between a reference cell and the TRP.
Regarding claim 5, Kumar et al. further teach the apparatus, wherein the positioning processing window is configured at a network device for the apparatus (paragraph [0093] lines 1-21; Examiner’s Notes: configuring the search window for positioning at a device, e.g., base station 120 depicted in FIG. 1, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the positioning processing window is configured at a network device for the apparatus” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 6, Kumar et al. further teach the apparatus, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: transmit, to the network device, a request for the positioning processing window (paragraph [0169] lines 1-8; Examiner’s Notes: transmitting, to base station 120, message/request for the search window of positioning, as depicted in FIG. 1, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmit, to the network device, a request for the positioning processing window” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 7, Kumar et al. further teach the apparatus, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: transmit, to the network device, information indicating at least one of usage of the at least one physical resource blocks for a transmission of the positioning reference signal or a request for the positioning processing window (paragraph [0169] lines 1-8; Examiner’s Notes: the messaging/request for the search window of positioning in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a request for the positioning processing window;”
In fact, transmitting, to the base station, information indicating the resource usage for a request for search window of positioning in the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmit, to the network device, information indicating at least one of usage of the at least one physical resource blocks for a transmission of the positioning reference signal or a request for the positioning processing window” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 8, Kumar et al. further teach the apparatus, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: receive, from the network device, a configuration of the positioning processing window, in response to the request (paragraph [0093] lines 1-21; Examiner’s Notes: receiving, from the base station, configuration of the search window for positioning according to the request in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive, from the network device, a configuration of the positioning processing window, in response to the request” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 19, Mueck teaches the apparatus without explicitly teaching implementing a location management entity.
Kumar et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, wherein the apparatus comprises a location management entity (paragraph [0008] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: the location management function server in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a location management entity” in the instant application), and
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Kumar et al. in the system of Mueck.
The motivation for implementing a location management entity, is to enhance the mechanism of user equipment (UE) positioning, including receiving positioning assistance data associated with a Transmission Reception Point (TRP), such as an expected Reference Signal Time difference (RSTD) between a reference cell and the TRP.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Etemad et al. (US 9,572,063) is cited to show the radio resource control (RRC) signaling for configuring the user equipment to obtain and report channel state information for the downlink channels so that a target user equipment experiences enhanced signal reception and reduced interference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5672. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:00AM to 5:00PM Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAE Y. LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. 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.
/WEI ZHAO/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2473